Would Saddam’s Deadly Arsenal be Considered as WMD’s?
This is a Serious Question and I would like an answer?
Liberals, Democrats and ALL their Media have portrayed this as a Weapon of Mass…
In my opinion as a conservative, Sadam had WMDS , an IED is a wmd as well.Dave by qualifying your question for honest liberals you may have limited it to one or two on this board, however
The crimes that a US President would be charged with are particularly slender: “The President, vp and all civil officers of america, would be remote from place of work on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or different extreme Crimes and Misdemeanors.” If telling political lies became against the regulation, what flesh presser does no longer be in penitentiary ? And, theres one component with having a majority in the domicile and the Senate, and its something else to have a veto data majority, which the Democrats have not got in the two domicile. Plus, an impeachment of Bush would seem, to multiple us voters, as a sort of “payback” for the attempt to question Clinton. that would desire to backfire, politically, in a great way.
Speaking of duds that don’t work, maybe you should look at Saddam’s so-called “arsenal” where only 50% of the scuds actually functioned properly and the chemical weapons had long decayed.
Saddam had no arsenal to speak of.
and speaking of not being able to take people seriously, why should we consider something a WMD that was not considered a WMD when Ronald Reagan supplied Saddam with it?
if the MLK device was as of good quality as Saddam’s “arsenal” there would have to be at least 5 more of them, to get a working one.
Just to clarify – you’re blaming “liberals” for the fact that the Washington State prosecutors have charged this man with “attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction”? I have no idea what that means in legal terms, and I’m prtty sure you don’t either.
And I’m curious to know on what grounds you allege that “a liberal” planted the device. I assume you have some compelling evidence to support what would otherwise be a rather irresponsible insinuation.
So ur justifying Bush invasion to Iraq, by connecting what some Liberals said about MLK bomber; Wow……I guess some Americans cant let go of a disaster decision of the Iraq war invasion.
If you remember history.. Bush played the WMD card and it FAILED…Bush played the Saddam kills his own people card and it FAILED…so the only way he could get congress to vote for his war was the “NUCLEAR OPTION” so they rolled out a bunch of lies about aluminum tubes, mushroom clouds and yellowcake from Niger…ALL LIES mind you
thats how Bush got his war
A WMD is defined as a nuclear, biological, or chemical weapon. Learn2Definition, n00b.
How can Bush be right when Bush himself already said there weren’t any. Even Bush isn’t claiming there were WMD’s in Iraq. After the invasion, they denied ever claiming they were there.
So, based on the inaccuracy of your 2nd question, I’d have to say everything else is as well.
A WMD is all in the eyes of the beholder.
For example, just a few days ago a man and his wife and 3 of their sleeping children
were stabbed to death in the West Bank.
Upon hearing the news in Gaza, Hamas issued congratulations to the killers and other Palestinians distributed candy to the joyful.
Now, to the common Liberal, what else could these killers be but Freedom Fighters?!
As I said, it’s all in the eyes of the beholder.
To me, Sadaam WAS the weapon of mass destruction