Intelligence Quotient

"Rantage" wrote:

I think we can agree on that. Question is, how many people would be alive today if we had thrown him out in 1991?

Less, I think. Driving to Baghdad would''ve been messy, both militarily and diplomatically. The Arabs almost assuredly would''ve turned on the Coalition in a heart-beat; the conquest of Iraq wasn''t its mandate.

How many people might have been killed if he were allowed to stick around for 5 more years?

The Kurds and Shiites, who were expecting Bush 41 to lend them a hand, wouldn''t have died. But, if I read you right, you''re implying that the Iraqis were connected somehow to terrorism that killed American civilians during the 90''s. Show me proof that they were.

By the same token, if Osama Bin Laden were killed or captured in 1998, how many of the victims of 9/11 would be alive today?

You''re being rhetorical, and smart-allecky. You''re trying to put their blood on the hands of the Clinton Administration, unfairly I might add; the current occupants of the White House can share some blame, too.

How much noise do you think that military operation would have caused at the time?

A lot, equal to if not more rancorous than Iraq in 2003.

Wait....I thought Saddam didn''t have WMDs.

If he did have WMDs, does that justify the Bush Administration''s actions, or would only nuclear weapons qualify?

I think that the anthrax attacks of 2001 kind of take it off of the WMD list. You could literally send sheep sh*t in the mail and get the same effect, just a little messier. Chemical weapons would be very, very hard to ship overseas and to deploy within a target population. At worst, you''d have the sarin gas attack in Tokyo all over again. Besides, several experts I''ve read believe that most of Saddam''s chemical weapons (if he had any left) are past their use date.

I think we''ve moved behind the whether he had them or not question; the proper question is ""Were they a threat to the US?""

Before the war, these weapons, by the admission of the Administration, were ""well hidden."" They still are, or else they got moved out in the night. That last possibility should scare you and a lot of people who believe these weapons were an immediate danger to the US. So, the question should be, ""Were these weapons a threat when they were hidden in Saddam''s bunkers? Or are they a threat now that we can''t find them at all?""

Nukes, on the other hand, are a different matter. There is no documented proof that he ever had them. There is no documented proof that he was able to make them in a hurry, ala North Korea. Now the documented proof that he was ""actively"" trying to get the program started again are under question.

I''ll just wait for someone to come up with a reason why the IAEA would lie about Iraq''s nuclear activities.

I don''t know. You''ll have to ask ""Mohamed ElBaradei"". Maybe international organizations with Muslims at the head have agendas too.

Seriously though, look at your quote:

As for Iraqi nuclear scientists, Mohamed ElBaradei told the Security Council, U.N. inspectors had ""useful"" interviews with some of them, though not in private.

Well, once Saddam was out, the head of his nuclear weapons program came forward and revealed Saddam''s hidden equipment and documentation for a nuclear weapons program to be reconstituted at a later date.

And preliminary analysis, he said, suggested that the aluminum tubes, ""unless modified, would not be suitable for manufacturing centrifuges.""

Hmmm. So the IAEA reported that Saddam had attempted to buy aluminum tubes, that once modified, could be used in a nuclear weapons program. This seems to be in Bush''s favor. I mean, it''s not like Saddam, the mayor of Baghdad, had much use for artillery, but we know he had a nuclear weapons program on the back burner.

The IAEA didn''t lie. But they could only operate with the cooperation of Saddam himself. As soon as he was gone, we found the evidence of Saddam''s hidden nuclear weapons program being saved for later.

Remember, the mere existence of the rose garden centrifuge justified the invasion.

PS:

Does it change the fact that in order to get funding, they have to be mouth-pieces for the Administration? It doesn''t seem odd to you that charities (if they want to work with the US [which you''d kind of have to do for security purposes]) have to do the job of making the US look good?

Again, these organizations are welcome to operate and say whatever they want. They can even bring aid to Iraq. The just don''t get governmental contracts for aid, paid for by US tax dollars without agreeing to get clearance from the organization providing the money when dealing with the media. By the way, this doesn''t mean they have to be mouthpieces or only release pro-US propaganda, just that what they say can''t be anti-American or against US policy.

If these people want me to pay their salaries and buy their stationary, give them the money to provide aid and be heroes, they don''t get to badmouth me or my country in the process. Anti-US organizations and countries are welcome to provide aid and say whatever they want. But, in terms you''ll understand, ""not in my name.""

"Rat Boy" wrote:
"Rantage" wrote:

I think we can agree on that. Question is, how many people would be alive today if we had thrown him out in 1991?

Less, I think. Driving to Baghdad would''ve been messy, both militarily and diplomatically. The Arabs almost assuredly would''ve turned on the Coalition in a heart-beat; the conquest of Iraq wasn''t its mandate.

By the same token, the Kurds and Shiites, who essentially were left out to dry by Bush 41, wouldn''t have been...meaning more support for Coalition forces and less opposition from those groups (as is the case today).

But, if I read you right, you''re implying that the Iraqis were connected somehow to terrorism that killed American civilians during the 90''s.

No, that was not what I was getting at. I was implying that in 5 more years, a nuclear-armed Iraq could (and would) be a threat to the entire region.

By the same token, if Osama Bin Laden were killed or captured in 1998, how many of the victims of 9/11 would be alive today?

You''re being rhetorical, and smart-allecky. You''re trying to put their blood on the hands of the Clinton Administration, unfairly I might add; the current occupants of the White House can share some blame, too.

No, you are interpreting my statement as such. It''s entirely possible that the Reagan or Bush 41 administrations could have done something to weaken Islamic fundamentalism during their tenures which might have resulted in Al Qaeda never having been formed.

I think any reasonable person could say that if OBL were killed in 1998, September 11 2001 would have been a different kind of day.

It''s a bit of a stretch to place the blame of 9/11 squarely on the head of Bill Clinton, even though his administration didn''t seem to place enough emphasis on catching or killing Osama.

Wait....I thought Saddam didn''t have WMDs.

If he did have WMDs, does that justify the Bush Administration''s actions, or would only nuclear weapons qualify?

I think that the anthrax attacks of 2001 kind of take it off of the WMD list.

Anthrax in an envelope and anthrax dispersed over a battlefield or city are two different things, amigo.

You could literally send sheep sh*t in the mail and get the same effect, just a little messier.

Riiiiight. That''s why they don''t allow lambs into petting zoos and the FBI monitors the mutton industry.

Chemical weapons would be very, very hard to ship overseas and to deploy within a target population.

Who says you have to ship them overseas?

Hell, Chlorine gas qualifies as a chemical weapon.

As for delivery: a single crop-duster flying over a college football game could do the trick.

I think we''ve moved behind the whether he had them or not question.

I would hope we have. The fact is, he did have them, and never fully accounted for their whereabouts to the UN....which means they were a) lost or b) still in his possession.

And it seems to me that any self-avowed enemy of the United States who is in the possession of WMDs is a threat.

"Rantage" wrote:

By the same token, the Kurds and Shiites, who essentially were left out to dry by Bush 41, wouldn''t have been...meaning more support for Coalition forces and less opposition from those groups (as is the case today).

Speculative. But then again, this is entirely a speculative affair.

No, that was not what I was getting at. I was implying that in 5 more years, a nuclear-armed Iraq could (and would) be a threat to the entire region.

Again, explain how he could have pulled that off unnoticed with the entire world breathing down his neck.

I think any reasonable person could say that if OBL were killed in 1998, September 11 2001 would have been a different kind of day.

Or in early 2001 if Bush 43 listened to the CIA''s recommendations.

It''s a bit of a stretch to place the blame of 9/11 squarely on the head of Bill Clinton, even though his administration didn''t seem to place enough emphasis on catching or killing Osama.

Dropping cruise missles on his camps in 1998 (he had just left a few minutes before the missles dropped in) and planning a commando raid to kill him in 1999 doesn''t constitute ""enough emphasis"" on trying to kill him?

Anthrax in an envelope and anthrax dispersed over a battlefield or city are two different things, amigo.

Yes, since on the battlefield you should be wearing chemical suits that can protect you from such attacks. And since you said ""dispersed over,"" that can only be done two ways: missles and aircraft. Since 1991, missle interception technology has come a long way since the first Patriots, as exemplified by the missle shield along the Kuwaiti border, where only one missle slipped through. Additionally, any aircraft that could spray it would be easily shot down.

Riiiiight. That''s why they don''t allow lambs into petting zoos and the FBI monitors the mutton industry.

Don''t forget that one of the persons to die of anthrax in 2001 was naturally exposed to it.

Who says you have to ship them overseas?

Since this discussion is about Saddam''s chemical weapons...

Hell, Chlorine gas qualifies as a chemical weapon.

Then why worry about Iraq''s chemical weapons if we happen to have shopping centers full them here in the US?

As for delivery: a single crop-duster flying over a college football game could do the trick.

Again, how is Iraq involved in this? Your examples have nothing to do with the Iraqi WMD program.

I would hope we have. The fact is, he did have them, and never fully accounted for their whereabouts to the UN....which means they were a) lost or b) still in his possession.

Let me ask a question: has Saddam ever used chemical weapons on Americans? He certainly has had 12 years to try. The fact that he was surrounded by enemies and observed 24-7 by the most powerful military surveillance systems in history should tell you he''d have a hard time trying to pull any crap. The fact that he was hit rather hard in 1998 by US airstrikes designed to specifically take out his WMDs should tell you his ability to make WMDs were curtailed. Are you now prepared to say that America failed to curb Saddam''s offensive capabilities for 12 years? Yeah, he really did put up quite fight against the US invasion in March...

And it seems to me that any self-avowed enemy of the United States who is in the possession of WMDs is a threat.

North Korea. Syria. Iran. All countries who have fully capable conventional militaries and no inspectors whatsoever. Sounds like these guys were a bigger threat to global stability than Saddam was earlier this year.

Quote:
No, that was not what I was getting at. I was implying that in 5 more years, a nuclear-armed Iraq could (and would) be a threat to the entire region.

Again, explain how he could have pulled that off unnoticed with the entire world breathing down his neck.

North Korea managed it.

Dropping cruise missles on his camps in 1998 (he had just left a few minutes before the missles dropped in) and planning a commando raid to kill him in 1999 doesn''t constitute ""enough emphasis"" on trying to kill him?

No. Dropping a million dollar missile on an empty ten dollar tent isn''t enough. And ""planning a commando raid""? That sounds like a Dilbert achievement report: ""I planned to increase company sales 200%""

Yes, since on the battlefield you should be wearing chemical suits that can protect you from such attacks. And since you said ""dispersed over,"" that can only be done two ways: missles and aircraft

The US Army did studies on releasing a large trash bag of powdered anthrax into the ventilation system of a sports arena. Made 9/11 look like a pre-show...

Since 1991, missle interception technology has come a long way since the first Patriots, as exemplified by the missle shield along the Kuwaiti border, where only one missle slipped through. Additionally, any aircraft that could spray it would be easily shot down

""Rat Boy - Missile Defense Proponent."" I intend to use that quote in any further missile defense threads.

has Saddam ever used chemical weapons on Americans? He certainly has had 12 years to try.

That''ll be a great consolation to the victims. ""Well, it hadn''t happened before, we figured you guys were safe... Shucks!"" This wsn''t a guy know for his good judgement (see Iran-Iraq War / Gulf War I / attempt to assassinate Bush 41 / Gulf War II). At some point in the future, I have every reason to think he would have been stupid or crazy enough to attack us, especially through an intermediary.

North Korea. Syria. Iran. All countries who have fully capable conventional militaries and no inspectors whatsoever. Sounds like these guys were a bigger threat to global stability than Saddam was earlier this year.

Their turn is coming...

Hey, ""Get over it"".

The forged documents came from an African Diplomat who sold it to the italians for few thousand dollars.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/U...

And Ratboy, do me a favor, could you link me to your outraged posts after Clinton bombed an aspirin factory based on faulty intelligence? You remember it happened three days after his grand jury testimony concering Monica Lewinksy.

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/africa/9808...

After the bombing the administration conceded that the factory made medicine. The President was later impeached on other grounds.

"ralcydan" wrote:

North Korea managed it.

North Korea also didn''t have to spend the last 12 years hiding everything from the UN. In fact, they''ve been rather quite bold about it.

No. Dropping a million dollar missile on an empty ten dollar tent isn''t enough. And ""planning a commando raid""? That sounds like a Dilbert achievement report: ""I planned to increase company sales 200%""

Oh, I see. Please point out President Bush''s active attempts to kill bin Ladin before 9-11. Yeah, didn''t think so.

The US Army did studies on releasing a large trash bag of powdered anthrax into the ventilation system of a sports arena. Made 9/11 look like a pre-show...

And please show us how the much-vaunted Homeland Security Department is planning on handling this? And feel free to tell us how Iraq is/was involved, seeing how one man was able to make his own anthrax without the help of a foreign power.

""Rat Boy - Missile Defense Proponent."" I intend to use that quote in any further missile defense threads.

There happens to be a difference between shooting down short-ranged missles and ICBMs, smart ass.

That''ll be a great consolation to the victims. ""Well, it hadn''t happened before, we figured you guys were safe... Shucks!"" This wsn''t a guy know for his good judgement (see Iran-Iraq War / Gulf War I / attempt to assassinate Bush 41 / Gulf War II). At some point in the future, I have every reason to think he would have been stupid or crazy enough to attack us, especially through an intermediary.

Proof? This all is predicated on proof that he had a.) the ability and b.) the desire. So far, I have yet to see solid answers on either.

Their turn is coming...

""In war, events of importance are the result of trivial causes."" - Julius Caesar

And feel free to tell us how Iraq is/was involved, seeing how one man was able to make his own anthrax without the help of a foreign power.

Looks like Rat Boy knows who was behind the anthrax attacks. How about letting the rest of us (and the FBI) in on it?

I believe the FBI already have a pretty good idea. Why? Feel like blaming Iraq for every unsolved crime in the US? Feel like second-guessing the Justice Department?

Wow, lot''s of bitter rhetorical questions. I was kidding, by the way. But your assumption that this individual acted alone without a state sponsor is completely unfounded, since there have been no arrests, nor does it change the fact that regardless of the terror made possible by individuals, states and large organizations are the real threats to world security.

Oh, and Rat Boy, I answered all your questions. Where''s the humble admission you were wrong?

At the risk of this turning petty, you didn''t answer my questions:

Question: Again, explain how he could have pulled that off unnoticed with the entire world breathing down his neck.

Response: North Korea managed it.

Not a direct answer to the question. What does that have to do with Iraq?

Question: Dropping cruise missles on his camps in 1998 (he had just left a few minutes before the missles dropped in) and planning a commando raid to kill him in 1999 doesn''t constitute ""enough emphasis"" on trying to kill him?

Response: No. Dropping a million dollar missile on an empty ten dollar tent isn''t enough. And ""planning a commando raid""? That sounds like a Dilbert achievement report: ""I planned to increase company sales 200%""

Still don''t see how trying to kill him isn''t trying to kill him. By that logic, the US wasn''t trying to kill Saddam Hussein by dropping bunker busters on where he was supposed to be.

Question: has Saddam ever used chemical weapons on Americans?

Response: That''ll be a great consolation to the victims. ""Well, it hadn''t happened before, we figured you guys were safe... Shucks!"" This wsn''t a guy know for his good judgement (see Iran-Iraq War / Gulf War I / attempt to assassinate Bush 41 / Gulf War II). At some point in the future, I have every reason to think he would have been stupid or crazy enough to attack us, especially through an intermediary.

Is there an answer to the question in there?

Oh, you didn''t answer my questions. Where''s the humble answers that I asked for?

I meant these questions:

*Who put the reference in?
* Who (badly) forged the Niger documents?
* How widely circulated were the CIA''s, State''s, and Wilson''s doubts in the Administration? We know they hit certain offices, we just don''t know who read them.
* Why hasn''t British Intelligence shared its ""other sources"" with the CIA?
* Why didn''t Condi Rice or any other official responsible for fact-checking the SotU remove the statement if didn''t meet their standards for a presidential speech?
* Why did the CIA object to any reference to Africa in October 2002 but withdraw initial objections in January 2003?

And these questions:

* Why did Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz suggest attacking Iraq on September 12, 2001?

* Why weren''t British, Polish, and Australian oil and construction companies allowed to bid on rebuilding Iraq? Heck, why wasn''t there a competitive bidding process in the first place?

* Why won''t the US allow UN inspectors back into Iraq to aid in the search for WMDs?

* Why does the Vice President continue to try to conceal records on his meetings with energy company officials? (Whoops, not Iraq related)

* Why are humanitarin NGOs entering Iraq being ordered by American officials to go out of their way to mention that the donations are from America? (There''s a nice thread about it that''s buried somewhere in here)

You must be so busy arguing hypothetical, unproven nitpicks that you forget about most of the points people raise (I only say this since you never seem to respond to most salient points) so I thought I''d remind you that had demanded answers, demanded them I say!

* Why did Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz suggest attacking Iraq on September 12, 2001?

I''m pretty sure you haven''t answered that one. Why did they suggest that, even though the 9-11 terrorists were based out of the as-of-yet untouched Afghanistan? I''d really like to see you defend their ridiculous position.

"JohnnyMoJo" wrote:

But, then again, I would love to have a threesome with Courtney Cox and Kate Beckinsale.

I''d take this instead of the truth any day

EDIT: to early in the morning to quote properly.

This is a love letter to Rat, so avert your eyes you cads....

Dear Ratboy,

I would like to thank you (seriously) for taking part in these discussions. Without your dissenting viewpoint, these forums would consist of Lawyeron, Ulari, RalCydan, and myself all going: ""Yep, I agree with that."" Your dissent provides us with the ability and desire to pull up obscure facts and links to prove our points, and makes all of us think a bit sharper.

But. (You knew there was a ''but'', right?)

It drives me (I can''t speak for anyone else) absolutely nuts when you ask a question or present a challenge, and when it is answered with facts and logic; you completely ignore it. Not only do you not acknowledge it, but you change the subject in your response to the answer to something else. You also avoid answering direct questions posed of you, by this same ''subject change'' sleight of hand.

For demonstration purposes, I will now answer your own questions from an earlier post in a fashion similar to your style of evasion:

Q: Why did Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz suggest attacking Iraq on September 12, 2001?

A: I like pie.

Q: Why weren''t British, Polish, and Australian oil and construction companies allowed to bid on rebuilding Iraq? Heck, why wasn''t there a competitive bidding process in the first place?

A: Why haven''t the Chicago Bulls been asked to do a goodwill tour in Iraq?

Q: Why won''t the US allow UN inspectors back into Iraq to aid in the search for WMDs?

A: Do you think the inspectors get to wear cool hats? Do you think they have their own logo? Do you think I could get one on ebay? Well? Do you?!?

Q: Why does the Vice President continue to try to conceal records on his meetings with energy company officials? (Whoops, not Iraq related)

A: I think that Dick Cheney had hookers in his office, and took the energy guys hunting for bambi

Q: Why are humanitarin NGOs entering Iraq being ordered by American officials to go out of their way to mention that the donations are from America? (There''s a nice thread about it that''s buried somewhere in here)

A: Do you think we are giving the Iraqis Twinkies? Why do Twinkies only come in one flavor?

Rat Boy,

1) I''ll assume you had no problems with any of my other answers, since you don''t respond to them.

2) Quit asking biased, leading questions if you don''t read the posts that answer them...

3) In addition to your 15-20 burning, unanswered questions, I did indeed answer this one. Asked:

Quote:
Why did Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz suggest attacking Iraq on September 12, 2001?

And answered:

Because Saddam was a terrorist supporting dictator who was an enemy of the US and maintained WMD programs he used against his own people. Let me clear about this: the argument to take out Saddam was as good on September 10th as it was on September 12th, and we should have done it years ago. All 9/11 gave us was a public who also saw the dangers of leaving Saddam in place.

You make it sound like the administration considered ignoring Afghanistan. Not true. But the moment 9/11 happened, and we realized that unchecked rogue states who support terrorism will eventually bring it to us, Saddam no longer got a pass. He was just as potential a threat as the Taliban, given his history with WMD''s, support for terrorist groups, and emnity to the US. He had to go.

You try to make it out that there was a conspiracy, since some people in the administration already considered Saddam a threat in the same vein and brought it up on 9/12. Hmmm. There were also those who advocated military action in Afghanistan to attack Al Queda before 9/11. Guess what? THEY WERE RIGHT.

Just because the case had to be brought to the American public over the next year and a half, and the public needed 9/11 to shock them back to reality, doesn''t mean that the case for Saddam wasn''t there all along.

Any more questions?

PS - and since I try to actually respond to questions raised:

Quote:
Question: Again, explain how he could have pulled that off unnoticed with the entire world breathing down his neck.

Response: North Korea managed it.

Not a direct answer to the question. What does that have to do with Iraq?

It''s a comparison. You seem to think that Iraq could never obtain nuclear weapons because of the scrutiny of the world. But we keep tabs on North Korea, India, and Pakistan, and all of them obtained nuclear weapons, somewhat surprising us. Also, you assume that one must build a nuclear facility to get a nuclear bomb. Not true. If rogue states we don''t keep close enough tabs on, like N. Korea, have the components for a nuclear weapon, they could easily sell them to Saddam for nothing more than assembly. It might be unlikely, but Saddam could obtain nuclear weapons in spite of international scrutiny.

Still don''t see how trying to kill him isn''t trying to kill him. By that logic, the US wasn''t trying to kill Saddam Hussein by dropping bunker busters on where he was supposed to be.

you asked if Clinton placed enough emphasis on killing Bin Laden. ""Planning a commando raid"" does nothing, so it doesn''t count towards ""enough"". Firing cruise missiles once and missing also isn''t enough. Since 9/11 we and the international community have killed or arrested thousands of Al Queda operatives, and there is an active hunt for Bin Laden being carried on by literally thousands of military and law enforcement operatives. Now this may not be ""enough emphasis"" either, but a single retaliatory strike which missed was certainly not.

Quote:
Question: has Saddam ever used chemical weapons on Americans?

Response: That''ll be a great consolation to the victims. ""Well, it hadn''t happened before, we figured you guys were safe... Shucks!"" This wsn''t a guy know for his good judgement (see Iran-Iraq War / Gulf War I / attempt to assassinate Bush 41 / Gulf War II). At some point in the future, I have every reason to think he would have been stupid or crazy enough to attack us, especially through an intermediary.

Is there an answer to the question in there?

Actually yes. We have to think in terms of potential and future threats. No, Saddam has never used Chemical weapons on Americans. But he has attempted to assassinate a former president of the United States, which, if successful, would have sparked off a war with the US and led to his death. He hated the US enough that he would have risked death and the destruction of his regime to try and strike at us. He was foolish and insane and as he got older and wanted to ensure his legacy as a Pan-Arab leader, would very likely have tried something again, to the detriment of the American people.

Without your dissenting viewpoint, these forums would consist of Lawyeron, Ulari, RalCydan, and myself all going: ""Yep, I agree with that.""

Don''t forget Yomm.

Damn, didn''t realize til just now how much all the conservative blathering ran the rest of us off. It''s just the three or four of you now.

When you say ''conservative blathering'', I assume you mean that in a good way?

It''s value-neutral, like ""liberal gibber-jabber""...

Time is the key factor here. at the moment I completely lack the time to read through all the posts and give a thorough and thoughtful answer, because that is what you guys deserve. The best I can come up with at the moment is a statement like the one above when I see something so striking or funny that I just have to click the reply button ;).
Also the debate has more and more turned into a debate about inner US liberals vs conservative quarrels. I don''t feel I can add much to that discussion. So for now I''ll keep my lurking position...

"ralcydan" wrote:

You make it sound like the administration considered ignoring Afghanistan.

On a whole, the Administration wasn''t; Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were. Read the book, you''ll get a real eye-opener on how those two work. The question only related to Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, who were the only ones to offer the idea. Even Cheney was against going to Iraq first.

It''s a comparison. You seem to think that Iraq could never obtain nuclear weapons because of the scrutiny of the world. But we keep tabs on North Korea, India, and Pakistan, and all of them obtained nuclear weapons, somewhat surprising us.

North Korea, India, and Pakistan also didn''t have daily US overflights and UN weapons inspectors roaming the country. Iraq, if it had a nuclear program, would have had to make it on the run.

Also, you assume that one must build a nuclear facility to get a nuclear bomb. Not true. If rogue states we don''t keep close enough tabs on, like N. Korea, have the components for a nuclear weapon, they could easily sell them to Saddam for nothing more than assembly. It might be unlikely, but Saddam could obtain nuclear weapons in spite of international scrutiny.

Obviously not, seeing how our intrepid spies caught him red-handed in Niger!

Come on! Saddam''s nuclear program from before 1991 was literally buried in some guy''s backyard. His shopping around for components are in dispute. And the Administration''s claims that Saddam was rebuilding on old nuclear facilities was refuted by the IAEA (see one of the earlier articles). The same IAEA who are concerned over the nuclear programs in North Korea and Iran. If you can''t trust the word of the IAEA there...

you asked if Clinton placed enough emphasis on killing Bin Laden. ""Planning a commando raid"" does nothing, so it doesn''t count towards ""enough"". Firing cruise missiles once and missing also isn''t enough. Since 9/11 we and the international community have killed or arrested thousands of Al Queda operatives, and there is an active hunt for Bin Laden being carried on by literally thousands of military and law enforcement operatives. Now this may not be ""enough emphasis"" either, but a single retaliatory strike which missed was certainly not.

I offer to you then that George W. Bush has not done ""enough"" to kill Osama bin Ladin and Saddam Hussein, since both are very much alive and well.

No, Saddam has never used Chemical weapons on Americans.

Thank you. That''s all I needed.

Man. And I thought ''I like pie'' was brilliant.

Thank you. That''s all I needed.

You''re welcome. Glad to oblige. If that is really all you needed, I assume you hinge all of your arguments about Iraq on whether Saddam has ever used chemical weapons on Americans.

I also assume you stipulate the correctness of the dozens of arguments you don''t respond to, and have no issue with the answers I gave to the rest of your questions. I think my work here is done.

From Yahoo/AP

Well, isn''t that interesting...

From MSNBC/Washington Post

Interesting quote:

ABC's "Good Morning America" showed soldiers from the Third Infantry Division in Iraq criticizing Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and questioning their mission. Minnesota Public Radio this week quoted Mary Kewatt, the aunt of a soldier killed in Iraq, saying: "President Bush made a comment a week ago, and he said "˜bring it on.' Well, they brought it on, and now my nephew is dead."

Could the 3ID soldiers be brought up on gross insubordination charges for criticizing a superior on TV? Too bad Reaper isn''t around to answer...

Yeah, it''s interesting that a Senate democrat who opposed the war says ""someone"" at the White House insisted the line be in the SOTU.

Of course, he refuses to names and the White House calls the Senator''s statement ""nonsense"".

Does one partisan statement, with no details, denied by the opposition actually count as evidence to anyone?

"ralcydan" wrote:

Does one partisan statement, with no details, denied by the opposition actually count as evidence to anyone?

It was attributed to George Tenet, who didn''t bother to refute what he said yesterday. Are you going to accuse Tenet of being partisan here?

Also, have the Republicans in that meeting refuted the statement? I''d really like to here a Republican senator accuse Durbin of lying about what he heard in a meeting that they were also attending.

Interesting quote:

Quote:
ABC's "Good Morning America" showed soldiers from the Third Infantry Division in Iraq criticizing Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and questioning their mission. Minnesota Public Radio this week quoted Mary Kewatt, the aunt of a soldier killed in Iraq, saying: "President Bush made a comment a week ago, and he said "˜bring it on.' Well, they brought it on, and now my nephew is dead."

Could the 3ID soldiers be brought up on gross insubordination charges for criticizing a superior on TV? Too bad Reaper isn''t around to answer

That''s right. That soldier is dead because Iraqi guerrilla fighters, after watching American TV, decided that they would attack US forces as a direct response to a challenge from George Bush. Give me a break.

As to the complaining about the war, I have a feeling that these aren''t the first soldiers in history to grouse about their engagement or superiors. I have no opinion on the idea of gross insubordination, but I would have liked to see the actual comments from the soldiers and ask them if they liked being characterized as complainers who didn''t support their leaders...

As to the statement by the anti-war Democratic Senator, I don''t put any faith in his characterization of Tenet''s statements. He has an agenda, and will likely misquote or use half-truths. Let the whole story come out, and I will offer judgement.

ralcydan wrote:
You make it sound like the administration considered ignoring Afghanistan.

On a whole, the Administration wasn''t; Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were. Read the book, you''ll get a real eye-opener on how those two work. The question only related to Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, who were the only ones to offer the idea.

Oh, and Rat Boy, I have read the book. Could you please give me the page number where, after September 11th, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz suggested we ""ignore Afghanistan"" as you put it?