Really my friend, in the Arab world, had baby Bush not ceremoniously dispatched Saddam Huessein and his B'aathists, he'd be the laughing stock of the Arab world.
What Bush has done re: Iraq is just fine with the rest of the world and is long overdue. The American talking heads are the only ones complaining. Empty cans makin a bunch of noise, the whole lot of them.
It's not mine, but I am grateful for it.
and thus it's difficult for me to read past the first line of most forum posts.
Why is that?
As for the short retort, that's because the only portion of your post that addressed mine was "Rant away trolls".
My apologies, your post was the difference between regime change and pre-emption. I thought my post was relevant at least to the pre-emption aspect.
There was nothing in your (yes, admirably lengthy) post actually addressing the issue I'd raised -- namely, President Bush taking cover in 1998's House Resolution 4655 and presuming that a vague policy of regime change justified a preventive invasion of a sovereign nation.
Well, I think I did address the pre-emption (or prevention) issue. If not, let me know.
Bush did not take cover in Public Law No: 105-338, THE IRAQ LIBERATION ACT as it relates to the policy of pre-emption. O'Neill is either an idiot or lying, I'm guessing the former. I'm guessing the Pentagon has had plans for regime change since 1991 and they have been reviewed by the NSC regularly. What do you think?
For a post that does explain why what you are implying is false, and gives references to prove it, see my post #64 to you.
If you consider the post too long for your tastes, here are the last two paragraphs, as supported by the rest of the post:
"The 2003 invasion of Iraq was conducted in full compliance with U.S. and international law. Those who say or imply otherwise are lying.
"This is not a rant. These are the facts, and this is the truth."