"Nate Perkins" wrote in message
. 125.201...

What's astounding to me is the total lack of skepticism towards the
administration. It's almost like people desperately want to believe the
convenient party line. But when they positively claim evidence of WMD
and all they can turn up is yellow cake, aluminum tubes, and bogus
mobile weapons labs doesn't it cause you to wonder? And when they claim
Iraqi support of terrorism in the wake of 9/11, but all that can be
proven are links to anti-Israeli terrorist groups, doesn't it begin to
strain the credibility?

It seems clear that the policy to invade Iraq was set first, and the
justification was adapted later to suit the circumstances.


There's your problem in a nutshell. You are accusing the admin of some
secret motivation in Iraq that you can't really explain without sounding
like a Michael Moore kook. So what was the real story, Nate? Can you
answer without using the terms "Bush's father," or the "Saudi connection,"
or "Halliburton"?

For somebody who is so intent on investigating and picking apart all details
of the Iraq situation, I'd like to see you put the same effort into telling
us all the REAL reason we went there, AND provide the same good, solid
evidence you are demanding of the rest of us.

dwhite