Doug,

If there were not WMD in Iraq, why did every single political since 1990
(liberal, conservative, moderate, Republican or Democrat) publicly state
they had proof that Iraq had WMD. Did all of them, including your boy
Clinton, lie to you?

All western intelligence agencies believed Iraq had WMD. Right or wrong,
GWB was the only president who acted on a universally agreed upon danger to
the region and western economy. GWB used 9/11 as a catalyst to overthrow a
dictator who had used WMD many times in the past.

Just as FDR used the Japanese as the catalyst to enter an unpopular war, GWB
used 9/11 to enter an unpopular war, to correct a dangerous situation in a
very unstable region.

Most historians agree FDR implemented a economic boycott on Japan, to
encourage Japan to commit an act of war against the US. The act of war
would force the Axis Powers to declare war against the US, allowing the US
to come to the aid of Britain.

When you say Rowe and GWB lied to the world concerning WMD, remember if that
is true, every politician in the US lied to world since 1990.


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

"unable to complete its investigation"?!?!?!?

"possibility that WMD was evacuated to Syria before the war"?!?!?



That's hardly "conclusive evidence" that WMD didn't exist!!!

I know you're busy, so I can understand that you've forgotten how I
explained this to you at least twice in the past. Print it out this time
so you can refer to it when necessary.

Shortly after 9/11, your president, Karl Rove, began announcing (via his
boy, GWB) that he knew there were WMDs, and that he knew exactly where
they were. But, for reasons you and I can only guess, Rove decided to
rattle his sword for almost 7 months before actually doing anything about
these weapons. By doing so, he gave one party or another plenty of time to
move the materials elsewhere.

Various reasons have been given for this delay, by people in this
newsgroup.

1) "It takes a long time to prepare ground forces for an invasion." This
is true, but irrelevant. If Rove knew exactly where they were, air strikes
could have dealt with at least some of the locations.

Excuse warning: "Saddam hides things near civilians, so we couldn't have
used air strikes". Bull****. We dropped plenty of bombs near civilian
populations.

2) "We couldn't have used air strikes because such-and-such country didn't
want us using their air strips." Bull****. Ship-launched cruise missiles
have enough range to get around distance limitations. Rove did not want to
use this option because, in fact, he did NOT know where the WMDs were.

3) "Rove wanted to give the U.N. time to do blah blah blah so he could
appear to have made a fair decision". Bull****. His mind was made up well
before U.N. options had run out. If the military had been ready to go in
October of that year instead of March of the next, Rove would've sent them
in.

So, please, cut the crap. If there were WMDs, your president wanted them
gone. Use your imagination and you can figure out the reasons. I'll admit
there may have been just ONE good reason to allow them to be smuggled out:
To make the country a bit safer for our troops. But, since your president
can't arrange for vehicle armor, I doubt he really cared much whether
soldiers were exposed to chemical or biological weapons.