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.
There were no WMD's in Iraq before the war....
Because of the war, all three of these things are now present. ...
I'm impressed!! Nice argument, particularly since I know you don't believe it and are just trying to state the putative Demo position. However:
There were no WMDs before the war, but they suddenly appeared after the war and after we destroyed their infrastructure?
I don't think so. Their argument still doesn't work. I agree with a previous poster that surmised that this was a leak by Rove to sucker in the Demos for a "one - two punch". Let the Demos confirm the WMDs, the imminent threat, and the terrorist connection. Even the NYT walked into it with the "set off nuclear bombs" comment. Once the Demos have agreed to that, their entire criticism of the war in Iraq evaporates.