[Overpaid Slacker]

I haven't read all the posts between Thom's original and this one, so I'll just ask my question:

Who cares?

It's been long settled that W and his administration believed that there were WMD (a point on which they might have been mistaken -- something else that's been settled for a while).

It's also been settled that many foreign intel. agencies believed Iraq had WMD and/or had active programs to acquire such. The CIA did not believe Iraq was looking for yellowcake in Niger; the CIA was wrong on that point. As were once-media-darlings, now-confirmed liars Clarke and Wilson.

It has also been settled that links between Iraq and al-Qaeda were old and deep. Though -- and this is important for the memory impaired -- W and his admin never said, and often specifically denied, that Iraq was invovled with/responsible for 9/11.

Iraq had WMD. The UN knew it and documented their existence (and, to the extent possible under a non-cooperative Iraq regime, documented their numbers) in UN Reports. The UN and even Secular Saint Blix, who can do no wrong, ever, for the shallow thinkers, acknowledged Iraq had WMD and had not certified their destruction as required by, oh, 17 SC resolutions.

The fact that Iraq's documented WMDs were not found -- and that evidence of their total destruction was not found actually means ... now read this next part slowly, W-haters ... that they likely still exist and we simply didn't find them. Whether they were moved or sold or are still hidden in Iraq somewhere ...

Iraq had WMD, which were inventoried and which "everybody" (meaning the UN and those who bother to read their reports) knew and acknowledged existed and we have no proof of their destruction --- which is basically what all the "inspections" were about.

So if you want to assume that they were destroyed, along with the capacity to re-make them (as required); -- but no records of such destruction were ever provided to the UN; fine. Seems naive and foolish to me, but I'm getting used to that hereon.

Yawn.

More to the "point" of this "thread" as I infer it, however, is that Clinton and those in his administration, as well as many on the D side of the aisle, both before and during W's term, have stated they believe Iraq (1) had WMD (2) was a threat and (3) needed to be dealt with.

Why no litany of Clinton (and his party's) "mistakes" on these matters? Many, many of them believed the same things; and had had access to substantially the same intel. W and his admin had (so this whole "they lied to us" thing is just embarrassingly ridiculous)

Is it b/c the Dems didn't have the balls to do anything about their claims? Or after 2 pages of essentially the same quotes from R's you were too tired to fill the same amount of space with Democrats' quotes?

JP