While I was at work today, I read that the Democrates want to open an investigation into the war in Iraq. Of course one of the subjects mentioned that will be investigated is the often mentioned "lies about Weapons Of Mass Destruction."

I love this one. Anytime someone brings it up, I just smile.

While some anti-war conservatives complain about Bush's claims that Iraq had WMDs, it seems to be mostly liberals, people hoping for the second coming of Clinton, who are whining about it.

Why do I love the complaint that Bush lied about the WMDs? Simple. Bush wasn't the first to do it. Most liberals forget that Clinton sent bombers in for the same reason. In fact he had the same intel, from the same source, as Bush.

Back in 1994 or 95, one if Saddam's som-in-laws came to the US seeking assylum. He is the one who told us about the WMDs. Saddam eventually convinced him, as well as another Son-In-Law, to return to Iraq, claiming that they will be safe. He killed both of them, chopped them up, and gave their bodies to their widows.

[warning. part of what fallows is speculation on my part.]

Meanwhile, we have this info, that we believe is reliable, and so Clinton uses it, sending in inspectors and eventually bombers. After a few weeks, it was seemingly forgotten until Bush brought it up a few years back and used it as justification to sen din troops.

Personally I thought (and still think) that Clinton should have sent in the troops, but [here is the spectulation part] all he cared about was getting his afair with Monica Lewinski out of the headlines for a while. That is why, in my opinion, he never sent in troops and seemed to forget about any action against Iraq after a few weeks.

Clinton sent in inspectors and bombers to get his affair out of the paper. Bush sent in the troops, liberated a country from a cruel dictator, and brought Saddam to justice.

from the looks of things, Bush is the lesser of two evils in this situation.