Sparky-Watts
Banned
Fox News said:The weapons are thought to be manufactured before 1991 so they would not be proof of an ongoing WMD program in the 1990s. But they do show that Saddam Hussein was lying when he said all weapons had been destroyed, and it shows that years of on-again, off-again weapons inspections did not uncover these munitions.
Hoekstra said the report, completed in April but only declassified now, shows that "there is still a lot about Iraq that we don't fully understand."
Asked why the Bush administration, if it had known about the information since April or earlier, didn't advertise it, Hoekstra conjectured that the president has been forward-looking and concentrating on the development of a secure government in Iraq.
Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.
"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."
Sparky-Watts said:Depending on your source, that is still up to debate as to whether any were actually found, but the general consensus is that none existed on a large scale. There were a few shells here and there left over from when he gassed the Kurds, but nothing new had been produced since that time, contrary to what Bush led the American people and the UN to believe.
Thanks for helping to prove my point.8) You really should read the articles before you post them.
So, if we've found so much evidence to prove that Bush wasn't lying about why we went to war, why hasn't he or his spin doctors brought this up? I mean, if there's so much evidence to support his actions, why is he still taking it on the chin for lying to the American populace? I'm thinking because there isn't any evidence to support his actions.