[billbears]

And you don't? Better check the State of the Union address Bush gave in January. His one and only reason was that if Hussein did not disarm. Mind you, he gave side effects that would be good for the people of Iraq, but he clearly stated it was to disarm Hussein

We will consult. But let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him--State of the Union

Note he doesn't say for regime change, he doesn't say for freeing Iraqis, he doesn't say the Army of these US would go for any other reason but to disarm Hussein.

If O'Reilly calls him on this I'll be suprised and maybe it would add for me a notch of respect for him

[Nagual]

The job is done. WMD don't matter.

I just want to know which one is next.

Go Dubya.

[MissAmericanPie]

That is not fair to the President. Iraq evaded and stimied the U.N. inspectors at every turn. All data available to the President indicated that Iraq did have WMD's.

Remember the wire taps where Iraqi researchers were heard to say, "I can't believe they didn't see that", and, "hide this at this location"?

Being from Texas I believe that "he needed killin" is a good enough reason for me. What about the Iraq funding of terrorist organizations? Saddams scheduled meeting with Ben Laden? I don't really care if they ever find WMD's, I suspect they are in Syria or they destroyed them.

Besides I enjoy seeing palaces blown up, and despots over thrown, I think it should become a weekly tv series, it sure beats watching 60 minutes.=o)