[Peach]

You know you are terribly inconsistent. Yesterday you *finally* admitted Iraq had WMD but they didn't constitute a threat.

It's terribly hard to argue convincingly they never had them considering how well it's been documented that Saddam used them at least 10 times in the 80's and 90's.

[billbears]

that Saddam used them at least 10 times in the 80's

Let me clearly state my point then. The administration of the 1980s didn't have a serious enough problem with Hussein's WMDs in the 1980s to declare war. Saddam Hussein presented no more of a threat than any other crazed dictator in the Middle East. That being said, there has been no evidence of 30,000 munitions or anything else Bush outlined in his speeches building up to the war. No ties to Al Qaeda and no ties to 9/11. In other words, no reason to invade and destroy Iraqi leadership other than human rights issues and to 'spread democracy', two reasons not even close to a point for declaration of war

[billbears]

Yesterday you *finally* admitted Iraq had WMD but they didn't constitute a threat.

And I never said otherwise. I freely admit they had them in the 1980s. That has always been my position. But for Bush to state the levels he did in his SOTU address was farcical

[alnick]

That reminds me of Wilson: Saddam doesn't have WMD and if we attack him, he'll use the WMD against us. LOL!