Teribus:

(going back a few posts to unfinished business):

Remember my comment..."you have totally grown accustomed to relying on what somebody else has reported and commented on."

Arne's own words...."no, I rely oon what reputable media (and even disreputable media, such as "www.whitgehouse.gov") report on what the maladministration said."

Therin lies the difference Arne - I read and listen to what the person says, you, on the other hand, read and listen to what somebody else has reported.

Ummmm ... (sans typos) "www.whitehouse.gov" happens to be the official web page for the maladministration. You're saying they're not particularly accurate??? Be still, my beating heart, I'm sooooooooo let down, can I ever believe the maladministration's blandishments and sweet nothings again?...

OK Arne maybe we are getting somewhere after all - You now apparently accept that the idea of regime change in Iraq came not from George W Bush but from the previous administration under Bill Clinton.

Clue fer ya: "Regime change" ain't the same thing as military invasion and occupation.

[Teribus]: "But after the US has been attacked, the President and his Administration are pilloried for exercising the power at their disposal to act in the best interests of the country, even after having gone to both houses of Congress, even after having gone to the United Nations."

[Arne]: "News flash: Iraq didn't attack us on 9/11!!!!"

Arne, would you like to point out exactly where in that sentence of mine quoted above where I have said, inferred, alluded to Iraq attacking the US. And also tell us exactly how the following paragraph of that post of mine started - "Afghanistan...." correct?

So in your twisted mind, when Colombia attacks Argentina, Argentina can go kick the shite outta Peru???

You seem to think that being attacked is somehow license to invade another country, any country, even one that had nothing to do with the attack. That's nonsense, of course.

But as an aside, going to the United Nations isn't sufficient for any attack to bear their imprimatur of legitimacy. They have to approve. But Dubya in fact didn't go to the United Nations to get the sign-off on the invasion (as I've pointed out several times) despite Dubya's promise to force at least a vote just for a show of hands ... precisely because saner heads told him that the vote would be an enbarrassing (and delegitimising) one of 5-13 against military action despite the U.S. efforts to strong-arm and bribe the countries on the Security Council.

UNMOVIC is irrelevant Arne? - How so

Some context for the reading impaired here:

[Teribus]: Arne, at his cherry-picking best,..."Dubya couldn't stop lying afterwards, even, and invented this fantasy (or hallucination? -- scary...) about Saddam not letting the inspectors in (as I posted in an early article here)."

[Teribus]: When was UNMOVIC formed Arne?

[Arne]: Irrelevant.

Your reading skills need some work, Teribus.

Do you deny that the only reason UNMOVIC were eventually invited back into Iraq (Oh yes Arne they had to be INVITED BACK IN) was because the President of the United States of America parked a quarter of a million members of the armed forces of the US on his doorstep, with the clear message comply, co-operate or you will be removed irrespective.

No. Nor did I above. I already told you that the resolution did the job, and that the inspectors were there (with unanimous Security Council approval) and doing what was needed to be done. And when Saddam did allow them in, it was no longer necessary to "remove him from power". Unless Dubya had decided before Saddam let the inspectors back in that it would be necessary, because Saddam "wouldn't let them in ... therefore, after a reasonable request, [he] decided to remove him from power". But that would make Dubya's claims about not having made a decision, and about war being the last resort, a big passle of lies, no?

With regard to the words spoken by Dr. Hans Blix, Arne flounders around alot here, mainly because there's nobody telling him what to think, but he does come up with this absolute GEM:

[Arne]: ....."Words have meaning."

Well, Teribus, only if you ignore what I did say about what Blix had said. You may think I was "flounder[ing]", but simply making that assertion is hardly an argument (except perhaps on Monty Python....).

Cheers,