Superbelt

IAEA inspectors dismantled parts of his nuke program that he had there before the 1991 Gulf War. They had these nuclear capable munitions under seals BEFORE the first Gulf war. In 1998 they confirmed that 35 tons were missing, probrably taken out during Gulf War I, But through inspections into 2003 none others were taken out. If these were WMD, as required by resolutions, and the fact that we knew exactly where they were, they would have been removed rather than sealed. YOU are imposing on them the classification of WMD when that is entirely disingenuous. They are conventional weapons, not WMD.

What other components do they have for nuclear weapons? I assume you are talking about the rusted over centerfuges found in a rose garden? That's delicate equipment and is useless after so many years in the soil.

A lot of things go into the production of a nuclear missile, having several of them doesn't mean there is a WMD program. Our senate already determined that there is no active or latent wmd program existing in Iraq

I betcha they had a refrigerator with some rotten food in it, Ooh They have botulism, that's halfway to a biological weapon.
I am sure they have almond trees in Iraq too. Cyanide gas can be derived from almonds.

We are not having it both ways. There were no WMD in Iraq. We wen't into Iraq under the threat of imminent danger from Iraq. We did not go in because Saddam had high grade explosives that can be used to build a nuclear missile. RDX and HMX is the easy part. It is a huge endeavor to build a nuclear missile. That's why there is only a handful of nations that have them.
These weapons though, can kill people, and most likely are being used against our troops. The shortsightedness of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, who chose to engage Iraq with a relatively small contingent of troops. This was done against the urgings of Bush's senior military advisors. This is important because it shows the irresponsibility Bush has acted with in carrying out this war. If you are going to start a war to remove the threat of attacks on americans, you should go in with forces sufficient enough to occupy any weapons you come across.


-----------------
I wanted to post this earlier, but decided not to. I thought it would just be rubbing salt in the wound of some peoples political affiliation:
No matter how much proof we have, we have the video, we have the testimony from IAEA, Iraqi Provisional and David Kay. These weapons mean nothing to some people because of their emotional and intellectual attachment to Bush in this campaign. To admit to such a serious fault in Bush at this time, so close to the election, calls into doubt your own political standings and the worth of what you have been fighting for for the past several years.

At this point Bush could be on video, with his Dad in the background as W stangles a 12 year old naked boy. And his father later testifies to national TV that he indeed did witness the act. Some here would still support Bush and do everything they could to discredit it.
To do otherwise, I guess, admits to massive failure.