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:

"And we know that after September 11, Saddam Hussein's regime
gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America. Iraq
could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical
weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists.

...

"Some citizens wonder: After 11 years of living with this problem,
why do we need to confront it now?

"There is a reason. We have experienced the horror of September 11.
We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash
airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies
would be no less willing -- in fact they would be eager -- to use
a biological, or chemical, or a nuclear weapon.

"Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat
gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait
for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the
form of a mushroom cloud."


ljd


[1] A transcript of Bush's speech is available on CNN's website at

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/07/bush.transcript/