54% of the American's believe in flying saucers and 52% think that armageddon is just around the corner. Both groups may be correct. Peace

So an increasing number of people are factually incorrect about the WMD issue. And you celebrate this? You think it's good for people to believe things that aren't true? That explains a lot.

so the downward trend in the presidents approval since 9/11 indicates what?

It is certainly going to be surprising to our leftwing friends who really believe that if you say something long and loud enough, it becomes true

Maybe this is also the reason that more American believe this now. Conservatives have been yelling that WMD were found since day 1 of the war. It took three plus years but maybe you have just yelled it long enough for some to actually believe you.

What has turned things around, in my view, has been our relentless defense of the truth on the subject

See, you even admit you have been yelling it often. Of course, you believe when you yell something over and over it is the truth and when liberals do it, it is a lie. Just more hypocrisy from Noonan. Nothing new there.

Of course I remember pointing you to a poll showing that a majority of Americans at one time believed Saddam was directly behind 9/11. You claimed I was lying and that no such poll existed. Of course you were lying, because I had already given you proof of the poll's existence. But that is a perfect case of conservatives yelling something often enough that the American public actually believed it when it was not true.

Why are you even harping on WMD anyway? That rationale for war is so 2002/2003. Get with the times Noonan.

I've always said to watch trends in polls

Really, I don't recall you ever saying this. There were trends in polls showing Bush's approval going down steadily since last year but you still say those polls are bogus. Hypocrite? Yes, once again.

This poll is compared to a similar poll taken in the past

I know you have read a lot of history Noonan, but maybe you should read about statistics before acting like an expert. Two polls make a trend? Two polls a year apart make a trend? Two polls taken on back to back days can have variances of twice the margin of error. In order to have a trend there needs to be much more consistent polling to eliminate statistical variances and it needs to happen on regular basis to estabilish a trend. Maybe this poll has been taken more often but you certainly provide no evidence of that.

So, Mark, who's this spoofing poofter who is calling itself "brokeback"? Check your IP's

Mark,

What is the point of this posting - to show that 50% of Americans are plain wrong about Iraq having WMDs?

if you say something long and loud enough, it becomes true.

You certainly seem to think so. Too bad the Bush Administration has given up the on the search and has basically admitted that no such weapons exist.

The Duelfer Report concluded that we were wrong about the weapons. Colin Powell himself admitted we were "dead wrong" about existing stockpiles.

So, Mark, if Bush's trillion dollar folly could not produce these weapons, then how do you know they exist?

My Goodness the moron brigade is out in full force today....lol. I cant wait till Nov when they have their ass handed to them again...I love it when the moonbats turn purple in the fall, its so colorful.

I see steve is still failing to be relevant...no suprise there. Peace MF.

My Goodness the moron brigade is out in full force today....lol. I cant wait till Nov when they have their ass handed to them again...I love it when the moonbats turn purple in the fall, its so colorful.

I see steve is still failing to be relevant...no suprise there. Peace MF.

Perhaps the reason people believe that WMD were in Iraq is because they actually were. The Iraqi general told us that the WMD were shipped to Syria. That will never be good enough for the moonbats but he was there and we were not.

For maf53, you should get your facts straight. Moonbats always cite the Duelfer report and say that we were wrong about the weapons. Perhaps you should actually read what Duelfer put in the report. He amended the report to include the idea that WMD had been moved to Syria and here is what he said when asked about it:

But on the question of Syria, Mr. Duelfer did not close the books. "ISG was unable to complete its investigation and is unable to rule out the possibility that WMD was evacuated to Syria before the war," Mr. Duelfer said in a report posted on the CIA's Web site Monday night.
He cited some evidence of a transfer. "Whether Syria received military items from Iraq for safekeeping or other reasons has yet to be determined," he said. "There was evidence of a discussion of possible WMD collaboration initiated by a Syrian security officer, and ISG received information about movement of material out of Iraq, including the possibility that WMD was involved. In the judgment of the working group, these reports were sufficiently credible to merit further investigation." Washington Times

Amazingly, moonbats will always beleive a bad thing about the US without a shred of evidence and will hang on to that idea for dear life but when evidence appears that supports us they do everything to refute it, or in the case of the MSM, ignore it.

I will now do my tone perfect impersonation of Steve as he is yet again presented with FACTS that clearly support the reality that he is a complete idiot...

and begin...

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

peace

Neocons are a funny bunch, dangerous, mean-spirited, corrupted and although professing to be Christian, not at all what Jesus had in mind. Yes, those neocons are a funny bunch, in a sad sort of way.

One point missed in all the noise from the left is the dynamic relationship between liberal talking points, the efforts of the MSM to sell the liberal talking pointes, and the polling that reflects the effectiveness of the liberal/MSM message.

The entire world knew that Saddam possessed and used WMD. He failed to account for all of the WMD following his defeat in the 1991 Gulf War. Coalition forces have found over 500 WMD munitions, tons of yellowcake, scores of 55 gallon drums filled with chemical weapons precusors, WMD testing facilities, and strains of bio weapons.

But the liberal/MSM mantra was that Saddam and Iraq never possessed WMD. This was screamed on the evening news, on the front pages, and on the Senate floor day after day after day. After months of a constant barrage of false reporting about the WMD, 65% of those polled believed that Saddam never had WMD, even though it was a proven fact that he did possess them. Proof of the impact the MSM can have on the beliefs of those polled. Now that a trickle of news has come out that 500 WMD munitions have been found, the percentage drops to 50%.

Now, if the MSM had told the public the facts, not the liberal talking points, that Saddam had WMD, had used WMD, had never completely accounted for all of his WMD, and that we have found considerable quantities of WMD, what percentage of those polled would believe be possessed WMD? 65%? 75%? Everyone but the rabid Bush-haters?

The point is that the liberals and their willing accomplices in the MSM are effectively using their numerical superiority in news outlets to sway the public opinion in their favor, regardless of the truth. If they were honest brokers (which is impossible) and gave us the facts, not their opinion, the polling numbers would be drastically different.

The liberals, the MSM, and the pollsters are a self-fulfilling prophecy. The liberals develop their talking points and agenda, the MSM parrots the talking points ad nauseum, the pollsters then develop and conduct their polls to support the liberal talking points, then the MSM makes news of the fact that the polls bear out what the libs and the MSM have been feeding the public.

A better motto for the NYT would be: "All the news that fits our agenda", rather than; "All the news that's fit to print".

GOP4ME, And he was wrong with his statistics. But don't worry, he's not reading this. He made his one post. He's a drive-by blogger.

Neocons are a funny bunch...

Whereas Canucks are just worthless piles of steaming moose dung.

Slaw said - "so the downward trend in the presidents approval since 9/11 indicates what?"

I guess not much - since he's been reelected since 9/11.

And CO - Neocons are mean spirited? Don't you read the liberal posts here? They are pretty much pure hate. Only two regular liberal posters have renounced violence against Republicans. TWO. And you are not one of them.

A majority of people could say that Iraq had a legion of steel-plated unicorns or that Saddaam ate shit sandwiches for lunch, and those probably aren't true. The opinions of the majority (or half) don't necessarily reflect the truth.

I'm not saying that there were or weren't WMD in Iraq; I'm just saying that an opinion poll isn't the best place to research on facts that are independent of the respondant's opinions.

Haha, "only 2 left bloggers have renouced violence against republicans." You guys are totally insane. My dream is that you all join the christian brigades to defend the holy land and maybe you guys will just die off. It's an odd problem, to be living with people who can't tolerate anyone being different with them, it forces you to wish they would just go away, since they won't stop bitching and trying to tell you the right way to live.

I don't remeber seeing this on CBS...

http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,106799,00.html

Kahn, I was only stating that his poll numbers have been falling since 9/11. Using Mark's arguments the "trend" is he is not liked. I'm glad you guys are happy that republicans win elections. Winning elections is politics. Politics is not the same as running a country. I have worked with many a moron who was great at interviewing for a job... doesn't mean they were worth a damn once they got it. There is a difference.

Now, election winning aside... I'll restate my question which is right in line with Mark's point of view.

The downward "trend" of the president's poll numbers indicate what?

They found weapons in Iraq...Wow! Didn't see this news on Fox either.

CO says
"Neocons are a funny bunch, dangerous, mean-spirited, corrupted and although professing to be Christian, not at all what Jesus had in mind."

I'm agnostic so your wrong again.

Dangerous..you bet..I'll fight to protect what I hold dear instead of rolling over with my ass in the air like you would.

Mean-Spirited..not really just fed up with naive, ignorant, moralistic assholes like you that lack the basics of critical thought.

Funny Bunch...I hope so. My friends and I are always having a real good laugh at Dims stupidity.

"Yes, those neocons are a funny bunch, in a sad sort of way."

You libs arent funny, just sad in all sorts of ways.

Speaking of UFO's, Steve, what's the name of the planet you live on?

That many people still think that Iraq had WMD is hardly reason for celebration -- unless you are a propagandist for the far right.
What it really demonstrates is what a pathetic job the media has done on this issue -- or how uniformed too many Americans are.
Even the administration immediately renounced the comments made by Rep. Peter Hoekstra at Santorum's little dog and pony show -- you really can fool some of the people all of the time, it seems.
I'm not sure exactly where this, "violence against Republicans" comes from. I don't recall any threats of violence on this site except from defenders of the administration. Those who renounce violence certainly don't need to post that on every website they visit -- besides, how violent can one get with a mouse?
Ridiculous.

Ridiculous.

Yes, I agree that you are that. Yhanks for your "thoughts" on the subject, I hope you retained enough mental capacity to like, breathe, yo.

Mark, Maybe the reason for the poll results is that this poll might have been weighed fairly. The normal MSM poll is weighed 80 pecent dem, 10 percent Republican and 10 percent "independents from NYC".

Now the Democratic/Zionist politicians(Schumer,Lieberman,Dorgan and others) want Maliki censored because his opinion is different then theirs on Israel's role in the Lebanon debacle. AIPAC is at it again. Peace

*Sigh*

Another poll? More talking over polls? Sheesh, when will it end?

Thing is those who believe that what weapons were found don't "count" as WMD's will still say there weren't any. Those who believe that weapons were moved will believe that as well. It doesn't really matter anymore.

Good thinking Gozer

Georgia, Sees, Brokeback, etc...

The poll shows that 50% of the American people now know the truth about Saddams WMD programs...we're working on the other half. Plain and simple, it used to be that a majority DIDN'T think Saddam has WMDs...

I don't know about you, but 500 artillery rounds filled with mustard and sarin gas tends to constitute WMDs...you can blow all the smoke you want about it, but the plain fact of the matter is that Saddam had them, didn't admit it, hid them, and was thus in violation of the 1991 cease fire as well as all those UN resolutions.

"I'm agnostic so your (you're) wrong again."

ZootAllure

Jeremiah will be devasted to hear that. He is under the impression that all loyal supporters of his idol Bush have accepted Jesus Christ as their personal savior.

To have a non-believer among the ranks, well, that's just not right. Jeremiah, you better get out your bible and start reciting those scriptures for your fellow comrade, Zoot.

Think those weapons don't exist? They'll resurface when Syria can figure out how to get them to hezbollah.

"I don't know about you, but 500 artillery rounds filled with mustard and sarin gas tends to constitute WMDs...you can blow all the smoke you want about it, but the plain fact of the matter is that Saddam had them, didn't admit it, hid them, and was thus in violation of the 1991 cease fire as well as all those UN resolutions."

If you had known, before the war, that Saddam had 500 (old, decrepit) artillery rounds lying around, and nothing else, would you still have wanted to invade Iraq? No, this is not a rhetorical question. I'd really like to know.

or how uniformed too many Americans are.

Uniformed? See, folks, the left hates the military...

Iraqi talks of WMD being moved to Syria...document translated

Here's the link released today

Iraqi talks of WMD being moved to Syria...document translated

Here's the link released today

Iraqi talks of WMD being moved to Syria...document translated

Here's the link released today

If we had known where those 500 shells were exactly then the inspectors would have removed them wouldn't they? That was the biggest problem with having "stockpiles." We knew he had "something" just not how much, what kind, or where.

It's kind of like saying, "I've got a gun in my pocket." Do you know what kind? Do you know which pocket? Do you care or will you act as if I have a gun in my pocket? Does it really matter that it's a black powder revolver? Last time I checked a black powder revovler can still kill people, even though it's old.

Sorry, I didn't answer the question directly. If I knew he "only" had 500 artillery shells then no I wouldn't have gone to war. I would have had him give up all 500 and confirm it. Biggest problem was he didn't do that.

"Sorry, I didn't answer the question directly. If I knew he "only" had 500 artillery shells then no I wouldn't have gone to war. I would have had him give up all 500 and confirm it. Biggest problem was he didn't do that."

This I understand. I would guess most people feel the same way you do. My point is that finding this minor cache of decrepit WMDs does not miraculously justify our invasion.

A mistake was made. Now we're in Iraq and we have to figure out the best way to deal with it. Different people have different views on what we should do. So don't come along saying, "See! We really did find them! Honest!" It's over. Let's move on and figure out how the hell we're going to get out of there.

See, that's where we differ slightly. I don't think it was a mistake. Just because they're old doesn't mean they're any less WMD. Just like in my example if an officer were to arrest me for saying I have a gun in my pocket and it turned out all I had was a black powder pistol it wasn't a "mistake" just because it wasn't brand new.

Wyckyd,

Given that WMD were only one of many reasons for liberating Iraq then, yes, even if Saddam had only the 500 rounds most recently noted (there is a lot more to his WMD progams, as we here at B4B have detailed over the past three years) I would still have advocated the liberation of Iraq.

Liberating Iraq was the most vital thing of the War on Terrorism - more important, in my view, than toppling the Taliban and going after al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. I won't go over the full explanation why, because if you don't agree with such a statement at this point, you likely never will...but, as for me, the whole WMD issue was always and only a sop to Tony Blair in his attempts to get UN backing for the liberation of Iraq. Given my 'druthers, I'd have barely mentioned WMD and concentrated far more on Saddam's ties to international terrorist groups.

Wyk,

Oh, and as an aside, the goal isn't to "get out of there" but to ensure the survival of a viable Iraqi democracy...my estimate is that we'll be able to start major troop withdrawals rather soon, even given the fact that we are now about to pour troops in to Baghdad in order to bury the terrorists by sheer weight of numbers. Say by September, we should get some official announcements on the subject.

Victory, though, is the goal - and if that takes years more, then years more we will have to take...

Gozer,

Your analogy is moot.

The gun in your pocket had its hammer removed, and the powder was wet; It would have been more useful to bludgeon someone to death with, than try to shoot them.

The "WMD" that you think they found was nothing more than hold-over munitions from '91, who knows where they came from. These degraded shells are far from a reconstituted CW, BW, or nuclear programs which we were assured were hiding under every rock. Quit trying to rewrite history, and find us some mobile weapons labs or something.

Your analogy is moot.

Nah, its you who has become moot, troll. Get lost.

The Blind One,

"find us some mobile weapons labs"

We have. You choose to believe the story they were used to generate hydrogen for weather balloons. Wouldn't it be 1000% easier to fill weather balloons with non-flammable helium (as is done everywhere else in the world) dispensed from helium gas canisters, than to construct a complicated trailer, that could also be used to ferment bio-weapons?

Since you have an answer for everything, suppose you tell us what happened to the 600 metric tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, VX and sarin, and the nearly 25,000 rockets and 15,000 artillery shells, with chemical agents, that UNSCOM has reported that Iraq produced and that are still unaccounted for. Or the 17 tons of growth media for Bio-WMD agents are not accounted for - enough to produce more than three times the amount of anthrax Iraq admits it had. Or the operational SCUD-type missiles with chemical and biological warheads. Critical missile components, warheads, and propellant that are still not accounted for. Or the 4,000 tons of CW precursors that are not accounted for. Or the 600 tons of VX precursors that are also not accounted for. These could make 200 tons of VX. One drop is enough to kill. 200 tons could wipe out the world's population. Oh, by the way, the above concerns were not made by me, or any other "Bush-lover", they were voiced by UNSCOM - you know the United Nations Special Commission responsible for the inspections.

So Saddam had enough VX precursors to wipe out the earth's population, enough BW growth medium to produce enough anthrax to infect most of the earth's population, and unknown quantities of other CW and BW precursors and weapons. And you still Saddam didn't pose a WMD threat?

Mark,
Trust me -- you don't have years -- you have until November.
When real congressional investigations (with administration officials testifying under oath) start in January and the lies and malpractice that got us into Mr. Bush's fiasco are exposed; it will be fairly difficult for a lot of Republicans to get (re)elected in 2008.
As I'm sure you're aware, the Decider's poll numbers are once again dropping and I expect the trend to continue as folks see how the old gang handles this new disaster in Lebanon -- can anyone look on Condi's "peace mission" to prevent an immediate cease fire as anything but a doublespeak farce?
Impeachment -- coming to a White House near you!

A-10,

Can you tell me where these large quantities of products went to, and if they are in the hands of terrorists why they haven't been used in 5 years, since they would be disintegrating as we speak?

Your "conspiracy theory" is just that. There are a few facts: whatever it was that we were going in to find, was not there, and according to the two reports filed, hadn't been there since '91...and surprise, surprise, the UN weapon's inspectors said the same thing.

Saddam was being fed truck-loads of BS by his people, for instance the line about viable nuclear systems...pure BS. What makes you think that the reports weren't being fudged to get more federal money, and thus more to skim off the top by scientists stuck in a socialist pay system?

Impeachment -- coming to a White House near you!

Tell you what,,,hold your breath. Please.

The Blind One,

Try answering a straightforward question for once, rather than answering a question with a question. I gave you proof of "some mobile weapons labs". What's your answer?

Actually, I asked you where they went. Again, try answering a straightforward question for once, rather than answering a question with a question.

I never said that they were in the hands of terrorists, just that they are not accounted for.

They may have been destroyed. They may have been burried in the desert. They may have been moved out of Iraq. We need to find out.

I don't believe I've outlined a "conspiracy theory". I merely listed the facts that UNSCOM reported. Funny how their reports differs from your "proof" that "[WMD] hadn't been there since '91". Funny that 500 chemical munitions, yellowcake, drums filled with CW precursors, strains of BW, and scores of other prohibited resources have been found. Far cry from "[WMD] hadn't been there since '91".

In the meanwhile, instituting regime change in Iraq was the right thing to do: To enforce the UN Resolutions that Saddam was in Material Breach; to free 25,000,000 from tyrany; to ensure Saddam would never again use WMD on his own people or his enemies; to ensure that Saddam would never provide WMD to terrorists; to liberate Iraq as was the official US policy since 1998.

A-10,

Weapons labs: Didn't know by calling them that, you made it true, mind quoting me where the government asserts they are what you claim them to be, instead of the labs that everyone else said they were. Nevermind, here is the story about it, and when the final report ever gets released, then you will have your "official story"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/11/AR2006041101888_pf.html

If they weren't accounted for, then how do you know they existed, the numbers UNSCOM used were from Saddam's own audits, if he THOUGHT he had them, then so did UNSCOM, the proof-is-in-the-pudding...and this pudding is quite lacking.

"Funny that 500 chemical munitions, yellowcake, drums filled with CW precursors, strains of BW, and scores of other prohibited resources have been found"

--Munitions which the CIA said where '91 era, CW precursors which are also the same precursors for pesticides.

"“After more than 18 months, the WMD investigation and debriefing of the WMD-related detainees has been exhausted,” wrote Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group, in an addendum to the final report he issued last fall.

“As matters now stand, the WMD investigation has gone as far as feasible.”"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313/

What else do you want, man, if the biggest cheerleaders on the planet say they can't find em, and that they probably weren't there, who else are you going to quote?

Blind One,

"Munitions which the CIA said where '91 era, CW precursors which are also the same precursors for pesticides."

Who cares if they were '91 era WMD. They still had the capacity to kill. All you liberals claimed, with 100% assurance, that "Iraq possesses NO WMD". Yet here we have over 500 WMD munitions. You were wrong. There were still WMD in Iraq when we liberated Iraq.

Yes, the precursors for WMD are also precursors for pesticides. But they were prohibitied. And why were they being stored in 55 gallon drums at ammo dumps? Did Saddam have a huge insect problem at his ammo dumps? Give me a break. Be honest (if that's possible). They were there as precusors for chemical weapons.

In the liberal, virtual world, if a regime, who had possessed and used WMD in the past, has a dual-use trailer, you immediately assume it is for the innocent use, even if that "innocent" use is ridiculous. Hydrogen is explosive. Helium is not.

Those of us that are serious about our national security, see a sophisticated trailer that could easily be used to ferment BW and take the cautious route and draw the conclusion that it is probably a mobile weapons lab.

Since it is capable of dual-use, I'll split the difference with you: It was used to generate hydrogen for weather balloons (one use). But it was also used to ferment biological weapons (the other use). Sorry, you lose.

"What else do you want, man, if the biggest cheerleaders on the planet say they can't find em, and that they probably weren't there, who else are you going to quote?"

Maybe the folks that found the 500+ chemical munitions. Obviously, the Iraq Survey Group didn't do a very good job of searching for the WMD. Were you aware that Iraq had 1,000's of weapons dumps? That some of them still haven't been thoroughly searched? That WMD are still being discovered? Just because the ISG didn't find them, doesn't mean they weren't there. The 500+ chemical munitions are proof.

You realize of course (actually, you probably don't), that the mission of the UN Inspectors was not to seek out the WMD, but the certify the disclosure and destruction of Iraq's WMD. If the Iraqi's don't disclose or provide the documentation that they were destroyed, the UN Inspectors can't do their job.

It seems to me that you are convinced that Saddam did not possess any WMD (the Iranians and the Kurds would disagree). You believe that the WMD scientists were fooling Saddam about the extent of Iraq's WMD programs. If so, how do you explain the thousand's of dead Iranians and Kurds, killed by Iraqi chemical munitions? How do you explain the 500+ munitions that, according to you, never existed? As I said before, who cares if they were old. They were still deadly. They were not supposed to exist. Again, you lose the argument.

2/3 of Americans have caught on to Saddam's strong links to al Qaeda as well, despite the noble efforts of the media/left to distort the story on this.

More on this topic is available at www.regimeofterror.com

Forgive me, I'm catching up here and haven't read all of the comments on this thread. But unless this thread is somehow different than so many others in the past, I'm guessing this question hasn't been asked. I didn't ask it before because I thought it was a dead issue. But now it is resurfacing. And I say this knowing full well that I am likely to be labeled as a "moonbat" for no other reason than it goes against the party line. Be that as it may, I just ask that you pay attention to the logic involved, not the label or the ideology. So here goes...

Big Dog: "Perhaps the reason people believe that WMD were in Iraq is because they actually were. The Iraqi general told us that the WMD were shipped to Syria."

Apart from my skepticism concerning whether it is wise to trust one particular Iraqi general in isolation (especially without knowing what his motivations were or whether it is reasonable to suspect that he should have known what he claimed he knew), doesn't the very possibility that the WMD were shipped to Syria weaken rather than strengthen the very rationale for the invasion -- or at least the strategy chosen? I mean for goodness sake, the argument was that we needed to go to war to PREVENTthe dissemination of WMD. If you really believe that the result was to PROMOTE it, isn't that kind of a problem? I believe it was as early as July of 2003 that Rumsfeld first allowed that the WMD they were so sure were there weren't where they thought they would find them. At which point he first floated the possibility that may they were spirited out of the country. And I remember thinking... WHAT!!?? HOW IS THAT BETTER?! You can't be serious!

Ricorun,

If we wouldn't have spent 12 months during our "Rush to war" debating the issue and going back to the UN for additional Resolutions, we might have gone into Iraq and found the stockpiles of WMD that he previously possessed. He had pleanty of warning and time to dispurse, hide, or spirit them out of the country. There are recent reports that an agreement to move the WMD to Syria existed. Why is the left's hatred of President Bush so great that you cannot accept such a possibility?

The rationale to move against Iraq remains the same, as I listed above, and as Congress enumerated in their Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 and the 2002 Authorization for the Use of Armed Forces against Iraq. The possession of WMD was one of many reasons.

Also a key reason was Saddam's ties to world-wide terrorism and the possibility that he might provide terrorist groups with Bio or Chem wepaons. The fact that he had shipped the WMD to Syria, or buried them in the desert, or destroyed them does not negate the fact that the technology, resources, and programs still existed to reconstitute his WMD programs as soon as the UN Sanctions were lifted. The recently translated Iraqi documents confirm this.

Liberals need to look at the big picture. Saddam harbored, trained, and financed terrorism. He had and had used WMD against Iran and the Kurds. He was committing acts of war against the US and UK by firing at the aircraft patrolling the "No-Fly Zone". He attempted to assassinate a former US President. He was in violation of the UN Ceasefire and 17 UN Resolutions. He was skimming billions off the Oil-for-Food program and paying bribes to the French, Germans, and Russians to prevent a Security Council Resolution requiring an invasion of Iraq. His diversion of these billions, meant for food and medicine for his people, resulted in tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of needless deaths. He had murdered 30,000 to 50,000 Iraqis each year of his reign. He had no intention of abiding with the UN mandates. There was no dictator or country on Earth that was under the same sanctions and had the same circumstances as Saddam's Iraq. It was a unique case. Iraq is the front line in the Global War on Terror. Once Iraq is stabilized, we can use it as a stepping stone to influence other nations in the ME to disavow terrorism.

I find it beyond belief that liberals do not see that it was a good thing to remove Saddam from power. Is it only because the source of all of your hatred - President Bush - acted when other politicians placated, that you are opposed to the liberation of Iraq? Would you have opposed it if President Clinton had interceeded in Iraq instead of Kosovo? If your answer is yes, then step aside and let the adults handle the threat of terrorism. If your answer is no, then either support our efforts in Iraq and elsewhere to fight terrorism, or STFU.

Mark: "Given my 'druthers, I'd have barely mentioned WMD and concentrated far more on Saddam's ties to international terrorist groups."

Well, without the former the latter wouldn't have made much of a case. In fact, BOTH arguments were necessary in order to spin any kind of a case that Saddam was an immediate threat (as opposed to "just" a dangerously persistent one). And IMHO, the latter case was even weaker than the former at the time of the invasion. So better stick with the "democracy" theme (which hasn't turned out so well so far either) and/or the "bracketing Iran's influence" theme -- which I think is a very important one, but one which is largely dependent upon real success in both Afghanistan and Iraq. To the extent that one or the other fails (and particularly Iraq), we will have done more damage than good, IMHO. And that is very much why I am so freakin' angry at how things have gone in Iraq, and why I think the heads of those who got us into this mess should roll (I mean that figuratively, not literally). It has been mistake piled upon mistake, and now the whole region is in jeopardy. It's not just the question of "will we eventually win in Iraq?" that's important, the question, "how soon?" is equally important. Recent developments in other areas (particularly in the ME, but other places as well) make it clear that the longer it takes the weaker our overall position is when it comes to influencing world affairs. I don't know where the tipping point is, but it most definitely appears to me that we currently aren't on the positive slope approaching it -- again, IMHO.

Gozer: "Just because they're old doesn't mean they're any less WMD."

Let me ask you Gozer, just because a vial of insulin is 15 years old, does that make it any less effective? For that matter, would you even use 15 year old paint to paint your house -- especially if it was buried in your backyard in Needles all that time?

Well, I suppose it's possible. But then the obvious question is... why? Maybe disbursing them or hiding them makes a certain amount sense if he planned on using them in the event of an invasion. But if that's the case, then apparently he hid them too well, because when it came down to crunch time they weren't there to use. Nor has anyone used them since. That's kind of the bottom line there, don't you think? The terrorist don't seem to have them. No one seems to have them. What's everyone waiting for? Getting out of jail or something? What are the chances of that? It doesn't make any sense. Those things deteriorate over time.

As far as spiriting them out of the country goes, why on earth would he do that? Perhaps you can come up with an answer, because it makes no sense at all to me. Do you really think whoever got them would give them back? Yeah, like Iran did with his fighter planes. But even assuming he would do something so apparently stupid, why would he do it months ahead of time rather than at the very last minute? To keep them out of the hands of the inspectors maybe? If he made the decision not to keep them around until an invasion was inevitable, then why not just give them to the inspectors? It seems to me that by doing so he may have prevented an invasion. By doing something other than that he pretty much guaranteed he was going to be invaded. So again, it doesn't make sense.

I suppose I could argue a few of your other points, but I agree with the general thrust of your argument. In other words, you don't need to convince me that there were good reasons to get rid of Saddam. My issue was timing, and nothing you said argues against my contention. I think we had time to work on the dude with very little risk in the interrim. I am not at all convinced that had we waited a while we could not have obtained some sort of international sanction for our actions -- either through the UN or NATO or both. Had we done that I think we would have been in much better shape for the eventual occupation. I thought so then and I definitely think so now. And even if you don't think waiting would have helped in that regard, there were other ways it could have helped as well. And there was precious little in the way of a down side. I don't know if that makes me liberal, nor do I care. Either way, I think it would have been a better strategy.

You stress the big picture. I agree. The big picture suggests to me that the longer it takes to pacify Iraq the worse shape we're going to be in in all sorts of other places. North Korea is a growing problem, Iran is beating their chest, Lebanon is in flames, Syria is becoming more unstable, and Somalia is developing into the same kind of hell hole that Afghanistan was -- which isn't to say Afghanistan isn't still something of a hell hole. And also, Pakistan is one well-placed bullet away from crisis. If Musharraf's luck doesn't hold out, heaven knows what will happen there. But I'm guessing it won't be good. Those are some of the things that concern me about the big picture.

I think we had time to work on the dude with very little risk in the interrim.

Do you think that with the sanctions on Iraq (including the no-fly zones) about to expire and with Russia and others saying at the UN that they would veto and extensions of the sanctions that this fact might have affected the timing? In particular, do you know why the no-fly zones were in place? They were there in the northern and southern parts of Iraq because Saddam was using his military aircraft to attack the Kurds in the North and the Shiites in the South. They were there to save hundreds of thousands of lives - inside Iraq from Saddam's murderous ways.

Had the sanctions been allowed to expire which was inevitable given the situation at the UN, Saddam's oil production would have skyrocketed and the billions his oil would have brought in would go straight into his pocket. I'm pretty sure he would have used them for purposes other than feeding his starving people - Oil For Food proved that. His WMD programs would have gotten a whole new life as well, with piles of money to spend on them and supporters like Russia more than willing to supply him with the know-how and raw materials once the sanctions were lifted.

But the immediate danger of the sanctions expiring were to his own citizens - millions of them - that he would have started systematically slaughtered once he could get out from under the sanctions and the no-fly enforcement. He had already demonstrated that by the drastic actions he took to destroy the environment and culture of the marsh Arabs to force them to leave the marshes. In the first Gulf War, he torched his own oil wells, creating a major ecological disaster. He dumped oil into the sea, killing billions of sea creatures. He gassed his own citizens in large numbers - not to mention the Iranians he used nerve and mustard gas on in their fight. And most telling of all, in the first Gulf War, as soon as he felt like he was losing, he fired missiles that hit in Israel - a country that was not even in the fight. My guess is that he didn't tip them with WMD material because Israel would likely have nuked Baghdad if he did.

But the expiring sanctions were by far the most pressing issue and the major reason for the timing. The media and the opposition have downplayed this in favor of the "No WMD" chants and they do it because they feel it damages Bush. But spend a little time over at the blog Captain's Quarters where the good Captain is publishing the translated captured Iraqi documents one-by-one. You can quickly see that WMDs were on Saddams mind and in his inventory before this war.

Scaramonga: "Do you think that with the sanctions on Iraq (including the no-fly zones) about to expire and with Russia and others saying at the UN that they would veto and extensions of the sanctions that this fact might have affected the timing?"

If you are talking about the situation just prior to the invasion in March 2003, no one was talking about lifting sanctions. The controversy then was whether to (a) ramp up on the weapons inspections, or (b) pass an authorization for the use of force. Even Blair and Powell were in favor of (a). In your post you're basically talking about the pre-9/11 scenario, not the pre-invasion scenario. Lifting sanctions was off the table by then.

And yes, I know why the No Fly zones were there. Saddam was certainly a persistent threat, and I have no doubt that he needed to be taken care of. But again, it comes down to a question of timing and strategy. And I do believe that had we shown more patience we would have had much more of the international community on our side. But that's not just my opinion. That's the opinion of Hans Blix as well.

HANS BLIX: "I don't think the Europeans actually were saying we would never exclude use of armed force. They did not. They rather said they would like to have longer period of inspections. And we broke them off at three and a half months, which was a very short time. There was nothing in the resolution from 2003 that suggested that it should be so short.

"So if the Iraqis would have practiced cat and mouse in the spring of 2003 on inspectors, then I think the Europeans would have come along. There would have been an authorization of the Security Council and there would have been legitimacy for the action, which I think they now suffer from a lack of legitimacy."

As far as the newly released documents go, any intelligence analyst will tell you that without a relatively thorough knowledge of the context in which a document is embedded, your interpretation of what it means could be way off. That's the thing about those documents. I think it was a great idea that they were published -- it's providing a lot of free translation. But I'm inclined to wait until there is some sort of official recognition that they are meaningful and in what way -- or at least some indication that "the guys in the know" take them seriously. And so far that hasn't happened to much of any degree. Well, except for Hoekstra and Santorum. And in their case the intelligence community agreed with their facts but not their conclusions.

"In particular, do you know why the no-fly zones were in place? They were there in the northern and southern parts of Iraq because Saddam was using his military aircraft to attack the Kurds in the North and the Shiites in the South."

--Actually, the arbitrary NFZs we enforced, did little to protect the Kurds or Shi'ites, first-off because if he really wanted to kill them, he would have just rolled tanks into the areas, ta-da, no need for aircraft or flying.

Secondly, US allowed Turkey to repeatedly bomb and shell Kurds, killing civilians, not the well dug-in PUK who were usually elsewhere.

"I'm pretty sure he would have used them for purposes other than feeding his starving people"

--So instead, we did his dirty work for him, allowing untold anguish and starvation of the iraqi people, including the death of an estimated 500,000 children over the course of the sanctions. All the while US, French, Russian, Jordanian, etc. companies are side-stepping the rules and making billions anyways.

"But the expiring sanctions were by far the most pressing issue and the major reason for the timing"

--Funny, since Colin Powell, less than a year earlier had said that Saddam was not a threat, that he was being successfully contained.

“Saddam Hussein’s forces are in a state where he cannot pose a threat to his neighbors at this point. We have been successful, through the sanctions regime, to really shut off most of the revenue that will be going to build his—rebuild his military.” [US Department of Defense, 1/10/2001]

“He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.” [US Department of State, 2/24/2003; Mirror, 9/22/2003; Associated Press, 9/25/2003; CBS News, 9/23/2003]

Saddam Hussein has not been able to “build his military back up or to develop weapons of mass destruction” for “the last 10 years.” The sanctions policy has successfully kept him “in a box.” [Mirror, 9/22/2003]

Polls of this sort on a subject such as this have only one purpose, and that is to evaluate the effectiveness of the propaganda used. Every time they thought they had found WMD, it was all over the media and repeated through out the day, yet when it was discovered that it was not WMD, retraction was very limited in coverage. This type of dissemination leads to a falsely informed public.

This is the first I have heard of the 500 munitions from 91 being found, this does not lend any credibility to Bushs claims however. As I understood it Bush knew Iraq was stockpiling and developing WMD including nuclear. The WMD claims never panned out, and you people are grasping for straws here.

Justification however isn't the issue for me, I remember growing up, the military was being downsized, the cold war ended and America DID NOT START WARS. This has all changed, our military is being expanded, Bush has started one war and is itching for another while trying to put the nuclear option back on the table. Iraq was a complete disaster, Bush claimed it ended long ago, yet the body bags keep coming.

If we are going to talk about WMD what about our use of Depleted Uranium? When did radiation stop being hazardous? What the hell kind of idiots are in charge, trying to perpetrate such lies? Radiation kills, it always has it always will, and DU spreads on impact. Yet our military and government claims its safe? Are you buying into these lies? Are you people that stupid that you think radiation is safe? Wake up, this is ridiculous! And now because we found munitions Saddam forgot he had Bush is justified in killing 100k civilians and contaminating the middle east, including our soldiers? Our military is being forced to serve beyond their enlistments for this idiots questionable cause. Do you need to ask why I want him impeached?

I tend to agree with the AP story that suggests part of this is related to the misleading "we found WMD!" story that appeared shortly before the poll. People apparently didn't take the time to verify and discover that these were old, degraded weapons from the early 90's, their existence wasn't a surprise, and they weren't the weapons on which the administration initially based their case for war.

See here for the rundown on how so many people continue to be duped (and perhaps want to believe it). The last part, highlighting some "creative morphing" is particularly telling.