Kendall,

"He was ordered to get rid of his WMDs. He did. He sent them to Syria,"

So you are even willing to admit he had them? THAT will get you in more trouble with the anti-bushites than "cross(ing) the Bush mafia".

"but what I don't understand is why do you insist on starting in the middle?"

I started with the invasion by Iraq of Kuwait, and the ceasefire terms of that conflict- which Saddam did not comply with for at least 12 years- and when given a "LAST AND FINAL" chance to do so, did not- according to the Blix reports from Novemeber 2002 through January 2003. If you call that the middle, let me know where I should start- the 1921 treaty that created Iraq ( breaking up the Ottoman Empire after WW I), perhaps?

"Iraq was never a threat to us until we invaded them. "

I disagree. IGNORING the threat to our allies ( NOT just Israel, but all of those we have treaty obligations with) Saddam had already threatened the US, and had both the means (IRBMs with WMD warheads(chemical) that could have been launched from ships outside of US waters) and had continued combat operations against US forces that were trying to enforce the ceasefire ( check how many fights the "No-fly zone patrol craft were in).




I object strongly to the idea that Bobert can pass moral judgement upon me, for my support for what I think to be the correct action, yet complains when I give him back the same. I know he believes himself to be correct- but if that is sufficent, Hitler thought the same. So who is he to decide FOR OTHERS what they should think, especially when he makes no attempt to understand the basis for those decisions that others make as to what to support?