And the source of those chemical weapons in that recently declassified document? The US. They were pre-1988 munations, that were long past their use date. Sad how quickly a lie gets circulated, and how long people refuse to believe the truth. Didn't the fact that a crackpot senator from Pennsylvania was holding this press conference and not the president of the US give you a slight pause that maybe this wasn't reliable?

Hey, dude. The fact that the Senator and not the prez was giving out this info led to the line "what took so long?" I would point out that the "Bush lied" crown has very often said "no WMD", not "no new WMD", meaning that if they're right, there should be NONE AT ALL, regardless of age. I would also point out that our complaint against WMD goes back to the 1991 cease-fire agreement, which means that pre-1991 (which would include pre-1988) WMD still count. So they were "long past their use date"? Would you be willing to pick one up or touch one without using the utmost caution? I thought not. There's also the danger that the terrorist barbarians we charitably call "insurgents" could get a hold of some. I have to agree that lies can get circulated quickly and people refuse to believe the truth. The "Bush lied" crowd have been doing that for years.

So, Steve K., you're justifying the pre-emptive invasion of Iraq and the resulting 50,000+ Iraqi and 2,500+ American deaths to date (and still counting...the violence is, unfortunately, continuing to spiral out of control. No, it is not safe for Iraqi citizen to leave their homes in many, if not most areas of the country. When they leave their families do not know if they will ever see them alive again) on THIS information, Sir? Well, if you really think that the presence of these "pre-1991 weapons" was a grave enough threat to invest the billions and billions of dollars and the thousand-upon-thousands of lives ended by death or seriously derailed by grievous and painful injuries, well, that is your right, my man. In the course of bringing about something that was, yes, a good result, " the deposing of the hideous and cruel Saddam Hussein, we have created an unstable Power Vacuum and unleashed many equally cruel and perhaps even more murderous Barbaric Thugs with equal or even greater harm and slaughter in mind. Of course, to a President who at the time of our initial invasion was unaware of the difference and differences between Iraqi Sunni and Shiite Muslims this probably was unexpected...to have known about those differences, particularly how they have played out historically in Iraq, might have given Mr. Bush a moment of pause...had he bothered to listen to the many and abundant warnings and cautions that were available to him at the time. So, hey...now you have "some" weapons...so now you can be happy and call folks with contrary viewpoints "liars"...fine...if it makes you happy, you know. But what I find so disturbing is the utter lack of proportionality to your reasoning. if you don't understand what I'm talking about, well, I'm afraid that's gonna have to be the way it is...not enough time on the clock to straighten you out in that area...I'm not voting here because your obtuse sense of proportionality makes this piece impossible to take seriously from any reasonable POV.

Really? Bush stated that they had been MANUFACTURING WMDs, not that they had some crap buried in the desert for twenty years. Handle them? Probably not, but I'm sure if they had any effectiveness in the course of a war, Saddam would have dug them up and used them. If they were such a serious threat, why'd Bush the first leave them? Why were they ignored by weapons inspectors? Sorry, but there's way too many holes in this story. That's why no one except the right-wing press reported on this. That's why a nutcase like Santorium was picked to announce it. If Bush had been talking about it, he'd be getting crucified in the press for it. Santorium isn't credible, so the real press ignores his "information" and the right wing echo chamber gobbles it up and acts like it was the real justification for war.

Right - and Hussein was responsible for 9/11, Dubya didn't steal the 2000 election. From the start, this administration has been nothing but a big lie. Where's Osama? Shouldn't getting Bin Laden have been Priority No. 1? Keep drinking the kool aid. Right-wing fascist liars are alive and well and living in the red states. Luckily, we have mainstream press like the New York Times and the Washington Post to squelch the untruthful rhetoric put out by the war lovers. Finally, which of our fascist presidents do you think supplied weapons to Iraq? You know, why don't all of you fascists just move to Iraq.

Good parody, Steve...let the ranters rave.

yeah, great parody, don't let reality confuse you

Just keep on drinking the kool aid, have your party bring up non-sense Constitutional Amendments like bans on Flag burning and bans on gay marriage to keep attention away from the unjust war. And always let an idiot like Royce be your guide. Be happy that you are responsible for thousands of innocent people dying and thousands more maimed. Jesus would want it that way. Oh, and don't forget to ban vibrators but make guns accessible because guns don't kill, vibrators do.

The primary reason for invading Iraq was to enforce UN Resolution 1441, which called for "serious consequences" if Iraq and Hussein did not disclose what they had done with their WMDs. Nobody denies that Hussein failed to comply with UN resolutions. It was also argued that Iraq had WMDs prior to the invasion, but this argument was not made just by the Bush administration. It was also made by virtually the entire Clinton administration as well as the international intelligence community. So, if Bush lied, there were many other liars; but, as Steve points out, nobody lied.

Don't back down, Steve!