So, are you still trying to claim that "There was no link between OBL and
Iraq?"

No?

O.K. then- how would *you* characterize the Iraq-OBVL linkages then?

Steve Swartz

"Vaughn" wrote in message
...

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

I seem to recall that other Arab countries (countries that this
administration has not attacked) have done that much and worse. And
according
to an NBC article, even the present administration did not always deem
Al
Zarqawi important enough to go after, even after 911: "But NBC News
has
learned
that long before the war the Bush administration had several chances
to
wipe out
his terrorist operation and perhaps kill Zarqawi himself - but never
pulled the
trigger." (see http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/ )

OFCS, don't act as if the pre-9/11 environment that led to our not
"going
for broke" to tag Al Zarqawi has any real meaning in regards to this
discussion. You wanted reasons why Saddam merited attention--you got
them
(and then you just snipped them away without attribution\

One entry found for attribution.
Main Entry: at·tri·bu·tion
Pronunciation: "a-tr&-'byü-sh&n
Function: noun
1 : the act of attributing; especially : the ascribing of a work (as of
literature or art) to a particular author or artist
2 : an ascribed quality, character, or right
- at·tri·bu·tion·al /-sh(&-)n&l/ adjective

..do you always do
that with arguments you find difficult to answer?).

If you really mean "attribution" then I wish to acknowledge that they
are
your arguments. If you mean "address"; I have no obligation to address
every
argument posed by every poster, if we all did that, the Internet would be
a
ponderous place. If I fail to address one of your arguments, 1) I
accept it,
or 2) didn't follow it, or 3) think it is beside the point or an
unnecessary
distraction, or 4) Find it so insubstantial as to not be worthy of
comment' or
5) Simply trying to focus the discussion, or 6) Perhaps I somehow screwed
up and
forget to address the point.

I find it good practice to focus Internet conversations by snipping the
bulk
of parts I am not responding to. All of your verbage is still there in
your
original post for the whole world to read and respond to if they wish,
there is
no need for me to repeat every word.

There is another reason,
too--the US public law signed into law by the previous administration
that
stated the US objective for Iraq, due to a number of reasons, would be
"regime change".

(sarcasm off) This is an interesting point! What law? Seriously;
are
you saying that Clinton "made" Bush attack Iraq? Or even that he set
foreign
policy that the Bush administration was powerless to change or ignore?

Vaughn