SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Sam who wrote (125336)2/29/2004 7:24:54 PM
From: Nadine Carroll  Read Replies (3) of 281500
 
Why was everyone so "unanimous" about Saddam having WMDs prior to the war? Because anyone who disagreed was just not listened to

Pure revisionism. The arguments over Chalabi were loud and public, with the Pentagon favoring his info and CIA and State discounting it. It is pure intellectual dishonesty to conflate the argument over Chalabi into asserting that there were voices claiming Saddam had no WMDs, but were "suppressed". Who? Who were these voices? Where did they make themselves heard?

With a huge anti-war movement abroad, they had hundreds of thousands of sympathetic ears to tell their story to - yet the anti-war movement persisted in arguing, not that we should not invade Iraq because Saddam had been disarmed, but that we should not invade Iraq because an invasion would make Saddam use his chemical weapons on our troops!

If even the anti-war movement believed that Saddam had weapons, if even France argued merely that Saddam's programs had been "contained", tell me who was claiming that Saddam had no WMDs? Who?
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News