Charles Krauthammer: "we know he's got tons of weapons"

Syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer appears on the Bill O'Reilly show shortly before the 2003 invasion of Iraq and states the presence of WMDs in Iraq as fact.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Charles
• Krauthammer
• Bill
• O'Reilly
• Fox
• News
• Iraq
• War
• Weapons
• Mass
• Destruction

[mb4073]

He said weapons. Let's assume he meant nuclear weapons and was, as we now know, wrong. At the time, the evidence was heavily in favor of his view. The inspections were set up to fail by people under Hussein's influence. It's why the original inspector, a swede who's name I forget, wasn't approved- because he had a record of success while Hanz did not.

Either way, the ME has one less America-hating, genocidal megalomaniac in control of a heavily (if not nuclear) armed nation.

[jgestiot]

Nice attempt to rewrite history but it is not true. The evidence at the time was heavily against the fact that Iraq had any potent capability. See the book written by Scott Ritter before the invasion of iraq. It explains why Saddam Hussein could not have significant weapons. And the inspectors were succeeding. At the time the USA asked the weapons inspectors to get out of Iraq, they had found Al Sammoud missiles that had an illegal range and were in the process of destroying them.

[JohananRaatz]

Foreign Meddling is Good! watch?v=0HrJYI1QHa8

[TheMango121]

NO SHIT HE HAS WEAPONS

WE GAVE THEM TO HIM.

... Why is America so fucking dumb? If its not the stupid jesus rednecks, its the hippy liberal cunts.

[jefmered]

Lying Krauthammer. So typical

[khavarian]

socialist krauthammer and his communist benefactors

[pratinus]

@khavarian and someone who wants innocent people to be dowsed in an acid bath is not scum?

[khavarian]

this guy is scum of the earth, his family should be dowsed in an acid bath in front of his stupid look to experiment and witness whether or not he wipes that filth expression off his face. this guy is pure toilet.

[EasyEs]

I am Canadian buddy first of all. Second I am not cherry picking anything no nation follows international law to the T. I am not sure that every international law crafted by the UN should be followed. If and when the UN outlaws critics of religion are you going to follow that? If not does that make you the moral equal of Saddam?

The biggest difference is that these people were picked up on the battlefield and not a street in front of their home for the crime of slandering Bush.

[jgestiot]

Why not include all countries that have a record in aggressive behavior? You seem to be cherry picking to make sure thay your own country avoids being recognised as one which should not have nuclear weapons. America has behaved like a totalitarian regime as proved by the executive orders and the crafty avoidance of national and international law by the Bush Administration. It has murdered people, tortured, imprisoned people for years without trial. What is the difference?