Replies

Funny how you afford Saddam the benefit of the doubt but not Bush.

The benefit of a doubt may have applied before the war, but no longer. We're talking about real evidence now. So far, the evidence supports Saddam, not Bush. Prove otherwise. I'll settle for just, say, a few dozen viable chemicallly or biologically loaded artillery shells even if it's not the tens of thousands of shells and rockets and thousands of tons of chemicals and hundreds and hundreds of gallons of biological agents I was led to believe Saddam had in order to get my support for the war.I don't like being lied to. By anyone, Saddam, Bush, Blair, or anyone. If the lie was deliberate it is heinous to me. If told honestly because the teller was deceived, it needs to be admitted and addressed as such.

This whole d*mn war thing is starting to look like a plot from Twenty Four that didn't have Jack Bauer in it.

"Prove otherwise" THAT is exactly what Saddam was SUPPOSE to do. He didn't! The inspectors said he had not. And because he didn't he violated the CEASEFIRE at the end of GWI. He had 12 years to prove it. If he truly had no WMD, why risk his entire empire and identity by snubbing his nose at the US when we were amassing troops on his border? Did he truly believe FRANCE would stop us? If that's the case, he deserves to be in hiding!

If someone pointed an UNLOADED gun at you, wouldn't you make the assumption that it had bullets in it? Wouldn't it be in your best interest to error on the side of caution? By not PROVING he had no WMD, he was pointing a gun at the US. We had to assume it had bullets in it. He gave us no other choice.