who lied?

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
"So to summarize:
1) WMDs have indeed been found."

[/ QUOTE ]
They are "WMD" although not even "usable" or the sort of weapons "for which this country went to war," according to the Defense Dept. So they must be some other kind of "WMD." One hint: Santorum uses this label and Fox parrots it, but the original report that Santorum relies on refers to them as only "potentially lethal." So these are the WMD that don't necessarily kill people. You know, the kind of war-justifying urgent threat that vindicates mass slaughter and desolation in Iraq.

Of course, for people that want to murder Arabs en masse, any excuse will serve.

[ QUOTE ]
"they ARE proof Saddam lied about not having any"

[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps he foolishly assumed that weapons were something that one could "use" to actually kill people. In any case, he must have been an idiot to think he could trick you with his transparent lies and propaganda.

BTW, your source doesn't actually say that any of these weapons were found under the control of the Iraqi government. As the Duelfer report mentions, some munitions were thought to have been pilfered or looted both during Saddam's reign and after the U.S. invaded.

[adios]

This thing will be vetted over a period of time methinks. The funny part about this is that it's really not that meaningful either way. There's no question that Saddam Hussein was a murderous despot as he showed this many times including using chemical weapons. There's also no question that Hussein was willing to attack and wage war against other countries. It's just hilarious that some leftists portray him as a passive and impotent leader.

[andyfox]

"It's just hilarious that some leftists portray him as a passive and impotent leader."

That would be Powell and Rice who portrayed him that way. Nothing about Hussein, nor his portrayal, was hilarious. Both were sad and disgusting.

[adios]

"We don't know that yet. We don't know that yet, Wolf. We still have a country whose city is mostly without electricity. We have tumultuous occasions in the south where there is no clear governance. We have a major city without clear governance." -- Howard Dean's reply to CNN's Wolf Blitzer, when asked if Iraq was better off without Saddam Hussein, April 23,

Yeah you're right. Ludicrous statements like these (from the DNC chairman no less) are pathetic and sad. Sometimes they strike my as funny because they're so ridiculous.

[steve9789]

Come on people, they could find hundreds of nuclear warheads and the lib's would find some way to spin it in order to continue the "Bush lied" mantra. It doesn't mix well in their screwed up ideology so they will manufacture any way possible to discredit the report. They'd much rather believe that Bush lied rather than Saddam.

Let's not forget:
"A liberal is a man much too broadminded to side with himself in an argument". Robert Frost

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
Come on people, they could find hundreds of nuclear warheads and the lib's would find some way to spin it in order to continue the "Bush lied" mantra. It doesn't mix well in their screwed up ideology so they will manufacture any way possible to discredit the report. They'd much rather believe that Bush lied rather than Saddam.

Let's not forget:
"A liberal is a man much too broadminded to side with himself in an argument". Robert Frost

[/ QUOTE ]

Damn those libs! When will they learn that Bush is a man of truth?!? Saddam was about to attack the US and, pardon me if I'm a little overflattering here, our superhero, 'W' stopped it.

If the troops stumbled across Saddam's fleet of planes set to fly around the world in a moment's notice spraying chemical attacks... those libs still wouldn't believe it.

Damn you, libs! Will you ever learn?

[Chris Alger]

The reason Republicans find statements like this so ridiculous is that it is generally undisputed that more Iraqis are violently dying now under Saddam's last decade. Since the goal is to kill Arabs to avenge 9/11, they can't comprehend the objection to tens of thousands of dead Iraqis. So what if U.S-backed forces grab people off the street and torture them to death? By GOP morality, the more the merrier.

[andyfox]

Howard Dean didn't make the decision to invade Iraq. You said that it was the liberals who claimed Hussein was not a threat. In fact Condi Rice and Colin Powell said that.

Howard Dean is not making decisions in Iraq. While the quote you have cited is not eloquent or even articulate, certainly we can find a ton of less eloquent and articulate statements from the administration, particularly from the president. It is the administration that has urged patience, that rebuilding Iraq is a longterm project. If that is so, then how can one definitively state whether or not Iraq is better off with or without Hussein? If things degenerate into a civil war, or if the country splits up, things could get exceptionally ugly.

While many of Dean's statements strike me as ridiculous as well, none come close in import to those of the administration that led us into war misinformed, ill-prepared, arrogant, and deceitful. Right after 9/11, virtually nobody in the United States thought Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9/11. On the eve of the invasion, a clear majority did.

How did that happen?

For someone who was such a danger to us, Hussein sure didn't do very well in the "war."

And yet you worry about the rantings of Howard Dean, an irrelevance who may indeed be slightly amusing, instead of the hubris of an administration that refused to heed the advice of governmental and outside experts on what would happen during the occupation. "Stuff happens" is good enough for its Secretary of Defense and, by virtue of his vote of confidence in Rumsfeld, for the president too. It shouldn't be good enough for our nation.

[adios]

Andy writes in part:
[ QUOTE ]
Howard Dean didn't make the decision to invade Iraq. You said that it was the liberals who claimed Hussein was not a threat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope, what I wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
It's just hilarious that some leftists portray him as a passive and impotent leader.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've added bolding to two key words. Some does not mean all and portray is current tense I believe.

[Roybert]

Wow, this story has really taken the mainstream media by storm, huh?

Must be that pesky librul media covering it up, right?

Can someone please post another link to a Washington Times or Fox News story? The word clearly isn't getting out.