In article , Renata wrote:
On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 14:59:23 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:
If I have misunderstood your position, perhaps you could make it clear,
instead of resorting to gratuitous insults and allowing the misunderstanding
to remain.

You're right, and I apologize.

Thank you.
[snip]

The administration tried to make just such a strong case for invading
Iraq, based on lies. I say "lies" because all the intelligence did
not overwhelmingly indicate WMD, etc. but they chose only to present
that portion.
[snip]

The prez made a case for invading Iraq based on ties to AQ and WMD.

I thought this point had been beaten absolutely to death in this thread, but I
see there's still a bit of life left in it. The case for going to war was
based on much more than WMDs. That was *part* of it, but it was not the only
part. IMO the invasion was more than justified even without WMDs as a reason.

[snip]

I can't understand how such glaring errors, y'all can look the other
way and/or keep finding excuses for the goings on. Talk about living
in your own plane of existence...

Another gratuitous insult. And particularly ironic, considering your own
inability to recognize (or admit) the fact that the President's case for war
in Iraq was based on many factors, not just WMDs.

Bye now.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?