Doug Miller wrote:
In article , Renata
wrote:
OK.. From the speech (see snippets below) the threats, very
specifically, we significant danger to the USA, RIGHT NOW, from
WMD, missiles, support of (one) terrorist, and half a sentence
referring to terrorism against it's own people.

Hmm. So, where ARE those WMD, missiles, nuclear facilities (of
which
we have actual photos), in-progress nasty facility building, etc.?

Beats me, but Syria would be a good guess.

Why? Why he send his most fearsome weapons out of his country
on the eve of invasion?

Maybe still in Iraq; the SOB had
more than a decade to hide them,

The last UNSCOM inpsections were in the Early summer of 1998,
the first UNMOVIC inspections were in NOvember or December 2002.

That 4 1/2 years, not more than a decade.


It could be *lots* of places.

Now, change "Iraq" to "NKorea" and tell me why we're ignoring a
country who might actually prove a much more imminent threat?

Ummm... let me see if I've got this straight. The President did the
wrong
thing by invading Iraq. And he's doing the wrong thing by *not*
invading
North Korea. Riiiiiiight. I got it.

He invaded a country without WMD while ignoring a country known to
be building atom bombs. Probably, becuase he was confident that
North Korea had one or more atomic bombs.


It is unbelievable to me that you can read this speech and use it as
justification for attacking Iraq in view of current knowledge.

It's unbelievable to me that you can read what I have written and
think that
I'm using that as "justification ... in view of CURRENT knowledge"
[emphasis
added]. I never said that, or anything remotely similiar. I *do*
think that it
was justified in view of what we knew, or thought we knew,
_at_that_time_.


No. It was based on a misrepresentation of what was known to the
US government at that time.

http://msnbc.msn.com/ID/5403731

--

FF