No, its people who don't know what they're talking about but continue to run their mouths anyway...When you can answer my questions reasonably then you would have an argument. Otherwise, you are simply another occupant of the Scott Ritter/John Kerry/Wesley Clark/MoveOn.org camp...
When the news that we had not found the weapons we went to war over came out I thought well it’s early yet. As time went on with nothing turning up I considered that perhaps they were destroyed after all but as I have no way of knowing I kept no set opinion. So I sat, watched and listened and pondered. As more and more time elapsed and we came up empty handed I was amazed that we would supposedly allow our credibility to take such a hit. If nothing else one would suspect at least for us to plant some so we could justify ourselves. There is however something else that has had me thinking all this time. On the surface of it not finding the WMD is a set back in light of world opinion but the war party is Machiavellian enough to deny the weapons exist even if they did and even if they did find them in Iraq. Since the war ended I've heard murmuring along the lines that Saddam shipped those weapons to Syria or Lebanon. Now I am hearing this line a bit more loudly. Coming up empty handed in Iraq could be a set up. When the time is right we find “proof” those weapons are in Syria and Viola! the war party has cause belie for phase two of “democratizing” the ME and they restore face. So in the end it really doesn’t matter if the weapons ever existed or not, whether they were destroyed or not as they can any ways and all ways be reason to further the agenda. If I were a betting man I might wager on this.
Another one for the "Non-response Hall-of-Fame"