From wash. Post So the new "reason" is that left alone, Iraq might have developed weapons and given them to terrorists. It is possible, I suppose...but a case for war? If that is the standard, however, then why Iraq? Why not China, who sells weapons and WMD technology to many countries around the world, including the ME. Why not Iran, which has a history of supporting terrorist movements(to a degree that Iraq has not), and has relatively advanced military capablities and a Fundamentalist Government. Why not N. Korea, which has Nuclear capabilities and is desperately short on cash, making it attractive for them to sell weapons or weapons technology? And so on... It is also interesting to note his comments on Libya (which I could've included above), in which he notes our success in getting them to dismantle their weapons program. This was done by diplomacy, and although GW alludes to the fact that our attack on Iraq gave us leverage on the bargaining table, it is still intersting to note, that diplomacy, so often eschewed by the Administration, got the results we say we need. In my mind, this futher undermines the force of the argument for Military invasion... Also, Pakistan was mentioned (in the transcript) as a former enemy and supporter of the Taliban...who now have become friends with the US and are working against terrorism. This was also acheived through traditional diplomatic means...which begs the question of why we could not have pursued that avenue w/ Iraq, if we were merely interested in curbing weapons proliferation. After all, Pakistan has a documented history of supplying weapons to what we might call "terrorists". The above also applies to Saudi Arabia (also mentioned in the transcript of the speech). So what gives here? I know this is almost old hat, but what say you?