I guess that's just a major difference in our attitudes, Chuck. It
sounds like you'd rather give Saddam the benefit of any doubt. I
wouldn't.

John H

Same old right wing line: "If you're distressed about the techniques with which
Bush maneuvered public opinion to support the war in Iraq, that means that you
support Saddam Hussein."

Here's a brand new, shiny, thought for you to think. Take it out of the
wrapping and try
it on:

Demanding straight talk from public servants, including the POTUS, doesn't put
those who demand straight answers into the camp of America's political or
strategic enemies. To say that it does is to support the proposition that the
public is well served by duplicitous, scheming, politicians as long as the end
results are
somewhat acceptable.

Bush never said, "We're going into Iraq because we suspect he *might* have
WMD." We were told the weapons were there, for a certainty, and that they
presented an imminent threat to the safety and security of the United States.
We were led to believe, for a while, based on information in the SOTU address,
no less,
that Saddam was going nuclear. (That statement was admitted to be false, and
retracted, but not before it had further whipped up the pro-war emotion of the
electorate----it's like the judge telling the jury, "Please ignore the
30-second video you were just shown of an individual holding up a convenience
store at gunpoint. It wasn't presented under the strict rules of
evidence"-----yeah, right.)