The thing is first off...I am not launching any sort of personal attack against the conservatives here when I write stuff or post articles. Sometimes, I admit, I'm outraged and disgusted when I write stuff here and I think that should be acceptable as it is human to feel such things.

I post these things not to score "political points" as I'm not running for office...but because I read things...have thoughts and feelings about them...and like it or not I'm not visiting message boards all over the net...just this one...and I've found that this place allows for some interesting conversation and discussion. Specifically because we have opinions and comments from all sides. Granted I'll give you we have more against Bush types here than for Bush types but to some extent I expect that because the guy whose name is hung on this site made "Triage"...not exactly a love letter to the right wing. The thing is, I like that we get input from conservatives here...I don't want to drive anyone off and I'm ok if you write stuff that contains your outrage and discontent with stuff that I say or someone else says.

To some extent the reason people say it's not polite to talk politics at the dinner table is because it's a subject where you almost always are bound to traffic in outrage and discontent. We're not at the dinner table here and we're all adults and I think we all know where we're headed when we get into these conversations. It's gonna get heated but I think that only shows we all care about the same thing...making the world a better place...we just differ on the methods to achieve that goal.

The last thing I want to say in this regard is, we are all just citizens...not politicians here (unless some have gone unidentified or are just lurking in the shadows watching)...so I really don't think you can fairly accuse anyone of just being self-serving or playing politics because as individuals we have nothing to gain from that. A politician would...I personally would not. On to address a couple of specific points...  

Where I think you're missing the point is that the burden of proof was not on the U.S. to prove the WMD existed at all but rather it was on Saddam to prove that he had gotten rid of them.  Something he never did.  The U.S. had all the authority it needed to invade Iraq with the previous resolutions in hand despite all the attempts by the Democrats to muddy the water for their own pathetic gain. -Kevin G

Ok, here I've got to admit we're seeing some different things looking at the same situation. I saw people from the Bush administration frantically selling the idea that Saddam had WMD's and this was the key to their argument that we needed to attack Iraq right away because we were in danger because a madman had his grubby little fingers on such items. Now, are you disputing that that was the main evidence they used to "sell" the war to us and the world? If you are...I think there could be only a couple explanations...either you paid no attention to the events leading up to attacking Iraq (I happen to know this is not true because I remember discussing those events here with you) or you are "revising" what happened to suit your own political agenda.

This is actually what the Bush administration has done and we probably have that brilliant political toady Karl Rove to thank for that. So, if they used WMD's as the big sell to get Saddam and Iraq...why I ask would they not owe us an explanation as to why there are none...they stood before the UN...the world...the nation...and told everybody again and again that we need to get them because they have WMD's. Even though the only evidence we (the people I mean) had before attacking Iraq was that there were no WMD's according to inspectors and based on the heavy sanctions Iraq had been under...not to mention our always watchful eye on a country that we've always had a strategic interest in.

Now the UN never bought that story and Bush (many scholars say in a "cowardly move") pulled his resolution off the table at the UN before they could vote on it (by the way they broke the law spying on foreign officials so they knew what the vote would be -see the case of Ms. Gun) because they knew the resolution for war would not pass.

Now, I know Mr. Rove would like us to gloss over this little tidbit but the thing is what ensued was the worst foreign policy mess (according to many scholars...I am not a scholar) in the history of our nation. I really don't think that should get lost in the backwash of all this "Rah, rah, rah...we won the war and got Saddam...brought freedom to the Iraqis and made the world a safer place" nonsense. I say that's nonsense because in fact we have not won the "war"...we control Iraq, sort of, there are all those nasty bombings and attacks taking place...we did get Saddam...we have not yet brought freedom to the Iraqis, in fact we're not at all sure yet what we've brought them, it'll take time to find out...Mr. Rove would like you to believe we did though...and as far as making the world safer...that is certainly more than a bit premature to judge and can't at all be taken seriously when we keep seeing terrorist action around the globe and live most of our day to day lives here in this country on "orange alert"...Mr. Rove certainly would be proud to know you think the world is safer though.

Now the last thing here is something I already addressed on this board but I'll say it again even though it caused a bit of greif when I did the first time. You can't hold up the violations of UN resolutions and be serious because:

1. Even the UN did not buy that nonsense.

2. As an example of how we pick and choose and paint with a broad brush...We've never taken UN resolutions seriously to begin with...Israel violates UN resolutions about as often as I change my socks but we aren't bombing them now are we?

(Please understand I'm not comparing Israel to Iraq. The example is that we'll use and create evidence that suits our goals...no beef with Israel = we don't give a shit how many UN resolutions they violate which also = No consistancy in how we judge the importance of UN resolutions.)

So, in fact Kevin, you are probably correct that Democrat politicians would like to use stuff to forward their agenda and get reelected...but in this case the Democrats are right to call the Bush administration out on the carpet on this stuff...see to some extent Democrats already know they'll face the Wrath Of Rove...they sit on the wrong side of the table...but Republican politicians can think about if they'd like to have him come down on them or not...say nothing and tow the line and you're safe.

I think Kevin you need to look at the wholesale dishonesty that surrounds this Iraq deal...you seem to be just looking at whatever the daily Rove sales pitch is and saying "Yup...sounds good to me." I could be wrong and I'd like to hear a more detailed version of your side of this and why you choose to believe those stories. I respect your thoughts and feelings but as you think I missed something when I said I wanted some proof...I think there are some rather large items missing from your take.

So, what did Saddam do with his weapons materials? Well, maybe he destroyed them. Maybe he sold them to another country. Maybe he gave them away. By all accounts though they've been gone for years (I think 1998 is the last year they feel he may have had anything at all) and they know this, I think...that's why you need to pay careful attention to how these guys phrase stuff...

He has weapons of mass destruction.

He's seeking to build weapons of mass destruction.

We know he wanted to restart his weapons program.

He has materials that could be used to build WMD's.

He's was seeking materials that could be used to build WMD's.

All these sentences say different things and in the political world can be spun in different ways. That's intentional.

Saddam did have WMD. He used it on the Kurds. -Marc

This is questionable Mark. Companies in the United States did of course sell Iraq materials to build weapons. That's true. We don't know for sure what he did with those all of those materials though. As far as gassing the Kurds, that's also a big question mark. I'd personally like to know a bit more about that because it turns out that our CIA and Army War College investigated that incident between Iran and Iraq that resulted in the gassing of civilians. As it turns out they concluded (and filed a report) stating that it was not in fact Saddam's troops that unleashed the gas that killed the Kurds. As a matter of fact Gerorge the 1st was informed of this in 1990 as the story goes. See, when they examined the bodies (this is also an issue because they found that there were nowhere near the number of bodies the media reported...the figures on the body count apparently came from the Iranian government that was attempting to tar their enemy Saddam)  they found that the gas that killed them was not in fact mustard gas...which is what Iraq had...but another poison gas that Iran had. So they concluded that Iran...not Iraq...was responsible for killing those Kurds. This story has recieved very little attention and I'm not exactly certain as to why. It may be that our media outlets don't really want to admit to being duped by a propaganda blitz by the Iranian government. It was the Iranians that invited the media to come and see "the evil that Saddam did" and they were responsible for all those photos and stories of dead women and children that got plastered all over the place. Photos the media loves...like they love bad guys...and stories filled with human atrocities that sell papers, magazines, and make you watch them on tv. See the Iranians had motive to get the media to think Saddam gassed and killed the Kurds...they were launching a little PR campaign of their own.

Now they did say that Saddam's troops were ordered to unleash mustard gas on the Iranian troops to confuse and disorient them...but they found Iranian troops unleashed poison gas as well...and it was in fact deadly gas...the gas that really killed the Kurds. Now I brought this up here before...it seemed to mainly be ignored when I did. The thing is though, it's sort of always been a large selling point for why Saddam had to go and it's always the big example given for his evil nature and to draw comparisons to Hitler. I think it's sort of important to know what the truth is in this instance don't you? I think there's been a big sales job going on for a long time and someone...a decent journalist...should do a story on it.

                                                      Reg