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?
As to O'Neill's motives, I truly believe that he is an earnest man who really believes that the entire Iraq affair was a waste of time. That he is wrong, imho, is not a question that an adoring media has chosen to raise.
Bush handled the question extremely well, btw, looking generous while O'Neill came off as churlish.
Be Seeing You,
Chris