Liberals are like children watching a magic show. The magician pulls a quarter from behind the child’s ear and the child is mystified. The magician rubs his hands together and the quarter disappears  into thin air. When it comes to the missing WMD’s in Iraq the Democrats are like those children thinking that the weapons were never really there, even though their hero Bill Clinton said they were there.

They are also shocked that people believe Hussein had anything to do with 9-11. Believe me, if a Democrat was conducting a war against Iraq,  the media would have continued the relationship between Bin Laden and Hussein. Don’t believe me? Listen to what ABC was reporting when Bill Clinton had to deal with Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.

[audio:http://www.nohillaryclinton.com/blog/audio/abc1999.mp3]

Magically, when a Republican is dealing with Iraq, that relationship between Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein is "just not there".

The same media that is attacking Bush about No WMD’s just can’t seem to report that the Democrats were using much stronger language about WMD’s before the War.

Never mind that President Bush gave Hussein EVERY OPPORTUNITY to allow weapons inspectors in to see what they were or were not hiding. Saddam knew we were not kidding, he saw how we were amassing troops and vehicles on his boarders, he could of let them in at any time to see he had not WMD’s.

I’m not sure what is going on in the Bush White House, leading up to the war I was seeing reports on Iraq’s Terrorist Training Camp in Salman Pak. Now, no one is talking about this training camp… Why?
Why was their a airplane fuselage in the desert of Iraq?

click to enlarge

I’m convinced among many others that the WMD’s were shuttled out of Iraq and into Syria with the Russians help.
In fact here is a photo (from a satellite) that has captured a very interesting scene.
Why are all of these transport trucks moving into Syria right before the war?

What most experts are not saying is that the Russians most likely helped the Iraqi’s remove their WMD’s into Syria. And because we don’t want to have to deal with the Russians on this, at this time, the Bush Administration is playing along with the no WMD’s line. Democrat Politicians know of these weapons being shuttled out of Iraq as well - but have chosen to play politics with this issue and beat the President over the head with it.

Is it really in our best interest to "shake the hornets nest" with Russia, even though we know that helped with the removal of WMD’s?

They want you to believe Bush was lying to the American Public - but if he was, why wouldn’t he take that lie a step farther and plant WMD’s in the desert for a photo op?

Liberal websites like this one below, are attacking Hillary Clinton about her war stance - funny thing is, the Democrats are in bed with the media who are attacking Bush on the WMD issue, and this has harmed Hillary in the eyes of Liberals who can’t comprehend that the WMD’s were moved out of Iraq and that they were there before the war started. I think it’s humorous that the Clinton helped create the "Frankenstein" called the Anti-War Left and now she is having to steer far left to stop the "monster" from destroying her hopes of being elected.

Senator Clinton is sure trying hard to court the antiwar vote while still sustaining a muscular U.S. foreign policy agenda as she runs for the presidency. On May 16, Hillary Clinton sided with 28 other senators in support for advancing legislation to cut off funding for the war in Iraq after March of 2008.

Despite her modest anti-war gesture, Clinton was still not willing to predict how she would side on similar legislation in the future. "I’m not going to speculate on what I’m going to be voting on in the future," Clinton told reporters shortly after the vote. "I voted in favor of cloture to have a debate."

Hours later Clinton changed her mind, and decided that she wanted to do more than start a debate on the matter. "I support the underlying bill," she said. "That’s what this vote on cloture was all about."

Even though the race for the White House is still in its infancy, Hillary Clinton has yet to take a coherent position on the Iraq war. The senator from New York has continually blamed President Bush for putting forward faulty information about Iraq’s WMD programs, as well as Saddam’s alleged ties to al Qaeda while he was in power. Clinton, like the rest of us, was lied to, and as a result she naively voted to give Bush the authority to invade Iraq to destroy Saddam’s regime.

But Clinton’s maneuvers to evade responsibility four years after the fact are meager, not to mention completely without merit. In fact Clinton sold the same lies and deceptions as the Bush cartel, which plunged us into this catastrophic war.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program," Clinton said in October of 2002. "He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

Perhaps Hillary was taking a line from her husband Bill’s repertoire, who as president bolstered the same case for disarming Hussein. "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear," said President Clinton in February of 1998. "We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program."

Read more here