But fine, let Bush come forward with proof and on live TV and tell the nation and the world that Iraq is more of a threat to us than Saudi Arabia and Eygpt and Lebanon (the countries from where all the 9/11 attackers came from) and that he has proof that the antrhrax came from Iraq. Then I will gladly repudiate all my objections to war with Iraq and go along with you.
And FYI: Clinton was also "my president" and I never trusted that disgrace and traitor for one inch. If you assume that because I am a registered Republican and a conservative that I trust Bush any more than Clinton because he shares my labels than you are neither a GOP member or conservative. ONly liberals and leftists believe in the infallibility of "leaders". I don't have a "leader" and never will.
Clinton trotted out 'proof' for bombing the Sudanese aspirin factory and for bombing the crap out of Yugoslavia and it was completely fabricated. Surely an equally untrustworthy Bush administration could do the same thing.
Bottom line, is I trust Bush's judgment on this one -- that Saddam is a threat to US security. I don't trust his judgment on some issues (e.g. immigration) but I do trust it on Iraq.
If a guy like Rumsfeld says Saddam is a threat to my security, but Saddam says no, and Burkeman1 agrees, being unimpressed with the circumstantial evidence...I don't know any of them personally, but with my ass on the line I think I'll stick with Rumsfeld!