gridlore | We told you so.

Final U.S. inspection report expected to undercut key Bush rationale for war

Undercutting the Bush's administration's rationale for invading Iraq, the final report of the chief U.S. arms inspector concludes that Saddam Hussein did not vigorously pursue a program to develop weapons of mass destruction after international inspectors left Baghdad in 1998, according to lawmakers and others briefed on the report.

In drafts, weapons hunter Charles Duelfer concluded that Saddam's Iraq had no stockpiles of the banned weapons but said he found signs of idle programs that Saddam could have revived if international attention had waned.

"It appears that he did not vigorously pursue those programs after the inspectors left," a Bush administration official said, speaking on condition of anonymity in advance of the report's release.

So, no WMD. No WMD programs. No links with al-Qaeda. No links with terrorism directed at the US.

We were lied to, and over a thousand American troops have died because of those lies.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

You hit the nail on the head. The apperance of strength is as importnat as strength, especially when you are surrounded by hiostile neighbors and have a large minority that hates you. By playing the shell game, Saddam kept everyone guessing.

The NBC issue was important because it sold Iraq as a threat to the US. Despite the fact that the best missile Iraq had was barely adequete for reaching Israel, the Bush administration beat the war drum with visions of Iraqi missiles loaded with anthrax raining down on Middletown, USA. That was a deliberate misstatement of fact on their part.

We're stuck there. We have no choice but to stay in Iraq now, and try to keep a civil war from happening, and tryto establish a representative form of government.

I just don't think that the man who got us stuck to this particular tar baby is the one to oversee us getting out.

I just don't think that the man who got us stuck to this particular tar baby is the one to oversee us getting out.

The disadvantage of a two-party system is that forces us to choose between A: the guy who got us into Iraq in the first place and screwed up some critical decisions along the way and B: Some semi-random asshole with no real plan other than giving it to the French and the UN. It is disappointing that Kerry is the best the Dems could offer.

Kerry consistently voted against military weapons programs, to include the AH-64. Now, I have been in situations where the presence of a pair of Apaches have defused the situation before the gunfire broke out. This is a good thing in my mind. Finding out Kerry voted against it is one of the things that makes me question Kerry's commitment to taking care of those of us on the sharp end.

Kerry also voted against the supplemental appropriation for Iraq. Sure, he claims his only objection was to Haliburton, not to body armor or armored trucks. But that's why amendments are in the process. I also have to ask why Mr. Kerry did not vote against appropriations bills funding Haliburton's no-bid contracts in the Balkans. Dual standards, much?

Kerry has had a year to articulate an alternate plan for Iraq. He has said:

1)I know what I'm talking about because I'm a Vietnam War Hero[tm]. Utterly irrelevant, and 4 months don't impress me much anyway. Talk to me when you finish a real tour in combat.

2)Let's get France and the UN involved. UN is ineffective in shooting wars, which Iraq is. Couldn't handle Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, etc.

3)??????????

Is there something I'm missing?

We told you so.

Re: Here's my question for the floor

Re: Here's my question for the floor