Saddam Didn't Have Chemical Weapons?

Tell that to these kids. You can see all the great pictures from Halabja here and what would have been in store for us Americans and lots of other peoples if we don't stop fellows like Saddam when the time is appropriate to do so. Do you trust that Saddam would have become a peaceful dictator when the UN sanction regime came apart?

The idea that Saddam didn't have chemical weapons,

Saddam never abandoned his intentions to resume a CW effort when sanctions were lifted and conditions were judged favorable

wasn't planning to reconstitute his nuclear program,

Saddam did express his intent to retain the intellectual capital developed during the Iraqi Nuclear Program. Senior Iraqis—several of them from the Regime’s inner circle—told ISG they assumed Saddam would restart a nuclear program once UN sanctions ended.

wasn't connected to al-Qaida in any way

Later that spring, the Clinton Justice Department prepared an indictment of Osama bin Laden. The relevant passage, prominently placed in the fourth paragraph, reads:

Al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq.

Patrick Fitzgerald, a U.S. attorney involved in the preparation of the indictment, testified before the 9/11 Commission. He said the intelligence behind that assertion came from Jamal al Fadl, a former high-ranking al Qaeda terrorist who before the 9/11 attacks gave the U.S intelligence community its first intimate look at al Qaeda. According to Fitzgerald, al Fadl told his interrogators that bin Laden associate Mamdouh Mahmud Salim (Abu Hajer al Iraqi) "tried to reach a sort of agreement where they wouldn't work against each other--sort of the enemy of my enemy is my friend--and that there were indications that within Sudan when al Qaeda was there, which al Qaeda left in the summer of '96, or the spring of '96, there were efforts to work on jointly acquiring weapons."

and wasn't a threat to the United States or Americans is silliness. I do have to concede that Iraq wasn't an immediate threat, and that Saddam did not have the ability to deliver the threat over the short-term. His capacity was degraded. However, what makes people believe or trust that this crazy man wouldn't have tried to reconstitute his capacity to kill? Why should we leave him to his own devises when he has proven over-and-over again to be a threat to his people, his neighbors and potentially others? According to CIA's Duefler Report, often cited by the agenda laden press when it suits them, but completely ignored of its damning contents...

Saddam Husayn so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone. He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted.

And...

Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq's WMD capability, which was essentially destroyed in 1991-after sanctions were removed and Iraq's economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities to that which previously existed. Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability-in an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks-but he intended to focus on ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities.

Also, have a look at the what the a UN weapon's inspector had to say about this.

The beauty of being a Democrat is that one gets to think up and believe all kinds of conspiracy theories and simplify life into neat little phrases like "Bush lied, people died."

Then there is this supposed hawk Democratic House Representative Murta that is calling for immediate withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. Its exactly what the terrorists want, for us Americans to be defeated at home irrespective of what is happening on the battlefield. And Mr. Murta, what are the consequences of your policy of immediate withdrawal? Seems to me that this may not be a great strategy. The French have tried this for hundreds of years. Whether-or-not victory in Iraq is achievable, the Democrats want the US to pull-out so that the terrorists there can establish a proxy state like Afghanistan was in the 1990's. Then they will be able to complete their argument that Bush made the US less safe from terrorists. Indescribable. Playing politics with my family's and my life. Democrats cannot defend Americans from outside threats. Just not capable to do so.

And keep this picture in mind when the Democrats are foaming at the mouth... These children were apparently running away from Saddam's bombing in Halabja. The littliest one was riding on the back of the older girl and it looks as if the little boy in the forground was holding her hand when they all fell victim to the nerve gas. This is the kind of fellow that we were dealing with and the Democrats are implying that they would trust this guy to be a good world citizen? Not invading iraqi leaves the world open to such Saddam induced abuses. Democrats are so easily fooled!

Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) were an integral element in the range of tools Saddam drew upon to advance his ambitions. WMD was not an end in itself. Therefore, to examine meaningfully WMD in Iraq means examining the leadership of Iraq concomitantly.

The Iraq experience with WMD stretches over 30 years and three wars. Thousands of victims died on battlefields, and civilians have been gassed in domestic terror campaigns. War and sanctions have ground civil society down to rudimentary levels. The most talented of Iraq have faced excruciating dilemmas—to comply with the Regime’s directions or risk careers, their lives, and the lives of loved ones. Chronic, systemic fear on the part of the best and the brightest was a feature of the intellectual elite.