FNC: We distort, no need for you to decide. I remember when Brit Hume used to be a real journalist, if a blowdried tv talking head can be characterized as such.
Your powers of deductions have failed you. Just because you disagree with what I wrote does not make it or me liberal. I think we can agree that the world would be a better place without Sadam Hussein. It would not be a hard thing to do to come up with a list of things that Sadam has done that would justify a "regime change". What I do not like is how the Bush Jr Admin is going about it. They first state that the US with or without other nations support or consensus will take out Sadam. They then appear to search for justifications after the fact like: Look at those poor Kurds Sadam will have the bomb by Xmas Sadam and OBL are linked Next logical step in The War on Terrorism (tm) Ermerging Threat WMD ad nauseum The problem with the weapons inspectors is all the justification that the US needs. But the Bush Jr Admin did not stop there, did they? If we invade Iraq because of the Kurds' human rights violations, is China next? If we invade Iraq because of its links to OBL, is Iran and Saudi Arabia next? etc. BTW, the reasoning behind my post was not "to accuse" you of anything, but to gently poke fun at your steadfast support of Bush Jr, despite the flaws in logic in doing so.
Well I respect your opinion No Worries and I apologize for calling you a liberal so quickly. I will not live and die by Mr. Bush's policies but I do believe the pro-action attitude by the president is productive if we wish to combat and prevent another 9-11. But one thing I would like to point out is Mr. Bush hasn't changed the war on terror just for Iraq. Iraq fits under the guidelines for a terrorist sponsoring state and so therefore should be dealt with. Now because Iraq is apparently next in line in our quest to combat terror it doesn't mean after Iraq falls the US will call it a day. I'm sure Iran, Lebanon or Somalia could be the next to be placed under the terror microscope. Now don't get me wrong I haven't been given access to the information connecting Saddam and Al-Qaida. But I have reviewed and taken in consideration the remarks and statemates made by not only figures associated with the US government but Iraqi defectors as well and so I drew my own opinion on the matter. So either way its your word versus mine. Now apparently, Iraq is going to allow the inspectors into Iraq again "unconditionally". I read a statement of Mr. Bush's a day or two ago where he claimed force wasn't going to be the first option. Now I believe Iraq should be given the chance to redeem themselves and change my opinion of them but if they screw another chance up that is given to them I'm afraid force will have to be taken. As for Bush not cooperating with the United Nations we have to remember theres 189 other states with their own political agendas and because they do not favor force in Iraq it doesn't mean America is shooting them the finger. We were the country that was attacked and we can't expect everyone to understand our position. And I won't debate the assumption that politics are being used here since every decision that is made is mostly in favor of their respective party's goal. Politics aren't exactly pretty so you can't win that part of the arguement. I will agree with that.
