Survey results Does President Bush owe you an explanation about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

Billoreilly.com ^ | 5/06/03 | Bill Oreilly

[Smokin' Joe]

Better take a couple of minutes and read the label....

[Dan from Michigan]

No, I care only about Al Queida(Sp) operatives there. WMDS were not a good enough reason for me to support the war to begin with. Bin Laden ties were.

[bigeasy_70118]

This is the stupidest poll I have ever read. Bush is an elected leader, the easy answer is yes. He is accountable under the Constitution and will be held so in an election in 2004, regardless of whether WMDs are found and whether or not he gives the American people an explanation. Of course, Ramsey Clark could impeach him first, so this could all be moot.

But the question presumes that WMDs were the sole reason that we took out Saddam Hussein. And Dubya made it clear that Hussein has committed atrocities against his own people, the Kuwaitis and Americans. We're smarter than O'Reilly gives us credit for. April 9 was all the explanation anyone needed for the war w/ Iraq.

[Consort]

Bill takes that fair and balanced stuff too seriously.

[Brimack34]

He has one poll he agrees with Santorum. Another he disagrees with WMD. Why have polls? Pick and Choose.