[Condor51]

I don't much care for Richard Perle - do to some of his 'nefarious' friends, but I wouldn't apologize either.

The WMDs were there. That's an indisputable fact (except to raving moon-bats). The problem is finding which sand hole in Syria they were stashed.

[SE Mom]

I don't think a lot of Perle either..however- I detest Gen. Clark:)

[NutCrackerBoy]

[Perle] disavowed any responsibility for his confident prewar assertions about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, heaping the blame instead an "appalling incompetence" at the CIA -Dana Milbank, Washington Post

The WMDs were there. That's an indisputable fact (except to raving moon-bats). The problem is finding which sand hole in Syria they were stashed.

It is hard to believe, in the light of events, that this debate still rages. It is stupid for this Rep. Walter B. Jones Jr.--a conservative Republican from North Carolina to be balancing the brave sacrifices of our armed forces against a failure to find WMDs. It's the War on Terror, man, get it through your thick skull. Certainly everyone believed the supposed WMDs made Saddam extra-dangerous, and everyone thought he had them. That there was terrible intelligence is true, and we don't really know what WMDs there were and what happend to them.

Saddam's regime and the whole region was dangerous. It was absolutely worth the United States' while to use military force to act decisively against the long-term threat from the Middle East and Islamic extremists. Part of strategy is to put the brakes on the unchecked oppressive regimes.

There is a long way to go, but these aggressive actions are reducing the threat. What is so hard to understand about that?