[Mike4Freedom]

I would be very interested in your reply to post #33

Are you trying to say that the imminent threat of WMDs to the US was not the primary reason to go to war. Did you already forget things that happened in Feburary and March of this year?

I guess that is what makes me such an outcast here. I actually remember what happened. WMDs were ready to go on 45 minutes notice. There were tonnes of them. Isn't that what Powell said to the UN?

And while no one in the administration actually said that Saddam was behind 9/11, the propoganda machine sure confused the general public. Hell, people were confusing Saddam and Bin Laden. I actually had people asking me if they were two names for the same person.

At this point, it sure looks like we were lied into a war. It wouldn't be the first time either. Remember the Maine and Gulf of Tonkin come to mind immediately.

The more time goes by without finding anything, the more people will be forced into that conclusion. It is hard to imagine what the nation's thoughts will be by November 2004.

[alnick]

I actually had people asking me if they were two names for the same person.

Oh come on! Number one, I doubt that any American did not at that point in time know the difference between UBL and SH, and if you could have found one, I assure you, it was not the fault of the administration that this person was so uninformed.

[BJungNan]

The more time goes by without finding anything, the more people will be forced into that conclusion.

If the democrats can make something of nothing, it will make a difference. They are trying.

[optimistically_conservative]

Are you trying to say that the imminent threat of WMDs to the US was not the primary reason to go to war. Did you already forget things that happened in Feburary and March of this year?

I haven't forgetten, and I'm trying to say that WMD was not the sole reason for going to war, despite Wolfowitz's admission that it became the primary public reason since everyone in the bureaucracy could agree on it.

I actually remember what happened. WMDs were ready to go on 45 minutes notice. There were tonnes of them. Isn't that what Powell said to the UN?

Powell's UN presentation does not mention 45 minutes notice, that came from Blair's dossier. And yes, numerous sources quoted tonnes of unaccounted chemical agents - specifically see my links in post 33 for some of the intelligence sources and UNMOVIC reports.

And while no one in the administration actually said that Saddam was behind 9/11, the propoganda machine sure confused the general public.

The confusion has made it's way to the courts.

Spain links suspect in 9/11 plot to Baghdad

It also includes a new affirmation by the Czech government that Mohamed Atta, the leader of the 9/11 plotters, met an Iraqi intelligence officer, Ibrahim al-Ani, in Prague in April 2001. Some US officials have suggested this meeting did not happen. But in a signed statement dated 24 February, 2003, Hynek Kmonicek, the Czech ambassador to the UN, says his government 'can confirm that during the stay of Mohamed Atta ... there was contact with Mr al-Ani, who was on 22 April, 2001 expelled from the Czech Republic on the basis of activities not compatible with his diplomatic status [the usual euphemism for spying]'.

Sept. 11 Plaintiffs Win Case Against Iraq

Judge Harold Baer ruled Wednesday that the survivors of two people who were killed in the World Trade Center terrorist attack had presented enough evidence, "albeit barely," to be awarded $104 million in damages against the state of Iraq, Osama bin Laden, and his terrorist network.

At this point, it sure looks like we were lied into a war. It wouldn't be the first time either. Remember the Maine and Gulf of Tonkin come to mind immediately.

From my perspective, it appears you did not understand the reasons being provided for the war, had not thought through your own perspective and were emotionally against the war. You are now trying to justify your stance based on an incomplete outcome two months after the cessation of major hostilities. Some might call that premature speculation.

The more time goes by without finding anything, the more people will be forced into that conclusion. It is hard to imagine what the nation's thoughts will be by November 2004.

Forced? Certainly your chicken little act supports the actions and propaganda from those orchestrating guerilla warfare in Iraq and the Islamists and their supporters. I don't think many Americans will be forced into believing that WMD never existed in Iraq, that Saddam was cooperating, and that Bush knowing lied to the American people to wage a war in Iraq. But you're welcome to keep trying.

[truth_seeker]

"The more time goes by without finding anything, the more people will be forced into that conclusion. It is hard to imagine what the nation's thoughts will be by November 2004."

Study the results of the 1972 election, seven-plus years into a truly unpopular war.

Judging by the tone often in the media, we might conclude that Nixon got whipped by anti-war McGovern.

The War on Terror is far more popular than Vietnam.

Just as Vietnam was a battle in the cold war (which we largely won) Iraq is a battle in the war against terror.

If you search for ideological purity where war is involved, you'll often be missing the strategic elements.

For the US to knock down Afghanistan, and then position 150,000 troops in the middle of the muslim world in Iraq is a MAJOR element of the WOT story.

Islam & arabs IN GENERAL have managed to become components of "the enemy."

War is hell, innocent civilians always get hurt.

I was reminded recently that Isolationists don't delve deeply into the facts of history. The USMC song is "from the Halls of Montezuma to the Shores of Tripoli."

We have made it to 227 years, partly by being watchful and vigilent.

Abu Nidal, mastermind of the Achille Lauro ship incident, was living in Baghdad. Saddam provided safe harbor to terrorists.

On Sept. 20, 2001 Bush said that was not going to go unpunished.

Stand back from the tree, and you can see the forest.

[cardinal4]

Mike, if we knew he had them in 98, shouldnt we be concerned as to their whereabouts now? In addition, finding the "smoking gun" that the liberals demand, was NOT our objective. It came down to "Comply with the UN resolution, or get your ass kicked" he chose not to comply and he got his ass kicked.

[VRWC_minion]

Are you trying to say that the imminent threat of WMDs to the US was not the primary reason to go to war

This poll was taken the day after the war started. Its obvious the majority disagreed with you then as they do now

"Do you think the United States will be able to justify this war ONLY if it finds weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical or biological weapons, in Iraq; or do you think the United States will be able to justify this war for other reasons, even if it does NOT find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?"
		Only if Find WMD	Even if Don't Find WMD	Neither/ No Justifi- cation (vol.)	No Opinion
		%	%	%	%
	3/20/03	35	53	7	6