Replies

I refer you back to the SOTU speech in 2003. Most, if not all of it, was not true. At no point in that speech was the issue of 'no-fly zone' broached. There was one main reason forwarded. No fly zones had nothing to do with it.

I told you my opinion, and referred you back to 1998. Saddam was shooting at our warplanes, he was violating the UN resolutions, and we thought (mistakenly perhaps) that he still had WMDs.

I don't necessarily think the administration has made the best possible case or argued its case as effectively as it could have.

I really don't see how you could argue either of those points effectively considering that actions by the US government in relation to the new government in Iraq have been the direct opposite

Yes, our most recent actions and arguments have been in contradiction to most stated historical positions. In fact, during the first election, didn't George Bush make a big deal of the fact that he was strongly opposed to "nation-building"?

Saddam was shooting at our warplanes

Again, so did other nations without full out invasion.

he was violating the UN resolutions

Perhaps you could point out declaration of war based on violation of UN resolutions to me in the US Constitution. Funny how Republicans will quote that as an important issue, but in the very same breath call for leaving the UN. I could care less what UN resolutions were being violated. No cause for declaration of war. And of course there wasn't one (there hasn't been one in over 60 years)

and we thought (mistakenly perhaps) that he still had WMDs.

And that has been proven false. As it is, I don't seem to remember Hussein making claims that these invisible WMDs were going to be used on the borders of this nation of states

Well said