Dissecting the propaganda: "No one cares about WMDs."

As far back as 2002, President Bush warned the world of the threat Iraq posed, particularly the threat posed by Saddam's huge stockpile of weapons of mass destruction.

Many in Bush's cabinet reiterated this threat. National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice appeared on several Sunday-morning talk shows to sell the case of Iraq's possession of WMDs. Donald Rumsfeld spoke of the threat as well.

Bush appeared before Congress and, by arguing the case that Saddam needed to be disarmed lest he attack us, our allies, or arm terrorist groups with weapons, was given authorization to use military force against Iraq.

In his State of the Union speech on Jan. 28, 2003, President Bush declared, "U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had up wards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them."

Secretary of State Colin Powell spoke to the United Nations Security Council on Feb. 5, 2003, again to reiterate the threat posed by Saddam and his stockpile of weapons.

Finally, on March 17, President Bush told the world that "Intelligence
gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people...The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions to kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other."

And, 48 hours later, we attacked Iraq in an effort to disarm the "butcher of Baghdad."

Instead of a rogue nation with a military armed with lethal chemical and biological weapons, we fought an Army that posed no threat to our forces. No WMDs were used against us.

And while the war continued, teams searched for Saddam's WMDs. In fact, many of these teams had been in Iraq prior to our invasion, searching for WMDs.

Donald Rumsfeld appeared on "This Week with George Stephanopolos" on March 30, and made this statement: "the area...that coalition forces control...happens not to be the area where weapons of destruction were
dispersed. We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad..."

On May 1, when President Bush declared major combat operations over, no WMDs had been found.

Contradicting himself on May 4, on "Fox News Sunday," Rumsfeld stated "we never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country (Iraq)...We're going to find what we find as a result of talking to people, I believe, not simply by going to some site and hoping to discover it."

By September, Rumsfeld was on the defensive. On Sept. 10, 2003, in a speech before the National Press Club, he stated, "I said, 'we know they're in that area' I should have said 'I believe they're in that area.' Our intelligence tells us they're in that area, and that was our best judgment."

As the weeks and months progressed without any WMDs found, the Bush
administration decided to change the reason we went to war. No longer would WMDs be mentioned. The reason for war would now be a humanitarian one: we liberated Iraqis from the brutal dictator, Saddam Hussein.

This message, undoubtedly communicated by Karl Rove to his right-wing
sources, began to fill the airwaves as the reason we went to war. Any
mention of WMDs was dismissed by right-wing pundits as an issue no one cared about. Which is a curious thing to state, as President
Bush, his national security advisor, the Secretary of State, and Secretary of Defense all communicated the grave threat these weapons posed to the United States and the world. It was mentioned numerous times; Bush's cabinet certainly seemed to care about the WMDs.

Others, seem to think we'll eventually find the WMDs, despite the fact we've been searching for almost a year now with nothing to show for it.

But even Donald Rumsfeld, at one point, had to admit that Iraq probably didn't have any weapons. In a statement to the Council on Foreign Relations given May 27, Rumsfeld said, "Now what happened? Why weren't they (WMDs) used? I don't know. There are several possible reasons for that...it may very well be that they didn't have time to...use chemical weapons. It is also possible that they decided they would destroy them prior to a conflict."

For the longest time, polls indicated that a majority of Americans believed Saddam Hussein was involved in the terrorist attacks on 9/11. The Bush administration did little to correct this misconception -- and, on some occasions, even appeared to support it--finally had to admit in September that there was no evidence that Hussein was involved with the 9/11 attacks. Certainly this misconception was evidence enough to justify an attack against Iraq.

When Saddam Hussein was finally captured on Dec. 13, he was found hiding in a dirt cellar with some cash and a few automatic weapons. The "butcher of Baghdad" was disheveled, dirty, and clearly confused.

Since his capture, attacks in Iraq continue almost daily, American and
coalition forces continue to die, and, as we near the year 2004, no WMDs have been found.

At least the world is safer with Saddam Hussein in custody, we're told. Meanwhile, our real enemy, Osama Bin Laden, has had the time to regroup his forces and plan new attacks against the United States.

So much for being safer.

Especially the ones the U.S. has..

Anyone who does not care about the fact that we have not found any weapons of mass destruction is incredibly stupid. If Bush was telling the truth about there being weapons of mass destruction (highly unlikely at this point), then where are they and who has them? Considering that it is unlikely that an ally of the United States would have Iraq's weapons, we should worry about who has them.

Now let's assume that Bush was lying about the weapons of mass destruction. This means that Bush not only lied to the American people but also lied to Congress. Anyone who thinks that Clinton should have been impeached for lying about a blow job, should be screaming on the top of his or her lungs and demanding Bush's impeachment. The fact that conservatives are not demanding Bush’s impeachment demonstrates their lack of moral clarity.

Americans also need to ask themselves whether or not they can trust Bush to tell the truth on any issue. Should we believe the Bush administration every time it changes the color code on the alert system? Why should we believe Bush when he says that it is safe to eat beef?

We also need to address the fact that Bush's lies lead to the deaths of innocent people on both sides. If it was not for Bush, 470 American soldiers would still be alive today. How are we ever going to justify the absence of these men and women to their families?

Its a lot more than 470 american soldiers... and the ethnocentric presumption that those are all that is important is an oversight for a liberal.

The civilian deaths are even more criminal, as indeed, the military soldiers know the risks they bear when they wear the uniform... whereas the people who are "our charges" are not.