>>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.
>
>For one, I'm not a big Kerry fan. For another, you'll have to provide something stating that Kerry saw the exact same intelligence Bush did on WMDs. Most of us were relying on the word of this administration.

I didn't say he had the same intelligence the president had. Stay with me on this. I said he said the evidence (that to which he was exposed) supported going to war. Surely the president had even more infomation which would only have further supported going to war.


>
>Are you sure he voted to go to war, or was it that he voted to give the President the authority to go to war, because it's an important distinction.
>
Potayto potahto. If he gave the president the authority to go to war, he was saying, based on the information at hand I agree. (end of discussion)

>>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.
>
>WMDs were moved before we got there? What are you basing this on?

Are you reading anything that's out there. This is getting tiresome. I keep posting stuff from alternate news sources (not all fox) and you keep coming back with these damn democratic talking points. Raise an issue that isn't on CNN's talking heads howaboutit.

>
>> 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.
>
>The point of that story is that the weapons were there in early March, and we didn't know they were gone until May. The first U.S. troops arrived on April 3rd, yet the Pentagon can't definitively tell us whether the weapons were taken before that April 3rd, or after April 3rd. There's only a couple of conclusions you can draw. Either we didn't have a plan for those weapons, or we didn't have enough troops to secure them. Take your pick.

How do you know the weapons were there in March. Where did that information come from? The only thing I've seen is that the "seals" where there in March. Hmm, how hard would that be to duplicate/defeat? It might be the weapons weren't there on April 3rd. You have no proof they were. Therefore, one could conclude the weapons were moved prior to our troops landing there. This seems much more plausible since it would take a bunch of trucks to move this stuff and our forces were covering the roads all around this compound. I think logic dictates the stuff was long gone before we ever got there.

John