There has been considerable discussion here on the Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq.

The Bush administration and the GOP has repeatedly tried to justify the invasion on the premise that Iraq
was developing WMD's and that Iraq posed a grave danger to the security of the United States and it's interests.

In spite of the lack of documented proof of WMD's, the GOP still defends this decision, and the continues to
denounce anyone who tries to question it.

Here again is another example of this. Yesterday, June 23rd, two Republican lawmakers came forward and
stated that WMD's had in fact been found and that, on the basis of this, the war is justified.

Today, the Department of Defense refuted this clame. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13480264/

I quote:

"Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and Rep. Peter Hoekstra of Michigan on Wednesday 
pointed to a newly declassified report that says coalition forces have found 500 
munitions in Iraq that contained degraded sarin or mustard nerve agents.

They cited the report in an attempt to counter criticism by Democrats who say the 
decision to go to war was a mistake."

Reading this, one might conclude that there were in fact WMD's in Iraq, and therefore the basis
for attacking Iraq was justified.

Yet, if you read on, you can see the response by the Department of Defense. These are the people
on the ground in Iraq who were actually looking for the weapons.

But defense officials said Thursday that the weapons were not considered likely to be dangerous 
because of their age, which they determined to be pre-1991.

It was well known after the Gulf War in 1990 that Iraq had these kinds of weapons. Some were destroyed
in that war, some were not. When the Bush administration used the term 'WMD', it was not referring
to these types of weapons.

Why is it that it was only after 12 years, and until George Bush took office, did someone suddenly
decide that these 'degraded' gas canisters were enough of a grave threat to the US to go and attack
them.

Pentagon officials told NBC News that the munitions are the same kind of ordnance the U.S. military has 
been gathering in Iraq for the past several years, and "not the WMD we were looking for when we went in 
this time."

Could it be that the existance of these old, encrusted gas canisters was unknown up till now? We know that's
not true, because we destroyed some of them in the first gulf war. We knew then that Iraq had these weapons.

Could it be that these weapons somehow became more of a threat 3 years ago then they were back in 1991? The
only change in the status of these weapons was their age.

In fact, the types of WMD's that the Bush administration was referring to were large scale weapons, such
as nuclear weapons and the like. Yet there has not been one single documented piece of information that
proves that Iraq had or was acquiring large scale destructive weapons such as nukes.

Even more, in October 2004, Charlse Duelfer, the head of the CIA's Iraq Survey Group, the group tasked
with finding these weapons, submitted to the CIA a report that clearly stated that no such weapons existed in Iraq.

See also this article

One part of the article states:

"The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the issue.

"We were able to determine that [the missile] is, in fact, degraded and ... is consistent with what we
would expect from finding a munition that was dated back to pre-Gulf War," an intelligence official told
NBC. "However, even in the degraded state, our assessment is that they could pose an up-to-lethal hazard
if used in attacks against coalition forces." 

First, the officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they didn't want to look foolish being in
error. The CIA's Survey Group found nothing. Saying the WMD's do in fact exist doesn't make it so.

And, they go on to say "...if used in attacks against coalition forces"

The coalition forces wouldn't be in danger of being attacked by gas-laced artillery shells had we not
attacked Iraq in the first place.


Now consider this:

A leading Democrat on intelligence issues said (Senator) Santorum's assertion that there were in fact 
weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was politically motivated.

And finally:

For his part, Hoekstra, appearing before cameras on Thursday, reiterated his assertions of Wednesday
evening, saying, "Iraq is NOT a WMD-free zone" and it "amazes me" that members of Congress still say 
that there was no WMD in Iraq.

I quote: "Iraq is NOT a WMD-free zone and it 'amazes me' that members of Congress still say that there
was no WMD in Iraq.

Huh?? In fact, notwithstanding some 20 year old, rusted sarin shells, Iraq IS a WMD-free zone. And it
amazed me that GOP members of Congress still say that there ARE WMD's in Iraq.

Again, saying the WMD's exist does not make it so. The US has had free access to all of Iraq for years.
So WHERE are the weapons? Again, I remind you - Not a single shred of evidence has surfaced to support
the assertion that WMD's exist in Iraq.

I say to the GOP - put up or shut up. If there are WMD's, then prove it.



In spite of the overwhelming lack of evidence to support this war, I ask how anyone can still
support this? Isn't it time the American people take off the blinders and question this?

It is the right and the responsibility of every American citizen to question it's leaders. Shouldn't
we all be asking hard questions right about now?

Instead of attacking those who see the truth, why shouldn't the GOP start looking for a way out
of the mess they got us into?