>Chris, I posted those articles to provide an alternative viewpoint to whichever media outlet you are currently relying on. I'm assuming it is the same one you relied on when you were equally certain re WMD, French and all the rest of it when the attack commenced.

An alternative viewpoint? The National Enquirer is an alternative viewpoint, but I don't use them to defend my arguments :-). I am not going to quote a media outlet, a senator, or even the Amazing Karnack. I'll just go straight to the source.

Here is President Bush's speech before the U.N:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html

Here is his 2003 State of the Union address:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html

There is no mention of an imminent threat, or an immediate threat, or an impending threat, or anything like that. But don't let that stop you.

>Fact: since neither of us was in Iraq or followed President Bush around 24/7, all we know is what the media tells us. Our "awareness" boils down to choice of media and credibility attached thereto.

After his 2003 State of the Union address, a headline in the LA Times indicated that the President saw Iraq as an imminent threat. You can believe what the LA Times tells you to believe, or you can read the President's own words. The choice is yours.

The National Enquirer says that a Martian invasion is imminent, but I'm not paying too much attention to that.