The issue was never that Saddam had WMD at one point in the past- we helped him make it and maintained our alliance with him before, during and after he used it openly in the Iran/Iraq war, and against rebels in his borders. Nor is the point that Saddam Hussein was determined to manufacture them again (The granting of this point was the whole reason for the sanctions, and for their continuance). The cause of war, the question at hand was: did he have them in 2002, and was he (as the administration claimed) moments away from executing plans for delivering them to the US, or the enemies of the US. IE: self defense.

Plenty of people (myself included) pointed out the complete lack of evidence that Saddam had any capacity (connections w/AlQaeda) or intent to transfer WMD to the US or the hands of our enemies. Plenty of people (the UN included) pointed out the sheer improbability of the quantity or quality of WMD in Iraq being sufficient to cause a threat to the US. PLENTY of evidence suggested that Saddam had NO active Nuclear weapons program. Plenty of people pointed out the moral impossibility of a self defense justification being made in the absence of any documented threat. (Instead, we have defined-down self defense to the point it sounds like 'liebensraum' type justification). Plenty of people all around the world pointed out that the intimated connection between Saddam and 9/11 simply wasn't.

The argument pre-and-post war was never about denying that Saddam had at least aspirations for WMD, the question was always if Saddam Hussein was a clear and present threat requiring pre-emptive action. Saddam Hussein was no more a threat in 2002 than he had been for 11 years.

Turns out your little herd of right wing butt-monkey bloggers and war hawks were wrong on all counts, more wrong than even the UN. Thats gotta sting, eh?

In the end, the "Other Guys" that were wrong, the democrats, did not suggest, advocate for, demand and start a war. They didn't have a moral obligation to tripple-check their facts and be damn sure they were right. If you shoot someone because you believed they not only had a gun but were going to use it on you, but turn out they didn't and were not, your not just mistaken- you are a murderer. And frankly everyone who endorsed this war has to own up to that, including you. Belief is for Church, when you cart it into foreign policy and war, you get war crime.

In the end, dredging up a bunch of Democrats or Space Aliens for that matter saying Saddam had/has WMD in 2002 and the years prior does not pull your factual, moral or ethical ass out of the fire. All it does is point out that a lot of the so-called opposition party wen't along with it, and were wrong to do so. Pointing out that some "Bad Guys" are wrong does not make you right for having said the exact same thing. Most people grok this somewhere during childhood.

Now the next little grade-school rhetorical move is to start crowing about how Saddam is/was soooo bad/evil/mean. Granted. He was/is a 100% ____head. But why does someone elses complete lack of morality make it correct to have fabricated a justification for war? Where was the threat in march 2002 sufficient for war that was not there for the prior 11 years.

Mommy they did it too is not an adult line of reasoning here either. And we can only claim we did the Iraqi people a favor if we can stop murdering basterds from killing and torturing them, which we sure as hell have not been able to do yet. We can only claim that we are there for them if they want us there, and thats certainly arguable.

The world may have changed on 9/11 2001, but simple laws of logic, reason and common human decency didn't. The evil of others is no excuse for tolerating and fostering evil within ourselves. Occupying an unwilling and ungreatful people is not anything other than occupation. A Hawk is not a Handsaw when it is politically convinient for it to be so. We have done something morally un-permissible in the anger of our nation, and we should own up to it.

Davin L.