let me ask you a couple questions....
do you believe saddam never had them?
if you do believe he did do you believe he destroyed them?
if you do then where is the proof or witnesses?
while i'm not defending bush i think some people are jumping the gun here.
saddam OPENLY declared his stockpiles to the UN 12 years ago. (per UN resolution order)
he was also to get rid of them. noone knows if he did as he wouldnt let inspectors do their job as lined out in the FIRST resolution made after the
when asked for proof AFTER claiming he got rid of them he bascially gave the us the finger and said he didnt owe us any proof. well the UN said he
did. and he didnt. so why would a guy who got rid of his chemical and biological weapons not offer proof he destroyed them? it would only serve to
make him look innocent, make the US look bad and absolve him of anything suspected of him. but did he do this? no! so his actions are not of a
innocent man but one who has something to hide.
i think you're expecting troops to find that which has been hidden in an area the size of texas. takes a little more than a few months to find such
things. it'll probably take years. provided they werent whisked away to some other country friendly enough to him to house them for him (syria
comes to mind). he had time and no supervision to have moved them out of his own country to who knows where. rather than saying "i know he doesnt
have them, bush is just a cowboy" you might want to consider he actually moved them which is entirely possible.
since you have ZERO proof they were destroyed you cant say they dont exist. since i have zero proof that that are there then we have to think of
other possiblities which i have listed above this paragraph.
i dont agree with the way this whole situation has been played out but i wont dismiss the possibility that something else might have happened to those
weapons. but i certainly will not assume or say he doesnt have them just to bash a politician.