Why does the left continue to HUMILIATE themselves on the WMD issue?

[JoeB131]

[

Here's how I would handle this situation (and I would assume any intelligent, mature adult would) if the situation were reversed and Barack Hussein lead us into military operations based on his assertion that the nation in question had WMD's and it turned out to be true (and assuming I'm a passivist sissy like most liberals and/or libertarians)...

While I don't agree with what Barack Hussein did <insert complaints here - death of soldiers, cost, etc.>, the facts show that Barack was correct in his assertion that the nation had WMD's.

See how easy that is? Nobody said you have to like what occurred - but to deny that WMD's didn't exist to justify your feelings is just absurd. Don't rewrite history because you hate Bush.

Except Saddam didn't have WMD's. A few canisters of expired chemical weapons are not WMD's. Sorry. You know, Santorum tried this tact in 2006 before the folks in PA booted his ass downrange so fast it wasn't even funny.

[
On a side note - I'm still curious why you could give a fuck about the 3,000 innocent civilians that died on 9/11? I mean, you seem to have a genuine concern for well armed, well trained soldiers that voluntarily accept the risk and know ahead of time what they are getting into - all major advantages that the 3,000 victims didn't have that day.

With 9/11, the left asserts that Bush was "reactive" and is responsible for the death of 3,000 Americans. On Iraq, the left asserts that Bush was "proactive" and created an "illegal" and "unnecessary" war. So I guess no matter what Bush does (proactive or reactive), he's just wrong?

I think most folks on the left don't blame Bush for 9/11. They blame him for using it as an excuse to get us into a war with no clear goals and no clear end.

The thing is, Saddam had been in power for something like 30 years. We left him in power in 1991, and he really wasn't causing any major problems for us. Problems for Israel, maybe, but honestly, fuck Israel.

Saddam was not going to sign his own death warrent by handing over one of his expired cannisters of mustard gas to Al Qaeda.

 

[Billo_Really]

"International law" - one of the liberals favorite fallacies of the left

It amazes me how the left has zero concept of law. To have "international law", you must have an international enforcement agency. Who would that be Mr. boy? To have "international law", you must have an international court. You must have an international judge. Who would those be Mr. boy?

I'm sorry, you can't make up your own definitions, Mr. Yoo. International law is what it is.

However, the particular law (treaty) we broke (Article 51 of the UN Charter), happened to have been ratified by Congress, which means it carry's the same weight as the US Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land.

Have you ever heard of that document?

Furthermore, the US went before the UN and received security resolutions which Saddam violated. The military operations to remove Saddam Hussein from power were the most legal military actions in world history.

No they weren't. I'll give you a $1000 if you can show me 1 UN resolution on Iraq that contains the words "regime change". Just one!

And of all the resolutions on Iraq, only 680 contained the term "member states to use all necessary means", which is the UNSC's way of authorizing military force. However, 680 was about getting Iraq out of Kuwait, not the US into Iraq.

Bush did submit a resolution to the security council that would authorize military force, but withdrew it when it was apparent that it would not get passsed.

BTW, not only was the invasion illegal, it was the most cowardly act this nation has ever committed. First, you force a nation to disarm, then you attack and drop more bombs on them than all the bombs that were dropped in WWII.

 

[P@triot]

Except Saddam didn't have WMD's. A few canisters of expired chemical weapons are not WMD's. Sorry. You know, Santorum tried this tact in 2006 before the folks in PA booted his ass downrange so fast it wasn't even funny.

There were thousands of WMD's recovered in Iraq and dozens of incidents where they were actually used against our forces. Even MSNBC acknowledged that fact. And here you sit today still unable to accept reality.

I think most folks on the left don't blame Bush for 9/11.

Actually, everyone on the left does blame Bush for 9/11. Are you ever not wrong?!?

They blame him for using it as an excuse to get us into a war with no clear goals and no clear end.

No clear goals? The entire goal was to remove Saddam and his regime from power - and they were successful. Joe, buddy, nobody could be this fuck'n stupid. Nobody. What the fuck is wrong with you? Are you stoned out of your mind? Drunk off you miserable low class ass? Both?

The thing is, Saddam had been in power for something like 30 years. We left him in power in 1991, and he really wasn't causing any major problems for us. Problems for Israel, maybe, but honestly, fuck Israel.

This is overwhelming evidence that you don't have a fuck'n clue what you are talking about. Saddam was never a problem for Israel. Saddam was a political beast (like Adolf Hitler), not a religious beast (like Osama Bin Laden). Saddam invaded Kuwait. Saddam invaded Iran. When did he ever strike at Israel? How are you not humiliated by the ignorance you post? You do realize EVERYONE is laughing at you, right? No wonder you can't hold a fuck'n job...

By the way - typical radical left wing nut. After claiming to be such a humanitarian, you show your true colors with "honestly, fuck Israel" comment. It just goes to show your hatred of capitalism and support for communism is all about your own greed and laziness, and nothing to do with your compassion for others (another despicable trait of the left).

Saddam was not going to sign his own death warrent by handing over one of his expired cannisters of mustard gas to Al Qaeda.

You clearly know as much about Saddam as you do economics. Just curious - why do you insist on making shit up on issues you know nothing about? Are you hoping to sound "intelligent"?

 

[P@triot]

I'm sorry, you can't make up your own definitions, Mr. Yoo. International law is what it is.

So answer the question. It is a simple question. So why do you appear to be incapable of answering it? If an "international law" is broken, who is the global enforcement arm that would make the arrests and bring the offenders before the courts? And who and where are these "international courts"? And can you name the "international judge(s)"?

However, the particular law (treaty) we broke (Article 51 of the UN Charter), happened to have been ratified by Congress, which means it carry's the same weight as the US Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land.

Doh! Looks like reality just hit boy here. He now starts to migrate from "law" to introducing a much more appropriate term "treaty". Seems reality hit him a bit after my last post.

When you get a chance, there is a term you desperately need to look up in the dictionary: Sovereign

 

[candycorn]

It's February 26, 2013. No WMDs were found today either...just as there never has been.

 

[P@triot]

It's February 26, 2013. No WMDs were found today either...just as there never has been.

Closing your eyes and pretending reality is different from what you wish it were does not change that reality. Even MSBNC has acknowledged WMD's - how pathetic that the facts are so undeniable, even MSBNC had to accept it, and still you can't. L-O-S-E-R.....

From Chuck Pfarerr's book, Seal Target: Geronimo

It is a chilling fact that thousands of chemical weapons have been uncovered in Iraq. These weapons have been used by Al Qaeda against coalition and NATO forces on dozens of occasions. This has been confirmed by countless sources, most recently in the released WikiLeaks cables.

Sarin-loaded bomb explodes in Iraq - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - Conflict in Iraq | NBC News

NewsMax.com: Inside Cover Story

 

[Billo_Really]

So answer the question. It is a simple question. So why do you appear to be incapable of answering it? If an "international law" is broken, who is the global enforcement arm that would make the arrests and bring the offenders before the courts? And who and where are these "international courts"? And can you name the "international judge(s)"?

You're still trying to frame this discussion into your own definition of international law.

And this homie ain't gonna play your fuckin', dumbass game!

Doh! Looks like reality just hit boy here. He now starts to migrate from "law" to introducing a much more appropriate term "treaty". Seems reality hit him a bit after my last post.

When you get a chance, there is a term you desperately need to look up in the dictionary: Sovereign

You really don't set the bar all that high on intelligence, do you?

International laws are in the form of treaties. They are interchangable terms when dealing with the UN Charter, Nuremburg Principles and Hague and Geneva Conventions.

But since you brought up the subject of sovereignty, do you not agree that the US Constitution is "sovereign" over the actions of the United States? And any violation of the US Constitution should be deemed illegal? So it just stands to reason, that a law that carry's the same weight as the Constitution, is also considered illegal as well.

You do the math from here, I'm tired of spoon-feeding an idiot, such as yourself!

 

[JoeB131]

[
There were thousands of WMD's recovered in Iraq and dozens of incidents where they were actually used against our forces. Even MSNBC acknowledged that fact. And here you sit today still unable to accept reality.

If that were the case, why did the CIA itself say this in 2005?

USATODAY.com - Final report: Iraq had no WMDs

The 1,000-page report by chief weapons searcher Charles Duelfer, a document that President Bush said would represent the last word on the issue, confirms earlier findings and undermines much of the Bush administration's case about the Iraq weapons threat, though it does say Saddam intended to restart his weapons programs once United Nations sanctions were lifted.

Using the research of the 1,700-member Iraq Survey Group, Duelfer concluded that Saddam ordered his arsenal of chemical and biological weapons destroyed in 1991 and 1992 and halted nuclear weapons development, all in hopes of lifting crippling economic sanctions.[/QUOTE]

This isn't MSNBC or the Media or the Left. This is Bush's own CIA.

Actually, everyone on the left does blame Bush for 9/11. Are you ever not wrong?!?

Really? Who? Name names.

No clear goals? The entire goal was to remove Saddam and his regime from power - and they were successful. Joe, buddy, nobody could be this fuck'n stupid. Nobody. What the fuck is wrong with you? Are you stoned out of your mind? Drunk off you miserable low class ass? Both?

The goal was to end a WMD program that didn't exist. It was never about removing Saddam from power. That was never called for in either the Congressional Authorizaton to use force or UN Resolution 1440.

More to the point, Saddam had NOTHING to do with 9/11. So why were we going after him at all? Oh, that's right, he tried to kill Bush's Pappy.

This is overwhelming evidence that you don't have a fuck'n clue what you are talking about. Saddam was never a problem for Israel. Saddam was a political beast (like Adolf Hitler), not a religious beast (like Osama Bin Laden). Saddam invaded Kuwait. Saddam invaded Iran. When did he ever strike at Israel? How are you not humiliated by the ignorance you post? You do realize EVERYONE is laughing at you, right? No wonder you can't hold a fuck'n job...

You almost have to take this bit of retardation apart. Yes, he invaded Iran, with the blessings and support of the US, as well as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, who bankrolled his invasion.

He invaded Kuwait over a dispute with the Emir over the Rumelia Oil Fields, AFTER US Ambassador April Glaspie told him the US had no treaty with Kuwait and we did not take a side in that dispute.

He did attack Israel. He dropped SCUDs on their asses. Not to mention Israel bombed the Osirik Nuclear reactor in 1982 because Saddam might use it to make bombs.

Are you really this ignorant. I'm guessing you are about 22 and didn't live through a lot of this shit.

By the way - typical radical left wing nut. After claiming to be such a humanitarian, you show your true colors with "honestly, fuck Israel" comment. It just goes to show your hatred of capitalism and support for communism is all about your own greed and laziness, and nothing to do with your compassion for others (another despicable trait of the left).

Israel runs an apartheid state based on Religion, and they are constantly manipulating our politics. With friends like Israel, we can do without enemies. They've chosen to steal someone else's land and then wonder why those people are trying to kill them. Can't feel bad for someone who is so responsible for his own problems.

Saddam was not going to sign his own death warrent by handing over one of his expired cannisters of mustard gas to Al Qaeda.

You clearly know as much about Saddam as you do economics. Just curious - why do you insist on making shit up on issues you know nothing about? Are you hoping to sound "intelligent"?

Poodle, someone should have explained to you at a young age.. probably in debate class or something... that attacking your opponent personally does not bolster a weak argument.

Saddam would have had no good reason to hand WMD"s over to Al Qaeda. It would be kind of like me handing an M-16 I was responsible for as a Supply Sergeant to a crazy homeless person. There was no good reason for me to do it and really bad consequences if I had.

Once Saddam handed those weapons over, he would have had no control and all the consequences... Does this sound even remotely logical to you?

More to the point, if those weapons did exist, why haven't they turned up in the hands of Al Qaeda or anyone else for that matter?

 

[kiwiman127]

Good move, it's basically impossible to even try to generate any sense at all from Rottweiler. When someone denies historical facts in favor of opinion, it's time to move on and leave him in his own fantasy land.

Now that is funny. You are seriously unhinged, aren't you? I've provided links with FACTS - links that even include MSBNC (the radical left-wing propaganda arm of the dumbocrat party). And in your mind, that's "denying historical facts"?

I guess denying reality is just easier for you than admitting that Bush was in fact right and justified for entering Iraq, uh?

What you call your facts are pretty damn pale compared what I suggested you read, which you obviously didn't. What I linked the actual Iraq Survey Group Final Report, top that nimrod! Here's the linb to the entire report, Iraq Survey Group Final Report
You are the type of character that the GOP is trying to dump because people like you give the GOP the image of the party of the stupid.

 

[JoeB131]

Good move, it's basically impossible to even try to generate any sense at all from Rottweiler. When someone denies historical facts in favor of opinion, it's time to move on and leave him in his own fantasy land.

Now that is funny. You are seriously unhinged, aren't you? I've provided links with FACTS - links that even include MSBNC (the radical left-wing propaganda arm of the dumbocrat party). And in your mind, that's "denying historical facts"?

I guess denying reality is just easier for you than admitting that Bush was in fact right and justified for entering Iraq, uh?

What you call your facts are pretty damn pale compared what I suggested you read, which you obviously didn't. What I linked the actual Iraq Survey Group Final Report, top that nimrod! Here's the linb to the entire report, Iraq Survey Group Final Report
You are the type of character that the GOP is trying to dump because people like you give the GOP the image of the party of the stupid.

Poodle is still trying to get his arms around the concept of Evolution.

 

[P@triot]

You're still trying to frame this discussion into your own definition of international law.

And this homie ain't gonna play your fuckin', dumbass game!

Interpretation from liberal bullshit to normal English: "Ah shit, I've been completely cornered by facts and now I'm fucked! Time to run for the hills...

International laws are in the form of treaties. They are interchangable terms when dealing with the UN Charter, Nuremburg Principles and Hague and Geneva Conventions.

And who enforces these "treaties"? Why can't you answer a very simple question?

(Hint: you can't answer because, as usual, you don't know what the fuck you are talking about)

But since you brought up the subject of sovereignty, do you not agree that the US Constitution is "sovereign" over the actions of the United States? And any violation of the US Constitution should be deemed illegal? So it just stands to reason, that a law that carry's the same weight as the Constitution, is also considered illegal as well.

Well, the U.S. Constitution is backed by an enforcement arm, a judicial arm, and a legislative arm to amend. Where are those factions to enforce the "treaties" in the international community? Why are you ducking and insulting instead of having an honest conversation? Oh that's right - if you had an honest conversation, you'd no longer have any grounds for your favorite hobby - crying about Bush like a little bitch. You need the lies and the bullshit to justify your irrational feelings

You do the math from here, I'm tired of spoon-feeding an idiot, such as yourself!

Interpretation from liberal bullshit to normal English: "Ah shit, I've been completely cornered by facts and now I'm fucked! Time to run for the hills...

 

[P@triot]

Good move, it's basically impossible to even try to generate any sense at all from Rottweiler. When someone denies historical facts in favor of opinion, it's time to move on and leave him in his own fantasy land.

Now that is funny. You are seriously unhinged, aren't you? I've provided links with FACTS - links that even include MSBNC (the radical left-wing propaganda arm of the dumbocrat party). And in your mind, that's "denying historical facts"?

I guess denying reality is just easier for you than admitting that Bush was in fact right and justified for entering Iraq, uh?

What you call your facts are pretty damn pale compared what I suggested you read, which you obviously didn't. What I linked the actual Iraq Survey Group Final Report, top that nimrod! Here's the linb to the entire report, Iraq Survey Group Final Report
You are the type of character that the GOP is trying to dump because people like you give the GOP the image of the party of the stupid.

So in your mind, a report (with no date posted) supercedes classified U.S. government cables discussing the WMD's, exposed by WikiLeaks?

There are terms for people like you: unhinged, denial, partisan hack....

 

[Faun]

It is a FACT that large caches of WMD's were in fact located in Iraq.

Give it up already. There were some WMD found that were leftovers from a decade earlier, but the stockpilles that Bush warned about were not there. The facilities to build even more that Bush warned us about weren't there. That Iraq was reconstituting it's nuclear weapons programs as Bush warned us about, wasn't happening.

... and finally ... the very words from the one man on the planet who wanted to find those WMD more than any other human ...

"the main reason we went into Iraq, at the time, was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't" ~ George Bush, 8.21.2006

 

[Faun]

The Republicans made up an unprovoked war to win elections and left others to pay for it while reducing their own taxes ...

Nowadays, even most Republicans admit that invading Iraq was a mistake. It's nowhere as bad as LBJ launching his war in Vietnam over the Gulf of Tonkin, but it will be a blemish on Bush's legacy for the lifetime of America.

 

[P@triot]

It is a FACT that large caches of WMD's were in fact located in Iraq.

Give it up already. There were some WMD found that were leftovers from a decade earlier, but the stockpilles that Bush warned about were not there. The facilities to build even more that Bush warned us about weren't there. That Iraq was reconstituting it's nuclear weapons programs as Bush warned us about, wasn't happening.

... and finally ... the very words from the one man on the planet who wanted to find those WMD more than any other human ...

"the main reason we went into Iraq, at the time, was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't" ~ George Bush, 8.21.2006

Wow! An ounce of honesty (sure, it's barely an ounce - but it's a start). Baby steps. Baby steps. First, they were screaming like maniacs that "there were no WMD's" and that "Bush created an illegal war".

Now, after irrefutable facts, the new narrative is "well, sure, there were some WMD's, but not enough to justify the military actions".

Who knows, another 25 years of this and liberals might be able to actually admit Bush was right.

You don't have to like what happened. Hell, you don't even have to agree with it, much less like it. Just don't make up stories and rewrite history to support your feelings.

 

[Faun]

He claimed WMD's - nothing less, nothing more. And that's exactly what was found in Iraq. It's not Bush's you choose to be ignorant about the world, your own government, and your own military. As I documented above - there were THOUSANDS of WMD's found and dozens of cases were they were used.

You've been asked to produce evidence that thousands of WMD were found -- yet you've offered nothing. Why is that?

Also, people forget that Saddam used chemical weapons on the Kurds in the North during the 80's (this is where "Chemical Ali" got his nickname). So there was NEVER a doubt that he WMD's unless your an idiot liberal desperate to attack Bush over Iraq.

It's interesting that you mention that since one of the chemicals Hussein had used on the Kurds was White Phosphorus -- the same chemical agent Bush used in Fallujah.

Guess we should start calling him Chemical Dubya, huh?

Aside from what I've already posted, the fact that Saddam Hussein himself was claiming to have WMD's is further reason for the Bush Administration to have "intelligence" that he had them.

Say what?? According to Bush, Hussein was denying that he had WMD ...

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have." ~ Chemical Dubya, 2.8.2003​

Please - have someone who actually knows how to read, read your own posts to you. You're contradicting yourself. You claim that the Bush Administration was only worried about nuclear weapons, and to "prove" this - you post quotes from the Bush Administration where they not only state CHEMICAL weapons, they specifically cite SARIN GAS - the very chemical that started this thread

You're lying (a sign that you've lost). BlindBoo never said Bush was only worried about nuclear weapons.

Where did I ever say that (and I quote) "the Bush administration never claimed there was a nuclear threat from Iraq"?!?!? Please show us the post #. I've said a 1,000x's that the administration explicitly said WMD's - which includes nukes you fuck'n fool.

Now you're just flat out lying and making shit up because I'm owning you with FACTS.

Talk about self-ownage ...

"There was NEVER a claim that it was NUKES" ~ Rottweiler, post #12​

The only thing embarrassing is when you open your mouth. All I did was post a link from MSNBC where they openly admitted that WMD's were no only located, but used against our troops.

To be clear, it was believed that the insurgents who planted that roadside bomb didn't knew it contained any chemical agents.

 

[Billo_Really]

Interpretation from liberal bullshit to normal English: "Ah shit, I've been completely cornered by facts and now I'm fucked! Time to run for the hills...

Oh contraire', you dumbass mugwump, you keep trying to re-frame this discussion into something that doesn't exist.

And who enforces these "treaties"? Why can't you answer a very simple question?

The UNSC does.

(Hint: you can't answer because, as usual, you don't know what the fuck you are talking about)

I just answered it, junior. See above.

Next question?

Well, the U.S. Constitution is backed by an enforcement arm, a judicial arm, and a legislative arm to amend. Where are those factions to enforce the "treaties" in the international community? Why are you ducking and insulting instead of having an honest conversation? Oh that's right - if you had an honest conversation, you'd no longer have any grounds for your favorite hobby - crying about Bush like a little bitch. You need the lies and the bullshit to justify your irrational feelings

You accuse me of "ducking", as you run away from my question. Classic!

 

[Faun]

It is a FACT that large caches of WMD's were in fact located in Iraq.

Give it up already. There were some WMD found that were leftovers from a decade earlier, but the stockpilles that Bush warned about were not there. The facilities to build even more that Bush warned us about weren't there. That Iraq was reconstituting it's nuclear weapons programs as Bush warned us about, wasn't happening.

... and finally ... the very words from the one man on the planet who wanted to find those WMD more than any other human ...

"the main reason we went into Iraq, at the time, was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't" ~ George Bush, 8.21.2006

Wow! An ounce of honesty (sure, it's barely an ounce - but it's a start). Baby steps. Baby steps. First, they were screaming like maniacs that "there were no WMD's" and that "Bush created an illegal war".

Now, after irrefutable facts, the new narrative is "well, sure, there were some WMD's, but not enough to justify the military actions".

Who knows, another 25 years of this and liberals might be able to actually admit Bush was right.

You don't have to like what happened. Hell, you don't even have to agree with it, much less like it. Just don't make up stories and rewrite history to support your feelings.

"First" ... when "they were screaming like maniacs" was early into the war. After a year or two had passed and almost nothing was reported found, amid false allegations by Bush that WMD were found, yes, many were screaming that no WMD were found. but over the years, more and more information was released.

What we now know is that there were 100's (I still don't know where you get thousands from, sin ce you refuse to say), of WMD found. Many of them still sealed by the U.N. from when they were in Iraq in the 90's. But none of them were the "stockpiles" that Bush warned about. What Buch claimed, but was was never found or proven:

• 6 months from developing a nuclear weapon
  
• Aluminum rods Hussein was trying to purchase from Niger
  
• 45 minutes away from a nuclear attack
  
• 25,000 liters of anthrax
  
• 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin
  
• 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent
  
• 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents

And again, in the end, even Chemical Dubya himself finally confessed the WMD he thought were there, really weren't ...

"the main reason we went into Iraq, at the time, was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't" ~ George Bush, 8.21.2006​

5,000 America lives ...

100,000+ Iraqi lives ...

one to two trillion dollars spent ...

Removing the biggest threat to Iran ...

All one big fuckin' OOPS by the Oops president.

 

[Faun]

Here's a Bush lie that's easily proven to be a lie ...

"The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power..." ~ George Bush, 7.14.2003​

WTF???

Bush took out Hussein after Hussein wouldn't let the inspectors back into Iraq ???

Hmmm, let's factcheck that, shall we ... ?

Iraq agrees to weapons inspections

New team, technology heading to Iraq

Since we arrived in Iraq, we have conducted more than 400 inspections covering more than 300 sites

Uh-oh! Looks like Chemical Dubya's nose grew another inch!

 

[Mac1958]

Give it up already. There were some WMD found that were leftovers from a decade earlier, but the stockpilles that Bush warned about were not there. The facilities to build even more that Bush warned us about weren't there. That Iraq was reconstituting it's nuclear weapons programs as Bush warned us about, wasn't happening.

... and finally ... the very words from the one man on the planet who wanted to find those WMD more than any other human ...

"the main reason we went into Iraq, at the time, was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't" ~ George Bush, 8.21.2006

Wow! An ounce of honesty (sure, it's barely an ounce - but it's a start). Baby steps. Baby steps. First, they were screaming like maniacs that "there were no WMD's" and that "Bush created an illegal war".

Now, after irrefutable facts, the new narrative is "well, sure, there were some WMD's, but not enough to justify the military actions".

Who knows, another 25 years of this and liberals might be able to actually admit Bush was right.

You don't have to like what happened. Hell, you don't even have to agree with it, much less like it. Just don't make up stories and rewrite history to support your feelings.

"First" ... when "they were screaming like maniacs" was early into the war. After a year or two had passed and almost nothing was reported found, amid false allegations by Bush that WMD were found, yes, many were screaming that no WMD were found. but over the years, more and more information was released.

What we now know is that there were 100's (I still don't know where you get thousands from, sin ce you refuse to say), of WMD found. Many of them still sealed by the U.N. from when they were in Iraq in the 90's. But none of them were the "stockpiles" that Bush warned about. What Buch claimed, but was was never found or proven:

• 6 months from developing a nuclear weapon
  
• Aluminum rods Hussein was trying to purchase from Niger
  
• 45 minutes away from a nuclear attack
  
• 25,000 liters of anthrax
  
• 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin
  
• 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent
  
• 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents

And again, in the end, even Chemical Dubya himself finally confessed the WMD he thought were there, really weren't ...

"the main reason we went into Iraq, at the time, was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't" ~ George Bush, 8.21.2006​

5,000 America lives ...

100,000+ Iraqi lives ...

one to two trillion dollars spent ...

Removing the biggest threat to Iran ...

All one big fuckin' OOPS by the Oops president.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EN1wsT-xjc]Bush Jokes About WMDs At White House Press Corps Dinner - YouTube[/ame]

.