LadyJean 03 Dec 03 - 11:21 PM I think that story has been rather comprehensively been de-bunked:

President was out of the US for a total of 30 hours; he spent 3 hours on the ground; he left the US on the Wednesday evening, flying East. Remember a little thing called time zones - the guy who first blasted this story over the media certainly did.

GWB's Air Force One took off from Baghdad at sometime around 20:00hrs local time; the breakfast you refer to started at 17:00hrs local time in Baghdad.

At the moment it is around -

12:05 AM - Houston Texas
01:05 AM - Washington DC
07:05 AM - Central European Time
09:05 AM - Baghdad

Your reporter is quoting time from a US time zone, depending on which one add at least at least 8 or 9 hours to it - anyone for a bit of a late breakfast???

Amos 01 Dec 03 - 10:17 AM & others, including Guests, well intentioned, like-minded, well-informed, intelligent friends:

The potential threat:
An attack by an international terrorist group on a large centre of population using some form of weapon of mass destruction.

Rational for that perception:
- Attacks of September 11th, 2001
- Terrorist organisations with an international perspective do currently exist, Al-Qaeda is just one example of such a group.
- Potential suppliers of the required WMD do exist, Iraq, required by the UN to disarm and rid itself of such weapons had failed to comply to the satisfaction of the UN's inspection teams.

Response to Threat:
- Streamline intelligence gathering and establish closer co-operation between existing national agencies and with foreign intelligence agencies.
- Remove use of a safe base from most significant international terrorist organisation, the one that has already attacked you - Al-Qaeda/Taliban controlled Afghanistan.
- Eliminate/Reduce/Restrict possible sources of WMD, WMD technology, WMD components, to such groups.

Yes Amos, in general, they are all interlinked.

Everyone mentioned in Guest's post of 02 Dec 03 - 08:04 AM can hold whatever opinion they like, they can adopt whatever attitude they like, they can chose to believe, or disbelieve, whatever they like, for one very good reason - They are not the one responsible for the safety, security and well-being of their nation. Land them with that responsibility and faced with certain facts and circumstances, their perspective, with regard to formulation of response/solution, on any given situation would be somewhat constrained.



Teribus:

I'd try tofind other grounds were I you. The explicit literal statement in words of one syllable you want to argue abhout is not tyhe point. Much more tot he point is the inten tional inter-linking and association of 9-11, Al Qeda, Saddam HUssein, and mass destruction. With strong associations supported by weasel words.