>>Ok, let's say your wife comes in the house and says, "someone stole my car." Then your neighbor calls up and says yep, my son saw a guy take it. You go outside and the car's not there. Would you think your wife's car was stolen?
>
>Not a very apt analogy, is it? Because no one in our intelligence community actually saw these weapon stockpiles. For that matter, non of our neighbors saw them either. We relied on the words of Chalabi and others with a political agenda, rather than hard intelligence. And with that, we went to world and put our word on the line.

I want to see you put in writing that even Kerry said there were wmds and he voted to go to war (that was before he voted against it). DO YOU AGREE THAT KERRY SAID THERE WERE WMDs? If so, where's the beef? Everyone in a position to know said they were there and even Hillary voted for going to war.


>
>>Russia, England, Germany, and most of the intelligence community of the world, and even one unintelligent senator (kerry) agreed at the time that Iraq had wmds. So do you sit back and wait for them to use them on us? Remember that 911 thingy?
>
>Since when did this country ever rely on Russia, Germany, or any other country's intelligence to go to war? We're the world's only remaining super power. I think when we send our troops to war, we should be doing it with our own intelligence.
>

Who said we relied on their intelligence? I said it simply bolstered our intelligence. For one, I believe there were wmds there and they were moved before we got there. Like this latest fiasco that Kerry has gotten himself into. Those 385 tons (a fraction of the 400k tons that have already been destroyed) were probably moved north while we fiddled around with the UN.