[jla]

Although I can surmise as to why the Bush admin may wish to not dwell on this, (intel., disclosure of info., etc) and I'm not so gullible as to believe Saddam didn't have WMDs.
I'm also reluctant to jump up 'n down and shout, 'They had 'em. they had 'em! They moved 'em to Syria!', a/c of prev White House and Presidential admissions that these weapons weren't there and they were mistaken about them for various reasons.

All of this, in the grand scheme of things will matter only after GWB is well retired.
What matters now, I believe, is focusing on keeping the White House free of insidious pests...whether they be liberal, Democrat, or even Republican.

This is why I advocate a positive approach to the nomination and election of our President on '08. And a "positive approach" is defined as propagating the benefits of a conservative agenda and one who will wholeheartedly and sincerely carry that agenda out to the best of his/her means.

[Mia T]

I believe if you look at most recent comments coming from the WH, you will find that logic prevails, i.e., "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

The contrariwise argument concerning the failure to find Saddam's WMDs can only be pure demagoguery. (At some point, the WH succumbed to the leftist demagogues and their useful idiots in the press, but it has since reestablished its logical footing.)

Positive and negative approaches are not mutually exclusive. Why can't we both field a strong candidate AND expose the danger of the left? Indeed, I would argue that we must do both.