Name:   MartiniMan - Subject:   No, lets not..... Date:   10/15/2014 5:37:43 PM

I understand what you are saying but I clearly remember during all the clamor over WMD that proponents of the war specifically pointed out that Saddam had used them against the Kurds.  No one, not Bush, Cheney or anyone else claimed he had nuclear weapons.  Only that he was trying to obtain the material for them (i.e., the infamous yellow cake and the so-called outing of Valerie Plame).  You are trying to rewrite history and have it all wrong.  But they did claim he had chemical and potentially biological weapons and on the former they were telling the truth.  

Whatever you may have considered WMD is immaterial because it is clear that your definition is not what is commonly accepted.  I get that you opposed the war in Iraq.  And as I have said many times there is reasonable room for debate about the merits of that particular decision by the Bush administration.  But at least based on these revelations any reasonable person would agree that the mantra about WMDs not being found and that Bush lied is patently and demonstrably false.  So I say to those that opposed the war in Iraq to find another reason to oppose it and forget the WMD canard.  As for me, Saddam having WMD and his willingness to use it is enough for me.  But reaosnable people can disagree on that point.  Reasonable people can no longer claim that Saddam didn't have WMD and that Bush lied about it.  That's a fact.