| After telling the world and the UN that the US has undeniable proof that Saddam has WMD, US & British forces have yet to find any chemical or biological weapons there. Though no one can trust Saddam on his word alone, it would appear that he was telling the truth as we seek to bury any evidence of wrong on the part of the US..
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...errogation_dc_1
Since this was the crutch to support the invasion and the US claims that they had "clear and convincing evidence" it now appears as if Saddam never had any of these weapons since inspectors destroyed them since before 1998.
Inspectors have failed to find anything after 8 months of unprohibited searching.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2003/1002/iraq.html
But US officials still defend their inability to find these weapons and their intel on WMD inside of Iraq.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2003/0929/iraq.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...0/03/wirq03.xml
In light of these current developments, the US is shifting the focus off its original assertion and pointing to documents and other materials they found after the war, hoping to stir world and domestic opinions away from their original assertions of "undeniable proof" that Saddam had these WMD.
As assertions of alleged ties with Al Qaeda arise one can't help but wonder why Saddam didn’t give these terrorists his WMD. Even after the terrorist group Armed Islamic Movement tied to Al Qaeda made public claims that Saddam had nothing to do with their attack on NYC on 9/11 this was totally ignored by this administration.
Colen Powell points to defectors saying Saddam had chemical weapons, but the head of Iraq's nuclear and bio programs for more than 10 yrs defected and told the CIA that Saddam's weapons were destroyed by the UN shortly after the Gulf war..
http://www.pacifica.org/programs/dn/030303.html
http://www.essex.ac.uk/armedcon/story_id/000026.html
Even if Saddam had these weapons since the Gulf war, this administration fully knew that Saddam's weapons grade was poor at best, and that the agents he possessed was no longer effective for years.
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Artic...aq-WMD-Lies.htm
Surely Saddam could have given Al Qaeda nuclear waste materials from his bombed repository in 1980 to make a dirty bomb to spread radiation over a wide area to maximize casualties. This could have been done at any time between 1991 and March 2003. In fact looters in Iraq that stole materials from that building shortly after the collapse of Baghdad are turning up sick in numbers so why didn't that even get suggested by the Bush team as a possible terrorist weapon?
The deception and urgent need to invade a nation that simply posed no threat barely to his neighbors let alone the US is puzzling to say the least. Surely one can say that Saddam was out to get the US and probably would have done something if it came within his grasp to, but it’s been months after the invasion and no evidence, and after the preceding violence by these very factions the Bush administration says has ties to Saddam, not one chemical or bio attack has occurred.
Surely if these terrorist had these weapons would they not use them? Wouldn't it be a badge of honor and glory for them to inflict such a blow to the US military forces in Iraq and its allies abroad?
After concluding the events that has happened over the past few months, and in the absence of any evidence what so ever that Saddam possessed any of these weapons, one cannot help but ask, why the urgency with Iraq? Especially since Osama is still operating and N. Korea with a worse record arguably than that of Saddam Hussein when it comes to humanity and civil rights, why the urgency?
There has to be another agenda at work here if one can honestly scrutinize our actions without the blind biased caused by 9/11.
Today was a good day for Iraqis. Surely they have been freed from captivity in their own lands. But in looking around at the world today, we see many more atrocities worse than this, yet Bush keeps asserting we're freeing the Iraqi people and this is our righteous motive.
Personally after weighing the evidence of events and not words, I have come to the conclusion that this war is about more than "fighting terror" and WMD. In this one must ask, why are we really in Iraq? | |
