To wrote: "For the record, I would not cry very hard if the nuclear reactors in Iran and North Korea had a sudden attack of stealth bombers. But that's just me."

For that same record, there are possible situations in which I would support seeing N. Korea get a whol lot more than that.

Tom wrote: " What North Korea could do, and has done in the case of conventional weapons, is slip weapons into shipping crates and haul them on freighters to third party nations. This latter is what really makes the North Korea nuclear program dangerous, not that they would hit us with a missile. And this is also what Saddam would have done."

This argument lacks any principle whatsoever. There are about 10 countries around the world that I could name(*) who have a deep hatred of the US, proven terrorist associations, some level of WMD programs and a history of war-like engagements with the US. That you apply this selectively to Iraq, and nowhere else, makes this argument disingenuous. That Iraq is actually way down on the threat scale based upon the factors that you state (the ones I summarize above) makes this argument laughably absurd. Again, I challenge your intellectual integrity. You apply this argument selectively when it suits 'your side'.

tom wrote: "Your "five statements" have been twisted to the point that it would take a lot of work to untwist. But a short treatment:
"

Don't try this revisionist BS on me, I'll rip you 6 new ones. To wit:

Tom wrote: "If you look at Powell's statement to the U.N., the numerical amounts discussed were amounts that Iraq was known to have had, but had not accounted for since. These numbers were from the U.N., not the United States. The evidence seen by the CIA in satellite photos matched known weapons program profiles. One seems to forget that the information we are getting now on all this would have been utterly impossible to accumulate with Saddam's regime active. Certainly the U.N. would not have found it."

Powell not only said there were mobile production facilities for the ongoing production, he showed spy satellite pictures of those supposed factilities, and of other facilities that were supposedly 'cleaned' before inspection. Do you need source and quote? Or are you going to do another one of these "What I really mean is" equivocations?

Do you want source and quote for "its a fact, we know this" about the alleged amounts of WMD?

So whats the difference you are trying to make? Is this like the "IS" equivocation by Clinton? What we really mean by Saddam has specific amounts of WMD is that we believed these to exist but see no record of their destruction?

tom wrote: "That Iraq was obviously not cooperating with the U.N. before the war, and was in fact concealing things that it was mandated to reveal by the United Nations resolutions, is beyond argument, and much of Powell's statement to the U.N. was intended to show this non-cooperation and concealment. "

Another creative refinement of events. In any case, we did NOT go to war with Iraq for the reason that Iraq was being difficult with the UN and not living up to its lawful obligations, we went to war with Iraq because it was building and stockpiling WMD that it IMTENDED to pass to terrorists for use on the US. A red herring, Tom.

tom wrote: "Apparently, unless there is a dedicated factory producing anthrax by the ton, it doesn't count to you."

Quote and source, Tom, or its not even up for discussion.

tom wrote: "Read Kay's report again, and tell me that Saddam had given up on his ambition to develop WMD."

Again, a red herring, and how does this prove that my 5 points are "twistings" of reality? My 5 points have nothing to do with the secret ambitions of Saddam. Neither did this war in its justification. This war, in its justification, was about the clear and present danger of Iraq to the US.

Tom wrote: "The 6 month figure was given by intelligence sources as how long it would take Iraq to build a bomb given a source of already-refined fissionable material. I have seen nothing that disproves this. This would, of course, be true for many countries, not just Iraq. Hell, given a trunkload of U-235, I could build a goddam Little Boy gun bomb. Someone else would have to do the lathe work."

Ohhh, I see. So its truthful in THAT sense. So that means I can now invade you, kill maybe your daughter in the process and occupy your house indefinitely? Absurd! As you rightly point out, any well educated engineer or physicist in this world could build a bomb with high grade weaponized fissile materials.

And so how does this mean that my points were a twisting of reality?

tom wrote: "What has been forgotten in the hoopla about things like the aluminum tubes, is that it was illegal for Iraq to possess such tubes for any reason. Many of the other items discussed fall into this category"

A red herring. We did not invade Iraq over aluminum tubes, and if you are going to say we did, then our administration (and you) are certainly nuts.

tom wrote: "That Iraq had connections with terrorism in general has been proven, and I'm getting tired of posting the same references over and over. You believe the sources you want to believe, and ignore the rest. The other alternative is assuming that terrorists could live and work in Iraq without Saddam's knowledge.

Then show me the proof! Show me one terrorist! You have not posted ANYTHING OF ANY VERACITY OR PROOF AT ALL EVER, you have posted over and over allegations made in differrent ways by different sources, but never any proof. Again, I question your intellectual integrity here. Having failed to win the factual argument, you declare victory based on a "because I say so".

Tom wrote: That Iraq had connections with Al-Qaeda specifically is less evident, but I'm not sure why only that particular Islamist group should be considered a threat. "

Okay, so QED, there is no definitive evidence that Iraq has ties to Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda was the STATED threat (by Powell, Bush and Rumsfeld) to the US. They were the THE group Saddam was supposed to be in Cahoots with. Thats why it was a threat to the USA. And WHY is Al-Qaeda so dangerous? Because they flew goddamn PLANES into the world trade centers and the effing pentegon killing over 3000 Americans! Because we are AT WAR with al-qaeda! Man, how many times have you said this yourself!?

tom wrote: "We went into Iraq on the best evidence available. It was obvious the U.N. wasn't going to get the job done"

On the contrary, it is obvious the UN WAS getting the job done. Otherwise, show me the WMD? Can you?

tom wrote: "You know, I think we can all agree that if Bush had in his hands before the war all the information Kay and others have uncovered over the past six months of digging, he might not have made the same decisions. Is this kind of hindsight a valid criticism?"

If I kill a man because he was about to kill me, because he hads a gun pointed at me, its justifiable homicide. If I kill a man because I thought he was about to kill me, and I turn out to be wrong, its murder- especially when there was no Gun visible before or after, and no provable intent. When you kill 10-15,000 people for false reasons, then the nation you belong to has just done the unthinkable. Period. End of discussion. No moral relativism allowed here.

tom wrote: "If a cop shoots a guy in a bank robbery who is sticking his finger out in his pocket to look like a gun, is he a bad cop?"

Except we are not a Cop, and Iraq was not a bank, and this was not a bank robery!

Besides, to even indulge your pedantic attempt at a pithy analogy: Iraq was screaming that it DID NOT HAVE A GUN, and appears that it did not have a gun.

tome wrote: "What is pissing me off is trying to cook this up into a scenario where Bush, Blair, and the various intelligence forces knew damn well that Iraq had less than Saddam advertised, and lied about it.
"

What is pissing me off is people like you insisting that there is no reason to view this as a massive screw-up in the least, and shitting on anyone who raises valid question. Simply because you have sold your integrity to the Bush Administration.

Get out of the way, Tom, we have a valid point. Maybe this is all an honest mistake, but we have a right to raise this question, and a right to question this war.

Davin L.

(*) N. Korea, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Syria, Egypt, Vietnam, China, Cambodia, Cuba.