In article , lgb wrote:
In article ,
says...
Those were not the "primary stated reasons" for the war, as you continue to
falsely claim; rather, they were two reasons among many.

If you really believe that, I've got a bridge to sell you. Those other
reasons were barely mentioned afterthoughts until the first two didn't
pan out.

Absolutely false, as the President's speech (cited frequently in this thread)
clearly shows. That speech laid out multiple justifications for the war, prior
to the invasion.

And neither one has
been "debunked" as you falsely claim: It's not proven that Iraq had no WMDs,
and they definitely *did* have ties to al Qaida and numerous other terror
organizations.

Well, you can't prove a negative, so I guess you're right there. But at
least you'll have to admit that the ones Rumsfeldt said we knew the
location of certainly haven't shown up.

True enough. But that doesn't mean they were never there. Don't you suppose
that anything that we publicly declared knowledge of, would be at the very top
of Saddam's list of stuff to hide before we got there?

And Iraq had no more ties to terrorists than any other Arab/Muslim
nation. Like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, for example.

More than some (e.g. Egypt and Turkey), less than others (e.g. Iran and
Afghanistan under the Taliban). But it's certainly false to claim, as some do,
that Iraq had *no* ties to terrorism.

--
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?