We know that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass murder even when inspectors were in his country. Are we to assume that he stopped when they left? The history, the logic, and the facts lead to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime's good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take."

No, he doesn't sound any more articulate in writing then he does on TV... There are typos in this press release. Here Bush outlines his case against Iraq and provides a specific list of demands.

Annoyingly, Bush passed out a document at the U.N. which provided details of his Iraq case. This document is discussed by CNN, but they don't offer a link, and I can't find it. This is the information age people. Get with the program!

Now the question is; is the case compelling. CNN doesn't seem to think so, and tried poking holes in it. I'm linking his talk directly because you should evaluate his position with an open mind, if you can, rather then letting CNN tell you what to think.

What do I think? I don't think war is justified on the evidence. I also have a feeling that we'll pay for it later if we don't do anything. Like not dealing with Germany properly after WWI. Like not dealing with Bin Lauden in 2000. So basically I feel uneasy about the whole deal. But don't listen to what I think. This is your chance to evaluate the case and make your opinion heard, at least if it is only to a few hundred people who read MemeStreams.