The silence is deafening, unless they're saying, "WMD was just one small part of it."

Not if you look at Bush's speech of March 6th; that was only about WMD, and nothing more.

8-12 Years of weapons inspections?

"They need more time... More time... More time..."

At most, two weeks of looking:

"What's taking so long... Why can't you find them?"

Weapons of Mass Destruction at home... Oh the hyperbole...

C'mon, Vinny. It's not about the twelve years of deception, it's about the pretext for this war in the first place. Mr. President speaking on this very subject, in his State of the Union address, suggested that there were VAST amounts of Very Bad Things to be found in Iraq(http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html):

The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary; he is deceiving.

[snip]

The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country, and our friends and our allies. The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's legal -- Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempt to hide those weapons from inspectors, and its links to terrorist groups.

We will consult. But let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.

Yes indeed Norm the silence from the Right has been most deafening - except for the long list of excuses that seem to change and grow more desperate and bizzare almost by the hour. THey are being exposed for the hypocrites they are - demanding apologies from the left but never admitting their own mistakes. Expect to see the red herring of 12 years of inspections thrown out over and over again. The real point is that the Bush, Rumsfeld, Powell troika continuously stated they knew that Iraq had the weapoms and that they knew where they were and that was sufficient grounds for invasion. Guessing and surmising are not the same as knowing.

Since we are ganging up on the only conservative still holding out hope for WMD and willing to say it publically let me add a quotation from Pena at the Cato Institute a question the warbloggers will be left with if we happen to find the odd petri dish or drum of fertilizer. "The question has always been not whether Saddam had weapons of mass destruction but whether tose weapons were a big enough threat to the United States to justify war. If the Iraqi's did not use them to defend an invassion of their own country, when were they ever going to use them, and how were they a threat to the United States.

I guess you guys have never heard of the Euphrates liberal. Well, it's a little river that runs through Baghdad, and it was completely polluted with mustard gas and other blistering agents. But he didn't have them, and we made it up. In fact we made the whole thing up.

It's all a neoconservative zionist plot to steal Iraqi oil. I'm glad you are all here to show us all the light.

Heh. I know it's a serious topic and all, but I just can't help but picture Saddam Hussein as Uncle Jesse, waddling out the back door to pour his moonshine into the river as soon as Bo and Luke call him on the CB, letting him know that Rosco P. Coltrane and Boss Hogg are on their way.

I'm pretty sure that Mr. Burns may have been involved in some illegal river dumping activity, too.

How about a source on that Vinny. You might also want to notify George and Donald and Condie and Colin they seem to all think that we haven't found any smoking guns yet. If you have em show em or fold em.

Well, frankly, if it isn't about WMD, Regime Change, Links to Terrorism, or Liberation, what's left?

What reason did they "lie" to us to cover up?

There are a number of reasons and they are not black and white. It was about regime change because we wanted to make a point that you can't ignore the interests of the United States. We wanted a friendly regime. We wanted it because Iraq supported Palestinians against Israel. It was a lesson to others who support Palestinians. We wanted it because it would benefit American business in the long run the price of oil would be lower. Imagine the boost to the U.S. economy if energy costs went down 5 or 10 percent or more. We wanted to send a message that we wouldn't tolerate terrorism, though there is no evidence that Iraq was supporting terrorism that was a direct threat to the United States. It is important to distinguish between terrorism that is directed at us specifically and terrorism that is local in nature. Terrorism directed against Israel is of a different nature it is part of the war against Israel's occupation of the West Bank. The reasons the United States had for wanting regime change didn't provide a legal justification for war so the threat from weapons of mass destruction was exaggerated and in some ways simply fabricated. Uranium for Niger, aluminum tubes for a centrifuge. Links to terrorists the kind that threaten us directly were exaggerated the line between global terrorism and local terrorism was blurred. The reason they lied to us is simple there was no legal justification for war so they fabricated one.

don't forget the ability to establish new military bases for further ME adventures.

Yes, and what George says.