> Bush has been wrong before.

The point of my post was to establish what Bush was *saying*, not whether or not he was right, and not what we should do about it.

> Anyone remember all the hype about terrorist attacks all over the U.S. in October 2001? There must have been hundreds of building evacuations, alerts, warnings, etc.

What this has to do with anything is beyond me. If it does have something to do with something, what's it got to do with Bush?

> All that happened was a few people were killed by anthrax that HASN'T EVEN BEEN CONCLUSIVELY PROVEN TO BE A TERRORIST ATTACK IN THE FIRST PLACE! Anthrax exists without terrorists!

To my knowledge, our government never made any claims about the origins of those anthrax attacks, although some suspicions were aired. The anthrax thing was silly, really. Anthrax is difficult to contract and treatable; would-be terrorists would have had better luck mailing the flu.

But again, I don't know what this has to do with anything.

> 1. Saddam has weapons of mass destruction.
>
> Not yet proven.

Those U.N. inspectors just hallucinated that undeclared VX nerve gas then, eh?

But you say "not yet proven" like it means "no." It is established fact that Iraq *did* have biological and chemical weapons recently, and Iraq is currently not reporting what happened to these weapons. That's not proof that Iraq still has them, but darned if it's not incriminating enough to warrant serious concern.

> 2. Saddam has lied, broken agreements, U.N. resolutions, etc, about disarming but has in actuality been developing weapons of mass destruction -- biological, chemical, and nuclear -- all along.
>
> Not yet proven.

This is established history. Read up on the 1990s.

> 3. Saddam has lied in his weapons declarations reports, - True.
> failed to provide evidence for disarming, - True
> hidden evidence from U.N. inspectors, - Could it really be an honest mistake?

LOL

> 4. Saddam has known ties to international terrorist groups, including al Qaeda.
>
> Not yet conclusively proven.

As far as I know, you are correct. Or, if it *has* been proven, the proof has not been made public to my knowledge. Again, though, the purpose of my post was to identify what *Bush* has said about Iraq and Saddam Hussein, not what is incontrovertibly true.

> 5. Saddam has used his weapons of mass destruction against his own people, invaded and conquered another sovereign nation, and launched missiles against Israel. We kicked his butt, and that's just one of several reasons he hates the United States.
>
> True, but that is history. That doesn't affect us now...

Uh. No. If Saddam wasn't the type of leader to *use* weapons of mass destruction unjustly, then whether or not he *has* them would matter a lot less. The fact that he *is* the type of person to wield them, and not only wield them but wield them cruelly and without scruple, is the basis for the whole problem in the first place!

> 6. al Qaeda has made numerous assaults on the United States, including an attack on our own shores.
>
> Undoubtable. However, we pretty much annihilated Al Qaeda with our attacks on Afghanistan.

We annihilated their presence in Afghanistan, and we certainly crippled them, but they are not out of the picture by any stretch of the imagination. Nor are they the only international terror organization.

> And what about North Korea???

I wonder that myself. It's a different situation with North Korea, though. It's a whole different set of world politics, and it's a whole different dictator in charge.

Still, I wonder if Saddam Hussein is keeping the heat off North Korea for the time being. It's an age-old maxim, don't fight a two-fronted war. It would not be practical or wise to go to war with Iraq and North Korea at the same time. Gotta pick one, and Iraq is the more volitile of the two. So I wonder if, if not for Iraq, North Korea would be getting more pressure from us now.

In any case, I've again lost sight of the point you are trying to make. I'm sure it's not "We shouldn't attack Iraq because North Korea is worse!" Right?

> The U.S. has had a policy of neutrality since the 1700s. Attack only if attacked. Iraq has not attacked. Iraq may not be currently producing weapons of mass destruction, we really have no proof they ever have, and yet we threaten UNPROVOKED war.

"No proof they ever have" is just flat out false. They've produced them, they've used them. As for what we (the public) *don't* have proof for, I'm as eager as you to see it, which is why I am interested in hearing about Colin Powell's upcoming presentation to the U.N. Until then, we only have the claims of what the U.S. government has proof for but has not yet made public. Believe you me, *whatever* the whole truth is, the government has more of it than we do. If they *do*, as they claim, have proof that Saddam is concealing weapons of mass destruction in defiance of U.N. resolutions *and* aids international terror organizations, then a war would NOT be "unprovoked." Yes, we should get that proof before we go to war -- I'm not advocating that we blindly trust the government's word, by any means.

But the fact is that an awful lot of evidence *is* public, and, in light of that, the U.S. government saying "and there's more, which I will tell you presently" means that I'm damn well going to wait and listen with an open mind.

> However, isn't it possible that Saddam Hussein isn't an "oppressive mentally diseased dictator?" Those torture methods you have heard about have not been proven to be true.

Again, this is just plain old-fashioned wrong. Are you old enough to have remembered the Gulf War? U.S. prisoners of war were tortured horribly. Among other ways, some were whipped in the face with cat-o-nine-tails -- it's basically like getting raked with barbed wire. Statements from these prisoners of war were taped and aired, and their wounds were quite visible. I suppose this is more ancient history that doesn't affect us now?

Your homework assignment is to explain how Hussein was re-elected with 100% voter turnout except in a dictatorial society in which rebellion is punished with torture or death. Not even threat of imprisonment would do it.