[evad]

an = a (sorry for the bad grammar)

The faulty grammar is one thing...the faulty logic is something else.

Eventually you have to try to reason through the situation. Even if you don't trust W (and I certainly don't blame anyone for not trusting a politician) you have to reason whether Saddam was a real threat to us or not.

If he was a threat then it was the president's responsibility to remove that threat or at least neutralize it.

If you thing Saddam wasn't a threat...well, I don't know what to say to you about that one.

Think it through.

[homeschool_dad]

If you read my post, I never siad that I didn't think Hussein wasn't a threat. I never said anything about him at all. My point is that President Bush and others in his Daministration made some pretty wild claims in front of a world-wide venue, and put our national credibility on the line, and now can't begin to come close to matching those wild claims with anything more than a couple of old half-tracks in the desert? They were SO certain that they listed categorically all of the prohibited weapons that he had.. They showed pictures of facilities and missiles. They also put our bothers and sisters over there (and my old AF unit). Where I come from, if you make some wild a$$ claim, you'd better be able to back it up with something. Especially when the ones who stand to lose the most are our troops who are over there right now.

[WoofDog123]

"Eventually you have to try to reason through the situation. Even if you don't trust W (and I certainly don't blame anyone for not trusting a politician) you have to reason whether Saddam was a real threat to us or not."

Add into this equation the value of having a pro-american government in Iraq, which means, once production is ramped over the next few years, a lot more oil on the market, and a huge player which (along with russia) really crimps the saudi influence in the politics of opec.