<<You'll note that Js is appropriately referencing our concern of troops, in the field, being exposed to the hazards of WMD, that Saddam was supposed to have had. >>
Oh, I see. So NOW the "reason" for invading Iraq was not to forestall a nuclear, biological or chemical attack on Amerikkka, but to prevent WMD attacks on Amerikkkan troops invading Iraq. More logical minds might have figured out that the best way to protect American troops invading Iraq from Iraqi WMD would have been simply not to invade Iraq. But the Republican brain sees PAST that simple notion: we are invading Iraq because Saddam has WMD which might be used against our troops in the field if they invade Iraq. Yes. Thank you for straightening that out for us, sirs.
<< NOT some imminent nuclear attack on America, or completely distorted garbage like that . . . >>
You mean, "We can't wait till the smoking gun becomes a mushroom cloud?" THAT kind of distorted garbage?
<< . . . but an actual risk our troops would have been under, while in the immediate region. >>
Uhh, exactly what were your troops "in the region" for in the first place, if not to invade Iraq? (Just askin)
<<I doubt however messers Xo, Brass, or Tee will pick up on it though . . . >>
Oh, I picked up on it alright. It's - - uhh - - very different. And special.