Little talk of WMD

[Subversive Pessimist]

Seems like we (or more accurate, they) have forgotten about the official reason for going to war; WMD. There was supposed to be tons of WMDs. Just before the war started, they talked about "liberating the Iraqi people". It's funny, because they killed over 12,000 civilian Iraqis, and created radiation 250, 000 times bigger then Nagaski. :o

As a friend of mine said: Let me be the first to congratulate the US on their efforts to get into the Guiness book of records.


Anyways, you all know this. Enough rhetorics :P

Do you think they will ever mention WMD again, as the reason for invading and occupying Iraq?

[Guerrilla22]

Well we, the politically left have not forgotten about this, its the Republicans, who now want the American public to forget about this and they are trying to do so by not mentioning the fact that it is now aparent that no WMDS will ever be found in Iraq. Instead, the Bush administration will say things like "we gave the Iraqi people freedom and Iraq is much better off without Saddam."

The Bush administration is also doing everything it can to keep the Senate Intelligence Committee's report on pre-war intelligence, which already declared that most of the CIA's pre-war intel was badly flawed and is expeted to say that the Bush camp overexaggerated what little inteel they did have, from coming out before the November election.

With that said, the Democrats aren't speaking up and making this a campaign issue, because most of them supported the President in going to war, including John Kerry and also believed that Saddam possessed stockpiles of WMDs.

[monkeydust]

In the UK the press are still bashing on about WMD. It's a more important issue here, as Blair's official reason for war was solely because he thought Iraq to be a threat to Britian.

Unfortunately, too many people still don't see the invasion for what it really was: Imperialism.

A CIA president and a constitution with a guartanteed veto for the US don't change matters.

[Subversive Pessimist]

Does the US have a guaranteed veto??? In elections?!

[LuZhiming]

I think the left should forget about WMD. I wouldn't support the war even if Saddam Hussein did have WMD. After all WMD even includes chemicl weapons, I'm actually surprised that none have been found, unless the Bush administration is planning to hide them away until the election is nearer.

[Subversive Pessimist]

I think the left should forget about WMD.

It was a stupid argument. None the less, it was their argument.


I'm actually surprised that none have been found, unless the Bush administration is planning to hide them away until the election is nearer.

I think they would use a lot of dirty tricks this election. I also think it would be a little too obvious (maybe not for the Americans, but at least for normal human beings (non-conservatives etc.) outside the United States) having the WMDs popping up everywhere in Iraq, just two days before the elections.

[monkeydust]

Does the US have a guaranteed veto??? In elections?!

Coalition forces, albeit indirectly, are able to veto measures taken by the Iraqi government. But don't take my word for it!


The Presidency Council will consist of the President and two Deputy Presidents, and will be elected by the National Assembly as a group. The Presidency Council will represent the sovereignty of Iraq, may veto laws, and make appointments. All decisions of the Presidency Council will be taken unanimously.