To respond to the allegations of Sen. Santorum, Prof. Juan Cole, a Middle East historian, came up with this list of the top 10 reasons why we know that Saddam did NOT have WMD:

here are the Top Ten Ways We know Saddam Didn't Have WMD:

1. The authors of Cobra II show that before the 2003 Iraq War, Saddam called his top generals together and let them know that he did not in fact have any WMD any more. They were allegedly shaken and disturbed.

2. The Saddam regime faced certain destruction in March-April 2003, but no Iraqi military unit deployed any WMD to save themselves.

3. All searches of all tagged facilities in post-war Iraq found that the weapons programs had all been closed down by the mid-1990s.

4. On September 30, 2004, the U.S. Iraq Survey Group Final Report concluded, "ISG has not found evidence that Saddam Husayn (sic) possessed WMD stocks in 2003, but the available evidence from its investigation—including detainee interviews and document exploitation—leaves open the possibility that some weapons existed in Iraq although not of a militarily significant capability." Let me put that in bold for Mssrs. Santorum and Hoekstra: not of a militarily significant capability.

5. What most people mean by weapons of mass destruction is nukes. Iraq did not have a nuclear weapons program after the United Nations weapons inspectors dismantled it in the early 1990s.

6. Remember those "mobile biological weapons labs"? When Irv Lewis Libby, now in custody, realized that UN inspectors were finding no evidence for biological weapons labs, he made up this silly idea of mobile labs. Biological weapons labs need a clean room. Where would you put that on a winnebago? And, would you really want your germ lab to hit a pothole? In reality? The trailers were for the production of hydrogen to fill artillery balloons, just as the Iraqis had said.

7. Chief inspector David Kay has already admitted that "We were almost all wrong"! Kay staked his professional reputation on there being WMD in Iraq, and he actually chased it on the ground for months and months. If he could have found any shred to uphold his basic human dignity, he would have. He couldn't.

8. Not only has the Department of Defense admitted it, so has the CIA.

9. Chemical weapons are battlefield weapons, not weapons of mass destruction:

"National Public Radio (NPR)

SHOW: Talk of the Nation 1500-1600 PM

May 8, 2006 Monday

LENGTH: 5971 words

HEADLINE: A History of Chemical Weapons

ANCHORS: NEAL CONAN

BODY:

NEAL CONAN, host . . .

Mr. TUCKER: Yeah, I think it's important to distinguish between tactical weapons and strategic weapons. Chemical weapons were really designed for battlefield use. They--very large quantities are required to cover these--the size of a city. So they are not really contemplated as strategic weapons the way nuclear weapons would be used against entire cities. So perhaps there is some distinction there. Whether chemical weapons should be called weapons of mass destruction is somewhat debatable. They are really more tactical or battlefield weapons. . . '

Mr. JONATHAN TUCKER (Author, War of Nerves; Senior Fellow, Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute)"

10. Powell and Rice admitted as much in spring of 2001!:

Powell: "but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq..."

Links to Juan Cole's assertions are provided in the following link:

http://www.juancole.com/2006/06/for-outgoi...um-top-ten.html

To this day, NO WMD as in nuclear weapons have been found on Iraqi soil. The US did NOT invade Iraq b/c of any chemical weapons. If it was the policy of the US to invade countries that merely possessed chemical weapons, then we would have to invade A LOT more countries than Iraq.

This latest "news" promoted by Santorum and others is just a political ploy given the fact that Santorum is WAY down in the polls in his Senate race against Bob Casey!!!

When did he make this joke? Sounds like something that would come from him, but I've never heard of it.

It occurred March, 2004, at a journalist dinner....

Bush's Iraq WMDs joke backfires

At a black-tie dinner for journalists, Mr Bush narrated a slide show poking fun at himself and other members of his administration.

One pictured Mr Bush looking under a piece of furniture in the Oval Office, at which the president remarked: "Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be here somewhere."

After another one, showing him scouring the corner of a room, Mr Bush said: "No, no weapons over there," he said.

And as a third picture, this time showing him leaning over, appeared on the screen the president was heard to say: "Maybe under here?"

--

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3570845.stm

I know that some of the families of service members who had died in the Iraq war didn't find Bush's jokes funny, but what do they know? They just don't share President Bush's humor, I guess.....

The Saddam regime faced certain destruction in March-April 2003, but no Iraqi military unit deployed any WMD to save themselves.

I think this is a very good point. If they had them at all, they would have used them against us. Of course, somewhere in Iraq, there COULD be WMDs still. Just because we have no found them does not mean that they aren't there.

Politically, it was certainly a mistake for Mr. Bush to use WMDs as his sole reason to go into Iraq, especially when the Senate had already authorized the war on a number of different fronts already. Because when there are no WMDs found, the public interest and support was bound to wain. I think they should have realized that much way back in 2002-2003.

Hey, welcome back, Ademption.

WMD were in Iraq...FACT....Saddam used them...FACT....Saddam did not account for more than half of the WMD he had....FACT. So where is it? If you can provide that information, bring it on. It would make things easier.

"Bring it on"-you really are now starting to sound like Herr Bush himself...I guess you forgot to read the part about where the UN did not complete its inspections to find weapons in Iraq

This entire debacle is a rehash of Iraq/Iran....and while your thread may not be about Bush, it is on a political issue that only divides people from all avenues of the world.

Here is a well known fact-Osama Bin Laden planned an attack on this nation on 9/11/01, not Saddam Hussein

You may also find this interesting http://www.rense.com/general57/bushgo.htm

Chris, that article you posted is accurate...there is no proof that Saddam was MAKING weapons after the 1991 invasion, the point is he had WMD that he had not accounted for and lied about and covered up

That still does not justify launching an ILLEGAL war and sending our men and women in uniform to die all so he can sit back, relax, and joke about WMDS which he has DONE, attempt to insert religion into our U.S. Constitution via Federal Marriage Amendment, have Cindy Sheehan arrested for merely wearing a shirt asking how many more lives, etc. and then also dodge serious questions that most the world has

Terrorism has only increased under this administration...we are now more vulnerable to an attack than the days right before 9/11

The three Rs for those liars and cohorts in crime, to me, stand for:

Rape

Robbery

Rat

Yes I equate Rove/Rumsfeld/Rice to that of rapists, robbers, and rats because those three Machiavellian stooges also play an equal part in this war on a cause with NO exit strategy (refer to Senator Boxer's statements during Rice's confirmation hearings for Secretary of State) and also that should NEVER have a place in politics ever again, sell weapons to Hussein back in 1983 under ONCE AGAIN a Republican Administration where Bush, Sr. was the Vice President-HELLO?!

The list goes on and for you, kwing, to continue making excuses for them as well as from what I see justifying the need for us to "stay the course" only undermines the progress we have made for 200+ years as a Republic....let's not give these people anymore power than they already have

Bush exclaimed "Mission Accomplished" approximately two months after the 3/19/03 invasion...Here is my mission for this November: Vote Democrat

I love that this is coming out NOW and am curious why it took so damn long. That's all I've got to say. Especially after the Bush Administration went on record a while back saying that WMD were not the reason for invading Iraq, but freedom and Democracy. That's my issue.

I'm glad they found them. Makes me, as a citizen, not feel like a complete idiot, especially when I've had cousins over there who I simply could not support, because it seemed like everything was lies. Tiem is an important factor in anything and i think it speaks volumes that this has come out now.

My issue is also with how 25% of this nation still cannot see this president for the scum he is-my friend's brother lost his leg while serving in Iraq. His response was to sign up and enlist-thankfully we talked him out of it

Guess what? Herr Bush did not visit his brother...that alone also speaks volumes about his "leadership"

Well, I see that this thread, which had nothing to do with the President has turned into yet again a hate filled post.

I appreciate those of you that even if we viewed things differently had enough guts to post in a mature manner.

As for those that once again had to ruin things by hatred, I guess there is nothing more to say...

The war was not illegal

we can not just cut and run regardless of what side you are on

they had WMD's in Iraq..and yes, even President Clinton, Senator Kerry, Levin and others agreed to that.

I could go on and on about all of the wrong that Saddam did, but because he did not hurt US, its wrong for us to save the people in Iraq and let them be free. We are selfish like that I guess.

No one said it would be easy.

And I know who was behind 9-11...

To me, we are in Iraq BECAUSE of 9-11 not because Saddam was or was not linked. Even though he met with Al-Qeada does not mean he was involved. But he had WMD's, he used them, he discounted everything that the precious UN (and lets not forget that the head of that "thing" is the one being investigated in the oil for food disaster...NOT the President)

When you all start to see the WHOLE picture, not just your one window view...I would be happy to discuss this on a mature level. Name calling and hatred....ya, they do not fly with me.

No one said it would be easy.

Trying to understand the mind of a conservative can be pretty mind boggling.

Which goes to show what I have been saying. To make such a narrow comment such as that...shows you just exhibit hatred. It is not a BAD thing to be a liberal or a conservative. I thougth this was America?

Thankfully, I accept people for WHO they are not HOW they vote. Everyone has qualities I respect and admire and everyone has some that I don't...it does not make them any less a person. Just because you or I may not agree with them, by no means they are a person who is WRONG or whatever you want to throw at them.

To get back to somethign else you said...please show me where Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan, Nixon, Kenneday or any other President VISITED with EVERY family or military person killed or injured in the line of duty......oh but since Bush doesn't...he is the only one who lacks leadership.

Give me a break!

Bush did not get Sheehan and her disrepsectful self arrested, that was the Capitol police. Understand the facts please.

Lol, political threads are so fun to read. I love reading the opinions of others.

"Trying to understand the mind of a conservative can be pretty mind boggling."

One of course could say that about the mind of a liberal. Therefore, I urge everyone to discuss the issue at hand and not let the vitriol get out of hand.

"Well, I see that this thread, which had nothing to do with the President"

The WMDs were a problem advocated by the Bush Administration. Therefore, it is not off topic to dicuss/debate the policy of President Bush with regards to the WMD situation and, by extension the war in Iraq. All posts are welcomed, liberal, conservative, moderate, and any others. Let's just keep it civil.

I agree Dan...but Clinton lobbed bombs and missles at Iraq, said they had WMD.....are we bashing him for thinking the same as the current President.

As I have said over and over. I appreciate different views, but when they are filled with hate and disgust, it takes away from a balanced converstation and ends up doing more harm than good. If you can not be civil..whatever your view...stay the heck out!

I thougth this was America?

You thought wrong...this is Nazi Germany. Did you bother to read the link I provided that compares Bush to Hitler? Can you read?

If you support justifying this senseless war, why don't you go enlist yourself rather than try reading in between the lines of hatred and bigotry, which happens to be something this administration knows all about

Sheehan is being treated the same way that MLK Jr. was treated...she is merely questioning authority of a govt. that has simply been out of control (the Capitol Police are also run through The Executive Branch. Who presides over The Executive Branch? Bush! Let's connect the dots and wake up to smell the coffee!

Get a clue and quit spinning stories about WMDS in Iraq...it has been proven ALREADY that there are NONE...their capabilites of building any weapons were destroyed years ago-Wrong country and wrong bad guy (Where is OBL? You seem to know all the answers, Mr. Smart Pants) equates to a wrong WAR

This conversation between you and me is over-you simply do not get it.

Therefore, I urge everyone to discuss the issue at hand and not let the vitriol get out of hand.

There was no issue to begin with...the entire WMD issue was finalized a while back, just like the mission of Iraq changing to "freedom and democracy" when there were none found.

If anybody has an issue, it is Kwing and his need to bring up facts that have already been proven...I reiterate that I am still shocked nobody has assassinated this lame duck president...somebody tried it on Reagan to no avail, who was nowhere near as crazed or ruthless as Herr Dumbya and his oil cronies

Something tells me Bush is schizophrenic and hears voices...after all, one can become schizophrenic from having a drinking problem.

Lol, political threads are so fun to read. I love reading the opinions of others.

Do you like the new signature? Let's start the fund right here at SN!

One of the most hated posters here...because I tell it like it is!>>>

Whatever

I appreciate your hatred toward someone with a different view of you DevotedtoAMC.

I did not enlist because I am not brave enough. It is not something I wanted to do. I greatly admire those who have, my father, uncles, brother, friends...who fought wars, won battles and defended this great country we live in so people like you have the right to bestow us with uncreative bigotry that makes us a great country.

Thank you for the insults. You proved you are not able to speak without hatred.