Replies

Why would you ignore the speech to the UN? Answer: Because it disproves your claim that this was the only reason we went to war.

Why the reason for the change then? If that was the reason, why make such a declarative statement on WMDs four months later to the citizens of the respective states?

Why would you disbelieve the transcript from the DoD, the Washington Post AND Vanity Fairs reporter himself, who is already "clarifying" and backtracking? Answer: Because you are desperate to believe that this is your ONE ISSUE which will prove Bush is bad.

So you're telling me that if the government is controlled by a party that one follows, all the sudden I'm supposed to give up skepticism and follow blindly? No questions asked? Patriotism and all that jazz? I have voted straight Republican ticket for close to 20 years and how much change have I seen? How much smaller has the government gotten? Perhaps you need to check into the history of the good folks over at the New American Century, which included many people currently sitting in positions of power, advising President Bush? I truly believe in my heart President Bush is a good man, I do without a doubt. However I'm going to have to hold that same praise for the men around him. Whatever you want to call this philosophy that has arisen over the past two years is in no way tied to what the Founding Fathers envisioned. And they had just as many threats as we do today. Different threats, but I'd say even more to an extent

We have found all sorts of items...mobile biological labs, mustard gas in old warheads, barrels of nuclear material, poson in the Euphrates, etc. etc.

Well traces of mustard gas in old warheads just doesn't do it. As for the nuclear materials, the barrels had already been recognized and tagged by the UN. Unless that is, you're going to doubt

Fox News

President Bush launched the war on March 20, in part, to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction.
Saddam Hussein's regime long insisted that Iraq had destroyed its unconventional weapons and programs years ago. U.N. weapons inspectors, who spent 3 months in Iraq just prior to the war, found no evidence to refute the Iraqi claims.
So far, U.S. weapons hunters have not uncovered any such weapons either, despite searches at more than 100 sites.
Barrels of processed uranium and several tons of natural uranium at Tuwaitha had been under IAEA monitoring before the war.

The Euphrates?

"This could be either some type of pesticide, because this was an agricultural compound," General Benjamin Freakly told the television network, adding: "On the other hand, it could be a chemical agent, not weaponised."
Later, as US troops defending the facility were seen shedding their protective gear, it became clear the chemicals were not what they were initially feared to be.

Are we to doubt generals now and other news sources to make the story plausible?

Apparently, you have some sort of vision in your mind of the Acme WMD plant with barrels stacked up labeled with a skull and crossbones and big "DANGER" signs. Sorry, that isn't how they were stored, and that isn't how they will be found.

Well, you give me a call when they are found. Never mind, I'd know. If they were, perhaps Fox would get off this Peterson trial and start covering the news again...