Weapons of Mass Destruction have three major components; nuclear, biological, and chemical. One of the things that these three components share is the ability to create mass destruction from one release.

Just ask the Kurds, Saddam tried to exterminate them with chemical agents. Fast forward to post invasion Iraq.

A combined Associated Press and Fox News report released on May 17, 2004, mentioned a sarin nerve gas discovery. Troops handling the shells that contained this gas ended up getting treated for chemical exposure. The Iraq Survey Group confirmed this sarin gas. Mustard gas was also discovered.

As chemical agents, sarin and mustard gas are WMD. Whether it was pre 1991, or current, is beside the point.

People that insist that President Bush lied about WMD existence argue that Iraq had no WMD. No WMD means zero WMD, regardless of manufacture date.

Even if they try to argue that these WMD predate 1991, they prove their own, "no WMD," argument wrong. By trying to argue that this WMD was old, they destroy their own argument that President Bush "lied" about Iraq WMD existence.

Two Iraqis, Gazi George and Georges Sadda, indicated that Saddam moved WMD out of Iraq into Syria. Gazi George further argued that Saddam was capable of burying his WMD's underground. Gazi George was an Iraqi scientist, and Georges Sadda is a retired Iraqi Air Force general. He had regular contacts with Saddam Hussein.

In December, 2005, Israeli Lieutenant General Moshe Yaalon argued that Saddam moved chemical agents to Syria before the invasion.

Burying WMDs underground, in a place we haven't searched yet, is very realistic. People accidentally discovered buried fighter jets in the Iraqi desert. They also found buried earth moving equipment.

Had the Iraqis did a thorough job burying the MiGs, and had their tail fins not been sticking out of the ground, they still would've been hidden. How could we miss these despite our inspections?

The inspection teams that we sent to Iraq didn't inspect the whole country; but a limited area.

Their conclusions could only responsibly be applied to the areas they searched. Charles Duelfer even refused to rule out the possibility that WMD were moved to Syria.

By: Travis Hill
Travis is a freelance writer that specializes in information market, political writing, fundraising and communications.

Did you know that 47 countries’ have reestablished their embassies in Iraq ?

Did you know that the Iraqi government currently employs 1.2 million Iraqi people?

Did you know that

3100 schools have been renovated,

364 schools are under rehabilitation,

263 new schools are now under construction; and 38 new schools have been completed in Iraq?

Did you know that Iraq ’s higher educational structure consists of 20 Universities, 46 Institutes or colleges and 4 research centers, all currently operating?

Did you know that 25 Iraq students departed for the United States in January 2005 for the re-established Fulbright program?

Did you know that the Iraqi Navy is operational? They have 5 - 100-foot patrol craft,34 smaller vessels and a naval infantry regiment.

Did you know that Iraq ‘ s Air Force consists of three operational squadrons that includes 9 reconnaissance and 3 US C-130 transport aircraft (under Iraqi operational control) which operate day and night, and will soon add 16 UH-1 helicopters and 4 Bell Jet Rangers?

Did you know that Iraq has a counter-terrorist unit and a Commando Battalion?

Did you know that the Iraqi Police Service has over 55,000 fully trained and equipped police officers?

Did you know that there are 5 Police Academies in Iraq that produce over 3500 new officers every 8 weeks?

Did you know there are more than 1100 building projects going on in Iraq?

They include 364 schools, 67 public clinics, 15 hospitals, 83 railroad stations, 22 oil facilities, 93 water facilities and 69 electrical facilities.

Did you know that 96% of Iraqi children under the age of 5 have received the first 2 series of polio vaccinations?

Did you know that 4.3 million Iraqi children were enrolled in primary school by mid October?

Did you know that there are 1,192,000 cell phone subscribers in Iraq and phone use has gone up 158%?

Did you know that Iraq has an independent media that consists of 75 radio stations, 180 newspapers and 10 television stations?

Did you know that the Baghdad Stock Exchange opened in June of 2004?

Did you know that 2 candidates in the Iraqi presidential election had a televised debate recently?

OF COURSE WE DIDN’T KNOW!
WHY DIDN’T WE KNOW?
BECAUSE OUR MEDIA WON’T TELL US!
Instead of reflecting our love for our country, we get photos of flag burning incidents at Abu Ghraib and people throwing snowballs at the presidential motorcades. Tragically, the lack of accentuating the positive
in Iraq serves two purposes:

It is intended to undermine the world’s perception of the United States thus minimizing consequent support;
and it is intended to discourage American citizens.

Above facts are verifiable on the Department of Defense web site.
defenselink.mil/

Now that you DO KNOW - What are you going to do? Are you going to demand more transparency from your politicians and the main stream media or are you just going to sit back and let it continue to buzz all around you while you sit by clueless? Let others KNOW what you now KNOW! It’s not just the Democrats and the MSM keeping us out of the loop - it is ALL the politicians including the Republicans. It’s a freakin’ disgrace how little information we actually do receive!

From: More stuff we haven’t been told about! a post from The Bobo Files.

Expect this fall's election to be flooded with political rhetoric and populist calls for a deliciously swift exit from Iraq. Digest the hypocrisy and move on. It's the past. It's done.

In an election that's largely to the advantage of the Democrats, the American people will see through fragile liberal intentions and move on. The concern of the people now should not be why we entered Iraq, but why we must stay. Listen to me now: swallow your infectious desire to enlist in the zeitgeist and embrace the need to protect your nation from an evolving threat.

The Democratic approach to this threat is a rapid withdrawal of troops. They believe the growing number of fatalities and financial burden outweigh the need to end the hostility and political turmoil in the Middle East. While reconciliation for the tragic loss of life can never be achieved, those brave Americans will not die in vain. We will not compromise their efforts. We will finish the job.

Those who speak out against the Iraqi occupation lean on the unjust reasons for war as rationale for a withdrawal of troops. I repeat: It's the past. It's done. The drastic consequences of such actions would ensure the maturation of terrorism in Iraq. What Democrats view as a cessation to the loss of life and bleeding financial burden is a biased perspective from across the Atlantic.

In the case of a Democratic presidency, troops will be withdrawn within a short period of time. The morale of the world's greatest military will plummet. What is to become of a military that retreats in the face of boorish Middle Eastern tactics? For one, al-Qaeda will undoubtedly claim victory in Iraq and sound their trumpets across the continent. While that may be a petty price to pay for the reassurances of a withdrawal, consider the breadth of that call. It will not go unanswered. Extremists across the globe will thirstily join the ranks of the organization that sank the US. al-Qaeda will thrive.

Feeding off the hype of a withdrawal, al-Qaeda decides to again attack the US. Suppose that attack rivals 9-11. What do we do? What CAN we do? We just shipped world's reigning military superpower back across the Atlantic under the pretense of defeat. Not only would the mobilization of such an army be financially exhausting, but who would be willing to do it? Would a Democratic president embrace a hypocritical attack message or cower behind "peace negotiations"?

Now suppose we withdraw and there is no such attack. Does the president expect insurgency to decline? No, the Democratic president would most likely take a laissez-faire approach to the violence and let the region go to hell. Expect a dramatic increase in violence and a full scale civil war to erupt. While such a situation may not directly affect us, consider the oil-rich Persian Gulf. Violence would seize the vicinity and oil would cease to flow out of the area. Timid politicians abashed by the great "R" word would step out of the closet to announce the global depression that is to come.

But there is a way. Ironically, the answer is a gradual withdrawal of troops. The surge was a first step in sustaining minimal levels of violence. Now General Petraeus needs to gradually withdraw troops and with each withdrawal assess the situation. If, after the assessment, violence remains at a minimal level, withdrawals may continue. Once the minimum level of troops is reached to maintain levels of violence, begin deploying Iraqi forces to respond to insurgency.

While our presence is needed, many Iraqis are hostile to it. We must allow Iraq to maintain its sovereignty by forcing them to use their security forces against al-Qaeda. The problem is that we do not yet know how well an Iraqi force would respond to such threats. Should the violence reach a point beyond containment, many Iraqis will feel pressured to take sides - Sunni, Shia, etc. - and civil war will break out. We are there for support, but our presence is not indefinite.

Should a rapid withdrawal of troops occur, expect anarchy to downpour on Iraq. Nobody wants war. Sometimes it's necessary.

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse . . ." - John Stuart Mill

By: Michael Payne
The Countdown - Political analysis and discussion
http://www.thecountdown.moonfruit.com

It is clear that the aftermath of September 11, 2001 was a shock to the very fiber of the parchment on which the constitution was penned. America was alarmed by the revelation that this new threat not only threatened us abroad, but it was able to plan, bring the plan to life and execute its scheme right at home, on American soil. This was new situation in the minds of Americans who had become complacent after the defeat of the Soviet Union. Terrorism had never been considered so dangerous, for it had never come so close as it id on 9-11. The Clinton Administration was immediately attacked by many. Some of the criticism was justified, lots of it was embellished.

Bill Clinton was faced with a new enemy in the heart of the peace dividend and frankly was caught with his pants down. To say he had done nothing to combat it over the many years of attacks is unfair, but he did pass up many opportunities to stop this swarm of invaders before the attacks, but I think it is safe to say that no president in Clinton's time would have reacted any differently. The terrorist vermin were still in their mutation period and had not been able to muster the resources to pull off what they did during the first year of George W. Bush's presidency. The Clinton Administration had treated terrorist acts as criminal acts and not literal acts of war. That was the current approach at that time as it had been for all his predecessors. We knew there were some people who hated America, but we had blinded our eyes to the fact that there were religious fanatical movements that wanted and desired the downfall of the United States of America. Our false sense of security and the inordinate feeling that our nation was somehow immune to deadly acts of terror was like a lullaby that rocked us into a deadly slumber. When President Bush was forced to come to grips with the deadly reality of the threat of terrorism on our own soil, he took the needed steps to once and for all declare war on those that wished us woe! One hopes and suspects that Bill Clinton would have done likewise.

Fundamentally, President George W. Bush was faced with two decisions. One was to do nothing, which was unthinkable, and would have merited a call and a vote for his impeachment. Clearly, this course of action was preferable to liberals who would have been satisfied with the hope that we would not be attacked again. The other crucial choice for President Bush was to take action and draw out the terrorists where they live. This was clearly one of the goals of the war in Iraq, which had been a terrorist-harboring regime for decades. He brought the terrorist there to fight rather than to face then here at home. Bush chose the second choice because he felt that this was what would make America safer and indeed it arguably has done so. Bush took effective action to fight Bin Laden and his terrorist forces, such as finding their funding sources and to drying up. Many of them have been captured; their leaders killed or captured. America has faced no new attacks here and many have been thwarted by the new Homeland Security Department. Is it not only right that George W. Bush be given a fair amount of credit for being a tough-minded leader who refused to pretend any longer that we could conduct the affairs of state by the status quo?

Just President Bill Clinton was unjustly criticized about not doing enough to stop an emerging Osama Bin Laden, so also, President George W. Bush has been unfairly attacked as having not done enough to wait and try all avenues before invading Iraq. Yet, when he faced the United Nations, he strongly desired their aid, but none would give it other than myriads of useless and spineless resolutions. Bush also faced another hard decision. Would he go it alone or would he give up his policy in hope that another terrorist attack would not happen. Bush chose neither! He built a coalition of more than 40 nations that has been called "the coalition of the coerced and the bribed" by Senator and would-be president John Kerry. There have been deaths in many of nations in this war in Iraq, yet most of the members of the coalition of the willing have stayed the course or finished their mandates and left Iraq as full partners in the war on Terror. It is simple to see that the major powers of the world still have their head in the sand. Bush met with advisors who told him of the threat of terrorism in Iraq. They told him that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Numerous intelligence records showed nuclear capability in Iraq. President Clinton also saw the same intelligence and called for regime change, a policy that actually originated with the Clinton Administration and which was heralded and seconded by such notables as John Kerry, Hilary Clinton and Edward Kennedy, of all people. When Bush saw this, he did the only thing that seemed right. He chose to attack Iraq.

Now, more than five years later, no weapons of mass destruction have been found. Yet, it is clear that the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq was itself a weapon of mass destruction. Most attacks in Israel had Saddam's fingerprints all over them, including $35,000.00 paid out to the families of suicide bombers. It is clearly documented that Saddam sent his emissaries to meet with several of the 9-11 terrorists and that he harbored many terrorists and terrorist groups such as were found and killed in Northern Iraq during the war. What more justification was needed? He simply carried out his oath of office to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. The following is an excerpt from Bush's speech at the GOP Convention in New York:

"In Saddam Hussein, we saw a threat. Members of both political parties, including my opponent and his running mate, saw the threat, and voted to authorize the use of force. We went to the United Nations Security Council, which passed a unanimous resolution demanding the dictator disarm, or face serious consequences. Leaders in the Middle East urged him to comply. After more than a decade of diplomacy, we gave Saddam Hussein another chance, a final chance, to meet his responsibilities to the civilized world. He again refused, and I faced the kind of decision that comes only to the Oval Office; a decision no president would ask for, but must be prepared to make. Do I forget the lessons of September 11th and take the word of a madman, or do I take action to defend our country? Faced with that choice, I will defend America every time."

Here, President Bush clearly made the point that he could not risk the danger of Saddam. He chose to go on the offensive. If we had chosen to sit on our hands and hope no other attacks would come, America would have been attacked many more times. But now, due to America's aggressive offensive in the war on terror, "a free Afghanistan is fighting terror, Pakistan is capturing terrorist leaders, Saudi Arabia is making raids and arrests, Libya is dismantling its weapons programs, the army of a free Iraq is fighting for freedom, and more than three-quarters of al-Qaida's key members and associates have been detained or killed."

Who can argue that America and the world is not a safer place? If your argument is that the Middle East is still as dangerous today as ever, you are right. The Middle East will never have true peace. The Arabs and the Israelis are in an eternal conflict that will never be settled on Earth. The extremist Muslims hate America because we support Israel. As long as we have good leadership in America, we will continue to support Israel. Thanks to Bush, intelligence is being restructured so that in the future, no misguided reports will ever confront another president. And there will never be any more rape rooms, torture chambers, children conscripted to fight in a dictator's military and parents murdered in Iraq at the hands of an evil tyrant. Just because no WMD's were found, does that mean we should just run from the fight? If we did, everything we've fought so hard for would be destroyed and America would be overrun at our gates buy barbarians who would infiltrate our nation until the point of our collapse as the Roman's finally faced as they tired of defending their empire from invaders bent on their destruction. The terrorists want America as weak and vulnerable as possible. I pray this doesn't happen. Under President Bush, this will never happen. A President Kerry is a totally different scenario.

Democrats say they can fight the war on terror better, but they can't tell us how. One week they tell us that we needed to go to war in Iraq and the next week they tells us that it was a mistake. Almost every Democrat in congress voted to go to war in Iraq, but now, just when we appear to be turning the corner in the Iraq war, is unwilling to fund the troops. It is striking that now that the troop surge is working, the argument against the war has changed. Now, the numbers of troops at risk is no longer touted as a logical reason to pull out the troops. Instead, it is now proclaimed that the reason why President Bush should withdraw the troops is because the Iraqi government is not trying hard enough to make political change. It is clear that the democratic controlled congress would negotiate with the terrorists in order to get out of the war we must fight. Such antics would spell the end of society as we know it.

Perhaps the greatest threat to our nation is not the war in Iraq at all. It is troubling that while America fights the battles for our survival as a culture, we are in a steady moral decline, and no president has the power to change that. Bush has appointed federal judges to high positions who will hopefully interpret the law fairly and not legislate from the bench. Immoral judges are one of the biggest reasons that America is facing a steady decline toward doom. America is, in a real sense, at war with itself and the liberal establishment of those who support gay marriage, abortion, assisted suicide, and an end to the war on terror. They are those who would end what America conservatives have shed their blood to defend! The people are facing the same situation as the first settlers faced in the early days of America. England's king and its parliament were imposing unfair laws and taxes on the colonists, and the settlers became sick of it. They looked to the Magna Carta and said they would no longer put up with that kind of treatment. So, they fought to be freed from the grip of England, and meanwhile they discovered the major flaws in the Articles of Confederation. The legislators had too much power and the people were being over-ridden in favor of the legislature. That's why the U.S. Constitution was born, to give the people of America a voice. We support the right of misguided, unrighteous, immoral and reprobate citizens to speak their minds. Yet, we must defend this nation from the terrorists of the land and the terrorists of our moral society. One is as lethal as the other.

By: Steven Clark Bradley
Steven Clark Bradley lived abroad for over 17 years and has been to 34 countries, including Pakistan, Iraq and Turkey. He has a master's degree in liberal studies from Indiana University. He speaks French and Turkish. He has been an assistant to a prosecutor, a university instructor and a freelance journalist in Ramallah, Palistine, Israel, Turkey, Iraq and Pakistan. Steven is the author of three novels, Nimrod Rising, Probable Cause and Stillborn! available through publishamerica.com, borders.com, barnesandnoble.com and Amazon.com. His website is http://www.stevenbradley.net.