OFFICIAL: Saddam DID have WMD!

by sjdabf Fri May 21, 2004 22:05

"I read the posts on this website and many other international ones too and ALL i see are activists who think they can raise support to get Bush out of the Oval Office and hopefully Kerry will withdraw the troops"

you must be pretty stupid then. how did you get into college when you can't understand simple english?

look at this for example:

http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=64583&search_text=ambush


where it says: "Against a White House of Democrats, who when it was previously theirs Secretary of State Madeleine Albright dismissed the mass murder inflicted by sanctions with “the price is worth it.”."

idiot

by iosaf Wed May 19, 2004 13:01

just one thing.(for the american reader who doesn't know how big France or Iraq are)

:-
Iraq is about twice the size of Idaho.
total: 437,072 sq km
land: 432,162 sq km
water: 4,910 sq km
France is about twice the size of Colorado.
547,030 sq km
land: 545,630 sq km
water: 1,400 sq km


For the European Reader who doesn't know the size of a double garage in the States into which all the BioChemWMD Saddam had could fit:-

it's about the size of three of our single car garages side by side, or your garage, living room and garden shed or for those of us who rent our home and can't afford a car :-
slightly smaller than westmoreland street traffic island (Liffey side)[the one with the coins].

87% of new Homes in Pennsylvania USA built in 2003 had a double garage.

by Frank J Gaffney Jr. Wed May 19, 2004 11:53

Moving the Goalposts EVERY time
One could be forgiven for thinking that the detonation of two "improvised explosive devices" equipped with toxic chemical agents would be seen as confirmation that there are still Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) in Iraq. These events might even be seen as rebuttals to those who have derided the Bush administration for its prior inability to substantiate pre-war claims that such weapons in Saddam’s hands constituted an intolerable threat to the United States.
Unfortunately, such thinking fails to appreciate a stand-by of Washington Beltway politics: "moving the goalposts." Whenever the opposing team comes close to proving its point, one simply relocates the end zone to a point out of reach.
Rarely has this phenomenon been more in evidence than with respect to Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction. Practically everyone – members of the Coalition’s intelligence services, the United Nations, even the French, Germans and Russians – recognized that, at one time, Saddam had chemical and biological weapons and a program for building nuclear devices. Since he never satisfactorily accounted for the complete destruction of the stocks of WMDs, like those he previously used in lethal attacks on Iran and his own Kurds, the only reasonable conclusion was that they continued to exist in some form, in unknown quantity.
To prove the point, one would seem to need only to have found a few chemical and/or biological weapons. Well, that would appear to have been the incontrovertible upshot of the two recent episodes, involving sarin and mustard gas weapons. Yet the goal-post-movers’ response has been that these do not – in and of themselves – confirm the claims that Saddam still had stockpiles of these sorts of WMDs.
UN inspectors – whose return to Iraq in 2002 was only made possible by President Bush’s determination to disarm Saddam, one way or the other – shed no more light on the question. That did not, however, keep then-Chief Inspector Hans Blix from suggesting that there was no evidence Iraq still had active WMD programs.
To disprove this contention, it would seem sufficient to establish that chemical and biological production facilities continued to exist, perhaps in the form of advanced fertilizer or pharmaceutical plants which, thanks to the dual-use nature of their technologies, would allow them readily to be used for weapons purposes. And the Iraq Survey Group, a team of specialists that has been scouring Iraq since the fall of Baghdad trying to ferret out and secure Saddam’s WMDs, has confirmed that, while actual weapons have eluded them so far, the ancien regime did indeed have the ability to produce fresh batches of chemical and biological agents at will. Yet the skeptics choose to ignore the reality that, in the wrong hands, even small amounts of such toxic substances – precisely what could be manufactured in short order by this sort of stand-by production capability – could cause immense loss of life.
No less studiously ignored is evidence that has come to light that Saddam Hussein could, indeed, have handed Weapons of Mass Destruction to terrorists bent on employing them against the United States and its allies. As Charles Smith reminded us in Newsmax.com yesterday, "(F)ormer Clinton Defense Secretary William Cohen testified that in 1998 Saddam's top nerve gas experts met with several members of al-Qaeda in Baghdad."
Recent events underscore the danger such a combination represents. Smith notes that just a few weeks ago, a number of al-Qaeda operatives based in Iraq were caught before they were able to carry out a plot aimed at killing tens of thousands of Jordanians with poison gas. Evidently, the failure to perpetrate such an atrocity permits some to persist in the fantasy that this aspect of the WMD case against Saddam is still without foundation.
Whether partisan Democrats, antiwar zealots and rabid Bush-haters wish to admit it or not, Saddam Hussein is guilty as charged. We now know that Saddam once had significant quantities of Weapons of Mass Destruction and aspired to build more; he used them against his own people and his neighbors; and he persisted in violating nearly two-score UN Security Council resolutions – right up to the end of his days in power – by concealing his actual programs and capabilities.
It is now safe to conclude as well that Saddam bequeathed a frightening legacy to post-liberation Iraq: the Weapons of Mass Destruction still at large in Iraq. The alternative thesis – namely, that the only two WMDs left in the entire country were employed in the (fortunately) failed IED attacks involving sarin and mustard gas conducted in recent days – is preposterous on its face.
While we may still be in the dark as to where all of the remaining WMDs are – their specific condition and numbers – these attacks should serve indisputably to establish that there are at least some WMDs in-country and accessible to terrorists. Moreover, the Jordanian near-miss underscores the point that we should take no comfort from the fact that the status of such weapons is unknown, since some of them may wind up being used outside Iraq.
It is entirely understandable that those who opposed the war with Iraq and/or President Bush for launching it would try to make hay of the difficulty we have had to date locating quantities of WMDs that former chief inspector David Kay once said would fit in a two-car garage, while searching a country the size of France. Now that we have begun to find them the hard way, it behooves such critics to stop moving the goal-posts, to recognize the validity of Mr. Bush’s concerns and to throw their support behind the urgent effort to find and destroy such weapons – wherever they may be, including possibly in neighboring Syria – before any more of them are used against us...inside Iraq or outside.

by Ray Wed May 19, 2004 11:46

"Ok fine convince yourself Saddam Hussein had just ONE shell in his arsenal."

When?
No-one is denying that Saddam Hussein had WMD's fifteen years ago. But the discovery of one twenty year old shell doesn't mean that he had a chemical arsenal fifteen months ago, when the US invaded.
Should we invade Germany because the Germans _used to have_ stocks of mustard gas, 90 years ago? Should we invade Japan today because they bombed Pearl Harbour 60 years ago? Why don't you declare war next time some old mine washes up on the coast?

The US and UK claimed that Saddam Hussein had an active program of creating WMDs, that he had thousands of tons and litres of WMDs in stock, and that all of these WMDs were ready to be deployed. Those claims were the basis for war, and no evidence has been uncoved to support any of them.

by righteous pragmatist Wed May 19, 2004 11:36

"The shell they found was nothing more dangerous than a glorified stink bomb dating back to the eighties"

Since when do stink bombs contain Sarin.
Do you even know what Sarin is?

Sarin, a colorless and odorless gas, has a lethal dose of 0.5 milligram for an adult. It is 26 times more deadly than cyanide gas and is 20 times more lethal than potassium cyanide. Just 0.01 milligram per kilogram of body weight a pinprick sized droplet will kill a human.

Ok fine convince yourself Saddam Hussein had just ONE shell in his arsenal.

Imagine if you had been on the Titanic in 1912. You'd be beating the passengers back into their cabins while the water swirls around your ankles screaming "THIS SHIP IS UNSINKABLE!"

Keep believing there is no danger. Keep believing that 9/11 didn't change the world.
Keep believing whatever you want and hating America while American soldiers fight to keep you safe.

by anarcho Wed May 19, 2004 00:29

So, let's get this right. Hundreds of American troops and ten thousand Iraqi civilians have died to defend America from the threat of one artillery shell?

Is that what our pro-war person is arguing?

I suppose it shows how low the pro-war people are prepared to sink!

by observer Wed May 19, 2004 00:29

for this statement..
may be i'm not looking hard enough but i cant seem to find it in conventional media.

by Northern Eye Tue May 18, 2004 19:38

Look, if Saddam had all these weapons of mass destruction he surely would have give them up to the UN when it was obvious that America was going to invade. The man would have done all he could have to save his own arse because thats the way he was. If he thought giving up WMD's would have stopped a invasion that was absolutely going to topple him he would have. Why did he not? Cause he just didn't 'ave them. The shell they found was nothing more dangerous than a glorified stink bomb dating back to the eighties. such a comedy that the cretin RP is trying to say it was a weapon of mass destruction.

by David Tue May 18, 2004 18:50

you saw right through me.

by Righteous pragmatist Tue May 18, 2004 18:34

"Nobody would be stupid enough to not prepare for war once your enemies start massing troops in the region ready to strike at short notice."

by Righteous Pragmatist Tue May 18, 2004 18:31

I'm afraid they DID.
They really thought that they had influence over the US. They thought that if they launched the biggest anti-war marches since the Vietnam War that some how ( if the Saddam's fairygodmother appeared i suppose) that Bush would be force to halt the invasion.

I go to college and I come in contact with morons like you eveyday of the week.
THEY GENUINELY BELIEVED IT.

AND THEY STILL DO!

I read the posts on this website and many other international ones too and ALL i see are activists who think they can raise support to get Bush out of the Oval Office and hopefully Kerry will withdraw the troops.
( Kerry could forget about re-election if he did so i doubt it)

by David Tue May 18, 2004 18:17

you're talking total nonsense.

Everybody know that America was intent on going to war with or without UN consent. The Peace movement had little confidence that it could actually stop the war. Nobody would be stupid enough to not prepare for war once your enemies start massing troops in the region ready to strike at short notice.

RP. you're simply wrong. you're clutching at straws and you're embarrassing yourself.

by righteous pragmatist Tue May 18, 2004 18:11

Saddam didn't have the opportunity to use them for the simple reason that he made the same mistake that you idiots made.

He believed that the US were going to respect the veto of France, Germany, Russia and China and the UN Security Council and not invade Iraq.

He had only days to get his forces organised.
Within a week Saddam had already lost control of situation. Am Qasr, Iraq's only deep water port was captured, headquarters and command and control were shattered by "shock and awe", the Republican guard were being pounded around the clock by B-52's, and US armoured forces were only a hundred miles from Baghdad.

Since the 1991 Gulf War he ignored 18 UN resolutions calling him to disarm and admit weapons inspectors. At the last hour he did but it is evident that it was merely a PR exercise. "Look I'm complying!"

Only then did he think Iraq would be invaded.

Hundreds of millions of lefties protestors marched against overthrowing his dictatorship because they believed he didn't have weapons of mass destruction.

If he used them on American troops those millions of de facto supporters of his regime in Europe, America and elswhere would have instantly supported it out of shock and anger at their gullibility.
( or maybe they would have come up with a different excuse not to support the end of Saddam. You really gives a fuck they dont vote anyway!)

He didn't want to give Bush the smug satisfaction of total victory
That's why he's not talking right now about WMD while under interrogation.
And we can't torture that motherfucker now that Abu Graib was exposed.
Pity.

Hope he sings on the gallows!

by Marcus Brega Tue May 18, 2004 16:33

If Saddam had WMD don't you think he would have used them when the Americans invaded rather than wait to be captured and then let someone fire one shell which slightly injures two people over a year later.

by kokomero Tue May 18, 2004 14:31

There is no independent verification of what the shell contained, IF it ever existed in the first place.

Secondly a huge amount of money was spent on inspectors, much of which must have consisted of financial inducements.

Financial inducements have been seen to work as all of those in the infamous deck of cards have now been captured of killed thanks to them!

Are you telling us that the male population of Iraq, the vast majority of whom are unemployed thanks to the US/K occupation, would not trade any knowledge them have about where WMD are stored to put food on their plates and those of their children?

Given the absense of independently verified material proof of the existence of these weapons they do not exist.

This has been confirmed by the inspectors themselves and the military on numerous occaisions.

This has been admitted by the chimp himself when he was filmed looking for WMD in the oval office!

by Ray Tue May 18, 2004 14:28

Who has ever asked that question? I have yet to see anybody, on this site or anywhere else, deny that Saddam Hussein USED to have WMD, or that he used them in the 80s. You're arguing with a straw man here.

Since everyone agrees that there USED to be WMD in Iraq, it's not surprising that a single shell should turn up eventually. But that isn't the case presented by the US and UK. They argued that Hussein had STOCKPILES of WMD, that these weapons were ready to use within 45 minutes, and that he was continuing to manufacture them. Over 18 months of looking have failed to turn up any evidence to support these claims.

by righteous pragmatist Tue May 18, 2004 14:12

"After all we know that Saddam had chemical weapons because we have the records of the western countries that sold the equipement and precursors to him. We have that nice photo of Mr Rumsfield shaking his hand back in the 1980's when he actually used those weapons against the Kurds. He was a regional strongman for the west back then. So the question was never IF they had existed at some point, we all know the answer to this, not least those that supplied them."

Don't try and squirm out of the snare you put around your own neck!

The question asked was IF weapons EVER existed!
When I pointed out many times before and since the Iraq War that WMD were used against the Kurds my articles were ridiculed if not deleted from this website.

Lefties are right to criticise Rumsfeld for shaking hands with Saddam while the Kurds were gassed.

But when Rumsfled has Saddam captured and as a result the Kurds are no longer under the threat of chemical weapons lefties protest against Rumsfeld for violating Iraqi sovereignty and say the Kurds were better off under the old regime.

Lefties have been triumphant comlaining that no weapons not even a single shell has been found containing chemical weapons.

But when one of these shells turns up and immediately points to the possible existence of many more you call it just a single shell.

A single shell?
Do you think he gassed the Kurds which a single shell?

by kokomero Tue May 18, 2004 13:59

How many times previously have there been claims that the US/K occupation forces have found WMD, labs etc.

Guess what they all turned out to be false.

Co-incidental how this one "supposed" WMD turns up just when the Yanks and Brits are running for cover, just like the suspicious execution of Nick Berg.

Personally I would take anything they say at this point with a pinch of salt until independent inspectors have a look at the shell.

As for hiding WMD take the example of Saddam. He was found in a massive country 10 times the size of Ireland in spite of all of his money etc. because a reward was offered.

Do you really think the Blair/Bush junta haven't offered equivalent rewards for WMD?

This being the case why has precisely diddly-squat WMDs turned up?????

by gis a job. - i can do that. Tue May 18, 2004 13:42

mr Charles R. Smith.
whoever you are.
know how it is, they always put an initial in their name don't they? So we don't confuse them with their "pa".
Oh you're Charles R. not Charles D.
Or if they don't put the initial it's the "junior/senior/III" thing at the end.

so you want to discuss the arming of Iraq and Iran during their war?
like really, cool, yes everyone was involved. France, russia, usa, britain the whole lot.
let's do it please. let's get to the nitty gritty.

http://projects.sipri.se/cbw/research/factsheet-1984.html
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/iraniraq.htm
http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/ShalomIranIraq.html
let's go back to the first UN Iraqi resolution.

by Joe Tue May 18, 2004 13:09

Whats the deal here?

After all we know that Saddam had chemical weapons because we have the records of the western countries that sold the equipement and precursors to him. We have that nice photo of Mr Rumsfield shaking his hand back in the 1980's when he actually used those weapons against the Kurds. He was a regional strongman for the west back then. So the question was never IF they had existed at some point, we all know the answer to this, not least those that supplied them.

The question was when the US and Britian claimed to have definite evidece of the existance of manufacturing centres and stockpiles before the war were they lying or telling the truth. One year on it is quite clear they were lying, they have had plenty of time to go to the sites they 'knew' about and 'find' what was to be found, even a massive cleanup operation would have left residues.

The use of one old 155 shell proves only what was known already, that at one point Iraq had such weapons. Unless the pro-war crowd have no memories at all they are fully aware of the difference between what was claimed in advance of the war and the use of a single shell as an improvised bomb! The White House was smart enought not to make a deal of this but the pro-war indymedia trolls don't seem to get it.

by Ray Tue May 18, 2004 13:07

We know the IRA had lot of weapons because
- they were used, frequently
- the IRA cheerfully admitted to it
- the gardai frequently found IRA arms caches

We know Saddam Hussein had lots of WMDS because
- he hadn't used any in 15 years
- he denied he had any
- UN inspectors and US inspectors still haven't found any arms caches

by John Tue May 18, 2004 12:57

Charles R. Smith is quite correct. The fact that weapons of mass destruction haven't been found in large quantities yet doesn't mean they don't exist. The Gardai have been searching for years for IRA arms caches and quantities of semtex, but haven't found them. It doesn't mean they don't exist. Even the IRA admit that they do exist. Its very easy to dig a hole and hide things in it, and Iraq is 10 times the size of Ireland.

by Jim Tue May 18, 2004 12:54

Was it just the one Weapon of Mass Destruction then (which didn't cause actual mass destruction)?

The timing is very convenient for Ronald Dumsfeld, Bush and Bliar too.

You'll have to do better than that!

by Charles R. Smith Tue May 18, 2004 11:58

The discovery of an Iraqi artillery shell armed with nerve gas has the liberal community and mass media in a panic.
The 155mm nerve gas shell was rigged to kill U.S. troops but it failed. U.S. Brig. General Mark Kimmitt confirmed the discovery during a news conference in Baghdad.

Yet, the discovery of nerve gas was followed by a second revelation. A second shell, equipped with mustard gas was found two weeks ago.

The mustard gas shell identified by the special WMD inspection team in Iraq appears to be one of 550 declared by Saddam to U.N. inspectors during the early 1990s. These shells disappeared later in 2002 when Hans Blix asked to see them.

The sudden discovery of nerve gas and mustard gas in Iraq can be added to two other recent events ignored by the mainstream media.

Saddam and Osama

The first took place during the 9/11 hearings when former Clinton Defense Secretary William Cohen testified that in 1998 Saddam's top nerve gas experts met with several members of al Qaeda in Baghdad. Clearly, such a meeting places the top terrorist with the leading Middle East dictator in the same basket. The dangerous combination of two madmen, mixed with weapons of mass destruction, seems to blow the "no threat here" argument out of the water.

However, that is not enough for the left.

The second event, a foiled gas attack in Jordan, piles more facts higher and deeper. The attack, led by Al Qaeda operatives, reportedly could have killed 20,000 people. The Jordanians were very clear about the foiled attack, the weapon involved was deadly gas and the terrorists, based in Iraq, entered by the Syrian border.

Jordanian diplomats have informed me that the investigation into the foiled gas attack is still under way and that at least two other members of the terrorist team are still on the run. Still, this is not enough proof for the anti-war fanatics.

Kill U.N. Teams

It is very clear from what we have found so far that Iraq did have chemical weapons and was trying to hide its arsenal. The discrepancies between documentation, box markings and actual items found clearly show that an intentional effort was made by Iraqi troops to mislead U.N. inspection teams. In some cases false shipping documents written in English were discovered with the weapons.

The effort to find chemical or biological weapons is being hampered by the vast quantity of conventional munitions stored under dangerous conditions. The Iraqi Army was well known for storing chemical weapons with its conventional explosives.

The Iraqi program to hide its weapons programs from U.N. inspectors was no small effort. Aviation Week and Space Technology noted in an article published in September 2002 that Iraq went to great lengths to conceal its arms technology.

According to Aviation Week, the Iraqis tried to destroy a German aircraft and its crew on a U.N. mission. The Iraqis were trying to prevent documents produced by the U.N. inspectors from leaving the country.

The U.N. documents covered details found on Iraq's nuclear weapons programs and a blueprint for aggressive, military-backed, inspections to root out the underground WMD programs. The documents also contained "rough" details of Iraqi command authorities, weapons production and delivery systems.

France and Russia

Iraq did most of its killing using Russian-made MiG and Sukhoi aircraft equipped with chemical sprayers. In addition, Saddam used French-made artillery and helicopters to dump gas on the Iranians and his own people.

The 155mm shell found outside of Baghdad airport was made for Iraq's arsenal of French made artillery. Clearly, the shell was designed to meet French military standards to fire and used advanced safety techniques to protect Iraqi gunners.

It was that safety technique, of separating the nerve gas into two inert chemicals, and placing them in two chambers inside the shell, that foiled the terrorist attack. The "binary" chemical weapons design has a metal or plastic diaphragm designed to keep the two inert chemicals apart until the massive force or shock of firing it down a cannon bursts the wall, allowing the chemicals to mix.

Ironically, the binary weapons design originated inside the former Soviet Union. Saddam Hussein rose to power backed by Russian weapons and Russian money. Saddam still owes Moscow over $8 billion for the arms he purchased from Russia.

The primary Iraqi chemical weapons are nerve gas and mustard gas, a blistering agent, standard equipment for the 1980s Soviet era military machine.

According to "Russian Military Power" published in 1982, "It is known that the Soviets maintain stocks of CW (chemical weapons) agents." The two primary Russian chemical weapons in the 1982 Soviet inventory were "nerve" gas and "blistering agents - developments of mustard gas used so effectively in World War I."

Iraq obtained Russian chemical delivery systems and the same inventory of Russian made chemical weapons at the same time. Iraqi SU-22 Fitter attack jets have been armed with Warsaw Pact designed bombs filled with chemical weapons.

Iraq used these Russian jet fighters to drop chemical weapons on Iranian troops during the Iran/Iraq war. Iraq tried to use these SU-22 jets during the 1991 Gulf war and was foiled by the allied air superiority.

The Next Attack

We are indeed fortunate that the two weapons discovered so far were not used correctly. However, it is clear, that much like cockroaches - when your find one it is an indication of many more. Saddam did not make just one - he made tons.

Saddam had 220 tons of nerve gas, counted previously by U.N. inspectors that he could not declare to Hans Blix. The deadly gas, and the delivery systems, vanished into the Iraqi desert and points beyond.

U.S. satellite's detected large convoys of unspecified equipment flowing over the Iraqi/Syrian border just prior to the war. The General in charge of our space assets has publicly noted the photos showing what appeared to be weaponry passed from Iraq to Syria.

We all know from the anti-war fanatics that there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq - the leftist media and pundits have pounded that assertion into the American TV fact file. We are told again and again that George Bush lied.

The recent discovery of nerve gas and mustard gas in Iraq is clearly proof that it was Saddam Hussein that was lying. Saddam lied about his weapons and has hidden more than one for future use.

The fact is the left will not be satisfied with the recent discovery. How many need to be found - two - ten - a thousand? The left does not feel that any number of these dangerous weapons reaches the level of adequate proof.

Yet, the one important question they will not answer is: How many have to die from such a weapon to qualify?

by Ray Tue May 18, 2004 11:53

"Saddam obviously did not create just ONE Sarin nerve gas filled projectile. There are surely thousands and thousands MORE of them."

Which is why none of the inspectors have managed to find any, and that it took over a year for the first one to be used. Get a grip.

Much more likely is that Saddam made lots of chemical weapons back when he was a US ally, shaking hands with Donald Rumsfeld. After the first Gulf War, the damage to his infrastructure, continuing inspections, and ongoing surveillance made it impossible to continue manufacturing WMDs. He destroyed most of his stocks over the years, though a couple were missed here and there (and they've mostly decayed anyway). That's what all the evidence points to.

by conor (wsm personal capacity) Tue May 18, 2004 11:47

Dubya and co are sitting on THE BIGGEST supply of WMDs in the world chemical, nuclear and biological (and probably laser, audio and god only knows the fuck what else!).

This tends to worry me far more than the fact that some iraqi militia men managed to fire off ONE ROUND with sarin gass which didn't fully explode !

Conor

by righteous pragmatist Tue May 18, 2004 11:47

The average 155mm arillery battery consists of four or five field guns each capable of firing 2 rounds per minute during sustained action. To be effective the guns would have to be statically positioned near a stockpile of hundreds of shells.

The old Iraqi Army was armed with hundreds of field guns. To maintain its fighting ability the Iraqis would have had to stockpile hundreds of thousands of artillery shells for sustained combat.

Over ten or so years the Iraq Army used millions of artillery shells against the Iranian Army and vice versa.

The vast majority of shells fired were convetional high explosive artillery shells.

The remainder of Iraqi stockpiles of conventional shells have been decommissioned since the end of the 2003 Iraq War or were looted and used by guerilla fighters in attacks against the Americans either in bombings in Baghdad or on roadsides.

Saddam obviously did not create just ONE Sarin nerve gas filled projectile. There are surely thousands and thousands MORE of them.

A 155mm artillery gun of course cannot hit an American target at the other side of the world.

But if terrorists got even a handful into their hands they could use them as improvised weapons in an attack on the New York subway.

Saddam and Al-Qaeda may have been ideological enemies but not when it came to hatred of the USA.

Bush was not going to risk waiting for both enemies to join forces and instead of using airliners as guided missiles Bin Laden could take advantage of Saddam's chemical chemical weapons.

Compare those weapons to semen.
Saddam had no delivery system.
Bin Laden could have been the fertility doctor.


All the hysterical opposition to the Iraq War and the blanket denial by the Left of the threat Saddam faced to the West has now been shown up.

by Cleaver Tue May 18, 2004 10:56

Yeah News of the world would be proud of a misleading banner like that.

by prankster Tue May 18, 2004 10:51

twas your second last line I reffered to in the above post, not your last line as previously stated.

by prankster Tue May 18, 2004 10:49

Your headline:
OFFICIAL: Saddam DID have WMD!

Your last line:
One shell clearly does not make a chemical arsenal.

Are you Dubya himself or his chimp?