"Nate Perkins"
"Fletis Humplebacker"


Odd. I searched the page with the quoted words and didn't
find those comments. However, you are still missing the point. The
Iraqi were to destroy their WMDs under UN inspector supervision.
Had they done that there have been no need to make any claims
at all. It would have been documented. Why you and some others
can't grasp that particular point is peculiar.


The quotes are there on the lines mentioned.


I search the page you linked to with the find tool and it didn't find
them.


I think it is you that is missing the point. Not so long ago, it wasn't
standard American foreign policy to launch preemptive wars, and certainly
not without a clear and present danger.


No, that wasn't the point at all. We were discussing Saddams WMDs
and why he was being inspected by the UN. You shifted away from
it quite suddenly.


Now, we launch them at will, and rely on a postjustification of shifting
rationales and technicalities.


To the contrary, your rationale is in hindsight. As we've been discussing,
at the time most of world leaders and intelligence agencies thought Iraq
had WMDs. We don't know whether Saddam really destroyed them or
moved them so your postanalysis is purely political.