Yes they were and we have the report that proves it. Frankly in the end it didn't matter, there would still have been the insurgency whether Saddam had A-bombs or not.
Like who? I know it's the truth, so do most people. This conversation is getting reminiscent of 'FDR knew about Pearl Harbour in advance' or 'LBJ faked the Tolkin Gulf incident' conspiracy theories.
I was a great fan of embedding, when reporters sweat and suffer alongside the soldiers it gives them empathy they would otherwise lack.
YES, THEY WERE! How many times do we have to provide you with the evidence. Get real. You have been provided numerous links and reports yet you cling to your false narrative. At least debate honestly.
No he didn't, he simply passed on the intelligent assessments he received, the Iraqi exiles lied to us in order to get us to liberate the country and who can blame them?
So what's poisoning all these troops then? What did the CIA buy back off people in Iraq? Come on face the facts.
Old discarded weapons that were never ever the basis of an invasion. Every newspaper in America would have had this headline Wmds found!!!!! The Iraq survey group was quite clear. No wmds found
No, partly because the press is partisan but also because it was frankly irrelevant to the insurgency. But to be fair the NYT did carry the story. There were WMDs, old yes, viable, certainly, how else do you explain all the thousands recovered?
Yep, not the thriving manufacturing system all the Iraqi exiles kept telling us about but plenty left from his 90s stockpile. Interesting the CIA report also ascertains he never gave up his WMD ambitions.