I'm not insisting anything. Bush and the rest insisted they possessed them and to date, none have been found--that's a fact, it's not presumption, it's not speculation, it's fact. Now, produce anything that disputes this FACT and I'll give Bush the credit you feel he deserves.
I apologize, but I much more reasonable than this.
However, the weapons were catalogued by the UN and Saddam had an obligation to verify their destruction. He failed.
The question remains...where did they go?
Bush has no affirmative obligation to demonstrate they were there. That was Saddam's obligation.
Bush based this war, in part, on Saddam's violation of 16 UN resolutions regarding Iraq's wmd's and wmd programs. We knew the wmd's existed. Saddam had an obligation to destroy them and verify it. That he refused to verify it can only mean that it didn't happen.
Link?
No. It has been posted here before. I do not play this game with you people who ignore reports when they are posted so you can continue running your unreasonable argument.
So now you're SPECULATING what might have happened to them.
Based on the information that has been reported, yes I am. So what?
Again, the Bushites claimed they KNEW where they were. Rumsfeld didn't say "We think" he said "we know". I've asked this before and I feel compelled to ask it again: If they KNEW where these most destructive of weapons were, why wouldn't they keep them under survelience?
I'm not sure why the weapons they had intelligence there were not there after the invasion. Knowing the Saddam made it a point to move weapons during inspections and also moved his air force to Iran it stands to reason that he moved them.
Takes us to your next question...electronic intelligence can only do so much and we have only limited ability to surveil. Hence, it's unreasonable that the US could blanket the country with 24/7 sat coverage in order to perform that surveillance.
Again, these are the weapons that Bush insisted posed the biggest threat the world has ever known, yet they didn't feel it necessary to know where they were every second of every day? Why do you suppose that is?
Okay, stop with the exaggerations.
While he may have wanted to know where they were at all times the US simply does not have the capability to manage such an operation.
Are you seriously arguing that Bush didn't care and therefore didn't feel it neceesary to want them under constant surveillance? Puhlease.
As well, that he couldn't ensure total coverage doesn't mean he didn't want to.
They could. Then maybe you might explain to me why Saddam possessed all of these weapons, yet chose not to employ them when he knew the US was coming for him. Why do you suppose that is?
They could what?? Have searched the entire country while simultaneously attempting to defeat the Iraqi army while also securing what they captured while simultaneously fighting foreign terrorists?? We need many more hundreds of thousands of troops to do all of this....come on. Be reasonable.
Re: Saddam not employing the weapons...several possible explanations - his people chose not to pull the trigger despite being ordered to knowing full well that Baghdad would end up as a smokin hole in the ground? Perhaps because Saddam had a moment rational clarity? Perhaps because he couldn't deploy them for some other reason.
Yet the Bushites chose to ignore the UN when they said not to attack. They use a UN resolution to invade, yet ignore the UN when they tell him not to. Why do you suppose that is.
You're trying to point out an inconsistency where none exists. We think the UN is useless in many ways however the US continues to adhere to many of the UN's protocols and other resolutions. It's not inconsistent to determine that the UN is wrong on the one hand and right on the hand.
The administration, however, believed that such a resolution really was not necessary because 1441 provided that in the event of material breach there would be serious consequences which everyone knoew to mean military action (the action actually debated during deliberation on 1441). But it considered another resolution despite this.
No resolution to invade was ever voted on btw. It was not introduced because we knew that France, Germany, and China would not authorize military action. We also knew that France and Germany would not vote yea because 1) they were receiving kickbacks from the UN oil-for-food scheme; and 2) they had already been working to rescind the inspections regime to make it easier to expand their military sales to Iraq. You know, conflict of interest and all prevented these nations from objectively considering the issue.
Which charade is that? Simply supply a list of the wmds found to date in Iraq in Iraq and I won't bring it up again.
That Bush lied about wmd's.
And where did the information they led them to these conclusions come from? Apparently, every country was wrong.
The intelligence data came from their own intelligence agencies.
If you knew what you were talking about you'd know that for one the US intelligence community disagreed with their Germany peers that Iraq was only three years from a nuke. US intelligence didn't think that Iraq was that close.
That demonstrates that one these intelligence agencies used their own data to draw their own independent conclusions/estimates and two that the US certainly didn't have the most aggressive estimates.
It also demonstrates that Bush didn't "lie" about intelligence nor mislead anyone.
I'm trying to make some sense of this last sentence, but again I'm not well versed in gibberish. I think what you're implying is that I'm somehow accusing Bush of lying--which again, is a total bunch of horseshit.
The statement I made is quite clear.
Bush was only going on the information supplied by the likes of Cheney and Wolfowitz.
How do you know this? You don't.
I see that you conveniently ignore the fact that Tenet told Bush that the wmd intelligence was slam dunk, eh?
So much for your lie you just posted.
