So, we've gone from "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat" and "We haven't been looking THAT long; I mean it is the size of California" to Oh $*!#, I guess they DIDN'T have any after all!

Now, before some helpful right wing poster copies and pastes pages and pages of Democrat quotes about WMDs, please be sure that all those quotes are dated AFTER the war started, like Rummy's quote above. Thanks in advance. Because after all, a statement from '98, '99, etc. isn't nearly as important as the one made when we were closing in on the WMDs and had them under surveillance, right?

Now, let's see the right try and this.

I can give you quotes from everyone this side of Mosel-Braun and Kucinich..


But what is in it for me Mr. Lefty/liar/liberal?

You will simply discount the statement.... BTW.. the Democratic debates were after the war and Kerry was a hawk for a while there before he flip-flopped....

BTW, I have ALREADY provided these quotes to mpotter from Kerry.... you can ask him...


*Unneccesary personal insult deleted*...

__________________
I was banned from godlike productions(over 400 times)... and loved it.

"I haven't made you angry, have I?" -Malcolm Reynolds

Well, I don't know......but Democrats including Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, and plenty of others SWORE THAT SADDAM HUSSEIN HAD WMD'S and was a THREAT. And they saw the exact same intelligence as the Bush administration did. That's why Bill Clinton bombed Iraq in late 1998. And that was way before George W. Bush even thought about coming onto the national political scene.

Unless you're going to tell me that Bill Clinton KNEW that what he was bombing in 1998 was NOT a wmd facility and KNEW there were no wmd's there.....then your comments ring a bit hollow. And if you do believe he knew it was bogus.....then can you please explain to me WHY he would have bombed them and those facilities? Was he just busting up some dirt with those multi-million dollars missiles?

__________________
"What exactly is this foreign policy experience?" Obama said mockingly of the New York senator. "Was she negotiating treaties? Was she handling crises? The answer is no."

so the republicans had to have perfect information from all the intelligence agencies before the war, but in your little universe, the democrats are only held to a standard which evaluates what they knew after the war...that makes perfect sense.

So, in other words, you can't post any from after the war began. Just as I thought.

Do you not see a difference between "I think Hussein might have WMDs" and "We know he has them & know where they are?" The Democrats wanted to get inspectors in to find out if our hunch was correct. Instead, Bush & Co. sent in thousands of American troops to bomb the crap out of Iraq and ask questions later. Hundreds of our troops DIED. Do you see a difference now? Probably not.

C'mon people. The clue train is leaving, and it's time to get on board.

Wow...those are some debate skills you have there.

I challenge the original poster to find anyone from any non Muslim nation, or any UN investigation, or anyone from the previous two administrations that said Iraq posed no threat to the US or world peace. Surely you can find one. But in the event you can't, (which you can't because it doesn't exist), then it would appear your little stack of cards just crumbled, doesn't it?

__________________
"Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival."
Winston Churchill

T-B

Your stuck in a time warp. For some reason, you and other lefties think that someone should have looked into their crystal ball and predicted what was or was not reality. The fact is, this administration provided you guys with your favorite punch line (there were no WMDs) .. thing is, you could NOT say it before he invaded Iraq and established that there were non, nor could anyone else. The invasion provided the truth, and for that you and yours (*)(*)(*)(*) it. The thing is, your type were content to sit on your asses and let Saddam erode away the sanctions that were imposed by the UN. You guys put your heads in the sand and deny what is truth. Saddam did have latent programs waiting for the Sanctions to lift (see the commission report), and with the help of you guy's best friends across the pond, that lifting was going to happen real soon. But thanks to Bush, it wont matter, as those latent programs will not be restarted.

It pisses me off that Bush doesn't stuff it down you guys throats. Yeah ..we went to war on intelligence that indicated that Iraq had WMDs. OK, they "are" not there, that doesn't make the original intelligence wrong at the time it was used, that only makes it wrong after the fact. And it is more than disingenuous of you guys to "after the fact" accuse him of "lying".

Deanster -

From the time Bush started pushing for war, I and most "lefties" were against that. We suspected Hussein had weapons, but weren't sure. We wanted more time for inspectors. That has never changed. Therefore, no crystal ball was needed, just common sense.

After we invaded, Rumsfeld said that he knew for sure (not suspected) there were weapons in and around Baghdad and Tikrit. That was a lie. Bush repeated that lie. It isn't disingenuous for me to point it out. Bush has nothing but more lies to shove down our throats. I'm going to make this easier:

Those of us who opposed this war from the beginning for the above reasons, were not un-American or traitors as we were once called, we were actually justified in that oppostion. Without concrete evidence of WMD, we never should have invaded.

Sinanju, calls him a moron. Yea, that is a great arguement. Your post said nothing but insults. Don't bother.

JP5 you are obsessed with Clinton. Clinton was applying pressure and bombing a factory in Sudan associated with OBL in retaliation for a terrorist attack is not the same as starting a war. The fact is that even though this administration claims 9/11 changed everything and that provides justification for invading Iraq, the truth is 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq and so even if you want to claim the intelligence is the same, then the actions are different. Clinton provided containment pressure which in hindsight worked extremely well. Bush went to war and killed tens of thousands leading to a F'ed up situation which we will be lucky to salvage. Same intelligence, different actions. One action worked and one hasn't and has cost many lives.

Pinniped. No, IMO what is important is what you do with that evidence. Democrats didn't make the mistake of going to war over it because it was strongly suspected. I strongly suspect Scott Peterson killed his wife, but is the evidence there to convict? The "evidence" presented to the public in hindsight has been shown that it was very sketchy, and not strong enought to declare war. But that did not stop Bush (Cheney). And the fact the whole plan was laid out long before 9/11 by the PNAC is certainly more discrediting to the Bush administration of their motives. They went to war to secure oil, establish middle east military bases and experiment with democratic nation building.

Barney-Fife. Please give me a list of all countries that pose a threat. Iran, N. Korea, Syria, Sudan, etc. So according to you, we need to go to war over and over and over if anyone is any threat. How you handle a threat can be other than sacraficing lives in a war. I don't think the right understands the horror of war and realize that is worse than a threat that can be contained.

PROOF does not disapear.

You need PROOF to go to war, not intellignece speculation. The standard for war is not such that hindsight can clear your vision and prove you wrong. PROOF is a higher standard. Others before Bush realized this difference and worked to contain the perceived threat and verify their facts with inspectors.

Bush went to war without PROOF. Or we would still have that proof. That is the difference the Republican voters fail to realize or fail to hold Bush accountable for.

Bush does not deserve re-election if his judgement is such that he believes he can kill thousands without proof. He went off on some kind of vigalante posse justice where he goes and hangs the wrong man. And he needs to be held accountable for it.