Really scarey.

If Kerry is elected is will not be the will of the people it will due to the liberal press who are leading stories and not checking them out. I believe the NY Post and CBS has done this twice. Shame on the press making the news and not doing the reporting news as they should. I hope and pray voters will not be swayed by the liberal media hipe and decide on the records of each canidate. Even others of the press are reporting on how bad this issue is.........

very good point Liberal media is way to biased to tell the truth

OK. If you're going to spread disinformation, at least get your facts straight as the GOP spin machine is feeding it to you. You mean the NY Times, no one listens to anything the NY Post says. It's true that CBS jumped the gun, by using evidence that was not verifiable -- doesn't mean the story wasn't true -- just the evidence was shakey. The NY Times held back on the story until it could verify facts. The second story has to do with the 380 missing tons of explosives. Again the GOP says the facts aren't out yet, but there is video tape from a small Minnesota imbedded TV reporter, showing the explosives did exist and were there a few days after we invaded. Yes, we did lose the explosives and unlike Rudy Guiliani who blamed our troops, I blame our 'commander in chief,' for not listening to the UN inspectors and telling our military the explosives were there. Liberal media? Have you ever listened to talk radio, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, anyone else on Fox News, Clear Channel Communications or Sinclair Broadcasting? Ahh come on!

Ok.. I consider myself fairly intelligent, but I admit there's something here I need help understanding. All these Kerry supporters keep saying that Iraq was NOT a threat. Everyone (Bush, Kerry, probably the majority of the American public..) Thought Saddam had WMD. Now, the second we find out that he didn't, every democrat in the country is saying "That Bush is a no-good liar.. he SAID there were WMDs just cuz he likes war and wanted to get rid of Saddam. And Saddam was not a threat to the US".. But now we find out about these 380 TONS of explosives.. wouldn't explosives be considered WMD?? I mean a weapon of mass distruction is for the purpose of killing lots of people. If Saddam only wanted to kill ONE person, wouldn't a gun be a better choice?? And wouldn't Saddam having 380 TONS of explosives be considered a huge danger to America?? Just wondering what the conservatives think about this?? -Mike PRO-BUSH ALL THE WAY!

Many people don't believe that Iraq was a threat because they never exported terror. Hussein used chemical weapons on his own people, but not other countries. Many people believe that George Bush lied three ways. 1) He presented only the intelligence that said Hussein hadn't destroyed his WMDs. 2) He said there was a strong like between Sadam and Al Qaeda. 3) He said he would only invade Iraq as a last resort, when he probably had no intentions of following through with that promise. Well here's the deal with 380 tons of conventional explosives. You'd need a pretty good size barge to get them over here to the US. The WMDs the president forecasted he'd use would come in the form of a dirty bomb in a suit case or a vile or two of an airborn toxin. Unfortunately the explosives that were lost, probably fell into the hands of the insurgents and are being used to kill or maim our troops.

In 2000, Condoleza Rice and Colin Powell both stated that Iraq did not pose a threat to America because Sadam did not have access to WMD nor did he have any. Funny how that changed after 9/11. And as far as there being a connection between Iraq and Al Queda.....that was as straight up a lie as I've ever heard. Next thing you know Bush will be trying to convince us that the sky is really green. That is, if he knows all his colors....