Hey CNN.. WTFU. There were NO Weapons.
Repeat after me.
There were NO Weapons.
There were NO Weapons.
There were NO Weapons.

Remember, if you cover up for this guy,
you get him for the next FOUR wars.
OOP's did I say Wars? , I meant wars.
- Chuck

Chuck,

if you build it they will come. As loathe as i am to point this out, i am wondering if the fourth estate (emphasis on estate) may bot be padding the Bush camp precisely because its more profitable to cover blood n guts than responsible political leadership.

It was all a lie...and its really unfortunately to think that many people STILL make excuses for him . The guy who doesn't have the character to admit a mistake.

Iraq was not just about WMDs. That was just one part of it. Most of us have been waiting since the early 1990s for someone to go after Saddam, after he did not keep his peace agreements with all of the UN resolutions. This article below is good enough for me. By the way, Israel is fixing to jump on Iran if the US does not do it first. Get ready Johanna for Iran or an Israeli/Iran conflict. Be thankful that you are sitting on top of the US.

http://www.wbap.com/list...70&PT=wbaptopstories

Report: Saddam Hoped to Revive Weapons Program

Top U.S. arms inspector Charles Duelfer reported Wednesday that Saddam had not lost his ambition to pursue weapons of mass destruction and hoped to revive his weapons program if U.N. sanctions were lifted.

Duelfer's findings come less than four weeks before an election in which the situation in Iraq has become the central issue.

In the report, Duelfer states he found no evidence that Iraq produced any weapons of mass destruction after 1991. He also concluded that Saddam Hussein's weapons capability weakened during a dozen years of U.N. sanctions before the U.S. invasion last year. Though he still had a nuclear program, the report claims its capabilities were deteriorating.

The report was inconclusive regarding Saddam's missing stockpiles of WMD, a portion of which were used during the Iran/Iraq war --- one 1988 attack killed over 5,000 Kurds in the town of Halabja. Hussein's unwillingness to account for WMD stockpiles, in large part, led to the invasion of Iraq.
"There was a risk, a real risk, that Saddam Hussein would pass weapons or materials or information to terrorist networks," Bush said in a campaign speech in Wilkes Barre, Pa., defending the decision to invade. "In the world after Sept. 11, that was a risk we could not afford to take."

Traveling in Africa, British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Wednesday that the report shows that Saddam was "doing his best" to get around the United Nations' sanctions.

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kan., said Duelfer showed Iraq's ability to produce weapons of mass destruction had degraded since 1998. But Roberts called the report inconclusive on what happened to weapons stockpiles Saddam is believed to have once possessed.

Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., said Wednesday that Duelfer's findings showed there is "no evidence whatsoever of the threats we were warned about." He spoke after Duelfer gave a closed-door briefing to the Committee.

The inspectors based their findings that Saddam hoped to reconstitute his programs on interviews with Saddam after his capture, as well as talks with other top Iraqi officials.

Traveling in Africa, British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Wednesday that the report shows that Saddam was "doing his best" to get around the United Nations' sanctions.

(Copyright 2004 WBAP. All rights reserved. The Associated Press contributed to this report.)

Paul,

You choose to ignore the fact that there were no WMD stocks. That Bush let Zarqawi's camp in N. Iraq go unmolested for more than a year to bolster his case to invade. That the sanctions weren't going to end b/c the US HOLDS A VETO in the UN Security Council.

Worst of all, you choose to ignore that not only did we become distracted from the war in Afghanistan (where the terrorists actually WERE), but now that we have to fix Iraq, we cannot repsond to ACTUAL threats to our security, such as N. Korea, Iran, and the crazy buildup of WMD stocks in Syria.

Seriously, just because Bush has a (R) next to his name doesn't mean he's right.

"[Saddam] had not lost his ambition to pursue weapons of mass destruction "

Are we forgetting the fact that there were several other nations that were FURTHER ALONG in their manufacture of WMDs at the time we initiated this war with Iraq? How can the public be expected to gloss over this fact?

North Korea was and continues to be a greater threat than Iraq in Spring 2003, so why are we not on the ground there? Oh, because we attacked the wrong target, for the wrong reasons at the wrong time.

It sickens me that Commander in Chief has led our country to war when he readily admits, "I know how hard war is. I see it on TV."

Paul,

Let me give you some advice i learned as a kid: hope in one hand and crap in the othber, see which one fills up first. You need to give up on this idea that this war was necessary or could possibly be legally and/or morally justified.

By any rational standard, Bush's good friends, our allies, the Saud regime is more of a clear and present danger than Iraq. iraq did not attack us and, in case you were perfectly unaware of this, since they had no weapons they were not in violation of a ceasefire. More importantly, in case you were too ignorant to figure it out, after having been told umpteen times, the authority to enforce UN Resolutions rests with the security council not Fredo Bush. If they choose not to enforce the resolutions tough. Its the decision of the body to which we are a member. i dont recall any right wingers wanting to flay Reagan alive when the World Court ordered the US to stop screwing around in Nicaragua or when Mr. Bush refuses to cede authority to the ICJ. No you righties love international bodies when you think they can be used to justify your absolutely ugly wars but when theres a chance of a little guy getting some nugget and possibly punishing someone who actually committed atrocities its the end of the world.