Iraq had weapons of mass destruction

The Washington Times ^ | May 14, 2013 | JEFFREY DISSELL

[Gene Eric]

The political condition for justifying Iraq ultimately, but wrongly amounted to locating an arsenal of WMD suitable for TV.

[Las Vegas Ron]

Here ya go:

[TBP]

We didn’t go to war because Saddam had chemical weapons.

Well, in part. There were several reasons listed, of which WMDs were one. Not the main one, but one of the reasons.

I've always found it ironic that the UN-loving left got mad at Bush when he tried to enforce UN resolutions that the Iraqis were violating. (17 of them.)

But the main reason was that Iraq was supporting terrorists (including Al Qaeda) and that it was in violation of the 1991 ceasefire. All the other things were just extra reasons.

[TBP]

You mean the yellowcake they didn’t have?

[LTC.Ret]

Yes, I remember all that. I guess throwing the terrorists off the hunt might be a plausible explanation for the way Bush handled it. It sure seemed odd at the time to those of us who knew what was actually there either 1st or reliable 2nd hand.

[TBP]

Iran would have been a better choice than Iraq or Afghanistan, in a way. They were supporting our enemies in both countries. Take down the mullahocracy and you take down the nerve center.