Replies

That's what they say publically. I'd bet a ton that behind the scenes it's a different story.

So we can't believe what they say publicly? Hmmm, not too conforting from my viewpoint. I'm supposed to trust people I can't rely on to tell me the story?

Please make the case, that even though they themselves don't say they are in possession of additional information, we can't be trusted with information which would convince us that Iraq presents a clear and present danger to our country.

I'll leave the speculation to you, before I am on board, I would like more info. I remain undecided based on facts, not speculation about postitions not held by our leaders.

Well you have a wonderful way of twisting words, don't you? I trust what they say in public. Why? Because I have faith in the President and his administration. Looks like you need to give more credit to the administration. Or perhaps you don't trust the gov't in general. If this is the case, I seriously doubt any evidence presented will be to your liking.

As far as speculation, did you hear Blair's dossier? Did you read it? Is that not enough- let alone the numerous reports from UN Inspectors saying they were not given unfettered access in Iraq? Hell, even Scott Ritter (before he took the money from the Iraqi gov't) admitted he didn't have compete access. Oh, and let's not forget that even Koffe Anan admitted in July of this year that Iraq is in violation of the resolutions.

Now me, I could give a flying F___ what the UN thinks or does. But if Iraq and Saddam were completely innocent and had no intent of developing WMDs, then why refuse inspectors???? It defies logic because it is simply illogical.

You asked for honest replies. I've given you mine. Sorry if you don't agree with it. Didn't expect you to.