Ed,

The only way I see that you could be more wrong would be for you, Jim R. and
that numbnuts, Cliff to form a partnership.

You have to rewrite history to support the idea that Saddam wasn't a
flagrant threat to us and the rest of the world prior to the second invasion
to enforce the cease fire that was agreed to after the first phase. Do you
have a clue what he would have done if we hadn't invaded? I didn't think
so.

Since we can't have it both ways... with the invasion or without, all you
guys are simply blowing smoke when you declare invasion was a mistake. Many
people still mistakenly feel (not think) that Saddam was just a peaceful
little despot and we would be better off if we hadn't called his bluff.
Thankfully, your view didn't prevail.

Saddam never accounted for the known weapons and maintained a posture of
defiance regarding them and the inspections.

Compare this situation to the robber who has his hand in his pocket and uses
his finger to simulate a gun. Then he gets shot by security or the cops.
Afterward, you guys scream bloody murder because he wasn't really armed and
he got shot. Damn cops should have guessed he wasn't really armed and had
taken his gun somewhere else.

It's a damn good thing you guys aren't in charge.

George Willer

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
"George Willer" wrote in message
...
Ed,

Your response is confirmation that I'm right on the mark. Thanks for
acknowledging it. The known fact is that the WMD WERE there and neither
of
us knows what happened to most of them. Not I... and certainly not you.

That's right, neither of us knows what happened to them. Neither do we
know
WHEN they were last there. So there was no reason to assume Saddam was a
threat to us because he still had them, right?

If we agree on that, then we're in total agreement, George. . .and your
comment to Martin really didn't mean anything, except that there was no
known reason to invade Iraq, right?

--
Ed Huntress