"Laurence Doering" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 20:34:41 -0800, Steve Hix
wrote:
In article ,
"Simon Robbins" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
om...
Actually, that's exactly the *opposite* of what was said. It was
repeated, time and again, that waiting until the threat was
"imminent"
was a bad idea.

"45 minutes" not sound familiar then?

A somewhat different issue, and you should know better.

There is a little difference between probable local battlefield
response, and activity outside the national boundary.

In a speech made October 6th, 2002 [1], President Bush seems to me
to have strongly implied that Iraq posed a serious and immediate
threat to the United States:

In what way does your implied guess over rule the Administration's explicit
statement otherwise? The threat from Iraq was explicitly not yet immediate
and that is why they could be tumbled. Now that Libya has quit persuing a
nuke and Iran is trying to back off of what they have done, the entire
invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq plan is working.

The public in Spain was always against invading Iraq and the removal of a
government in conflict witht he will of the people is SOP for democracy.