Liberal Hindsight & Hooked on the Past

I am sick of hearing about how (wwwwaaaahhhh) "Bush lied and sent us to war with that nice man Mr. Hussein that was so nice to those soldier boys and showed him in his underwear..." (waaaaahhhh)

Let's get some facts out there to review:
Why

train

for it if you don't expect it?

Amnesty Irrational torture data

article.

BBC child torture article

Indict.org

lPBS interview: Sabah Khodada

Kohdada' hand drawn map of terror training facility

satellite photos of same facility:

1)

2)

3)

Global security article about same site

Condoleezza puts it in historical context

easy even for a liberal. What is EXPECTED of a state COMPLYING with disarmament protocols, and why we are suspicious when they fail to observe these basic tenants.

I'll wrap up with a post-invasion recap by

David Kay

.

First, whatever we find will probably differ from pre-war intelligence. Empirical reality on the ground is, and has always been, different from intelligence judgments that must be made under serious constraints of time, distance and information. It is, however, only by understanding precisely what those difference are that the quality of future intelligence and investment decisions concerning future intelligence systems can be improved.-David Kay's report

Bare bones facts: Saddam is an evil mass-murderer, torturer and rapist. He had the tools, equipment and money for biological warfare. Saddam funded terror training and his goal was to attack the United States because we know he was still peeved about Desert Storm. Saddam tried to thwart the inspections process any way possible and even presented us with a lovely 12000 page work of fiction detailing his arms programs. Our agencies took the worst-case-scenario threat assessment after their tremendous failure to see Al Quaeda's threat.

Clinton, Liberman and other noted Democrats were basing their decisions on the same material as the President when he decided to go into Iraq. I seem to remember an overwhelming majority of our representatives voting in favor of a resolution including forcibly removing Saddam if he did not comply with the UN mandate? That's comply with the rules, nothing about weapons per say but a focus on the act of being submissive to the inspections.

What prevents a loyal leftist from submitting themselves to the truth?

The truth would mean that Bush is right. Right on democracy for Iraq, Afghanistan and all peoples. Right on preemptive strikes. Right on the war on terror. If Bush is right then Liberals are wrong when they want to apologize to the World for US excesses and offer counseling to victims of terrorists. The Left's only hook against Bush is the falsified perception that the WMDs are the only reason we went to war.

That's the motive folks, the motive to regain lost power in the face of the reality of our new century through bending the past with deceit.

The reality is that we are at war and our country woke up to that fact on September 11th. The war was declared by radical Muslim extremists and it is a battle to the death. The Democrats rolled over and went back to sleep, Republicans took up arms and met the challenge by promoting democracy as a tool against fascism.

WMDs? Who knows. The issue is a moot point because we are committed to action now and we must finish the job. For liberals who may not understand what committed means:

LINK

. Should the leftists be congratulated on their 20/20 hindsight? (I'm still waiting for the 20/20 analysis of Bill Clinton, as experience tells me that what is

good for the goose is NOT good for the gander

to Liberals so I'm not holding my breath). The sad response is congratulations cannot be justified based on their motivations. The motivation is "anything against Bush".

So now my answer is: WMDs are not there, so what's your point?