Skip to main content
Shop & Support The Political Insider

This site works best in IE9 and up and in other modern web browsers


What’s Your Reaction?


  1. keepers says:

    Yeah, they found WMD. Ones that were decades old an proved that Saddam was no longer pursuing a WMD program. This is why the Bush administration never touted the fact that they were found.

  2. James says:

    buried degraded munitions that don’t have the capability to be used do not qualify as weapons of mass destruction. The only people who can be harmed by them are those who dig them up and handle them. They were rusted, leaky, inoperable devices. Your claim that WMD’s had been found as if they could be reclaimed and used is ludicrous.

  3. Bala says:

    American people were told by the then President that the reason for going to WAR in Iraq was WMD

    So when they were found………………Why he hell did the American people NOT informed and updated…………….It is not a big deal classified information…………it was the CORE reason stated by the then President

    Why do American people have to wait until New York Times writes about it years later………………….

    wonder who NY Times is trying to please

  4. cbmtrx says:

    The Bush administration’s own inspectors, in 2006, reported: “While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered.”

    That some decade-old leftovers from Hussein’s military programs were still in existence comes nowhere close to justifying the rationale for an invasion, try as you might. The Bush administration’s need for a credible threat meant trumping up charges that Iraq had amassed a large arsenal of weapons of mass destruction – and that it was an imminent nuclear threat. Powell’s fabrications at the UN also included the utter falsity that Saddam Hussein had acquired yellow cake uranium from Niger.

    1. There was no active biological weapons program; Hussein, albeit grudgingly, knew that UN inspections were the only way to remove sanctions that had been crippling Iraq’s economy since 1991.

    2. There was no active nuclear weapons program (not since the 1980s–with the US’s help, mind you, to the tune of $500 million–had Iraq been planning a nuclear program), and Hussein had never acquired nor sought to acquire uranium from Niger, as it was alleged.

    3. Iraq had no part in planning, equipping, or supporting the 9/11 attacks. Yet this was THE FOUNDATION of the Bush administration’s entire rationale for an invasion. Only during a 2006 address did Bush finally admit that no Iraq-9/11 connection existed: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/sep/12/september11.usa2

    So, to the angry mob who empowered one military monomaniac–resulting in the deaths of 500,000 Iraqis, not to mention thousands of Americans–and who still try to defend it, and who now seek to empower another military monomaniac in Trump, LEARN something from this history lesson. Stop being so pig-headed and blinded with rage that you can’t concede that the Iraq war was a $1.5 trillion dollar mistake that destroyed lives, and our place in the world.

    When will you learn.

  5. Steven says:

    Oh please, let’s cut the crap. The tribe-first NYT was gung-ho in favor of that disastrous war. The day after a record-breaking DC demonstration against the war, the NYT and its dual-citizen traitors reported a mere “thousands” of demonstrators” and “fewer people…than organizers had said they hoped for.” In short, the NYT, along with most of our zio-media, WANTED war with Iraq. Why? Because Israel wanted it and Israel could not care less what impact that war had on the USA.
    Question: Why is the Political Insider consistently giving support to this alien nation with its record of terrorism against America (google USS Liberty, the Lavon Affair) and its utterly self-interested America-be-damned policies?

  6. Cathy says:

    Absolute rubbish… The Chillcott report was published this week and Blair has made public statements that say there were no weapons of mass destruction…

  7. Kevin says:

    What’s even more forgotten is the fact that it was President Clinton’s adviser the President George W Bush kept that told him about the WMDs in IRAQ.

  8. Barbara says:

    The iraqi boneheads were given over 10 years do dismantle and hide / sell all most of the stuff they did have , The UN (which in my opinion is worthless and should be dissolved) are the ones that made us give such a long time of sanctions and wait periods for them to hide the WMD’s. Yeah the crap they left behind was to play games saying , this is all we had , and you KNOW it’s not . there are over 3 tons of unaccounted materials used in WMD’s still ‘missing’ if you want to be dumb enough to believe that . If we could have gone in when the US originally wanted, we would have walked right into their manufacturing plants. why do you think Saddam was cowering in the ground in a hole hiding from US soldiers, he never knew what was found or not . and in different comment it said , there was no evidence , well if that is the case, then did anyone ever see osama bin ladens dead body ? no photos , no proof that he is dead !! i’d like to believe the SOB is gone , but is he???? NEXT:

  9. Stuart says:

    When I saw the headline on Fox News this morning, I thought it was an April fools’ joke. The NYT admitting that there were WMD’s, and, by implication, Bush didn’t lie as they have been claiming for a decade. Most of Saddam’s chemical weapons were sent to the Assad regime in Syria, and now may be getting into the hands of ISIS. The bush haters are now trying to parse the issue in Clintonian doublespeak. The fact that Saddam had them and had used them against civilians is the operative fact. How old they were, how he got them are irrelevant. If you get gassed to death the source of the gas is meaningless. You’re dead. The US and UN said he had to get rid of WMD’s and he didn’t. Liberals lied, Bush told the truth. Eat crow.

    1. keepers says:

      Actually, the condition of all the WMD that were found would indicate that Bush DID lie. Bush and Cheney asserted that they were continuing to develop WMD. The only weapons found were old and degraded, therefore further evidence that there was no current program. Why else would the Bush administration not parade the discovery in public to justify the war?

  10. Absolom says:

    The difference is that Bush was selling the American public on invasion and war on the idea that Saddam Hussein had *manufacturing* capabilities~ this is clearly what was hinted at by all this “weapons of mass destruction PROGRAM” {emphasis added} What Saddam actually HAD were weapons the UNITED STATES HAD SOLD TO HIM years ago during his 8 year war with Iran. There’s a BIG difference. IF you want to go by the definition you are trying to impose here, then you would have to say that ANY artillery round classifies as a “weapon of mass destruction”

  11. David says:

    See! It was all a lie! Why wasn’t there ever any visual proof?

  12. John says:

    This story keeps popping up every six months or so. The only WMDs they found were old artillery shells from WW1 and WW2 that still had some of the chemicals in them. The chemicals were useless as weapons. They also found the WMDs left over from the first gulf war that amounted to EMPTY chemical warheads with residue still in them. This is why the Bush admin never crowed about these findings. Are 500 empty and/or inert chemical warheads worth the lives of 3000 American troops?

  13. Crystal says:

    The WMD were not on shelves and labeled

  14. Eric says:

    Okay conservative geniuses, if the US went in and found what they were looking for, thus validating the reason for the invasion, why wouldn’t they announce such findings to the world instead of looking like the war-mongering clods they were?

    1. David says:

      Right! Cause that would make sense!

  15. Luke says:

    This dude would claim an unexploded World War 2 Japanese grenade somebody stumbled upon in Fiji is proof the Japs are still slant-eyed lying evil bastards.

  16. Luke says:

    Oh, eff you. Seriously. It flatly states in the same story those chemical weapons long PRECEDED Bush’s excuse to invade. There was no active program. So did you read only a few paragraphs of the story, or are you intentionally trying to pull a fast one. Either way, you lose.

    Nice try.

  17. Susan says:

    I have been listening and the news keeps saying these terrorists are from different countries, or have citizenship in other countries. Even someone from Brussels could be a terrorist or any of the other nations mentioned. We better put a “pause” on any refugee, not just Syria and Iraq. Besides if they really want to come here they can sneak in like the a lot of people do. We can’t assume they would try to come legally, any more than we can think if we had no guns, then neither would the bad guy. Just sayin…….

  18. Eric says:

    Conservative and Liberal media will take any oppertunity to do the (I told you so song and dance). This goes to show what are informative legit media outlets, and what are biased clowns telling you a story. I care just as much about “allegedly” WMD’s in the hands of Saddam, than the FBI being closer to finding Hoffa’s body. You would think the media would be more focused on current events, instead of brewing over the authenticity of an investigation that’s nearly 15 years old, and holds no relevance to the current state of Iraq. The Liberals can still argue that Bush jr had no business going after Saddam when we had the whole Islamic State to deal with first.

  19. Lorilei says:

    un inspectors found nothing? hey dummies at The Times: saddam kicked out ALL un inspectors…they were never given full access to all sites suspected of harboring wmd’s including the active program still going on

    1. William says:

      “saddam kicked out ALL un inspectors”

      We had UN Inspectors in Iraq right up until Bush started the Invasion. They didn’t find anything.

      There was nothing to find. Even the pre-accounted for Uranium stockpile Iraq possessed still had the UN seals on the vault when our Marines arrived.

  20. Fred says:

    So, the Liberals are still using this to Bash bush… no weapons?? You forgot about chemical weapon.. it is HISTORY Halabja chemical attack?? What 7,000 to 10,000 is not mass enough for a liberal?? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_chemical_attack

    1. Hotrod says:

      Liberals are to stupid to understand concepts. They will only care when they personally are at risk! They deny ALL FACTS, ALL SCIENCE. They do NOT care bout’ the will of the people or majority rule. They are stupid! Mentally ill and totally corrupted by money they blame every one else for what they’re doing.

  21. Frank says:

    This article neglected to mention that chemical weapons were given to Saddam Hussein by Ronald Reagan and Donald Rumsfeld. Saddam used the chem weapons on the Kurds.

  22. Don says:

    Those that will argue that there were no WMDs will say the Isis atrocities are not happening. They found some of the chemical weapons in Syria were they were used not too long ago. From what I remember besides the trucks there was a large plane tracked from Iraq that landed in Syria that was thought to have moved some there.

    1. William says:

      “They found some of the chemical weapons in Syria”

      You sad, sad man. Syria DID have the facilities to make WMD, and they made their own.

      This story that Iraq “smuggled” hundreds of tons of WMD out of the country at midnight on a single plane is a Conservative hoax, as is claiming that chemical weapons used in Syria originated with Iraq.

      1. David says:

        Assad & Saddam hated each other. Why didn’t we invade Syria then? I guess we decide who can have them & who can’t. Wasn’t Assad scared he would be invaded next after what happened to Saddam?

  23. Scot says:

    Bush’s father new that it was not in the worlds best interest to destablize Iraq. At the end of the war the US could have left the professional military intact in Iraq to keep the country from breaking out into total chaos and to keep Iran in check. After the advice from are allies in the region to keep the military intact- the Bush administration chose not to so. This led to the loss of American lives and billions of wasted dollars with nothing to show for it but Islamic army armed with our weapons. A total cluster f. This void led to the total break down of he middle east. So even if they had WMD- the Bush Administration still screwed it up. This part of history you cannot rewrite.

    1. Hotrod says:

      He should’ve killed every one of them.

  24. Jorge says:

    I did not have sex with that woman,I did not handle classified information on my serve and we will transform America is what we have heard from the left. They ran their campaigns on the defamation of President Bush, hide information from Americans and many tucked the bait and voted Democrat twice, don’t make the same mistake again. America can not take one more hit, we need a good leader to take us out the hole we are in.

    1. William says:

      “I did not have sex with that woman,I did not handle classified information on my serve and we will transform America is what we have heard from the left.”

      There was no Classified information on Secretary Clinton’s server. She had a total ban on sending classified information via email. It was only sent via Courier with a briefcase handcuffed to his wrist.

      And yes, we intend to “transform America”… by putting it back the way it was before REAGAN changed everything.

  25. Joseph says:

    Forgive me if someone else posted but let’s not forget this was the beginning of the issue — however as we prematurely removed out forces from Iraq we now have a much bigger problem in ISIS to deal with…….

  26. Jason says:

    Be honest after the butt kicking Conservatives have been getting this week yall are just looking for some feel good news.

    Shame this is not that news. ;)

    1. Todd says:

      Jason I don’t think you know what a “Butt Kicking” is, but you will when the 8th Crusade starts.

    2. I missed it – what butt-kicking was that??

  27. Patrick says:

    When Saddam Hussein’s Government fell, a forty truck Russian convoy went back to Russia b y way of Syria. What were they carrying and how did Syria have WMD s in later years?

  28. William says:

    welcome to politics. There was one report I remember of a solider opening a buried site in the desert and came down with symptoms. Later it was stated just herbicides. Mix a couple of these chemicals together you get chemical weapons. Certain forms can be mixed at use, stored long term in individual components, visualize something like tannerite…….learn http://www.cold-miner.com

  29. Mark says:

    The thing about the Muslim world is the Sunni–Shia hate each other until outsiders get involved and then they hate them. The weapons do exist and in the screwing around time of UN Weapons Inspectors waiting to reenter the country, they were moved. At the time, the CIA said, “Most probably to Syria.”, and lo and behold, SARIN gas used in Syria!


    The more you attack George Bush, the more you look ignorant.

  30. Andrew says:

    Poppycock. Journalistic sensationalism at it’s best. The actual NYT article said the following (emphasis mine):

    “Instead, American troops gradually found and ultimately suffered from the remnants of LONG-ABANDONED PROGRAMS, built in close collaboration with the West.”

    And later states:
    “After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Mr. Bush insisted that Mr. Hussein was hiding an ACTIVE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION PROGRAM, in defiance of international will and at the world’s risk.”

    These were old weapons that we knew about because we sold them to him! Donald Rumsfeld brokered the freaking deal. And our diplomatic policies and weapon inspection programs worked to keep these weapons pretty much useless.

    The Iraq Invasion was a farce.

    1. Mike says:

      Your attempt to minimize this article is shameful. Why?

      Because you try to claim that it was abandoned arms when of course when they found it they had been abandoned because Iraq had been occupied and Hussein removed from power for a long time by that time.

      Of course ALSO the Mandate said that ALL MATERIALS were included that they were to be free of.
      By your own admission Bush was correct.

      He was hiding an actice weapons program AT THE TIME OF THE ACCUSATION! Of course it was not active after Saddam was removed from power as the Government no longer existed!!

      It does not matter if they were old weapons or new weapons as they were not supposed to ahve ANY WMDs!!

      So keep trying to act like the article was just a farce… Maybe you should try reading it before you make yourself look foolish?

  31. Steven says:

    Puh-leeeze! The march to war was over NUCLEAR WMD. We absolutely knew about the chemical weapons as we helped Saddam to get them during Iraq’s war with Iran. This “discovery” is bogus. Any attempt to justify a war with no justification costing trillions and murdering million(s).

    1. Mike says:

      The March to War was NOT Over NUCLEAR WMDs!!!! It was over WMDs PERIOD.

  32. Sheileagh says:

    When the issue of WMD arises, too many people strictly equate it with ‘bombs’ of some sort… not everyone is aware that it also incorporates deadly chemicals & toxins… it is ONE reason why there is so much misunderstanding about whether WMD’s were ‘found’ in Iraq or not.

  33. allihondro says:

    You mean the WMD that the US government gave to Iraq to use against Iran in the Iran Iraq war. These have been reported on many times, found by UN inspectors and as well as the fact that through testing that they were part of the weapons we gave to Iraq, Im surprised you didnt bring up the trailers that Iraq had that were used to prepare these weapons for use.




    1. Mike says:

      You Leftists are always trying to spin the truth. We did not give Iraq WMD’s!!!

      Nor would we ever do that. They developed them.

      Those articles from your leftists sources are meaningless as they give no facts. ALL speculation about weapons we did help them with when they were fighting Iran which were NOT WMD’s!!

      1. Mike says:

        They developed them with assistance and materials from a number of countries in the west including the USA, Germany, the UK, France. We knew damn well what he was doing as reference by declassified documents from various agencies and affidavits given later in the 1990s. Hussein had biological and chemical weapons and a sizable portion (although less than provided by Germany) of the materials needed to make those weapons came from the US with the tacit approval of the Reagan administration. We knew damn well he was using them against Iran and we supplied him anyway.
        That is where the chemical weapons came from. We may not have baked the cake, but we certainly gave him the eggs and flour.

  34. Dwain says:

    I know that this will come as a shock but we knew tbey had WMD’S because we sold them them to Iraq during the Iraq/ Iran war. We were killing two birds with one stone….. Iran took our hostages and Iraq really did not like either.

    1. Mike says:

      I am going to continue to respond to you foolish people who eat the liberal spin over and over and over again and repeat it like you have the facts.


      No matter how many times you try to say we supplied those weapons to them you cannot make it so!!

      We supplied them with conventional weaponry. Not WMDs.
      Stop trying to spin it just because we helped them out when they were being attacked by their neighbors. We did the same thing for them then because they were being bullied that we did for Kuwait in 1991, only this time THEY were the bully!

      Do you believe we gave Kuwait WMDs in 1991 too?

      Stop mixing realities up to suit your Liar Liberal Narrative.

      1. Michael says:


        Everything necessary was provided by the West. From the science and technology, manufacturing, storage, raw materials, weaponizing and intelligence, you name it, the evidence is overwhelming.

      2. Michael says:


        Everything necessary was provided by the West. From the science and technology, manufacturing, storage, raw materials, weaponizing and intelligence. You name it, the evidence is overwhelming.

        You are plainly delusional.

  35. Alan says:

    Most civilians do not know and were never made aware, that the VX, Serine, and other chemicals were found in mas totaling thousands of metric tons!! And on the bright side, remember all the nuclear production plants, there was also thousands of tons of yellow cake uranium, which is by the way a key ingredient for nuclear weapons! Wake up, the Libtards will not tell you the truth about Iraq, Afganistan, or Bengazi, someday you will see that Chris Stevens was murdered, due to an illegal arms transaction between The OBAMA Administration, and The Muslim Brotherhood!!

  36. Michael says:

    They will be digging up WMD’s all over Iraq and still only find a small percentage. Since the air strike in 1985 happened, the stored of weapons were scattered in every direction so no one strike could ever be as devastating. Of course there is not proof that anything that is stated here ever occurred.

  37. Terry says:

    It’s over and done we went in killed more people than it was worth including children and women who had nothing to do with saddam and obummer left them sitting in a very bad place now look where things are at with isis!! We went in for pres bush own vendetta period because his father had a assassination attempt and he had to pay back saddam!!! Never capitalized people because they aren’t worth that kind of respect.

  38. Darren says:

    … Here’s a better question while we’re bringing up old news that’s irrelevant.

    Why are we hyping the danger of Iraq and their ties to the 9/11 attacks ? We’re talking about a military we knew we could crush in a matter of days.

    I’m patiently waiting for the right to just admit that the government of the time wanted any reason to push into Iraq. Don’t give me this “It’s because they had weapons” crap. We can all but confirm that with Iran and North Korea too. No invasions there. I hate to break it to anyone who thinks the world is so obvious, but everything isn’t what it seems. We wanted to go into Iraq militarily. The means did not matter. They never do.

  39. PW Shirley says:

    I knew this and so did alot of people but no one believed our President then and still don’t want to admit that he was right. I feel sorry for we are all going and have been through many things from our our government. They lie and the media covers it up. Bush was right just admit it.

  40. William says:

    No one denies the existence of Saddam Hussein. He was the biggest weapon of mass destruction of all !!

  41. Sagesse says:

    Democrats are too invested in this fiction to ever give it up.

    1. Sagesse says:

      ….too invested in the fiction that weapons didn’t exist. This was despite warnings during theClinton years by Madelyn Albright and Sandy Berger that it was true. Sad that media lets them get by with this kind of lie. Of course, that’s why media is distrusted these days.

    2. Hotrod says:

      And to stupid.

  42. Jim says:

    I have always said that just because they didn’t find them, that doesn’t mean they weren’t there.

  43. Karen says:

    Why don’t you go their Dale and inspect the stuff and let everyone know how you feel then really

  44. Dale says:

    Wrong. Totally wrong. They only found the old leaky chemical weapons used during thd 1991 iran-iraq war. Typical of you.


    1. Thomas says:

      Dale was you there? My brother who told me diff I don’t give a sh it about a report or the times

    2. Don says:

      Dale, Why didn’t you and your fellow Obamatrons volunteer to have the fund chemicals transferred to your home town for storage purposes?
      After all, they were completely safe and there was no way they could have been used for killing innocent civilians, committing terrorist attacks or even affecting anyone’s health.
      Be a man, step up to the plate and prove your allegiance to your Dear Leader!

    3. Don says:

      Dale, For your own educational purposes, four posts in a row:
      Bill Clinton in 1998 was threatening to go to war with Iraq. Saddam Hussein was preparing weapons of mass destruction. The UN and everybody knew about it. All the intelligence services knew about it.
      All the intel services told us, along with our own, that Saddam was building and developing WMD. So if the intel services were lying to Bush in 2001 and 2002, then why were they telling Clinton the truth in 1998? Bill Clinton, February 17th, 1998, speaking to the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon.
      CLINTON 1998: “His Regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region, and the security of all the rest of us. Someday, some way, I guarantee you, he’ll use the arsenal. Let there be no doubt: We are prepared to act. I know that the people we may call upon in uniform are ready. The American people have to be ready as well.
      Clinton, February 20, 1998. Three days later in a video message to Saddam entitled, “We’ll do what we have to do.”
      “Nobody wants to use force. But if Saddam refuses to keep his commitments to the international community, we must be prepared to deal directly with the threat these weapons pose to the Iraqi people, to Iraq’s neighbors, and to the rest of the world. Either Saddam acts or we will have to.”
      This is all about his weapons of mass destruction in 1998. When you heard Bush talk about it three or four years later — using the same words, it was uncanny. Our intel services were lying to Bush. But apparently were telling the truth to Clinton back in 1998!
      Clinton, December 16th, 1998, when facing impeachment for perjury. “Good evening. Earlier today I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined today by British forces.
      “Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interests of the United States and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world. Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threat his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas, or biological weapons.”
      This was a Saturday bombing run into Baghdad. He attacked a central office building there and killed a janitor.

    4. Don says:

      Dale, This one is #2, are you keeping up?
      Statement on Signing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998
      October 31, 1998
      1st and 10th paragraphs of President Clinton’s signing:
      William J. Clinton
      Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the “Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.” This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.
      The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 provides additional, discretionary authorities under which my Administration can act to further the objectives I outlined above. There are, of course, other important elements of U.S. policy. These include the maintenance of U.N. Security Council support efforts to eliminate Iraq’s prohibited weapons and missile programs and economic sanctions that continue to deny the regime the means to reconstitute those threats to international peace and security. United States support for the Iraqi opposition will be carried out consistent with those policy objectives as well. Similarly, U.S. support must be attuned to what the opposition can effectively make use of as it develops over time. With those observations, I sign H.R. 4655 into law.
      The White House, October 31, 1998.
      NOTE: H.R. 4655, approved October 31, was assigned Public Law No. 105-338. H.R. 4328, the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, was assigned Public Law No. 105-277.

    5. Don says:

      Dale, This one is #3. Are you still with us or did you have to go drink some Kool Aid?

      Democrat Quotes on Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction
      “If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
      –President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

      “[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
      Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
      — Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

      “Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
      -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

      “We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
      — Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

      “In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
      — Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

      “Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real…”
      — Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

    6. Don says:

      Dale, The last one for the time being. We know you will need some time to try and re-write history to cover your Liberal and Democratic azz:
      A little history from the Senate:
      Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and
      Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region:
      Democrats Aye: Joe Biden, Max Cleland, Hillary Clinton, Tom Daschle, Christopher Dodd, Byron Dorgan, John Edwards, Diane Feinstein, Tom Harkin, Fritz Hollings, John Kerry, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln, Ben Nelson, Harry Reid, Jay Rockefeller, Charles Schumer, Dick Gephardt, Patrick Kennedy, Tom Lantos, Ed Markey, Jack Murtha, Henry Waxman, Anthony Weiner.

  45. Diane says:

    I never for a moment didn’t believe they were there, and I also believe that most of them were hidden into Syra during the war. Now the truth is coming out just like all the truth will come out about the IRS, Fast and Fureous, and Bengazi, Thanks for the people who are willing to keep turning over all the rocks to find the truth! Obama is going down for sure and very soon! We want our country returned to us and an honest government, runned by the people, not a small group of men. Save America Lord.

  46. Eva says:

    I wrote a blog revealing there were WMDs in Iraq a month ago with an interview from SGT. Robert Hart who encountered WMDs numerous times. http://wp.me/p4XFfm-2t No one wanted to listen to his story. I guess now they will.

    1. Thomas says:

      Eva they will when my brother was in Iraq from 2003 to the end in 2006 told me there was thousands of active chemical weapons they was buried . The times sucks anyway and it should have been reported and the gov should have showed the world .

Return to article