Currently, it's necessary to have had WMD's in Iraq, as the war is unpopular at the moment. Had there actually been cause for us to go in (we thought there was, but that was based on faulty information), the war might have been in a much more popular state, and the President's approval ratings may have gone above 30 percent.

The real conspiracy is that the administration altered the intelligence to fit their agenda, and gain traction for going into Iraq. They couldn't even do that, as it was clearly revealed by every politically focused program.

Besides, why wouldn't the government reveal that they had found WMD's?  Do you think the government killed it's own people to purposely create an unpopular war, and destroy their own party's advantage in seating, both in the House and the Senate? Think, no really, think--what was there to gain?

You're throwing a lot of articles/links around, but none by credible resources. There's a reason why it's better to read the major newspapers--because they are often fact checked and thus keeping the integrity of their articles. Yes, there are instances where you can't rely on even many major news outlets--it isn't perfect--but it's far more reliable than something on YouTube.

Please don't use Ann Coulter as a source of information. She's not credible in any way (she isn't bipartisan and isn't a journalist).

One last thing, let me ask you, do you think that the BBC was given information on 9/11 beforehand? Then they fucked up on their reporting, and had accidentally reported in advance? Doesn't it make more sense that they just had wrong information at the time of the report?

You've created a theory, and are finding facts to support that theory. Instead, what you should be doing is looking at the facts (all of them), and seeing where it points to.

Logic doesn't hurt either.

i take that part about, with the picture... i was tottaly wrong on that one, i did no research on that prior to posting it.