"thunder" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 06:30:00 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Let's not split hairs about my capitalizing "Iraqi Regime Change Act".
The
Iraqi Liberation Act called for regime change...and thus became known to
many as the "Iraqi regime change act". From Section 3:

SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD
IRAQ.

It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to
remove
the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote
the
emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Iraq Liberation Act of 1998'.

OK, it may be splitting hairs, but there is a lot of that going around.
Did GWB use the phrase "imminent threat"? Maybe not, but he used many
similar terms, "grave threat", "urgent danger", etc. Did GWB link Iraq
with 9/11? Perhaps not, but he did use Iraq and 9/11 together on
countless occasions. Was it about WMDs, WMD programs, WMD program
activities?

The Liberation Act was to support dissident Iraqi groups in bringing about
democracy in Iraq. It's scope *and* funding was quite limited. Nowhere
did it refer to invading and overthrowing Saddam, SOB that he was.

It also didn't call for launching several hundred cruise missiles at Iraq
either. Did you have a problem with Clinton's decision to do so?

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 18:12:03 +0000, NOYB wrote:


It also didn't call for launching several hundred cruise missiles at Iraq
either. Did you have a problem with Clinton's decision to do so?

I honestly don't know. It could be argued that in the absence of WMDs,
his policies worked, but I'm of the school that military intervention is
the *last* resort. I'm also of the opinion that Bush 1 sufficiently
defanged the *******, and that sanctions were keeping Saddam bottled up.