Intelligence Quotient

Now you are misquoting my intent. Those were your words. However, read pages 49, 60, & 61.

Here''s the key sentence from page 49:

Rumsfeld was raising the possibility that they could take advantage of the opportunity offered by the terrorist attacks to go after Saddam immediately.

They said Iraq first, not Afghanistan first. Why? Why would they want to attack a country that had no ties to 9-11 first? What would there to be gained? This smacks of messed-up priorities at best, hidden agendas at worst.

Why would they want to attack a country that had no ties to 9-11 first?

I haven''t read the book, so forgive me if I am speaking out of turn. But, right after 9-11, didn''t we have concerns that Saddam might have been financing different terrorist groups?

I seem to recall it wasn''t until later that week that we definitively knew who was responsible. Hell, I seem to recall that it wasn''t until we actually went into Afganistan that we had proof that Osama was responsible because we found a videotape of him talking about it with his followers.

According to the book, the CIA right away identified three known al Qaeda operatives (using passenger manifests) on American Flight 77, the one that hit the Pentagon. They also monitored several known al Qaeda operatives congratulating each other after the attacks. Even though the Administration knew that eventually they''d get to Iraq, they didn''t think they could justify it so soon after 9-11 AND before taking on Afghanistan.

I will look at those pages when I have a chance. However, the quote you use:

Rumsfeld was raising the possibility that they could take advantage of the opportunity offered by the terrorist attacks to go after Saddam immediately.

doesn''t support your statement:

They said Iraq first, not Afghanistan first.

According to you, they said ""immediately"", not ""first."" Immediately, in governmental terms, is a period up to two years. Also, this is not even a quote. I would love to know what was really said, but your characterization of someone else''s characterization of Rumsfeld''s actual words isn''t exactly a real solid account of what was said.

You accuse me of misquoting your intent. Here are your quotes from the posts on this issue:

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.

They said Iraq first, not Afghanistan first. Why? Why would they want to attack a country that had no ties to 9-11 first?
""Do you or do you not support Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz''s urgings to attack Iraq instead of Afghanistan as the first move in the War on Terror?""

You sure do use ""first"" a lot - I assume that was your ""intent"". You try to sell the idea that people in the administration wanted to attack Iraq first, instead of Afghanistan, due to ""messed-up priorities"" and ""hidden agendas"".

This is simply untrue. Your own quote, from Bush at War:

Rumsfeld raised the question of Iraq. Why shouldn''t we go against Iraq, not just al Qaeda? he asked. Rumsfeld was speaking not only for himself when he raised the question. His deputy, Paul D. Wolfowitz, was committed to a policy that would make Iraq a principal target of the first round in the war on terrorism.

indicates that no one said ""first"", just that Iraq should be part of the first round of the war on terror. You may ask why Iraq was a legitimate target, but that question has been answered many times, in this thread alone. No one said attack Iraq ""first"" and no one said attack Iraq ""instead"" of Afghanistan.

Misquotes and half-truths...

Read the rest of the book. Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld to a lesser extent keep brining up Iraq at several more meetings as an alternative to going to war with Afghanistan. You still haven''t come up with a reason why they would say that.

I did read the book, that was why I asked for a page reference. I will look at the pages mentioned above.

I would love a quote that says Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld ever suggested we attack Iraq ""as an alternative to going to war with Afghanistan.""

I do not believe there is such a quote in the book. Give me a direct quote from the book with page number, and I will either offer an explanation or admit I was wrong.

Start on page 83 and keep reading. Wolfowitz seemed unable to shut up about it.

Some examples:

Wolfowitz expanded on his arguments about how war against Iraq might be easier than against Afghanistan.

In hindsight, that statement sounds pretty ridiculous.

When the group reconvened, Rumsfeld asked, Is this the time to attack Iraq? He noted that there would be a big buildup of forces in the region and he was still deeply worried about the availability of good targets in Afghanistan
At another point during the meeting, Wolfowitz interrupted his boss, Rumsfeld, and expanded on a point he had made earlier about Iraq. He may have taken the president''s remark during the break as encouragement.

There was an awkward silence. Rumsfeld seemed to ignore the interruption but his eyes narrowed. Some thought he might be annoyed; others thought he was just listening.

It should be noted that later in the meetings Rumsfeld stayed away from talking about Iraq and didn''t say one way or the other that action should be taken against Iraq (Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, George Tenet, and White House Chief of Staff Andy Card were on the record as against it at this point). I don''t think this section mentioned that Wolfowitz was in on this particular meeting. It''d be interesting to have heard what he would''ve said.

After these meetings, Iraq isn''t brought up until the lengthy epilogue focusing in part on the build-up to the War in Iraq (the stuff on Powell and Rumsfeld''s squabbling is very eye-opening).

In the end though, this is evidence of a concerted effort by Paul Wolfowitz and to a lesser extent Rumsfeld to ""get Iraq"" after 9-11. Wolfowitz''s comments on how Iraq would be easier than Afghanistan are a part of this effort. So, answer the question, why would they be pushing for this?

Wolfowitz expanded on his arguments about how war against Iraq might be easier than against Afghanistan.

I''ll have to read the context, but ""easier"" still isn''t the same as ""first"" or ""instead of""

When the group reconvened, Rumsfeld asked, Is this the time to attack Iraq? He noted that there would be a big buildup of forces in the region and he was still deeply worried about the availability of good targets in Afghanistan

Again, I''ll look up the context, but this is a characterization of what Rumsfeld said, not a quote. He may well have asked, ""Is this a good time to attack Iraq?"" and he may well have been ""worried about the availability of good targets in Afghanistan"" - that doesn''t mean he said both things in the same sentence, the way they are summed up here. The fact that Rumsfeld covered both of these issues in war council is not the same thing as saying Rumsfeld argued that we should attack Iraq instead of or before Afghanistan.

At another point during the meeting, Wolfowitz interrupted his boss, Rumsfeld, and expanded on a point he had made earlier about Iraq. He may have taken the president''s remark during the break as encouragement.

There was an awkward silence. Rumsfeld seemed to ignore the interruption but his eyes narrowed. Some thought he might be annoyed; others thought he was just listening.

I''ll really have to look up the context on this one. Means absolutely nothing to me.

You state:

this is evidence of a concerted effort by Paul Wolfowitz and to a lesser extent Rumsfeld to ""get Iraq"" after 9-11. Wolfowitz''s comments on how Iraq would be easier than Afghanistan are a part of this effort.

I won''t argue that Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld absolutely placed Iraq in the crosshairs after 9/11. That wasn''t your point, though. You argued they suggested going after Iraq first or instead of Afghanistan. I can see where you have interpreted Bob Woodward''s sum-ups (you''ll note we don''t get actual quotes of what was said, just characterizations) to come to this conclusion, but I stand by my assertion that the record does not show that either man said we should attack Iraq first or as an alternative.

I think your real problem is that 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq, so why should Iraq have been in the crosshairs at all right after the attack. You ask:

why would they be pushing for this?

I''ll refer you to my favorite source, me (read the thread as it goes, and I won''t have to quote myself...):

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.

Also:

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.

And there''s the ideological difference: despite no evidence to prove it, you see Iraq as an integral piece of 9-11; I don''t. Despite no evidence to prove it, you see al Qaeda and the Ba''ath Party as the same beast; I don''t. Despite no evidence to prove it, you believe Iraq was a direct and immediate threat to the US; I don''t. So no matter how odd Wolfowitz''s near-religious zeal in wanting to nail Iraq, no matter how much the V.P. and the Defense Department undercut Colin Powell, no matter how much question the evidence against Iraq comes under question, you''ll just brush these legitimate concerns aside with the addage, ""The security of the state is supreme.""

Well, I guess I''m not comfortable in saying, ""Caesar can do no wrong,"" given the abuses that are possible.

And I find it striking that inclination to discuss these matters -already- proves that things haven''t exactly been going as planned.

New rule: George W. Bush should no longer give speeches, rather have Tony Blair do it for him.

despite no evidence to prove it, you see Iraq as an integral piece of 9-11; I don''t. Despite no evidence to prove it, you see al Qaeda and the Ba''ath Party as the same beast; I don''t. Despite no evidence to prove it, you believe Iraq was a direct and immediate threat to the US; I don''t.

Um...

1) I never said Iraq was an integral piece of 9/11. I stated: ""unchecked rogue states who support terrorism will eventually bring it to us"" 9/11 IS evidence for this.

2) I never said I see ""al Qaeda and the Ba''ath Party as the same beast"". Feel free to quote me back to me on this one.

3) I never even said that Iraq was an ""immediate"" threat to the US, although I have stated it was a ""direct"" one. I''m not going to re-re-re-try the case against Iraq, but if you think Saddam had no ties to terrorists, no WMD''s, and was not an enemy of the United States, I will refer you to Bill Clinton, the UN, French, German, Russian, and British intelligence services, the CIA, the head of Saddam''s own nuclear weapons program and the Kurds, before I just move on.

4) I never said, in response to a single argument raised, ""The security of the state is supreme.""

Your sum up above tells me a lot. Not unlike your sources, you take a lot of things that were never said (in this case by me) and present them as support for your preconceived notions. You want to believe that the opposition is a pack of mindless sheep who think ""Caesar can do no wrong"". Such ego...

The fact is, I don''t take secondhand characterizations of conversations as evidence, such as in the statements about Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. I don''t take the absence of evidence as proof of a lie, such as the lack of WMD''s found so far. I don''t ignore real evidence when it doesn''t suit me, such as the hidden nuclear weapons equipment and documentation which Saddam was required to acknowledge and destroy. And I do view the world through the eyes of September 11th when it comes to evaluating potential threats to America, such as realistically assessing twenty years of behavior by Saddam Hussein to conclude that he was insane, foolish and dangerous.

"ralcydan" wrote:

such as realistically assessing twenty years of behavior by Saddam Hussein to conclude that he was insane, foolish and dangerous.

But never to the US.

But never to the US

Just can''t help yourself... I''ll quit posting after this one, so you can get the last word. This has been a good thread, but every conceivable point has been made, answered and rebutted.

I have no reason to think that Saddam was an imminent threat to the US. I also have no reason to think he wasn''t an immediate threat. Either way, he was a hell of a potential one. And that, my friend is enough these days.

Let me introduce a new US foreign policy disclaimer:
""The US reserves the right to invade, conquer, and impose democratic, pro-US rule on any countries who are avowed enemies of the United States, support and harbor terrorism, and seek WMDs or WMD programs. Tax, tag and title not included.""

Enjoy and see you on the next thread...

Well, welcome to the New World Order, where if you''re evil and don''t like the US, you''re screwed, but if you''re evil and like the US, you get ritzy palaces and face time with the C in C.

We love to read our brilliantly thought out posts. Who needs the liberals. How ''bout them Braves, Johnny?

Braves are a''rockin. But personally, I am chomping at the bit for football to start up...

Down with the Dodgers! All hail the Giants!

Last thing I will add to this probably, but I think it is a nice wrap up. This is a column by Charles Krauthammer:

WASHINGTON -- The Niger uranium flap has achieved the status of midsummer frenzy, a molehill become a mountain in the absence of competing news stories. It was but one bit of intelligence out of dozens about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein and, by any measure, hardly the most important.

Nonetheless, it was more than likely false, thus giving an opening to the Democrats, desperate for some handle to attack President Bush''s huge advantage on the issue of national security. With weapons of mass destruction yet unfound, the Niger blunder opens the way to the broad implication that the president is a liar or a dissimulator who took the country to war under false pretenses.

How exactly does this line of reasoning work? The charge is that the president was looking for excuses to go to war with Saddam, and the weapons of mass destruction claims were just a pretense.

Aside from the fact that Saddam''s possession of weapons of mass destruction was posited not just by President Bush but by just about every intelligence service on the planet (including those of countries that opposed war as the solution), one runs up against this logical conundrum: Why then did Bush want to go to war? For fun and recreation? Because of some cowboy compulsion?

The wilder critics have attempted wag-the-dog theories, war as a distraction from general political woes (Paul Krugman quotes the Robert De Niro character advising the president: ``You want to win this election, you better change the subject. You wanna change this subject, you better have a war.''''); for others, war as a distraction from a lousy economy. This is ridiculous. Apart from everything else, war is a highly dangerous political enterprise. No one had any idea that Baghdad would fall in three weeks and with so few casualties. Just as no one had any idea how costly and bloody the post-victory occupation would be.

On the contrary, the war was a huge political gamble. There was no popular pressure to go to war. There was even less foreign pressure to go to war. Bush decided to stake his presidency on it nonetheless, knowing that if things went wrong -- and indeed they might still -- his political career was finished.

It is obvious he did so because he thought that, post-Sept. 11, it was vital to the security of the United States that Saddam be disarmed and deposed.

Under what analysis? That Iraq posed a clear and imminent danger, a claim now being discounted by the critics because of the absence thus far of weapons of mass destruction?

No. That was not the president''s case. It was, on occasion, Tony Blair''s, and that is why Blair is in such political trouble in Britain. But in Bush''s first post-9/11 State of the Union address (January 2002), he framed Iraq as a part of a larger and more enduring problem, the overriding threat of our time: the conjunction of terrorism, terrorist states and weapons of mass destruction. And that unless something was done, we faced the prospect of an infinitely more catastrophic 9/11 in the future.

Later that year, in a speech to the U.N., he spoke of the danger from Iraq not as ``clear and present'''' but ``grave and gathering,'''' an obvious allusion to Churchill''s ``gathering storm,'''' the gradually accumulating threat that preceded the Nazi invasion of Poland in 1939. And then nearer the war, in his 2003 State of the Union address, Bush plainly denied that the threat was imminent. ``Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent.'''' Bush was, on the contrary, calling for action precisely when the threat was not imminent because, ``If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions ... would come too late.''''

The threat had not yet even fully emerged, Bush was asserting, but nonetheless it had to be faced because it would only get worse. Saddam was not going away. The sanctions were not going to restrain him. Even his death would be no reprieve, as his half-mad sons would take over. The argument was that Saddam had to be removed eventually, and that with Saddam relatively weakened, isolated and vulnerable, now would be more prudent and less costly than later.

He was right.

In fact, Bush''s case was simply a more elaborate and formal restatement of Bill Clinton''s argument in 1998 that, left unmolested, Saddam would ``go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he''ll use the arsenal.''''

That was true when Clinton said it. It was true when Bush said it. The difference is that Bush did something about it.

Sorry. One more thing. Here is a little history on Joseph Wilson:

He was an outspoken opponent of U.S. military intervention in Iraq.

He''s an ""adjunct scholar"" at the Middle East Institute "” which advocates for Saudi interests. The March 1, 2002 issue of the Saudi government-weekly Ain-Al Yaqeen lists the MEI as an ""Islamic research institutes supported by the Kingdom.""

He''s a vehement opponent of the Bush administration which, he wrote in the March 3, 2003 edition of the left-wing Nation magazine, has ""imperial ambitions."" Under President Bush, he added, the world worries that ""America has entered one of it periods of historical madness.""

He also wrote that ""neoconservatives"" have ""a stranglehold on the foreign policy of the Republican Party."" He said that ""the new imperialists will not rest until governments that ape our world view are implanted throughout the region, a breathtakingly ambitious undertaking, smacking of hubris in the extreme.""

He was recently the keynote speaker for the Education for Peace in Iraq Center, a far-left group that opposed not only the U.S. military intervention in Iraq but also the sanctions "” and even the no-fly zones that protected hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Kurds and Shias from being slaughtered by Saddam.

And consider this: Prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Wilson did believe that Saddam had biological weapons of mass destruction. But he raised that possibility only to argue against toppling Saddam, warning ABC''s Dave Marash that if American troops were sent into Iraq, Saddam might ""use a biological weapon in a battle that we might have. For example, if we''re taking Baghdad or we''re trying to take, in ground-to-ground, hand-to-hand combat."" He added that Saddam also might attempt to take revenge by unleashing ""some sort of a biological assault on an American city, not unlike the anthrax, attacks that we had last year.""

This doesn''t sound like the credentials of an unbiased third party. It kind of helps me understand why he thought that drinking tea and chatting was sufficient activity to make intelligence decisions.

And it sure gives me pause when deciding the credibility of any of his accusations. And it shows the liberal bias in the media that none of the major news operations have questioned Wilson''s objectivity.

Again, the question remains, if he wasn''t that good, why did the CIA send him to Niger?

And here''s more:

From MSNBC/Washington Post

Hmm. So let me get this straight...

But on the eve of Bush's Jan. 28 State of the Union address, Robert Joseph, an assistant to the president in charge of nonproliferation at the National Security Council (NSC), proposed that the presidential address include the allegation that Iraq sought to purchase 500 pounds of uranium from Niger.
Alan Foley, a senior CIA official, disclosed this detail when he accompanied Tenet in a closed-door hearing before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on Wednesday.
Foley, director of the intelligence, nonproliferation and arms control center, told committee members that the controversial 16-word sentence was suggested by Joseph in a telephone conversation just a day or two before the speech, according to congressional and administration sources who were present at the five-hour session.

At the hearing, Foley said he called Joseph to object to uranium language that would single out Niger and mention that a specific amount of uranium was being sought. Joseph agreed to eliminate those two elements but then proposed that the speech use more general language, citing British intelligence that said Iraq had recently been seeking uranium in Africa.
Foley said he told Joseph that the CIA had objected months earlier to the British including that in their published September dossier because of the weakness of the U.S. information. But Foley said the British had gone ahead based on their own information.

So a Presidential aide suggests adding specific allegations, which the CIA objected to, and then was changed to a wording that was accurate, based on foreign intel.

And Tenet has said that he didn''t read the final version of the State of the Union, so that fact that it wasn''t challenged further is due to Tenet not reading the speech.

And from this, people are saying that the President lied?

The rest of the story about having the documents earlier doesn''t prove anything. Even if the US had those documents in October, they didn''t know they were forged then. And even if we had doubts about the veracity of those particular documents, it doesn''t mean that other intelligence didn''t exist to give us reason to believe that the British intel is accurate.

This is just another example of Bush-haters trying to find something where there is nothing.

Just when I thought I was out, they pulled me back in...

From the Washinton Post article:

At the hearing, Foley said he called Joseph to object to uranium language that would single out Niger and mention that a specific amount of uranium was being sought. Joseph agreed to eliminate those two elements but then proposed that the speech use more general language, citing British intelligence that said Iraq had recently been seeking uranium in Africa.
Foley said he told Joseph that the CIA had objected months earlier to the British including that in their published September dossier because of the weakness of the U.S. information. But Foley said the British had gone ahead based on their own information.

There you have it. Remember, the British state unequivocably that their information is not based on the forged documents, and is supported by sources unavailable to the US. This is unrefuted. Those who included the line discussed these facts and moved forward based on them. The CIA couldn''t verify the information, which is the only reason the administration has ever stated that the line shouldn''t have been in the speech, but that doesn''t make the line untrue.

So unless you can prove that Tony Blair and British intelligence are lying, case closed.

So the million dollar question which will change everything one way or another is:

""What was the other British intelligence?""

Oh wait. Nevermind. The guy who could tell us is now dead. How convienient.

Were you expecting to break-through a cover-up in a few days? There needs to be more investigations and a full inquiry with subpoena power and the threat of perjury looming over these peoples heads. You people will say it''s making a mountain out of an ant hill, but needs to be done to preserve American integrity.

From the same story:

A senior intelligence official said the agency did not consider the documents revelatory because they contained the same information, from other sources, already in intelligence reports.

It''s amazing to me the offhand information thrown in these stories.

The CIA had sources, outside of Joseph Wilson and outside of the forged documents, indicating an attempt by Iraq to buy uranium in Niger. They had to have. Not only does the quote above support this, but if they didn''t suspect anything, why send Wilson at all?

Again, unverified may mean it shouldn''t be in the State of the Union, but that doesn''t make it untrue...

"Rat Boy" wrote:
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.

Surely you jest.

""Breathing down his neck?"" Who, pray tell, would be doing all this concerned breathing? The French? The Russians? The impotent and corrupt United Nations?

The United States has been breathing down Saddam''s neck for the last 12 years. We just decided to stop breathing, and start doing something about it.

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?

The cruise missile strike on August 20, 1998?

Utterly ineffective and half-assed. Funny that it took place 3 days after Clinton admitted to his affair with Monica Lewinski, though it would be irresponsible to assume that the President of the United States would use military action to distract the public for political reasons.

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.

Yes, and on the battlefield you have AA to protect you from hostile aircraft.

Thing is, there wasn''t any AA in New York City on September 11th, 2001.

Who says that biological weapons would be used solely against military targets? I sure as hell don''t think so.

And since you said ""dispersed over,"" that can only be done two ways: missles and aircraft.

Not exactly. Biological, chemical and even nuclear weapons may be deployed via field artillery. Additionally, UAVs may be modified to disperse chemical and biological agents -- and they require neither the size nor the cruising altitude of conventional aircraft, making them a slightly harder target.

Furthermore, biological and chemical agents may merely be released at ground level upwind of their intended target.

Some biological agents, such as ricin, may not even be dispersed in powdered form.

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.

Let''s also not forget that your assertion earlier in this thread:

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

Aside from being a completely uneducated statement, it is wholly false.

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?

No. He used them on his own people numerous times.

Thank you for playing.

Are you now prepared to say that America failed to curb Saddam''s offensive capabilities for 12 years?

I am prepared to say that America curbed Saddams conventional offensive capabilities starting in 1991 and have been able to hamper his unconventional (i.e. WMD) offensive capabilities.

If the United States and the United Nations were convinced that Saddam''s WMD program had been dismantled or destroyed, the sanctions against Iraq would have been dropped. It was in the best interest of at least three permanent members of the Security Council to do so: France, Russia and China.

Yet even the United Nations wasn''t convinced.

Yeah, he really did put up quite fight against the US invasion in March...

Meaning what? Ineffective resistance by conventional forces = no WMDs?

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.

""Sounds like"". Mind putting citing that in APA format?

"Rat Boy" wrote:

Oh wait. Nevermind. The guy who could tell us is now dead. How convienient.

Because, as we all know, dead = murdered by the Government as part of a huge conspiracy.

Were you expecting to break-through a cover-up in a few days? There needs to be more investigations and a full inquiry with subpoena power and the threat of perjury looming over these peoples heads. You people will say it''s making a mountain out of an ant hill, but needs to be done to preserve American integrity.

And yet, not finding WMD in under 60 days is a failure and/or meant that the American people were lied to? Kind of selective on where you apply patience...

Well, it does mean we owe an apology to the U.N. inspectors we ridiculed for not finding anything in Iraq while Saddam was in power.