Yes I did watch that video you posted, it is a collection of cherry picked statements to show a particular viewpoint.(kinda like what Michael Moore does in his films) How you can derive conclusions from that without watching each individual speech so that the context of each statement is known is beyond me.
Yes there was evidence to say Saddam had WMD's however just as important there was plenty of evidence to show he no longer had them.
Even you make the statement that there was conflicting evidence. This is my whole point, you can't know for sure when you look at
all of the evidence in and
objective way. Even in Hans Blix report that Viking posted, there are areas that Hans Blix admits:
The second reflection is that with relevant witnesses available
it becomes even more important to be able to conduct interviews
in modes and locations, which allow us to be confident that the
testimony is given without outside influence.
While the Iraqi side seems to have encouraged interviewees not to
request the presence of Iraqi officials (so-called minders) or
the taping of the interviews, conditions ensuring the absence of
undue influences are difficult to attain inside Iraq.
In this statement, HB shows us that there are positives concerning the interviews being done, yet there is still concern that those being interviewed aren't entirely free of
undue influences, which would make that testimony suspect.
However, even if the use of advanced technology could quantify
the amount of anthrax, said to be dumped at the site, the results
would still be open to interpretation.
More uncertainty. There is more in HB's report. There is also a lot of positive progress shown.
Several times in HB's report he mentions the phrase
unilaterally destroyed in 1991. How can they
know this is they if still need to verify this?
Obviously there is still doubt or the inspection team wouldn't have been there.
I think the proof has been put out there you just don't agree with it.
I don't agree that it is proof. Your video link for example for reasons stated previously in this post.
BTW it's funny that both Rice and Powell speaking for the administration both agreed Saddam didn't have the ability to produce WMD's even in early 2001.
The ability to produce is separate from still maintaining previous stockpiles of actual weapons and precursors. It is also separate from still storing manufacturing equipment so that it may be used later. Not saying Iraq did, just saying it's different.
Yet soon as they wanted to make the case for war.. they changed their minds.
Intelligence assessments change constantly as new information becomes available and is analyzed. Also, we get right back to the point that your video is nothing more than a collection of cherry picked sound bytes and without knowing the context these statements were made in basing conclusions off that video are not reasonable.
