WMD Poll
 

Probably everything that could be said on this has been said. Lets vote.

I'd like to vote for both the 2nd and 3rd choices.

Democracy just got 'easier'

Our high-tech, state of of art Diebold voting machines have already 'anticipated' your choices, so that all votes have now been pre-registered. Just sit back and let us do the heavy lifting from now on...

Howdy All,
There is a big desert out there:)

We absolutely positively KNOW Saddam had WMD.

WE KEPT THE RECEIPTS !

Here's a thought...

Could Saddam have gotten out of the WMD use business and gotten into the WMD sales business?

I do think that the WMD's were there to begin with (heck, there's ample evidence of that), but it's pretty clear to me that they're gone now. Given that he had to have been cash-hungry, I would imagine that he kept the WMD factoreies to sell the weapons to the highest bidder, and decided not to keep any for himself when the pressure was being applied...

Just a thought...those weapons had to have gone somewhere, but it sure doesn't look like they're in Iraq at this point...if they were, I think we would have found them by now...

I'll bet you're right.

Also, there is a great deal of suspicion that the thwarted WMD attack in Jordan had its origin with Iraqi stockpiles and/or experts.

But I'll bet he destroyed most of them before the war. he probably didn't want that knowledge to get out for two reasons: Intimidation of potential future adversaries and also to seem defiant and thus, a big man to the arab street.

It is good to remember that his was a despotic police state. Within its borders, he could invent any reality he wanted.

This war on terrorism is an excellent proof of why we need human beings gathering intelligence on the ground. Reliance on technology and unverifiable single-sources probably resulted in an over-estimation of Iraq's WMD program.

Bot

Perfect. Perfect x 1000

Does anyone actually still believe that GW ever cared if there were WMDs or not? Their existence was and still is a non-factor to GW. Their existence would have supported his predisposed intent to invade, but that's as far as it goes...

Of course they were there. He acquired them from the U.S.

Look at the polling. That's as close to an answer as you're going to see from a group.

To me, it doesn't matter what the guy thinks. I can't tell what my wife is thinking, believing I've tapped into the mind of a politician is foil-hat zone. Instead, I look at what folks are saying and I look at track records of the people. Saddam has a bad track record. Bush doesn't have a reputation for murdering friends, family, associates, neighbors, subordinates and suspicious-looking total strangers (unless you buy into all the foil-hatted rightwing conspiracy crap).

I have absolutely not seen one sliver of a shred of evidence that leads me to believe that Bush was lying. <Please, spare me all the crap that people purport to be lies, we've been over this so many times already....>

So, Saddam lies all the time.

Bush doesn't lie.

Therefore....

Bot

I'm not saying that Bush was necessarily lying (depending on what you consider a lie). Bush didn't know, and there is ample evidence to indicate that he really didn't care. He and/or some of his top advisors were predisposed to invade Iraq (his reasons are his own and my never be known), and were only interested in WMDs in regard to supporting that stance.

Call it "foil-hat zone" if you wish. You'd have to look mighty hard to find someone with at least half a brain who's quicker to admit ignorance than me, but I have a very strong sense about this and I trust it completely. My stance is not dependent on the evidence that supports it, since this evidence has come to light long after my initial position, which has not wavered in the least.

Nor has mine.

If I see something compelling, I'll change.

But as long as the policy is going in the direction that I like, which it is, I really don't care what the administrations suppositions, preconceptions, assumptions, ouija boards, and owl guts say.

Same with those who oppose Bush. If they get revelations from God, tea-leaves, telepathy, or whatever, I don't really give a damn. I lik ethe current policy and am vastly reassured that Jean Kerry has pretty-much pledged to stay the course in Iraq.

With Skull and Bones and the Illuminati on my side, how can I lose?

My sixth sense, plus your sixth sense gives us nothing.

Bot

Botnst,

But your general conclusion that the circumstances around how the policy was developed and implemented are irrelevant because you like the result makes your opinion on the subject of whether or not those circumstances involved lying by the President equally irrelevant. The same with your predisposition to wait for "evidence" of lying (which sounds like it would be a public statement listing the lies by Bush himself for you to agree he actually lied) since, if the policy resulted in a condition you approved of, the lying would be excused anyway as a necessary evil.

When your view boils down to such a simple position, why do you cloak it in faux-intellectual parsing of definitions and claims of needing to be presented with factual data?

Jim