[StringTheory]

Great read...

But what I don't get is why we conservatives are actually discussing the whole weapons of mass distruction issue. Bush said it himself. The Iraq war was not only to prevent Saddam from using his weapons. But this was also the next step in the war against terrorism. And if any liberal jackass tries to contradict you, just mention Saddams funding of the sucide bomber families... If that's not supporting terrorism... I don't know what is?

[Stuckathome]

Very true. The fact is, the anti war crowd are jumping all over this WMD issue because that is their only meal ticket now. The anti war crowd became very silent once they realized that the war effort went relatively smoothly, and now that the major fighting is over they are now jumping on the WMD bandwagon to 'save face.'

I have been debating this war on Iraq issue on another message board since last year, and all the anti war posters on the other site never mentioned WMD or lack of evidence thereof for their anti war stance. They protested the war mainly because it was an illegal "imperialistic" and aggresive action against an innocent Iraqi people. In fact, these anti war people were the very ones blathering about how the U.N. inspections were working and for Bush and company to give them more time.

The war on Iraq wasn't only about WMD, it was also about human rights violations in Iraq (one of the worst in the world) and the ongoing war against terrorism.

I'm sure the anti war crowd are going to be all over this new round of "evidence proving" that Powell and others had serious doubts about the WMD evidence. Of course these same hypocrites were the first ones to decry new found evidence of mobile weapons labs and whatnot, whining about not jumping to conclusions and so darned eager to discredit the source of the information.

It's a lose lose situation in my book.