"Nate Perkins" wrote in message
. 125.201...
"Dan White" wrote in
:

"Rick Cook" wrote in message
...

There's simply no point arguing with him. He can't teach, he won't
learn and he just wastes your time.


I know, I said the same thing myself a week ago. Your post on
terrorist activity in Iraq was good, and provided everything a
reasonable observer would want to see. Couple this with the 12 year
cease fire, violation of every resolution, and it is plain we had to
act. People also forget that it also became necessary to force the
UN's hand. Bush was right when he said that the UN will become
irrelevant if it cannot enforce its own resolutions. Funny as it
sounds, Bush probably helped save the UN by following through on its
"threats."

"Plain we had to act" ... "violation of every resolution" ... "had to
force
the UN's hand". Yeah, sure. You conveniently forget that all of those
claims for urgency of action, violation of resolutions, and need to force
the UN hand were all because Iraq didn't disclose its WMD programs to our
satisfaction.

Of course the tragic joke is that we now know that it had no WMD programs
to disclose.

Frankly, and I've said this in the past, I never cared whether they had
WMD's locked and loaded or not -- as far as justifying action is concerned.
WMD's were never stated to be an imminent threat -- that was something the
dems like to ascribe to Bush. He said they were a "gathering threat" and
they certainly were. I'm sure even you wouldn't disagree with the
scientists who attest to the fact that Saddam had the intent to restart his
nuclear program as soon as he could. There was plenty of justification of
taking out this loose cannon, but I'm not going to 'splain it again!

I also don't believe we can say there were no WMD's so confidently. The
evidence showed they were hiding something, and God knows we telegraphed our
punch for months and months.

dwhite