rob-
The problem is that WMD keeps changing definition.
you must not have read my entire post....go back and read my response to six. the definition of "wmd", as supplied by the u.n. in 1991 doesnt keep "changing", and the inclusion of checmical weapons in that definition is nothing new.
As far as chemical WMD, everybody knew that Iraq had them because we had sold it to them.
which ones exactly? and do you have some proof of this? again, see my response above to six. this is a common and fallacious argument tossed around ad nauseum with little or no backing.
BTW, where is the proof of the chemical weapons? For that matter, any sort of WMD?
when did i say there was new proof? im certainly not arguing that, nor have i ever been.
aa
