1) The weapons could end up or have already ended up in the hands of a terrorist group;
2) The explosives might be used against our troops on the ground; and
3) The explosives could be used to carry out a deadly attack against America or our allies.
NEW REVELATION: Failure To Secure Iraqi Explosives May Mean that Powerful Explosives are in Hands of Terrorists
The sheer illogic of this is extraordinary. The argument by the MSM and Demos to date has been: 1) There were no WMDs or weapons in Iraq, 2) there was no imminent threat to the US, and 3) There was no terrorist connection between Iraq and terrorists.
Now they are saying: 1) There are weapons, 2) they pose an imminent threat to the US, and 3) they are linked to terrorists. Perhaps someone can explain this to me.
In addition... what would have been the case if we had never invaded?? Answer: the terrorists would have these explosives and a lot of other stuff too.
As other posters have observed, this essentially proves Bush's argument that there were WMDs and other weapons. It also proves an imminent threat. It also proves a terrorist connection.
I'll do my best. I'm beginning to understand DemoCrap, but my translation may be a bit strained:
There were no WMD's in Iraq before the war.
There was no imminent threat to the US before the war.
There was no link to terrorists before the war.
Because of the war, all three of these things are now present.
Democrat translation: We were safer with Saddam in power because he kept these things from happening, i.e. he was our ally.
Its not to difficult to imagine how they can believe Saddam was an ally when they believe that France is an ally.