[Qwinn]

"a) because he posed an imminent threat to U.S. security,
b) on humanitarian grounds,
c) because he possessed weapons of mass destruction
d) because he was linked to Al Queda?"

"Sometimes it was one of the above, sometimes two, sometimes all the above."

Wait a minute. When was it ever just "one", or just "two" of those reasons? All those reasons were cited from the very beginning. To claim it would have been just one or just two at any point would have required an actual disavowal of the others. That's bull. It always was all 4 reasons. Just because every single conversation didn't include all 4 points, because they each were large complex issues that required a great deal more detail than could be assimilated in a single hearing, does not mean that the other issues became inoperative.

That was a just plain silly argument.

And by the way, your a) is yet another liberal propaganda lie. No one ever said Saddam was an "imminent threat". Bush specifically said we cannot WAIT for him to become an imminent threat in his State of the Union speech, but liberals CONSTANTLY lie and claim otherwise, just as they lie about a tremendous number of other realities. That would be a big part of why they are so vastly detested around these parts. Continue perpetuating those lies and you will likely receive the same lack of respect, but only cause you earned it the same way they did.

Qwinn

[ggordon22]

Wait a minute. When was it ever just "one", or just "two" of those reasons? All those reasons were cited from the very beginning. All those reasons were cited from the very beginning. To claim it would have been just one or just two at any point would have required an actual disavowal of the others.

Sorry, this is simply not accurate. I'll just point out three things here:
* those reasons were not cited from the very beginning. The WMD justification came out in 2001 or 2002, well before the 'humanitarian' justification. But none of that matters, because...
* there were no WMDs.
* Saddam wasn't linked to Al Queda.

Um, so what's your point. That he didn't flit from lie to lie but was consistent in telling the same lies from the beginning?

In one part, I'm wrong and you're right. Bush did not say Saddam posed an imminent threat. He said Saddam posed a growing threat.

Continue perpetuating those lies and you will likely receive the same lack of respect, but only cause you earned it the same way they did.

As opposed to the way you are earning it from me, which is to harp on a small point while willfully ignoring the big, important point, which is that the war was unjustified and pursued under confused and false pretenses.