OK Peter K (Fionn), let's take a look at that "uncharacteristically shabby post" of mine:

Re: "The mushroom cloud"

An evaluation had to be made as to whether or not, Iraq was engaged in reactivating it's nuclear programme. If memory serves me correctly the evaluation came out with the view that left in place, Saddam's Iraq could complete that work in 5 - 10 years if they attempted to acquire nuclear weapons entirely through "home grown" efforts. That timescale could be shortened in on considerably (2 years) if they took the option of going for an "imported" route to the same objective. Left in place, whether you are talking about 2, 5 or 10 years, that still constitutes a threat that required action to address it, given the track record of Saddam Hussein.

Re: Saddam Hussein's Iraq and terrorist links

I do not think that there can be any doubt that Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, did have links with terrorist groups. Again from memory, the future threat to the US, as presented by the current administration, and their security advisors, at the time, was perceived as coming from A TERRORIST GROUP (not specified) being supplied with WMD by Iraq. The semantics with regard to "links", "contacts" and "ties" is immaterial, they serve as possible indicators and cannot be ignored. It is not only adversity that makes strange bed-fellows, opportunity can often create some highly improbable collaborative ventures.

So when Peter comes out with:
"Teribus knows that Cheney never alleged direct Al Qaaeda involvement in 911, but equally he knows that Cheney's constant hints about an Al Qaeda-Iraq axis were calculated to sow confusion in the minds of millions of Americans."

I am somewhat mystified. That Al-Qaeda were responsible for the attacks of 9/11 is undeniable. So, I'm sorry Peter, it is my firm belief that Dick Cheney and the entire US administration did allege direct Al-Qaeda involvement because that is what Al-Qaeda told them. With regard to Cheney's "hints", if newspaper/radio/television reporters actually reported on what people say in context there would be a damn sight less confusion surrounding the issue. Journalists/Reporters normally have their story written before they go to the news conference/interview, they are responsible for the spin because they have to make what is said fit their picture (Gilligan - classic example). So, in the wake of 9/11, if you are attempting to provide an example of a hostile government linking up with an international terrorist group - who would you couple together, purely by way of an example. That is what was done, if you doubt that go back over the recorded interviews and press conferences.

Re: The current US administration not doing anything to counteract belief that Iraq had any involvement in 9/11.

The current US administration have come out with clear statements to the effect that it was their belief that there was no involvement in the 9/11 attacks on the part of Iraq, or any other foreign government. Perfectly clear Peter, crystal, now subsequent to those statements being made, what did the media report whenever anyone else trotted out the "myth" that the US believed that there was a connection - absolutely nothing, because that was their "myth", they created it and perpetuated it. What happened to their obligation to report factually and impartially? They both didssappeared out of the window because they wanted to grab air time and sell copy.

Clinton did put regime change on the agenda for Iraq, that is a matter of record Peter, pure and simple. As for your question:

"does this make regime change a legitimate objective for unilateral action in Teribus's book?"

If, having just suffered a series of attacks, you believe, or have been given reason to believe (Russian warning), that further attacks are being planned, this time with the support of a foreign government, then yes, it is your governments duty to take steps to defend you from those attacks. Now let's see how they attempted to do that - Did they just launch into it - No they did not, neither in the case of Afghanistan, or in Iraq.

Bobert - 19 Jun 04 - 10:11 PM

"Let me see if I have this right, Dougie. The 9/11 Comission says that AlQuida had nothing to do with 9/11. Bush and Cheney say they did"

No Bobert you do not have this right - The 9/11 Commission HAVE NEVER SAID that Al-Qaeda had nothing to do with 9/11 - It would be bloody strange if they did, as Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility for it - they'd been planning the attacks since 1996 according to the evidence heard. So on the fact of Al-Qaeda involvement in the 9/11 attacks the Commission and the current US administration are in perfect accord.

Now Bobert if you meant to say that the 9/11 Commission had stated that Iraq was not involved in the 9/11 attacks, then you are perfectly correct - Colin Powell, on behalf of the current US administration, came out with that same clear statement within days of those attacks taking place. So once again the 9/11 Commission and the current US administration are in perfect accord.