The bogus WMD argument of the left

Don Surber makes a point I have often discussed about what opponents of the war were saying before the war:

The WMD argument is tiresome and dishonest. Opposition to the liberation of Iraq in 2002 had nothing to do with WMD.
Consider the arguments in the debate over the war resolution the war on Oct. 10, 2002.
Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., opposed the war because Saddam had WMD. He read from a CIA report:
"Saddam might decide that the extreme step of assisting Islamic terrorists in conducting a weapon-of-mass destruction attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him."
This was similar to Sen. Bob Byrd's argument three weeks earlier that U.S. companies had "sold" Saddam a laundry list of chemical weaponry. He based this on a Newsweek report, which was wrong, wrong, wrong!
On the floor of the House, Rep. Louise M. Slaughter, D-NY, said:
"Sure he has biological weapons. We gave them to him."
Oh? When? Where?
Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., unleashed a string of insults at Bush, but not once did he argue there were no WMD. He argued the war would cost too much money and the like.

There is more.


Popular posts from this blog

US, Britain and Israel help Iranian nuclear scientist escape

Iran loses another of its allies in Iraq

Texas Congressman Al Green admits to affair with drug using staffer