I suggest people research the DemocRATS own words in regard to Saddam and WMD's.

Try Bill Clinton, Maddy Albright, John Kerry, Tom Daschle, Bob Graham, Robert Byrd and the rest of the Left's, "as a matter of Fact" statements starting in 1998 that Saddam was a potential "Hitler", that he was actively searching for, and developing WMD's and Nuclear weapons, and that he was directly a Threat to the United States with the WMD's that he already obtained, and these assertions were based on what kind of intelligence?, now that we hear these same people questioning Bush (43) for saying exactly what they themselves said long before Bush (43) was even the President and then backed up on the Congressional Record last October in the form of their votes in favor of using Force against Iraq in the current day.

These DemocRATS rantings were all to help rationalize Clinton's 1998, 500 Cruise Missile bombing raid against Iraq during his Impeachment.

WMD During Clinton's days... Weapons of Mass Distraction.

This attack against the people of Iraq, neither removed Saddam, nor did it return UN inspectors, but it did end with the end of Impeachment, and by that time, the GOP had it's tail between it's legs and had no moral ground to criticize a popular president any further after his Impeachment acquittal.

Here are some relative examples of how the Left felt about Saddam during Impeachment... Keep in mind, Clinton could have cared less about Saddam from the 1993 WTC Bombing, that was orchestrated by Mr. Yosef, directly linked to Saddam, all the way up to Impeachment, when suddenly, Saddam is an immediate Threat to us and the rest of the World...

"His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region, and the security of all the rest of us," Clinton said in February 1998. "Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal. Let there be no doubt, we are prepared to act.

"If not, it's back to business. It is the use of force. It is a swift response militarily and by whatever other means may be necessary," Daschle said in a speech in late February 1998.

Let's ask Senator Robert "There are White Niggers" Byrd (D) what he thinks:

"The U.S. should strike, strike hard and strike decisively. In this instance, the administration needs to act sooner rather than later,"

Oops, that was back when a (D) was @ 1600 on Nov. 14, 1998.

But what about Clinton's Secretary of State Madeleine (Token Grandma Appointment) Albright: "I can honestly tell you that I don't think that the world has seen, except maybe since Hitler, someone who is quite as evil as Saddam Hussein. ...If you don't stop a horrific dictator before he gets started too far -- that he can do untold damage. ...If the world had been firmer with Hitler earlier, then chances are that we might not have needed to send Americans to Europe during the Second World War.  So, my lesson out of all of this is deal with the problem at the time that you can and don't step away from it thinking that it'll go away.

Someone once called Iraq an "outlaw nation" in league with an "unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals. And then queried: "What if Saddam Hussein "fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.  If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.  Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal... We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century. They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein." President Bill Clinton - February 18, 1998.

And what about this DemocRAT Hawk?...

"If there is not unfettered, unrestricted, unlimited access per the U.N. resolution for inspections, and UNSCOM cannot in our judgment appropriately perform its functions, then we obviously reserve the rights to press that case internationally and to do what we need to do as a nation in order to be able to enforce those rights.  Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East." John Kerry - February 23, 1998.

Those quotes first appeared at associalisticpress.com back on March 11th of 2003 when the debate was not about "bad intelligence", but more about how if we dared go into Iraq, we would lose 10's of thousands of our troops and be fighting another Vietnam for years to come... And how wrong was the Left on that doom saying!

For the Record, the Combat related deaths in Iraq II stand at 148 after almost half a year of our presence there.

Speaking of the new attack tactic that the Left seems to think is going be successful for them in the War against the President, how about the patently "bad intelligence" that led to the bombing of a pharmaceutical factory in the Sudan that led to the death of innocent Sudanese civilians on the part of William the Liar?

It's interesting that the Left did not call for Impeachment on that "mistake"... This is yet another example of just how Dishonest the Left has become, and to what extremes they will go when they have no Power in the Government for the first time since nearly the end of WWII!

Another angle to attack the President from is, the Left, led by their "Free Press", pointing out that the number of casualties in Iraq II has surpassed Iraq I...

And?

Consider this, to date, we have still suffered less combat deaths, 148, in Iraq II, than we did in the entire calendar year of 2002 in non-combat, accidental deaths which was over 200... Where was the Left complaining about those 200+ soldiers last year?

Yet another example of the Left abusing the death and suffering of our troops in the hopes of hurting George W. Bush in next year's election.

Iraq II is not Vietnam, nor is Iraq II even comparable to Iraq I, unless you are a Liar and are only making the asinine comparison to do harm to a guy that you did not vote for in 2000.

Let's look at Iraq I as compared to Iraq II, Honestly, and in a Historically accurate way...

In Iraq I, a US led coalition of 500,000 troops repelled Iraq out of a small country next to the coast called Kuwait.

In Iraq II , basically America solo, sent 1/3 of the number of troops that were sent in Iraq I, to take over an entire country, and then to rebuild and secure it... Nearly flawlessly I might add.

Consider this, Iraq, a country of 24-26 million people, is being occupied post it's defeat by the same 150,000 troops that originally took it, and we have suffered only 148 combat deaths in that six month period...

Near flawless, and to deny this Fact, is to admit that you are the worst kind of Dishonest political thug with designs on the downfall of our Republic, as long as it helps your Party gain Power and it destroys a man that you do not accept as President.

If those 24-26 million people in Iraq wanted us to leave, they would make it happen, they would not be watching our Marines play soccer with their people.

The FEW and FAR BETWEEN "drive-by" attacks on our troops in Iraq are no different than what goes on in the South of Chicago or in Watts, and these attacks are coming from the obvious areas of the country where they were expected.

NO ONE said that Americans would not die, but almost everyone on the Left would have laughed in early March if they were told that only 148 Americans would have been killed in combat by mid-July, months after taking the country over faster, and more flawlessly than any other in history.

As for the Left's current concern for our troops being deployed too long, and in conditions that are less than desirable, where have they been for the permanently stationed troops in Saudi Arabia for over a decade suffering through 115+ degree summers?

Or how about 5 decades and Generations of 35,000 or so at a time, permanently stationed American men and women, who have been suffering through the cold winters and hot summers of Korea?

Yet another example of the Left making light of Iraq II for political gain, no more, no less.

The collective Left loathes the Military, they always have, and always will.

This "concern" of theirs is rooted in politics... End of List.

One more example of the Left's Lies in the form of attacks: "The President is failing at the War on Terror"... Really?  So the Fact that we have not suffered another attack against our Country in almost two years is not an indicator of any success?

I guarantee you that the instant that we are attacked again, the Left will say that the attack is a clear example of the Bush (43) Administration's failure on the War on Terror.

If they were Honest, and they are not, then they would have to admit, that so far, the War on Terror has been a success, starting with Afghanistan, going through Iraq, and up to this day.

Remember the Left's predictions, pre-Afghanistan, that attacking them would lead to more Terror, not less?  Then again just before Iraq, the same doom and gloom predictions?

The Left has the luxury of making these hysterical predictions, but not having to stand behind them when they are wrong and answer for it.

The President does NOT have that same luxury.

It is really unfortunate that the predictions of just how bad the DemocRATS would act when they finally found themselves 100% out of Power for the first time in 5 decades, have actually turned out to be much worse than anyone could have ever imagined.

Pathetic, self-destructive and harmful to the Republic at large... "The DemocRAT Party 2004"!

I hope they have not convinced themselves that they can keep this childishness up for another year and a half or so, because the American people are going to tire of this long before that, and without a Majority in either the House or the Senate, they will not be Removing Bush (43) before November 2, 2004, no matter how bad they want to.

Do you understand that DemocRATS?... You cannot convene Impeachment hearings when you can't even convene independent investigations as you proved the other day... Nice job!

You are NOT in Power any longer, realize that soon, or continue the slide!

Memo to the Left: Incessant Bitching will NOT motivate your base any more than it did the Right's base in 1995 and 1996.

Learn from other's mistakes and stop taking the rope that is being handed to you by the very person you seek to destroy, if have any realistic intention of surviving the decade politically!

Do you get it yet?

Unless you intend on being 100% out of Power until at least 2006 and probably until 2008, I would suggest you stop bitching long enough to figure out how badly you are failing at accomplishing your goals of destroying your enemy here at home with said bitching, while attempting to distract the President, the people, and our Military, from the real enemy abroad!

peace,

tha malcontent