Democrats have short memories and a high tolerance for lying.  Gopblogger.org (which has their latest straw poll out, go and vote) has a nice roundup of what Democrats had to say about Saddam Hussein before it became politically attractive to oppose the war.  Democrats have no honor.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"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. 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."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

As a reward to all you loyal readers of my blog, here is an advance copy of my article that should appear soon in the University of Georgia's only conservative student newspaper, The Georgia Guarddawg.  

Humour

     Set foot in a big city and two facts are inescapable—they have lots of homeless people and lots of pigeons. Both of these pose problems for cities; the homeless people panhandle and make people feel uncomfortable and guilty, the pigeons make a mess and clog the streets. In the spirit of bold solutions, one idea could forever solve both these problems for cities. Let the homeless people hunt the pigeons.

    No, it’s not a crazy idea. America has a long tradition of hunting. Pioneers and settlers survived on deer and bear that they hunted. Why can’t poor people hunt the bountiful game in cities? It only sounds crazy because we have deserted our hunting roots. Maybe a better idea of how it could work will ease your mind.

    Most importantly, homeless people would have to hunt with non-lethal weapons. We can’t have them shooting pigeons and innocent bystanders with 12-gauge shotguns. So, city governments could provide aesthetically attractive traps, a variety of nets, dart guns, and maybe some flamethrowers—saves time on cooking.

    Our civilized society would also not tolerate homeless people consuming raw birds or starting fires on the sidewalk. Thus, the logical alternative is designated grilling areas (DGA’s) around the city. DGA’s could also inspire the entrepreneurial spirit in the nation’s homeless, as they worked on selling barbeque pigeon to passersby. Cooked right, I would guess pigeon is quite tasty and safe.

    The proposal gets better, though. Cities are always looking to increase tourism. People will flock to the cities for the opportunity to watch homeless people stalk pigeons with dart guns and nets. Diligent and skillful hunting would probably earn the respect of some tourists, prompting them to give money to hard-working homeless people.

    Don’t forget the positive impact this will have on the homeless. They will gain the self-respect that comes from providing for their own needs. Of course, the ultimate goal should be to find them quality jobs and cheap housing, but preventing them from utilizing a plentiful food source while they are pursuing work is madness. They get food, the city gets rid of pigeons, and everyone is happy.

    Could this proposal ever become reality? Probably not. It is described more for your entertainment than to provoke political action. I also mean no disrespect for homeless people. While some homeless are certainly lazy bums, many are homeless through little fault of their own; many others are physically disabled. As a society grounded in Christian charity, we have a responsibility to show kindness to the poor. I am here to say that providing the means for a poor person to take care of themselves is just as kind as giving them a handout.