I don't remember any speech or address, where WMD was the SOLE reason for war. But that's where democrats always get back to. You know what happens when you see a "smoking gun"? Nothing, because you're lying dead on the floor.

Our pilots... Their skill and equipment prevented them from dying when the "evil dictator" fired on them, in violation of the cease-fire (what a joke) agreement. So, it's o.k. then, right? Forget about attempted murder, just prosecute the successful murderers!

You don't know me. I never said "let's go kill some one". My viewpoint is that there is a real and dangerous enemy. Yes, I want to kill the enemy, to protect my family and countrymen (including the ungrateful and those who don't appreciate their freedom). I find no fault in that line of thinking.

So what the hell does Ghandi have to say about Saddam invading Kuwait, raping women, throwing people off of buildings for fun?

You want to understand the insurgents? Think about why some one would strap themselves with explosives, walk into a group of children (citizens of the country they're supposedly trying to save from us), and detonate them.

Think about why they violate the principles of their religion, by bringing weapons into a mosque.

Think about why they used schools and hospitals to hide their weapons.

Think about the type of person it takes to hack off the head of civilian foreigners, who are only in the coutry to help it rebuild.

Bush's case for war was Saddam had WMD that could be deployed against us in 45 minutes. Rumsfeld said the proof of WMD was "bulletproof". Total crap. They knew better. It sounds like you are not old enough to remember Vietnam. Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

BTW how many US pilots died enforcing the no-fly zone? That would be none.

And yes, I do try and understand the viewpoint of the insurgents. Your answer seems to be "lets go kill someone".

Ghandi said "an eye for an eye will make the whole world blind". Wise words from a great man.

How easy to put yourself in the shoes of the insurgents...

Have you tried that of the kurds who were gassed, tortured, or lined up and shot?

Have you tried that of the American pilot, wondering if he will make it home, while being shot at, for enforcing the U.N. and world community ENDORSED sanctions (while you sleep soundly in your bed I might add)??

As for Iraq, I have seen first hand, mass graves (allowed under the Clinton administration)like the ones in Iraq. While Americans are so worried about jobs, in the richest country in the world, people are being murdered. As the global superpower, we have a responsibility... Now don't say, well what about Sudan. No Democrat, not even the U.N. will support this move.

While you're arguing for nuke-u-lar war against North Korea, you should remember that Clinton's FUBAR policy allowed Kim Jong to have nukes in the first place. Kerry's policy is not far off. I believe in Bush's policy of using the world powers in the region to pressure those commie bastards. It is our only hope of avoiding a nasty, nasty confrontation.

Michael Moore is NOT an accurate source for world news. You have no idea what you're talking about. While you manage to throw in some of the common democratic talking points, you fail to address ANY of my previous questions about the case for war. Let me add that we were at war with Iraq already, and under a cease-fire agreement. The provisions for which Saddam repeatedly violated. The suffering of the Iraqi people is on his hands, not ours.

Recognition of the intelligence uncovered in this operation does not re-brand anything. The full case was made, the lefties failed to hear it. Somehow, they sleep well at night with the harm they do with words. Words that motivate our enemy, undercut our troops' morale, and simply piss me off. It should piss a lot of people off.
Talk about the policy if you will. Offer a solution. Name calling, fabrications, and doomsday rhetoric doesn;t help anything.

The people of Iraq are certainly not my enemy. Now that we have slaughtered thousands of Iraqi civilians, they may well consider us thier enemies, which is a tragedy. My guess is a lot of the guys in Iraq who are shooting at our troops are young men who have lost family in "shock & awe" bombings and are looking to settle the score.

No doubt there are some real terrorists in Iraq now, Bush has managed to turn Iraq into something more closely resembling a terrorist state.

As Americans, we have a DUTY to hold our govt. accountable and question bad policy. If you want to march in lock-step behind the White House chickenhawks that is your business I suppose. Tell me LJD have you voulenteered for combat duty?

BTW LJD, where did Saddam get his original WMD? Why from his buddy Rumsfeld!

Rather than accept that there are those in the world who want us dead because of our way of life, we call our President names. We allow election year rhetoric to put our troops in harm's way, and fuel the resolve of the enemy. What a bunch of selfish Amerikans.

Wake up and smell the freakin Starbucks!

I don't see "did Bush lie" as the big issue here. Bigger issues: why did the Bush admin take its eye off the ball (Bin Laden, remember him?). Clearly the admin cherry-picked the intelligence to make its case for war with Iraq. They saw the threat they wanted to see. The CIA warned that the case was not clear cut, they did not want to hear that.

It is also troubling that Bush & Cheney, both of whom managed to avoid combat in wartime as young men, were obviously so hot to trot when it involved sending someone else off to do the fighting and dying. Bush's claim of "war as a last resort" is a joke. I think everyone here knows that.

ALSO of concern is the administrations unyeilding insistence that they did exacty the right thing, the only thing that could have been done. Failure to admit that mistakes have been made in Iraq, which is pretty damn obvious, should also worry any thinking American. Failure analyisis and a bit of self-doubt are signs of good orginazation and personal maturity. They do not seem to exist in Bush's White House.

When questioned about Iraq during the second debate, Mr. Bush responded by berating the audience. He seems to be on the edge of exploding when questioned.

I am not a "knee-jerk Bush hater". I voted for him. I voted for his Dad (once). I voted for Reagan twice.

Bush is an utter failure. He deserves to be fired next month. His motto seems to be "The Buck Stops Anywhere But Here".

But Bush did not make any such qualification. If he had the nation would have demanded more perfected knowledge before going to war. Bush knew this. That is why he and his administration talked with absolute certainty about Iraq and WMD.

To claim now there was no debate about this is ludicrous. There were plenty of credible sources that broke, barely, through the pro war propoganda calling into question Bushes claim about WMD.

If, by the standard of a prudent man, the claim could not be made with the categorical certainty necessary before going to war, then, yes, Bush lied.

Bush lied.

Perhaps like you, I too listened carefully to Bush. I came to conclude before the war that his claims about Saddams nuclear program was just a bald faced lie. I realised this because his claim was based upon some aluminum tubes that the administration said were to be used to pureify nuclear material for a bomb. But experts in the US Dept of Energy, who are the real experts when it comes to matters of this kind, said they could not be used as a centrifuge and therefore were not part of a nuclear program. Plus, every credible source in the world was saying there nuclear program was completely dismanted in 1991. And sanctions were doing there job.

I also watched carefully. When the United Nations weapons inspectors re-entered Iraq and were given free reign of the country, even to sites previously off limits I waited anxously for them to confirm some of the administrations claims about WMD. But the exact opposite happened. Every bit of evidence proved the inspectors by the US turned out to be bogus. EVERY BIT. This put further doubt in my mind about the truth of Bushes other claims.

Plus, I was thinking, just how credible is the CIA anyway? I remember when President Clinton relied upon the CIA and ended up bombing an asperin factory. Could the CIA really be trusted? And on the big things they always got it wrong. Russia, Iran, etc. Surely Bush was aware of this track record.

So when all the evidence of WMD in Iraq started to fall apart, long before the invasion, I started doubting Bushes claim. If I knew, from public sources, that the evidence was falling about, surely Bush knew as well.

But he kept saying the 'knew' Iraq had WMD, in spite of no such credible evidence. He lied. It really is that simple.

Actually, he got them from us. Not that it refutes your post, but it's sometimes forgotten.

To address James' reply to my post, and at the risk of being accused of spouting DNC talking points, I really do believe that this war was prosecuted wrongly. Of course a reasonable person would believe the possibility that he had WMD before we invaded. But if he hadn't given them away to terrorists throughout the 90's, what made us think that he was going to up and do it on September 12th?

I don't mean to imply that we should have given him the opportunity to pass them on (if he had them). But the reality is that the focus of U.S. policy *was* different after September 11th, and I have to be confident that under the renewed scrutiny that we were spearheading Saddam would not have had the opportunity to pass WMDs along under our watch. So as we kept our eye on him, we could have done all the things that would have undermined his regime without having the distraction of a full-blown war. It's worth considering that sanctions weren't working throughout the 90s because we didn't do enough (e.g. Oil for Food) to ensure they would. After September 11th, this could have been the difference between a war and a peaceful regime change. Most people reading this might find this naive, but I'd welcome reasoned points that refute it.

Like I said, it just could have been done differently.

This must mean they don't exist, and that I lied. How simplistic!! Just because we cannot find WDM that can be hidden in a very small volume of space, must mean that they never existed, expecially since the same madmen that created them told us they didn't exist anymore!!!

Saving a country from a madman with possible ties to terrorism (see the CSN report on links between Sadaam and Al Queida - Frontpage magazine.com) is enough of a reason for us to rescue our Iraqi brothers and sisters.