I guess I'm losing my memory

MANHATTAN, Kan. - The Senate Intelligence Committee's upcoming report on prewar assessments of Iraq "does not paint a flattering picture" of the nation's intelligence community, Republican Sen. Pat Roberts said Monday.

But Roberts, the committee's chairman, said the intelligence failure wasn't limited to the United States. Many nations — including France and Germany, which criticized the U.S. decision to act in Iraq without United Nations approval — believed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=533&e=2&u=/ap/20040504/ap_on_go_co/intelligence_committee_roberts

I just don't remember other countries beside the UK coming out and saying that they believed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. I think I'll try and google this.

all thought there would be wmd's and possibly saddam making more.

they didnt think saddam was a threa though. and they wanted the inspectors in to do the job. the inspectors werent able to go back in until bush had placed some troops in kuwait. and saddam was playing a game through out that time with the u.n. when he saw bush was meaning to come in, he started being more corroperative

now i am not a freeper, just putting out the walk up to all this

the lie there was a mushroom cloud was imminent, that they were close to nucluer. and that they had little ariel planes that could make it all the way to isreal to drop some of these wmd and chemical and biological weapons, and that he was connected to 9/11 and working with obl.

those are some of the out right lies to get to war. wmd werent threatening to the u.s. or even neighbors for most part

is that Rumsfeld had told them he had given WMD to Saddam during the Reagan years

I think the consensus now is that Saddam wanted the Iraqis and the neighboring countries to think he had weapons because that gave him power.

to all. cause without that power lol he was afraid of his people and other countries. or they said his people kept it away from him that he didnt have any. but then thinking, he sent in like 1600 pages or something outrages adn i think at that point he said he didnt have any, and no one believed him. what happens with liars.

reminding me of bushie boy.

toothless tiger. That's Tyrants101. But we had Hussein pretty well cornered and we could have inspected every square in of Iraq after the IWR. After that, we could have nailed him with a $.25 bullet and probably have worked with the Ba'athists to transition Iraq into a democracy.

But Bush chose to use our military to advance his personal economic and political agenda, instead of our national interests.

However they demanded proof - and got none (except a bad powerpoint slideshow).

Apparently the German intelligence service, BND, was almost sure that there were weapons.
The thing that makes the statement a little problematic, is that many of those "Iraq has WMDs" documents were leaked, apparently by German MPs - the German opposition was very "war? let's have one!", and it was election time.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/editorial/5142193.htm?1c

From Feb.3, 2003

Article says

Most Europeans remain skeptical about U.S. claims that Saddam presents a clear and present danger and wonder why a combination of deterrence and containment does not suffice. Washington and London have insisted that Baghdad has an extensive biological and chemical weapons program -- and Powell on Wednesday provided the most detailed and convincing evidence yet to try to back up those claims. The evidence included tape recordings of intercepted telephone calls and satellite photographs suggesting chemical weapons sites may have been sanitized before inspectors arrived.

But it will take some effort to convince many Europeans that America is not hyping the threat -- and especially that real ties with Al-Qaida exist. To illustrate: British intelligence services have leaked their assessment that, despite assertions by Bush and Blair, no such links exist.

On Thursday, many in Europe agreed with the French notion that the U.S. claims need to be verified, and that U.N. inspectors were the right people to accomplish that. Those European countries that have been most skeptical of the need for military action might yet change their position. But if they do so, it will likely be on the basis of the inspectors' next report -- on Friday -- and not the say-so of the United States.

As Javier Solana, the European Union's foreign-policy chief, has said: It will be very difficult for European governments to support a war without clear evidence, independently verified, that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction and is obstructing the inspection process.

All questions will be answered.

Edit: The "belief" that Hussein had WMD did not justify invasion, attempted assassination of Hussein, occupation, and attempted installation of a democratic* regime at the time Bush did it.

* Ruled by the US from within and afar with the threat of force, the US having all rights to oil and sucking money out of the American taxpayer and helpless Iraqis all along the way to funnel money to the Carlyle Group, Halliburton, etc., etc., ad nauseam.

:puke: