> > > > >for all I know the US would have seized on some > > other pretext > > to attack.) > > Even if this were true, would that have been such a > bad thing? > It would not be a bad thing if the administration was honest about its intentions and motives. It seems clear that the WMD arguement was used since it was thought to be the one that would most easy to "sell" to the american public (Wolfowitz or Pearl as much as said so a few months ago). > > We also know that his judgment is not > >. > > > > ---David > > Well, he _did_ have them in 1998, according to the > inspectors. If it's not clear that he did have them, > what happened to them in the interveing period? > > He was under sanctions that degraded his ability to continue this program in an effective way. > > > > If it takes you great forbearance to display that > minimal amount of respect to the President in wartime, > then I'm not the one who needs to get some > perspective, David.
Cut the war time crap! We are not under active attack. We are under no threat from this war except for the terrorism threat. We are occupying Iraq. This is not WWII Korea or even Vietnam. We instigated this war (that is not to say it was wrong). We are at war because this president put us into this war. > > ===== > Gautam Mukunda > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > "Freedom is not free" > http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! > http://sbc.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
