In other words, you don't have any evidence that Iraq is behind 9-11. Back when I thought Saddam was at fault, I was gung-ho for war. Now that they haven't shown us any evidence, I've back off, and dont' see any reason to treat him differently than we're treating N Korea. You say we'll "get to N Korea in due time" But Bush disagrees - he says diplomacy and containment will work for N Korea. If so, then I'd like to see them tried with Iraq before we go in and get our people killed and create an imperialistic occupation for years and years.
The absolute direct link between 9/11 and Iraq isn't necessary - the link between terrorist organizations including Al Queda serves the purpose. This isn't about retaliation for 9/11, its about prevention of another such event by removing the capability for such an attack. As long as the likes of Saddam have weapons suitable for mass destruction and they have relations with the likes of OBL and other terrorist organizations, they are a threat. As well, Colon Powell clearly made the case for action in his address weeks ago to the UN. That you choose to ignore it doesn't make it less true. You want more than a smoking gun; you want a smoking artillary battery. Or, maybe you want a couple more 9/11's just to make sure we're doing the right thing.
I said we'll get to North Korea in good time because we will. I never said that diplomacy wouldn't be part of our solution to North Korea. Why you try to differentiate between what I said and what the President said is beyond me. Diplomacy will very likely work with N. Korea - they are a country in need. We've been trying diplomacy with Iraq for 12 years and it hasn't worked yet. Besides, as I said before (and you chose not to quote), N. Korea doesn't have a penchant to kill innocent civilians despite her sabre rattling - Saddam has shown that he does.
Over the last 2 years there have been a lot of threads that link Iraq to Al-quaida. Where have you been?
Actually, Bush has said that all options are on the table regarding N. Korea.
Bush did not rule out anything with regard to North Korea. He simply stated that for now, our policy is one of urging the nations directly threatened by NK nukes to become involved. There is certainly some evidence that Japan has received the message. Frankly, I don't care that *you* don't see the differences in dealing with two different situations. You're just obtuse, the rest of us can see that.
As far as evidence linking Iraq with terrorist activity, somehow I doubt that you've got insider info from NSA, CIA or the Pentagon. What you know and don't know is irrelevant, after all: "In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies."
Care to guess whose quote that is?
Bush did not rule out anything with regard to North Korea. He simply stated that for now, our policy is one of urging the nations directly threatened by NK nukes to become involved. There is certainly some evidence that Japan has received the message. Frankly, I don't care that *you* don't see the differences in dealing with two different situations. You're just obtuse, the rest of us can see that.
As far as evidence linking Iraq with terrorist activity, somehow I doubt that you've got insider info from NSA, CIA or the Pentagon. What you know and don't know is irrelevant, after all: "In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies."
Care to guess whose quote that is?