Your right on that, I shouldn't have used the quotes since I guess I had paraphased the main concept behind the message.
States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger.
We'll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer.
This is what Bush actually said in the SOTU on 1/29/2002, remember their was a 14 month 'rush' to war, there were two SOTUs that are relevant.
(Missed #16 in ping flurry ;-)So why single out Saddam for immediate military action?
As far as I'm concerned, the case had been made years ago when Saddam kept violating the cease fire terms. The left always seems to trot out the 'but we haven't finished over there(wherever)(except when X42 sent them) yet' whines, so finishing off a job long left undone, was a good decision. That also alowed us to remove troops from Saudi, which was one of the stated reason Bin Laden gave for his attacks on us over the last decade or so. It also took away a large financial insentive to Pali bombers that allows that situation to cool down. Iraq was 'low hanging fruit' could also be cited.
Was there no other choice? No. Was it the best choice? IMHO, yes.
Your mileage may vary.