My guess is that this is 'sorta' aimed at me. Or at least my apparently slightly misunderstood earlier post. I never once said that Bush knew there were no WMDs. I was just speculating on one reason why Syria may not be seen by Bush as a necessary target. If he knew there were no WMDs to move, it would answer why the U.S. is not worried about Syria. I agree with you in that if he thinks Syria is loaded up with WMDs, he ought to be pumping up the hype. He's not. Can you think of a better explanation?

>People who keep trying to shove the "Bush knew there were no WMDs before he invaded" *opinion* down our throats won't be persuaded by any of these. They want their pound of flesh, they want it now, and they don't wait for the facts to come out. And they certainly don't let what facts are known get in the way of their arguments.
>
>Sorta reminds me of the "Bush stole the election" ilk.
>
>>The facts are still coming in
>>http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0B16F9385E0C728EDDAD0894DB404482
>>http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005133
>>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1613625/posts
>>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1616468/posts