Replies

How hard is it for 'conservatives' to accept the fact that perhaps, just perhaps, the reasons given for the war weren't the actual reasons?

There were four reasons consistently given for going to war with Iraq:

Iraq's continued non-compliance with, and active material breach of, UN resolutions (a.k.a. cease fire conditions) which arguably cover the next three.
Iraq's continued WMD ambitions.
Iraq's ties to terrorism.
Iraq's contined human rights violations.

(remember Powell's presentation of 'facts'?)

Kay searched and found nothing more than rudimentary labs, if they could even be called that.

The "Bush lied" mantra concerning WMD in Iraq is a dangerous gamble. I'm convinced Saddam had WMD in 1991, when we were exposed to chemical weapons at Khamisiyah and elsewhere during cleanup ops.

I think he still had them in 1995, when Kamel defected providing proof of Iraq's deception and continued efforts in it's WMD programs. To be fair, Kamel said Iraq did not possess WMD in 1995. He also said it really was a baby milk factory we bombed in 1991 (and again in 1998) and there was no military significance to the air defense shelter we bombed.^{39, 40} But the documents on his chicken farm and the discovery by Dr.Diane Seaman on 25 September 1997^{41, 42} throw into question Kamel's denials of weapons. In addition, remarks by Khidhir Hamza contradicted Kamel's claims, and in return Kamel attacked Hamza's credibility in the UN transcript.

There was consensus through 1998, 2001 and 2002 by the world's intelligence agencies (including the CIA, Canadians and BND), within Congress (including Democrats) and from UNMOVIC that Iraq was pursuing WMD. Viewing Kay's recent and future findings in light of historical documentation of Iraqi WMD programs harldly makes me more skeptical that they were there.

How many more searches will it take?

As many needed until we have a definitive answer. I want to know the what, when and where answered - period. If everyone was wrong for so long on this issue, I really want to know that without equivocation.

There were four reasons consistently given for going to war with Iraq:

Not to the exclusion of the one you conveinently overlooked, namely "Regime change".

Iraq's continued non-compliance with, and active material breach of, UN resolutions (a.k.a. cease fire conditions) which arguably cover the next three. Iraq's continued WMD ambitions. Iraq's ties to terrorism. Iraq's contined human rights violations.

Going to war at the beheast of world government? Hmmm, very conservative. The rest are thus far unproven allegations and suspicions with the exception of human rights violations. Which were not against our citizens.

So when do we attack the other hundred countries that violate human rights?

I'm not saying Bush lied. But I am saying that some of his advisors did not have the best interests of this nation of states at the top of their lists. And I think Hussein may have had some sort of program back in 1991. But that was 12 years ago.

As for the reasons you listed as being given, one could easily argue that almost every Arabic nation there, some even considered 'allies' (i.e. Saudi Arabia), have not only been in support of terrorism in the past but are still supporting it. Are 'we' planning to go after them next? If not, why not? Human rights violations? I'm sorry but that's not even a reason. It may be an excuse to make the masses feel happy but it's not a reason

Now that's not the 'conservative' answer. How is it when this very request was broached before the war it was practically 'anti-American' to suggest such a plan? And now is any different? 'We' have access now where it wasn't allowed in the past and still no WMDs. On a side note, I see FoxNews hardly discusses WMDs anymore, why not? Now it's about building a democracy isn't it?