HE seems to think it is Winston ; being a farsighted war leader who was against feeble appeasers. Of course Churchill did have real evidence of rearmament and breach of treaty and both plans and weapons existed in that case, unlike Iraq's, and Churchill never dodged army service or personal risk unlike Dubya; he volunteered for it, nor did he act like a theatrical, triumphalist Roman emperor. Then Bush is as ignorant of history as he is of everything else.
We must remember that the weapons of mass destruction, or at least the means of making them, were definitely in Iraq at some point. The US is certain of that, mostly because they sold it to Saddam in the first place.
Be careful not to get prosecuted for liable MikeMikeMike......... Im pretty sure the Americans would have destroyed all evidence and covered their tracks on all of those sales!!!
the word is libel. and how did a question about Bush's middle name end up as a debate about American foreign policy? just to confirm, the answer is Walker. but, for the record, i am with those who are sincerely hoping for a new president at the end of the year.