Does this mean it was OK that Bush lied and exaggerated ...?

Now that we have supposedly killed Saddam's sons, does this make the whole operation legitimate or does it simply give them a claim to some success in their effort to assassinate Saddam and his sons? Does success in the operation make it a "legal" invasion? If we kill all of Saddam's kinfolk, what does it proof? If we capture or kill Saddam, does that mean George W Bush is right? I don't think so.

Honestly, I do NOT understand why you folks keep going on about 16 little words in a speech <sarcasm off>

Lies? What lies? What cooked intelligence? Who's Wilson?

We'll have to wait and see if the media drops all that, and to be honest, I won't be a bit surprised if they do. (Just my pessimistic nature I guess)

- Bush* outright lied about the need for this nation to invade and conquer Iraq. He has replaced the justice system and international law with vindictiveness and revenge. He has given us a coarse society that's encourage to cheer on his version of christians being eaten by lions or witches burned at the stake.

- The Bush* junta has become the judge, jury and executioner. They decide who is evil...if they'll be assassinated or bombed or targeted with a laser guided missile. They'll decide who deserves rights, due process and which 'evildoers' will be executed after a kangaroo court.

- These are not the actions of a fair and decent society or a nation of laws. The Junta doesn't have the right to accuse others of crimes and then have them killed before they can talk.

Congratulate BUsh on the possible killing of Saddam son's. But ADD that we hope that it doesn't take his number to get below 55% to get Saddam, Osama, or any of the other top terrorists.

Bush is playing with US safety. Holding news of captures until they benefit him. SAY IT! Beat him at his game. Then he cannot offer an October Surprise.

"Look we killed two rapists and murderers, who cares whether we find WMD". I think the best question to ask these people is, if we are damaging or diplomatic standing in the world and putting soldiers lives at risk to get rid of "bad people" even if they pose no threat, then why aren't we attacking North Korea right now? Doesn't Kim Jong Il take precedence over Uday and Saddam?

Does it restore the thousands who were maimed and wounded to perfect health? Does it restore American principles, credibility and honor? Does it put back the hundreds of billions of dollar of debt this illegal invasion rang up?

.. just like when Bill Clinton tried pot but didn't inhale, that made it ok for *Bush's* coke and alcohol addiction.

will make the job of the sitting duck us service men and women safer from attacks? Some dude on CNN said that just a bit ago. All I could think is ... how does a relate to b?

plus they were an eminant threat to US