Re: "You need to stick to one side."
I have. I meant to say according to "Baghdad Bob," just so you would understand. Sorry.
Re: "Were they a threat to our entire country or were they not?"
For you, did Iraq have to be a threat our ENTIRE country all at once? Not me. But yes, Iraq state-sponsored terrorism could threaten any part of our country.
Re: "(Bush)says Iraq was an imminent threat."
False, he did not. I do think, however, that Saddam already HAD acted, and yearned to act badly some more.
Re: "He said WMD's"
Yup...and we know he wasn't wrong since the presence of WMD's was verified years earlier.
Re: "Are you saying that he lied?"
Certainly not.
Re: "why can't anything be confirmed at this late date"
Read David Kay's report, things have been confirmed. Aside from such things, having verififed WMD's in Iraq years earlier, it is sad that Saddam had so much time to hide and/or re-distribute the easily hidden.
Re: "Are you saying that our intelligence services, military and admin are grossly incompetent?"
Nope. I'm saying it is hard for even Columbo to find what has plainly been actively hidden, though it is known to exist.
Re: "Who's talking about assassination?"
I was, just to note which side Iraq remained on after Desert Storm, in case you feel Iraq was benign.
Re: "If Saddam was in cohoots with OBL and they had Saddam's nuclear weapons at their disposal for over 10 years...WHY DIDN'T THEY USE THEM?"
Nobody said Saddam had Nuclear Weapons ready to go in 2003, let alone for 10 years running. Quite the opposite in fact.
Re: "Utter nonsense."
Yes, and again, since no one claimed Saddam had Nuclear Weapons at the ready capable of bringing down whole cities, let alone had given them to Osama, your words - both your premises and conclusions - are therefore utter nonsense indeed, IMHO.
Dan B. |
