[Sicon]

I have seen and heard this "oil" nonsense many times now (exclusively from Bush-loathing liberals, though you may not be one of them).

Liberals have oil on the brain when it comes to W. And their logic on this one is about as sound as their logic on everything else. In this case, it goes like this:

W says we need to take down Hussein because of the threat he poses with his nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs, not to mention because Hussein has violated virtually every agreement he made with the U.S. AND the U.N. following his loss in the Gulf War (which HE started with his hostile invasion of neighboring Kuwait).

North Korea says it has a nuclear weapons program, though in 1994 they agreed NOT to pursue one - we just found this out.

This MUST mean that N. Korea poses a greater threat than Iraq (first point of faulty logic)

Since W wants to go after Iraq (which he's been talking about for about 6 months now), and not N. Korea (whom we JUST YESTERDAY learned also has nukes and therefore MAY be as great a threat as Iraq), it MUST be because of oil (second point of faulty logic), not because of the threat posed by Hussein's WOMD programs, and the potential for him to transfer such weapons to terrorists, who unlike actual states, are far more likely to use them.

Simply put, the conclusion does not follow logically from the premises. The suggestion that the Iraq war is about oil has no logical basis, and is not supported by your statements (as is the case with most liberal arguments).

[kabar]

I agree with most of your comments, however, I don't think we just discovered that the DPRK has a nuclear weapons program and is violating the agreement it has with us. I will bet that the intelligence community already knew this during the Clinton administration.

Clinton saw foreign policy as an extension of domestic politics. I am sure he kept this information quiet so it would not undermine the public perception that he was the great peacemaker. Albright was cavorting with the DPRK at mass rallies creating the impression that we had a new relationship with the DPRK. Bush took a lot of heat from the media and the Dems when he didn't just plunge back into talks with the DPRK. Now we know why.

[sheltonmac]

"North Korea says it has a nuclear weapons program, though in 1994 they agreed NOT to pursue one - we just found this out."

We knew Russia was violating nuclear treaties during the Cold War. Why do you assume that we were completely in the dark on North Korea?

"W says we need to take down Hussein because of the threat he poses with his nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs..."

I can't say for certain whether or not our war with Iraq will be about oil, but I do know that it isn't because Hussein poses a real threat. I mean, how can Iraq threaten us with something it doesn't have?

"This MUST mean that N. Korea poses a greater threat than Iraq (first point of faulty logic)."

Think about it--North Korea has nukes that can take out entire cities. Iraq doesn't. Which nation poses the biggest threat, the one with nuclear capabilites or the one without? It's not rocket science....well, okay, maybe it is rocket science when we're talking nuclear missiles.