It appears to me he's making a point that we are going to war based on a pack of lies.

Since the dossier brought to the UN that brought about Resolution 1441 was considered a FAKE and invalid shouldn't that mean the resolution becomes invalid?

Given the facts of today and what we know now do you think war is still justified?

Since Saddam hasn't attacked anyone since 1991 do you consider him such a heavy threat like our president claims? His neighboring countries don't

Finally, he's never been conclusively linked to international terrorism. As bad as he is and as much as we hate him, he really stays out of that area.

He also warned that a U.S.-led attack will force Iraq to broaden the war against the United States.
       Any attack on Iraq, he said, would leave “the wives and mothers of those who fight us constantly crying. ... They should not believe there is a single safe spot for them inside Iraq or outside Iraq.”

Perhaps by that "broadening war" statement, it was a reference to what one of the foreign correspondants said following the President's speech last night. I forget his name, and could likely not spell it anyway, but he told Peter Jennings that there was an old Muslim council that had convened and motioned to declare and Islamic jihad against American forces should we decide to invade the region.

D.R. Can you prove this????

America is destroying itself with the acts the Bush Administration has done.

If anyone gets a chance they should go to the BBC website and listen to parliament now.  America is destroying itself with the acts the Bush Administration has done.

LOL check out public opinion polls all across the world, and listen to the House of Commons.

LOL  check out public opinion polls all across the world, and listen to the House of Commons.

Sorry D.R. that is not proof. Osama wasn't Afghan either...

What the heck does THAT mean? No offense, but that's terribly weak.

As bad as he is and as much as we hate him, he really stays out of that area.

I mean exactly what I said. Just because an Iraqi name does not appear on that list means very little and you have a weak claim to your quote:

If anyone gets a chance they should go to the BBC website and listen to parliament now.  America is destroying itself with the acts the Bush Administration has done.

My god,  most of them are stating things like  "No one agrees with this war, and is it not the right time.  But US will attack regardless.  So the question is do we stand on the side, or do we join the US so we can have some influence on what that superpower will do when its over.  Or do we let the US do whatever they want?"

God... a major failure in diplomacy on Bush's side here...

BLAIR ON THE NEGOTIATIONS: I hope the editors of the New York Times absorb Tony Blair's speech to the House of Commons this afternoon. It outlines in excruciating detail exactly what happened in the last couple of weeks. There is no question that it was France that scuppered any deal, any ultimatum, any attempt to get U.N. support for final pressure on Saddam. Not Cheney. Not Wolfowitz. Not Bush. France:
We then worked on a further compromise. We consulted the inspectors and drew up five tests based on the document they published on 7 March. Tests like interviews with 30 scientists outside of Iraq; production of the anthrax or documentation showing its destruction. The inspectors added another test: that Saddam should publicly call on Iraqis to cooperate with them. So we constructed this framework: that Saddam should be given a specified time to fulfil all six tests to show full cooperation; that if he did so the inspectors could then set out a forward work programme and that if he failed to do so, action would follow.

So clear benchmarks; plus a clear ultimatum. I defy anyone to describe that as an unreasonable position.

Last Monday, we were getting somewhere with it. We very nearly had majority agreement and I thank the Chilean President particularly for the constructive way he approached the issue.

There were debates about the length of the ultimatum. But the basic construct was gathering support.

Then, on Monday night, France said it would veto a second resolution whatever the circumstances. Then France denounced the six tests. Later that day, Iraq rejected them. Still, we continued to negotiate.

Last Friday, France said they could not accept any ultimatum. On Monday, we made final efforts to secure agreement. But they remain utterly opposed to anything which lays down an ultimatum authorising action in the event of non-compliance by Saddam.

Just consider the position we are asked to adopt. Those on the security council opposed to us say they want Saddam to disarm but will not countenance any new resolution that authorises force in the event of non-compliance.

That is their position. No to any ultimatum; no to any resolution that stipulates that failure to comply will lead to military action.

When you lead, people respect you. Blair's ratings are now rebounding in the UK, pro-war sentiment is now beating anti-war sentiment among men and among Labour party and Tory party voters. More to the point, a majority - 53 percent - now say that they have confidence in George Bush to make the right decisions on Iraq. My prediction: when war starts, these numbers will increase dramatically. Blair is past the worst. And he's stronger for it.
- 1:44:15 PM

It's the old "Your facts are wrong because I called you a liar" tactic.

Hell, you win. I can't beat that.

"Since Saddam hasn't attacked anyone since 1991 do you consider him such a heavy threat like our president claims? His neighboring countries don't."

"Since the dossier brought to the UN that brought about Resolution 1441 was considered a FAKE and invalid shouldn't that mean the resolution becomes invalid?"

"Given the facts of today and what we know now do you think war is still justified?"

"Since Saddam hasn't attacked anyone since 1991 do you consider him such a heavy threat like our president claims? His neighboring countries don't."

Wouldn't you think the members of Blair's cabinet who are quitting know the same things Blair does about this situation?

They don't appear to be too afraid of Saddam either.

Beyond this, the only link our own government has been able to make between Saddam and terrorism is his payment to the families of Palestinian terrorists. And while we've been sure to say it's financing terrorism, all he's really done is give money to the families left behind by suicide bombers... Perhaps these families give the money to terrorist organizations, but I would imagine they tend to keep as much as they can to provide for their already impoverished families. I would see a much more compelling case if he were dishing the money out to the specific groups like Hamas or Hezbollah.

Now that's a strong claim !

What evidence do you back it up with?

Even Hans Blix, the leader of the UN Weapons Inspector team thinks that the Bush Administration really never cared for diplomacy in the first place

Where's the big bio and chemical attacks now that "Operation: My Dad Really Hates You" is under way? Even without the "Scud Stud" this time around, all the missles and munitions coming from Saddam are conventional.

That artical does not sight any documentation of any kind that there is proof that the Iraq regime did not use gas or biological weapons on the Kurds

Jumping in here somewhat late, I would like to offer the following challenge to the posters here.  Who here believes that Iraq is in compliance with UN Security Council resolutions?   Specifically 1441?  They have already fired SCUD missles against Kuwait in violation of the UN resolutions that led to the cease-fire.  Is anyone here willing to go on the record stating that Saddam Hussein has lived up to his obligations to the international community and truly disarmed?  We will soon find out the the answer to that question, so y'all better hurry and respond.

Gotta love how people immediately believe everything the news states. Its best to do a little research first.

Is anyone here willing to go on the record stating that Saddam Hussein has lived up to his obligations to the international community and truly disarmed?

I am not - and never was. That's why I felt it was a good idea to have UN inspectors in Iraq making sure that Hussein did comply. That way, if military action were eventually necessary he would at least be less armed than he might be now. I accepted the various UN reports that he was 80-90% percent in compliance, but was always troubled by what weapons might remain. I fear they may soon be used on our sons and daughters - which could have been minimized or avoided altogether by following the will of the world community rather than that of a superannuated frat boy of limited intelligence and no imagination.

The inspector's themselves have repeatedly said they would never be able to find the BCWs if Iraq's intention was to keep them hidden.