Quoted from the article:

Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.

"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."

So, is this really supposed to change anything about how we view the justification for the invasion of Iraq?

I'm not going to comment on the justification of invading Iraq because I personally believe at this point any justification for the invasion has moved beyond justification for remaining. Saddam was/is an evil leader and needed to be removed. He's gone, The Iraqis have "democracy" and no more summary executions...we need to get out now and let them sort it out. Either way in a few years their government is gonna crumble and be replaced w/ a radical muslim leadership that is anti-US.

That said, the declassified documents are proof that Saddam did have WMD's that he was not supposed to have and claimed not to have. The condition of the WMD's does not matter. it doesn't matter if the sarin was in poor condition and not as lethal as fresh out of the oven nerve gas, it was still in his possession when he claimed to have none.

So, how is invading a country to overthrow a leader who eventually will be replaced by anti-US leadership an improvement as far as our national security goes? I also have doubts that we've improved the overall situation for the Iraqis, given the tens of thousands of Iraqi casualties, lack of a stable water supply for many, health concerns, and educational inadequacies. See this link for more:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/i ... html/1.stm



You've already established that Saddham Hussein was evil. So, he was doing and had things going on that we did not approve, which is to be expected. But was he manufacturing WMDs? No. Was he connected to 9/11 and Al-Qaida? No. In fact, the invasion of Iraq improved ties between Iraqi insurgents and Al-Qaida. We would have done better for our national security by sticking to home and trying to improve things here.

Notice the documents were conveniently declassified when midterm election campaigns are firing up.

In a cost-benefit scale, it still isn't worth all the money we spent. I'm not going to believe for a minute that spending billions of dollars to find some hundred nonfunctionable weapons is some sort of achievement.

hi assholes you're missing the point of this thread and the article.

since the beginning of the war detractors have said there were no WMD's, at one point Bush even said the intelligence we received may have been incorrect but this proves that there were (and probably are still more) WMD's even though Saddam said he had none.

is this justification? who cares...that's not what this thread is about. start your own thread if (in the debate forum) you want to talk about that.

no, you're the one missing the point, along with all the rest of the imbeciles in the United States: Iraq was not manufacturing WMDs and was not an imminent threat to the US

really? Cause it looked to me like a thread title and a news link. That's free topic discussion on any matter.

*awaits bannedness*

Okay, so some 15+ year-old WMDs were found in Iraq. Wow. Mind-shattering stuff. That changes everything I've ever thought about Bush and his administration and the invasion/occupation of Iraq.

There, that wasn't debate...just extreme sarcasm.

Fox News was the only major media to give this story more than about 10sec. of air time.
Yea, it's cause they are fair and balanced. ROFL :P

exactly what I was thinking.

heh, rupert murdoch may be daddy to some, but not I.