This is a stupid question but,

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

let me see if I have this right. The invasion of Iraq was supposedly about WMDs (Bush's false case), and we now know that Saddam had no WMDs. The 380 tons of the other munitions we did know about at al-Qaqqa were only lost, because of the lack of post-invasion planning. So, these weapons are different from WMDs, because we knew about these, and the IAEA had these in check.

Is this the basic scenario? Bush's lack of planning has created a real threat (the ammo dumps), by going after the non-existent one (WMDs)?

[TankLV]

1. Yup!

[Nite Owl]

2. Unreal ain't it.

And how many people are still going to vote for this idiot.

[hightension]

6. the people I see every day

with yard signs proclaiming "traditional marriage" and who are happy because a "born agian" kind of guy alludes to being against abortions and "non tradtional" marriages.
It keeps the faithful in line. And a good dose of "taking the war over there" flag waving never hurts either.

[newyawker99]

11. Hi hightension!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[The Traveler]

3. Yeah ... the UN had that stuff

locked down and under guard. Though not WMD per se the UN was limiting Iraq's conventional war making ability, also.

Translation: we transformed a potentially dangerous nuisance into a clear and present danger. Our invasion disrupted successful efforts to limit and control the military options of Iraq, thereby creating numerous options for terrorists and guerillas.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

9. So, because of lack of planning (like Kerry suggested)

the war may have turned out the totally opposite way it was supposed to. A clear case of how Bush's stubborn pursuit, and unwillingness to admit mistakes makes a change in leadership a moral imperative.

[The Traveler]

10. It is worse than that

He yanked control of the situation away from the international community when there was no need to do so. The result has been thousands of unnecessary Iraqi deaths, over 1000 US fatalities and an uncertain number (I've heard estimated of over 10,000) wounded or maimed US soldiers. The treasury has been plundered, private armies are being raised without adequate controls, and most of the rest of the world regards us as a threat to world stability.

And for what? What were we expecting to really achieve through this? Bush talks about liberating Iraq, of "freedom on the march", but as Malcom X said:

"No one will give you your freedom and dignity. If you are a man, you will take it."

Our founding fathers won their freedom from the most powerful empire of their age. If the Iraqi's wanted rid of Hussein, it could have been accomplished. (Eventually, this would have happened.) You can't make a people free ... freedom must be purchased with the blood of patriots. We can't do it for them.

And if freedom were their real concern, Bush would be advocating full civil rights for gays and lesbians and a drastic revision of the Patriot Act.

[Poiuyt]

4. Rather than securing the 380 mtons of high explosives,

we secured the oil fields. Hey, first things first.

[IChing]

5. the troops

got no orders on looting, remember the museums, or other documented cases after the "victory"
for over 30 days and waited for orders from our
commander in theft.

[Goldmund]

7. These weren't WMDs...

...because they were neither nuclear, nor chemical, nor biological weapons -- they were conventional explosives. The reason IAEA had them under their watch is because they could theoretically be used to trigger nuclear bombs.

[last1standing]

8. That's a pretty good stupid question.

This media creation administration has been able to turn us into a truly Orwellian Society. The truth has no meaning in a world where propaganda is repeated continuously from every source.

I'm afraid not a single major news outlet will mention the truth of your stupid question.