230 days, and no WMD...

[Minstrel Boy]

If there were any justice, this would have finished Bush and Blair. Evidently, there isn't. Or not enough to bring down criminals in such high places.

It's outrageous, it's maddening that Bush can say "What's the diffence?" and expect, and rightly so, that he can get away with it.

After all this, and while the blood is still being shed, there were no banned weapons. None. It's an absurd and brutal fact that the war party was not engaged in exaggeration, but in pure fabrication.

International law, which Saddam was said to have violated, Bush has shattered, and scattered to the wind. Better call my lawyer.

The causus belli has been laid bare for nearly a year as a lie, and not even the whisper of impeachment.

230 days, and still we're told to be patient. How long were Hans Blix and UNMOVIC given? How can it be that it's the UN, we're told, which has lost all credibility?

On January 13, Bush said "So far I haven't seen any evidence that he has disarmed. I'm sick and tired of games and deception."

A year later, do we have enough evidence to determine whose game it was, and the magnitude of the deception?

[rustydog]

1. The best way to counter Bush's "what's the difference" baloney

Would be to set up this scenario. Preferably with Bush..but any Bush-lover will do, becaue they will be spewing the What's the difference mantra now.
Tell him/her.."Let's assume WMD's are a slap in the face."
Now I can tell you that I plan to slap you upside the head..(WMD PROGRAM) Or I can do this.."slap the person up-side the head.
"Is there a difference between possibly doing something, or actually having the means to DO it?

[adriennel]

2. especially ironic

that BushCo is asking us to be patient in the search for WMD in Iraq, but BushCo did not have the patience to allow UN inspectors to do their job. They were crticized for taking "years" to get Iraq to disarm....now we are approaching the yearly mark and there is still no proof of WMD in Iraq.

"so far I haven't seen any evidence that he has disarmed"
proving a negative does not translate into a positive! just becuase there is no proof that Iraq did disarm does not mean they have WMD still hidden.

Georgie must have graduated college without taking a class in logic. Let's all call him on it people!

[1songbird]

3. You hardly hear WMD even talked about anymore in the media.

I swear it's like some sorta jet-eye mind trick. If they don't mention it maybe they think we'll forget.

[NewJeffCT]

4. If Clinton invaded Iraq because of WMD

Every night, Fox would have a ticker on their news programs about how it has now been X days since Iraq fell and still no WMD. Impeachment proceedings would have started after 90 days of no WMD.

[Truth Hurts]

5. What if?

What if they have found the weapons or proof of their existance and they are just waiting for the right time to break the story. Perhaps during the Primaries. He could be letting our party get way out on a limb and then Wham!

I read many a post about how we have Osama already. Well, it would be a lot easier to sit on a weapons find than sit on Osamas capture.

[Minstrel Boy]

6. The longer they wait, the less credibility they have.

At this point, will you believe their claim genuine?

They have had Iraq to themselves for 3/4 of a year. They have prohibited the return of UN inspection, so there is no independent audit.

It's way past time we say, as Bush said last winter, "Time's up!"

[Cat Atomic]

7. Here's a question for you. If there aren't any WMD's, then why

is Saddam Hussein being held?

Now, I'm no fan of Hussein- I thought he was a bastard back when Rumsfeld was shaking his hand. But the justification for invading was that Iraq had violated multiple UN resolutions by maintaining his WMD's. They aren't there, so the only one trampling on the UN was Bush, when he violated the UN charter.