This paragraph is from the Washington Times:

] The CIA's chief weapons inspector said he cannot rule out
] the possibility that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction
] were secretly shipped to Syria before the March 2003
] invasion, citing "sufficiently credible" evidence that
] WMDs may have been moved there.

Sounds like WMD probably went to Syria from Iraq...

This text is from the Washington Post:

] Although Syria helped Iraq evade U.N.-imposed sanctions
] by shipping military and other products across its borders,
] the investigators "found no senior policy, program, or
] intelligence officials who admitted any direct knowledge of
] such movement of WMD." Because of the insular nature of
] Saddam Hussein's government, however, the investigators were
] "unable to rule out unofficial movement of limited
] WMD-related materials."

Liberal Bias?

The Times doesn't respond to this quote:

] Iraq's ability to produce nuclear arms, which the
] administration asserted was a grave and gathering
] threat that required an immediate military response,
] had "progressively decayed" since 1991. Investigators
] found no evidence of "concerted efforts to restart the
] program."

But

] Hussein "retained the intent and capability and he
] intended to resume full-scale WMD efforts once the
] U.N. sanctions were lifted," Pentagon spokesman Bryan
] Whitman said yesterday. "Duelfer provides plenty of
] rationale for why this country went to war in Iraq."

Thats the key question isn't it?

The times says:

] Clearly, the media needs an object lesson in an old
] truth: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Yeah, but is it ok to actually launch a war based on a total absence of evidence? Is a sentence like "Years later, there is still absolutely no evidence that the Bush administration's justification for the Iraq war was accurate." a reasonable enough headline for you? You really have no idea whether or not you were right. You've grabbed onto the tinyest thread left to uphold your position. This is the kind of crap I expect from silly online debates. This is not something that I want to hear coming out of the US Government.

There is absolutely no proof that bunny rabbits don't have tea on pluto. However, its extremely unlikely, and most people would tend to beleive that it isn't true. At what point to you admit that the idea that there was an imminent threat that Saddam would give WMD to a terrorist organization is extremely unlikely, and start asking objective questions about whether or not it actually made sense to re-elect a political team that sent thousands to their graves based on what was most likely a bad call? Oh no. We couldn't do that... That might involve voting for a (blech) liberal. Fuck Liberals. They suck. Conservatives rule!

Links:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-10-06-wmd_x.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12115-2004Oct6.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/25/AR2005042501554.html
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050427-121915-1667r.htm
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050427-110457-2216r.htm