[SittinYonder]

Good article, actually. Warn us next time, please :)

For those who got past the pop-ups and read the article, the zot really shouldn't have been a question.

I agree with the bulk of the commentary ... Those of us who care have known that a) Iraq did have WMD; b) Iraq likely had more WMD that went Syria's way; c) The intelligence was as solid as could be expected/hoped for; d) Saddam's sons got what they deserved and what he deserved, too.

I'm glad Bush is on the offensive, finally, but this portion of his speech felt, to me, like he'd sold me out for my continued support.

[sageb1]

"I agree with the bulk of the commentary ... Those of us who care have known that a) Iraq did have WMD; b) Iraq likely had more WMD that went Syria's way; c) The intelligence was as solid as could be expected/hoped for; d) Saddam's sons got what they deserved and what he deserved, too. I'm glad Bush is on the offensive, finally, but this portion of his speech felt, to me, like he'd sold me out for my continued support."

Agree with all of what you said. It's like everytime "one of ours" says that yes, the intel was wrong, I want to shake someone and yell, "Why don't you say "some think the intel was wrong, but we have reason to believe it was right!"

[MNJohnnie]

I'm glad Bush is on the offensive, finally, but this portion of his speech felt, to me, like he'd sold me out for my continued support.

Sorry to pick on you but it is this sort of thing that makes me wonder why anyone whould WANT to be President. 1st we hear for month on ends screaming for Bush to fight back. So Bush fights back and NOW you all are mad because the form it takes is designed to reach the maximum amount of voters NOT just the faithful! Bush sees the 1st signifincant jump in his approval rating for months, what you all were clamering for, and now you complain that you feel betrayed. UGGGGGG! A President may just as well go about his job and ignore you all. Nothing he does will ever warrent ANY favorable comment!!!!

[eyespysomething]

I don't understand why he won't mention any of the things I have read about, and why the DOD won't release docsa to Stephen Hayes, docs with titles such as: "IIS (Iraqi Intel Service) Correspondance for the Iraqi Embassy in the Phillipines and Iraqi MFA (Ministry of Foreign Affairs)" Summary full reports on connections between Abu Sayef and the Qadafi Charity Establishment and on certain individuals travelling to Pakistan and involvements with bin Laden"

Especially since Qadafi paid $25 mill to Abu Sayef in the summer of 2000, to secure the release of 25 western hostages.

This is still my theory:

Axis of Evil were pooling resources, so noone would have all the pieces, and were actually building nuclear weapons (and other WMD) in Libya.

I think Bush Admin knows things we don't (imagine that) and for some reason they won't come out and tell the whole story.

Maybe following leads to see where they lead?