[doug from upland]

Why can't the administration explain it like this?

[rhombus]

Why can't the administration explain it like this?

Well I have to admit that it was a little dull in reading but you are correct to point out that the administration did a very poor job of defending the "no WMD" charge that is now accepted as fact. I heard Tim Russert just this morning on Imus repeat the "no WMD" mantra.

[quantfive]

Great compilation of facts. Thank you!!!!!!

[yoe]

Thanks! Sent onto Hardball, Imus, Rush and Hannity.

[Peach]

Why can't the administration explain it like this?

A very good question. And why can't they explain that the Democrats KNEW that Al Qaeda was in Iraq in 2002. It's in the Iraq War Resolution that it is known that AQ is in Iraq.

[Mrs Zip]

ping

[SunkenCiv]

---

Saddam's Bombmaker by Khidhir Hamza with Jeff Stein

---

[SunkenCiv]

blast (ahem) from the past.

[Chena]

Excellent post, doug from upland. Thank you! I've never understood why these facts haven't been repeated again and again by our administration nor news outlets. Well, ok, I know why the MSM wouldn't report it, but there are some clear-thinking reporters and talking-heads that also do not get the news out there as they should.

BUMP!

[XJarhead]

I hesistate to write this, but what the hell....

Nobody disputed that Iraq had some banned materials. The question was whether they had undeclared stuff other than what had been inventoried, secured, and mark by U.N. inspectors. What the U.N. article is saying is that banned materials that had been securely stowed and marked in Iraq prior to war showed up after the war outside the country. The point being that during our invasion and for a period of time afterwards, those previously secured sites were no longer secure, and the stuff was stolen. But it wasn't stolen until after the invasion. In fact, that's one of the stories they use to say that the invasion made the spread of WMD's worse. I don't buy that spin, but the story really doesn't help us either.

Acknowledging that stuff was there is not the least bit inconsistent with the "we didn't find any WMD's" refrain, because that refrain wasn't referring to stuff U.N. had stored within Iraq.

I'm not speaking to any of the other links listed. Just the one that talks about "U.N. admits that Saddam had WMD". That's a flawed argument, and anyone who makes it somewhere off this site is going to have their lunch handed to them by a halfway intelligent liberal. Granted, such creatures are few and far between, but we shouldn't make flawed arguments anyway.