"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
thunder wrote:

On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 14:43:35 +0000, Dave Hall wrote:

To which I respond; Yea so? So one lead for a source of uranium
turns out to be bogus. Does that mean that Saddam wasn't getting
uranium from other sources? Does this one "oops" negate the
fundamental reasons why we had to shut Hussein down? Humans make
mistakes. Bush may have been a little overzealous, due to the
urgency for action. If you knew what he knew, you might be tempted
to grease the wheels a little too.

Slowly, you are seeing the light. Presidents are allowed to make
some mistakes, but overzealousness in going to war is not one of
them. A prudent, competent, President would make sure. I'd also
like to point out that if the underlying reasons weren't there,
there is *no* urgency.

*ONE* of the reasons was evidently not there. But all of the rest of
them still were. There was still the issue of chemical and biological
weapons (Yea I know, until you see them you won't believe it), the
brutality of Saddam, and the stability of the middle east, and the
elimination of havens for terrorists.

Dave


Brutality of Saddam: We are hypocrites in that regard. There are equally
brutal regimes in Africa, and your president lets the citizens of those
countries dangle in the wind.

Stability of the Middle East: Get real. You do not believe for a moment that
we contribute to stability. As early as a year ago, numerous Middle Eastern
writers were saying that to attack Saddam would strike a blow AGAINST
stability. You should stop by this link regularly, and read:
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/Default.asp

Havens: Show me.