Ok I officialy think that liberals are mentally ill. Let me try to keep up. Correct me where the mistakes are or where I have left out positions.
1. 2003 before war
libs say Iraq is a grave threat and there is WMDs
2. 2003 durring major military operations
most of america is united except for hippies
3. 2003-2004 after major military operations
dems says saddam was ok in our book and theres no WMDs, why the ###### we in iraq?
4. NOW
3.9 tons of explosives missing, dems infuriated

So first, lets go, then woa woa, too fast, now, how could u get the WMDs get away yet dont exist in the first (err second) place?
What has become of the democrat party? Have you ever heard in the news about a carbomb going off? And now you've heard about 3.9 tons of explosives missing? Yet theres no WMDs? Yet Kerry says he has never changed a position? Jesus Christ Kerry why dont you just kill us all, please!

I agree they're mentally ill and also have the same impulse control as an 8 year old. As soon as they heard about the missing stockpile they jumped on it and even made an expensive 'John Kerry approved this message' TV ad about it...before bothering to find out the report was from Apr 2003 and NBC had an embedded reporter with the troops when they first went to the area where the stockpile was supposed to be and it was missing then! How can Bush be blamed for a missing stockpile that disappeared before Saddam was overthrown? These deperate idiots will stop at nothing to deceive the public, or esle they're mentally ill.

Allow me to address some of your interesting points Mr long face

1. 2003 before war
libs say Iraq is a grave threat and there is WMDs

No the president SAID there were WMDs in Iraq and like fools people believed our president remember ,aluminium tubes, yellow cake for nukes, Nuke detonators, mobile chemical weapons factories (LOL). We believed the lies


2. 2003 during major military operations
most of America is united except for hippies

True


3 . 2003-2004 after major military operations
dems says saddam was ok in our book and theres no WMDs, why the ###### we in iraq?

No, I say why did the president lie to the country?

If there are no WMDs why did we go to war? Oil?

No one says saddam was ok

But if it was about removing saddam and human rights why did we back him and aid in the 1980s? remember rummy giving saddam a present of a pen? Oh and some TOE anti tank missiles too…

WAS Saddam killing people his own people in the 1980s of course he was.

Now the missing stock pile, these ARE CONVENSTIONAL EXPLOSIVES, Iraqi like most countries is full of dual use equipment and materials. NO WMDs!!

Would it not of been a good idea on the first day of the war to drop a great big bomb on this place to make sure everything’s destroyed?

Then when ground troops arrive secure the buildings. The point is this is IF the president went to war because of WMDs he would of ordered all the “suspected sites” to be destroyed then guarded.

But no, what did the troops first objective? To secure the oil fields!! Fact

Was it worth 1,112* dead man and women 8,016 *wounded men and women and counting
* figures as of 10/21/2004 source centcom.mil (US MILITRY WEB Site)


Are we safer and stronger?

Why didn’t we go after the terrorists?

Not one of the 9/11 terrorist were Iraqi

Iraqi had no links to 9/11

You’ve been sold a lie wake up!!!

Mr. Coward, these are the most explosive "conventional weapons" around. I've heard less than one pound will blow a commercial airliner. This isn't some homemade c4 stuff. BUT that wasn't the only reason we went to war. There were also reports of Iraq harboring terrorists which are true. see .
Like the fools believed? THE WHOLE WORLD BELIEVED IRAQ HAD WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!!!
If the president lied, then so did everyone else. John Kerry, Daschle, all the liberal asses. The point is intelligience said there were WMDs, and if the democrats information is right, there is. I don't know why we gave him aid back in the 80s. And I don't believe that the whole purpose of the war was WMDs. The first thing they wanted to do was bring down Saddam's regime. Thats why they attacked buildings of military importance.
Yes, of course we are safer and stronger. You said yourself Saddam wasn't ok.
We did go after the terrorists. Like you said they've killed more than 1000 people.
The president made it clear this was a war on terror, not only al quada. Should we wait till we get attacked from Iraq first? Is it like a certification of war or something? We only attack people who attack us. Until then we cant do anything?
Iraq was harboring al quada.
I'VE been sold a lie? The people in the front line can see with their own eyes whats going on! Who's telling you whatever convinced you to be a kerry lover? Some fat senator of massachusettes?
If the president recieves intelligence about a possible threat, should he look into it more and keep looking into it? Every day he sits around is another day in risk of being attacked. If you believe you should keep looking into things, thats fine and I can kinda see that side of the story. You don't want the world to hate you and you want to get your decision EXACTLY right. But I would rather not take the risk. What other wake up call do we need? Do we need one from each country?