I think that is clearly wrong. This has been declassified. We said we knew of 550 sites of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq before we invaded--550 of them. Doesn't it stand to reason that these inspectors would go to those sites first to find the weapons of mass destruction? Isn't it revealing that they have come up with no evidence whatsoever? What a tremendous breakdown in intelligence gathering--that 550 suspected sites have now turned up to be virtually empty, with no evidence of weapons of mass destruction. How hard a stretch of the imagination is it to think Saddam Hussein, facing an invasion of forces from America and Great Britain, was very cautiously packing into vans all of the weapons of mass destruction and spiriting them out of his country? I don't think that stands to reason.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the lack of evidence for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq during a Senate debate.
Share
More from Dick Durbin
I secured $1 million in federal funding for Lurie Children’s to help create this community health clinic in Austin and now, that investment comes to life.
The lawmakers also emphasized that the Trump Administration’s definition of medical frailty far exceeds what is outlined in the law itself and creates additional onerous barriers for both patients and states.
Our state’s top-notch rail system keeps our economy moving while allowing Illinoisans to travel from Chicago to Carbondale.
Nominations hearings, like this one today, are an essential part of the Senate’s role in providing advice and consent on presidential nominees. This constitutional duty is a critical check on the Executive Branch. And it has never been…





