Bobert, 14 Jun 04 - 10:22 PM

No predicament at. Just a few points with regard to your post referenced above:

"First we invade Iraq because it was going to drop a nuclear warhead on us,"

With Bobert attention to detail and fact are not strong suits. The statement made by him above is not correct.

"...then because, ahhh, they have WMD's...."

Well almost correct Bobert, the information relating to what WMD (by the way there is no plural) Iraq under Saddam Hussein possessed, or might possess, came from the UN. It was not invented by the current US administration. The January 1999 UNSCOM Report to the UNSC was unanimously accepted and believed by the UNSC to reflect the situation with regard to WMD in Iraq at the time.

"...'er they put bin Laden up to 9/11, 'er somethin' like that."

Name one person in the current US administration who has EVER said that Bobert. If you cannot - then please just for the sake of accuracy stop harping on about it, because it just did not happen, no matter how much you would have liked it too.

"So, the Bush folks huddled up and what came out as the reason for invading Iraq is bacause Saddam was a bad man."

Oddly enough Bobert, the United States of America's declared wish for "Regime change in Iraq" was translated into official US Government policy during the Clinton administration - matter of record - go look it up. So "the Bush folks" had absolutely no "huddling-up" to do, the policy was already firmly in place.

"Well, if the US lets him go then what will be the new excuse for invading Iraq... other than the usual "Clinton did it" excuse???"

I do not think that even the ICRC expect Saddam to be released as such. Saddam Hussein may well be released from US custody, but that is not the same as him being released. He will be handed over by the US to the custody of the Iraqi Interim Government.