[otness_e]

Fine, here’s IMP’s commentary on the issue: https://web.archive.org/web/20090822185422/http://www.washtimes.com/news/2003/aug/20/20030820-081256-6822r/

And there’s also more sources indicating Syria moved them:

http://www.dfire.org/x1989.xml

http://www.dfire.org/x2097.xml

https://web.archive.org/web/20060618015730/http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,182932,00.html

And you can even read George Sada’s book, Saddam’s Secrets: How an Iraqi General Defied and Survived Saddam Hussein, for yourself.

And maybe the chemical weapons are currently being used by, I don’t know, the dictator of Syria as well as the rebel forces fighting against him? Ever think of that?

[Sir_Humphrey]

I actually checked the links (the ones I could open) and my question remains: after 16, I said after sixteen - more than a decade and a half - how come we haven't found physical evidence they existed. There should have been photos of stock piles of "captured" WMD but there wasn't even a single snapshot of such. We just have the word of a former general trying to sell a book. Sorry, but if are going to spend $11 trillion and lose thousands of young lives not to mention the thousands who will be wounded for life, I would think you's want more. If, as the general said, they were moved in 2002, why didn't we know since we have that entire region under satellite surveillance since the first Gulf War in 1990? And if they were moved in 2002 and we knew, why go ahead with the invasion?

My ultimate question on this subject remains: Was it worth it? My answer now as it was then is a resounding no!