[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by GAsux

This is a lost cause. You guys aren't serious right? It's so simplistic is not even funny. First, as history has proven, unless you're caught doing the do, you aren't going to get busted.

Hmm, so did cameras bust in on Bill and Monica while she was giving him a wax job??? Other people stepped forward, claimed scandal, and the rest is tabloid history. If Clinton's sexual adventures qualify as worthy of investigation, certainly, a war that cost the lives of Iraqis, Americans, as well as running up a cost in the billions, must be worthy as well.

Clinton lied under oath, and not only that, lied on TV to the American public. Bush was never put under oath, but he certainly made public statements basically promosing STOCKPILES of WMD. He, as well as Rumsfeld, made numerous claims (as cited above) in public that are at best errouneous, and at worst criminal. I think it's worth the public scrutiny to figure out which one it is.

Second, it's virtually unprovable.

I'm not talking even remotely about the validity of the argument. I'm simply talking about the feasability of there being any serious repercussions. It's basic. Public outcries that govt. lied. Govt states that the situation is a result in part of bad intel by the obviously incompetent (see 9/11) agencies, and partly by the crafty of job of Saddam(although he may or may not have been dead) of destroying the stockpiles without a trace just minutes before the calvary arrives.

But see here's the thing, if the latter argument is taken, it will be expected that they find these weapons, OR, find out 1. where they were sent or 2. IF they were made. You may not find sarin gas, but you can find the places it was made. You made not find chemical weapons, but just ask Scott Ritter, you can find WHERE it was made, if at all.

The former argument simply holds no validity, because the White House was actually contradicting the intel coming from the CIA throughout much of the war.

Intel agencies cry foul and say govt. "manipulated" intel to fit it's purpose, Dubya says "naaa uhhhhh". Dead end. Saddam disappears forever, leaves the later explanation impossible to verify.

Done and done.

The most "damning" evidence Bush and Blair ever came forward with was Blair's dossier on human rights violations in Iraq. This was not a product of American intelligence, rather, it was a product of data from Amnesty International and some guy in California. This hardly gives Bush a leg to stand on when condemning the intel agencies.

Originally Posted by VinceZeb

Whether or not the guy had him or not was not an argument. Countries had already admitted that Saddam had WMD.

What countries admitted this?? What did they admit he had?? When did he have it?? Tell me, is it nice living in a simplistic land of shoots and ladders??

The argument was over whether or not he had disarmed. It was his burden of proof that mattered, not ours. If he would have shown that he disarmed and let us have 100% open and free access, there would have been no war.

He said he didn't have what the Bush administration had claimed, and all evidence is now proving him to be right.

Here's a big inconsistency in the argument of morons such as yourself, Vince. UN inspectors were given only a few months before Bush demanded they be pulled out, citing that Saddam had not come into compliance. When South Africa openly disarmed, and allowed inspectors in freely, the process STILL took over a year or so. But now that Saddam is gone, and there should be no stopping us from finding the "Stockpiles" of WMD, the Bush administration is crying about time.

Hans Blix, shortly after the war had started, said Iraq had been very open, very accessible, and relatively speaking, had been cooperative. The only ones who made the argument you are now making were Bush and Blair. I think it's fair now that their public careers take a close examination because of it.