Here is a VERY interesting article that I urge you all to read. It gives points from both perspectives, that there were or were not WMD in Iraq. It certainly seems plausible to me.
Did Syria Receive Its Chemical Weapons from Saddam? - The Wire
Interrogation of Saddam Hussein - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaHussein denied repeated assertions by his interrogator of a current weapons of mass destruction capability in Iraq, yet had resisted U.N. weapons inspections because he "was more concerned about Iran discovering Iraq’s weaknesses and vulnerabilities than the repercussions of the United States for his refusal to allow U.N. inspectors back into Iraq," according to the reports.
Anyways, there is a LOT of circumstantial evidence that would lead one to believe that Saddam Hussein most definitely had WMD, IMO. And with the newest information about extra weapons reported in Syria's stockpile of chemical/WMD, what is one to think about that?
But seriously at some point, don't you wonder how many American lives is too many for a place that either can't or won't overcome their sectarian differences? Propping up this government only strengthens Iran's influence, and yet we're seeing that the other guys aren't so great either. So we should keep sending Americans to die to help Iran, is basically what you're saying.
Ronald Reagan is turning over in his grave.
“I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on what’s being proposed here, he’d agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute.” - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.