Will we hear a "we were wrong" now from the left?

My guess is no.

As I suspected, there is a great deal of evidence of WMDs that had existed in Iraq, most of which was classified due to the nature of the information. There appears to be a push for more information to get out.

Remember how, earlier in the week, Shaun Kenney did his Winners and Losers of the Democratic Primary here in Virginia? Well, I would like to follow up with the winners and losers of this recent finding.

Losers: Democrats - For the longest time, anti-war hounds have cried foul over the justification of the War in Iraq over the weapons of mass destruction. It appeared that, recently, these calls may have been starting to gain some ground, and that the House of Representatives (and potentially the Senate as well) could be switching hands. The handling of the war was most often criticized for the apparent lack of WMDs in Iraq, and this was always attributed to President Bush and Republicans. No doubt some (including James Webb) wished to continue using this to their advantage. However, if this story gains more traction (as it well should), these same Democrats will have to quickly backtrack and risk being called flip-floppers, or hold their claim and look like liars. So much for that congressional takeover.

Mainstream Media - Where is that unbiased, objective reporting now?

Winners: Republicans - Duh.

Charlottesville - Why? The National Ground Intelligence Center released declassified parts of this report, and NGIC is headquartered just north of Charlottesville. So much for the "City of Peace" (hmm, maybe this makes Charlottesville a loser?).

Michelle Malkin continues to update on this story.

Oh yeah, and one more thing.


UPDATE 8:50 AM: Jerry Fuhrman has his take on this news

A Democratic 'strategist" was on TV last night arguing that these WMD weren't the WMD that Bush lied about. Those were different Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Hopeless. They're just hopeless

What Jerry, are you surprised?

Democrats will obviously use this tactic as another flip-flop. They were unhappy with the news that part of the search for WMDs was the search for programs to build such weapons, claiming that we must find WMDs. Now, we found some, and they believe that those weapons should have been built in the time since the Persian Gulf War to justify the War in Iraq. There is could not be further from the truth. Not only did the United Nations Security Council pass the well known Resolution 1441, but in 1991 immediately following the Persian Gulf War, they passed Resolution 687, will explicitly said the following:

...Conscious also of the statements by Iraq threatening to use weapons in violation of its obligations under the Geneva Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, signed at Geneva on 17 June 1925, and of its prior use of chemical weapons and affirming that grave consequences would follow any further use by Iraq of such weapons,

...

Recalling also that Iraq has signed the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction, of 10 April 1972,

...

Concerned by the reports in the hands of Member States that Iraq has attempted to acquire materials for a nuclear-weapons programme contrary to its obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of 1 July 1968,
Recalling the objective of the establishment of a nuclear-weapons-free zone in the region of the Middle East,
Conscious of the threat that all weapons of mass destruction pose to peace and security in the area and of the need to work towards the establishment in the Middle East of a zone free of such weapons,
Conscious also of the objective of achieving balanced and comprehensive control of armaments in the region,...

Needless to say, this is not comprehensive, but it is clear. Iraq was in violation of UN protocol.

I reiterate Jerry's point.

A Democratic 'strategist" was on TV last night arguing that these WMD weren't the WMD that Bush lied about. Those were different Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Seems to me that any WMDs found in Iraq directly followed from the point President Bush was trying to make, but what's the point in trying to convince those against the war? I see no reason to believe that they ever understood the reasons for this war.