Weapons of Mass Destruction

What if the U.S. really found Weapons of Mass Destruction after the fall of Saddam? How would support for the war be different now? How would this have effected the 2008 election?
 
IMO, very little diffeance. THe war didn't really start t lose support until it flared up with the insurgency that lasted.

Without butterflying that away, there is no real change. THe various charges leveled against Bush would be slightly differant but other than that.

Now if the WMDs were actually used against US/Allied forces, then you get some major changes.

With major casualties from gas attacks, this supports the idea of Saddam as a regional villian that needed to be dealt with. Still, if insurgency flares up trends remain the same.

Now if the WMDs were used against civilian targets, in Isreal, without major retailiation, then significant changes. Possibly even a pro-war democratic canidate, Hillary? Hmm, with less pressure on Repubicans, Romney vs Hillary?
 
If Saddam had any usable chemical, bio or nuke weapons he would have used them. Lots of things would look different. (I have to say that if the monster of Bagdad had enough stuff to be a serious threat to anyone the chicken hawk in the White House would probably not have attacked)
 
If Saddam had any usable chemical, bio or nuke weapons he would have used them. Lots of things would look different. (I have to say that if the monster of Bagdad had enough stuff to be a serious threat to anyone the chicken hawk in the White House would probably not have attacked)

And I have to remind you that everyone thought he had WMDs when we went in. Hell, the frontline troops were in NBC gear!
 
And I have to remind you that everyone thought he had WMDs when we went in. Hell, the frontline troops were in NBC gear!

I assumed at the time that Saddam had something or other. However if he were thought to have had enough to be a serious threat I still query whether GW Bush would have taken the risk
 
Top