Bray Haven wrote:

ignoramous opines: In fact, the true reason why he attacked Iraq and not, say,
a much
more threatening North Korea was because Iraq was defenseless (and
more economically interesting).


easy to see why you picked your handle )
Greg Sefton

LOL Was thinking much the same thing.


Ignats wrote:

By now, it is clear that Bush had no evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass
destruction and was lying throughout the whole affair.


So, did Clinton have or not have evidence? Since he may or not have lied and that
has past, is that now excusable?

michael