If you and the Dems had bothered to listen to President Bush and Colin Powell and other administration officials, they never said that Iraq "had" WMD during the run-up to the war. They were citing the previously-acknowledged stockpiles, and also the fact that production facilities from the 1980s and '90s were still intact and seemed to be used for something which our satellites couldn't discern. Common sense says we could only assume they were being used as they had in the past. That is why, if you had bothered reading the congressional resolution that authorized the war, and many Dems signed off on, including Kerry and Edwards, Iraq had the "capacity to possess" WMD, not that they actually had them.
Why don't you go over to the thread called "Kay: Bush Was Right to Attack Iraq" which reads:
Critics of the Bush administration have seized on Iraq weapons hunter David Kay's pronouncement over the weekend that Baghdad didn''t have any WMDs immediately before the U.S. attacked last March.
But Tuesday morning Kay gave President Bush an full-fledged endorsement on his decision to go to war.
In an interview with NBC's "Today Show," Kay told host Matt Lauer that the U.S. decision to attack was "absolutely prudent."
"In fact," said Kay, "I think at the end of the inspection process, we'll paint a picture of Iraq that was far more dangerous than even we thought it was before the war."
Kay described Iraq's government as "a system collapsing."
"It was a country that had the capability in weapons of mass destruction areas, and ... terrorists, like ants to honey, were going after it."
Meanwhile, Saddam Hussein was "was putting more money into his nuclear program, he was pushing ahead his long-range missile program as hard as he could," Kay said.
Although Baghdad wasn't successful, Kay said Iraq "had the intent to acquire these weapons," adding that Saddam had "invested huge amounts of money" to do so.
The chief weapons hunter also debunked the notion that the White House pressured U.S. intelligence to exaggerate the Iraq threat.
"The tendency to say, well, it must have been pressure from the White House, is absolutely wrong," he told "Today."
Whether or not there are WMD in Iraq is not important. Every country involved said they did, some Dems said they did (during the Clinton years and also during 2002), they had them in the past and used them, and never accounted for the stockpiles they admitted to having. Also, with their concealment activities and cat-and-mouse games with UN inspectors in late-2002, we could only assume they were hiding something.
If you can find a quote from George Bush stating emphatically that Iraq was currently in possession of WMD and that is the sole reason he was leading us toward an invasion, I (and the desperate Dems) would really like to see it. Do you realize you are wrong, or do you actually think that you are different somehow from Dean, Kerry, Clark, and the rest of the empty suits? I used to work in the Intelligence Community, so I have an understanding of what is discussed regarding intelligence estimates, satellite photos, etc. You obviously lack that understanding.