POST SCRIPTS

1. I disagree with the entire idea that Iraq may have had W.M.D’s. I have not personally seen any evidence of this being the truth, or of anyone who knew “top-secret” information thinking Iraq was arming themselves.

Just because you haven't seen or heard evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist. there is evidence that WMD may have been removed to Syria, an idea that certainly deserves consideration rather than dismissal. There is evidence that Saddam supported the training of terrorists in the form of a jet located in the desert & used as a training site. There is evidence in the form of intelligence that Saddam intended to buy uranium from Niger. I "borrow" from an article written by Christopher Hitchens in The weekly Standard (09/06...http://weeklystandard.com/images/spacer.gif) "Saddam's Man in Niger What was the Iraqi regime's nuclear expert doing in Africa?":

Since the war in Iraq began, two independent British inquiries have firmly reiterated that the original intelligence concerning Niger was sound, and has withstood careful scrutiny. (The Senate Intelligence Committee does not even refer in a footnote to the findings of these inquiries.) The waters here have been slightly muddied by the production of a crudely forged document dated July 6, 2000, purporting to show Zahawie's seal on an actual agreement for the transfer of uranium. This easily discredited fabrication has allowed many people to dismiss the whole case. But such argument is purely anachronistic: The story of Zahawie's visit was known, and had been passed on by London to Washington, well before the bogus document was circulated. And it was never alleged in George W. Bush's famous 2003 State of the Union address that Iraq had actually inked a deal, only that it had "sought" to do so. If the forgery was intended as disinformation, it is one of the more successful such efforts on record. If it was done chiefly for money, as the London Sunday Times has reported of two employees of the Niger embassy in Rome, it has had much the same effect.

To summarize: The Senate report gives two versions of Zahawie's name without ever once mentioning his significant background. It takes at face value his absurd claim about the supposedly innocent motive for his out-of-the-way trip. It accepts similarly bland assurances made by the government of Niger. It is unaware of the appearance of A.Q. Khan in the narrative. It does not canvass the views of our allies, or of tried-and-tested experts like Ambassador Ekeus. It offers little evidence and no argument in support of its conclusions. It is a minor disgrace, but a disgrace nevertheless.

Ambassador Rolf Ekeus is quite possibly the world's most distinguished international civil servant when it comes to questions of disarmament and nonproliferation. A founder of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, and a former ambassador of Sweden to the United Nations and to the United States, he has made the subject a lifelong specialty. Appointed by the U.N. to head the UNSCOM inspection team after the end of the first Gulf war, he is credited with uncovering, identifying, and destroying more covert Iraqi weaponry than had been taken out by the war itself. ** So widely recognized was the quality of his performance that, when inspections were proposed again in 2000, even Kofi Annan proposed renominating him for the task. (The appointment of Ekeus was overruled by France and Russia, who insisted on Hans Blix.)

We now know that both France and Russia were involved in the UN "Oil for Food" scandal which may be why Hans Blix was the "prefered' inspector.

Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair and he has also written for Slate...neither of which is a conservative publication.

Iraq presented the best option because there was something we wanted, and it was located in Iraq.

Do you mean oil? It's a great button- pushing sound bite but hardly representative of the reasoning behind the choice. Once again the grave responsibility that our president faced following 911 is minimized for political effect. This is leftist propaganda and nothing more.

But the ideas behind the swastika were not beaten on the battle field...

I beg to differ. Ideas will always be with us but the machine that Hitler had created and his designs on the world were most assuredly fought back and resoundingly defeated on the battle field.

Right now we are teaching and preaching hate, and it is not until we teach love and acceptance will we begin to change the minds of those who rage and destruct.

Where did you learn this trash? First of all I have not seen one person who espouses this point of view set up a learning center where terrorists csn come to find out what love is all about...terrorists don't care about you or about love...they have a (perverted) higher calling and they would dismiss you as a silly female in a heartbeat and kick you to the curb. If they were interested in love and acceptance they would have responded to diplomatic efforts...they didn't. Secondly, we are not "teaching and preaching" hate. It is not hateful to defend against evil acts of terror and aggression. It is not hateful to remove perpetrators of muder and mayhem from our midst. We do not aggress on others unless provoked and we come to the defense of our fellow man like no other nation has.

The United States of America represents freedom and opportunity, respect for the rule of law and tolerance for others. Americans are generous, more generous than any other, both as a nation and as individuals through charity. We give time and resources and ask nothing but friendship in return most of the time. I would assert it is love that motivated our founding and it is love that motivates our continuing actions around the world including coming to the defense of others.

Love cannot be fully experienced or understood without the inclusion of the giving of ones own life for another. Without this selfless act that sacred box is a shallow container.