[hchutch]

Kristol was raising a possibility, but would it hurt? After 9/11, do you really think the American would want to take chances?

WMDs were never the sole reason - they got hyped by the press and others, but they were not the only reason.

[jammer]

Sorry. WMDs were the only justifiable reason. The others could have been--and were--shot down immediately.

[mr.pink]

After 9/11, do you really think the American would want to take chances?

I sure do think so, I mean...the borders sure seeem to be wide open and not one soul has been fired/jailed/suicided over 9-11 departmental ineptitude.

IMHO, that sort of governmental insouciance equates to taking major chances with national security.

WMDs were never the sole reason -

They were the main selling point in terms of urgency of operation. I also think we will eventually find some.

[billbears]

WMDs were never the sole reason - they got hyped by the press and others, but they were not the only reason.

Perhaps by people like the President? Note in his SOTU address he pointed out the atrocities going on in Iraq on the Iraqi people, however the only reason for war given was if Hussein did not disarm. Or do you doubt the President?

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.-- President Bush 1/28/03

Note he does not say the Armed For will go to free the Iraqi people, nor does he say to establish a democracy in Iraq, nor does he say to occupy territory in the Middle East to be a 'stabilizing' force. What he does say the reason for going is to disarm Hussein. So unless a massive amount of WMDs are found we have a problem. Well not we necessarily, I know what I believe. But are you supposed to believe this statement from the President of these United States? Or the National Review?