i'll say this right now, but if wmd's are found "at the most inopportune time"(i assume you are implying just prior to elections), then something will stink to high heavens. especially if bushy's approval ratings are continuing to flag as they have been. would i be glad to know that a large number of wmd's are out of commission? yes. but if they are found in say september or october, methinks there would be something rotten in fallujah...

---

f/k/a mclamb6

So when is the most "opportune" time to find chemical weapons?

So, if the presence of WMD is enough to justify an invasion, who's next? Possible candidates are N. Korea, Syria, some of the former Soviet Republics. Certainly some of these are at least as threatening to the US as Iraq was when we went in there.

Too bad Cuba isn't more of a problem. The administration seems to do a much better job at cracking down on them than some of the countries that might actually be threats.

Thanks for the advice. Seriously, I appreciate it. However, even though the Good Lord has blessed me with an abundence of tolerance and good cheer towards those who disagree with me, I still find it difficult to bite my tongue from time to time.

In my experience, those who disagree with me on political issues are mostly liberals. And, I think liberals are on the wrong side of most issues.

---

**All of these words finding themselves together were greatly astonished and delighted for assuredly, they had never met before**

Phew - it's nice to see people finally concentrating on the matters at hand.

Thanks to all the planning and ground work that was done beforehand (sarcasm) Iraq is enough of a clusterfuck all on its own, and pretty soon the coalition of the willing will be in control of the most brilliantly well engineered civil war a neo-con could hope for.

What about all these noises the Whitehouse is making now? Are you saying they're wrong too - that there ARE WMD and not just the preprations for reconstituting them? Or are you just part of another obsessed faction with your head up your arse.

When will you finally take ownership of what is really happening NOW instead of trying to blame people for not believeing transparencies as if that is the important thing now and somehow it's the non believers that are responsible for things going so badly? You got what you wanted - we are at war. How about addressing how things are going in the country itself?

Nick

mojo was the one using the phrase "inopportune" not me. the implication, as i saw it, was that it would be inopportune vis-a-vis the dems and the election. i'd be a bit skeptical after all the time that inspectors have spent searching for them to suddenly stumble upon a large cache of weapons just in time for elections. i am not saying that someone would plant the weapons, but i would surely be suspicious that they had found weapons previously and had been sitting on them waiting for the most politically opportune time to release the info--i.e. just prior to elections....

---

f/k/a mclamb6

>If the intelligence that Bush et al were relying on was so great, wouldn't they have found something before now?

Bush? How about rephrasing that more accurately such as:

The U.N., France, Germany, The Democrats in congress, etc, etc, etc. ALL believed the intelligence on WMD's. Maybe not everyone agreed on going to war over it (ie, France and Germany - the Democrats supported the war, by the way) but all believed the intelligence.

The U.N., France, Germany, The Democrats in congress, etc, etc, etc. ALL believed the intelligence on WMD's.

There's a bit of revisionism for ya.

In fact, the "intelligence" the Bush administration claimed to be relying on was never credible. Tenet was trying to distance the CIA from it even before the war started. Some of the claims made by the administration were proven to be flatly false almost as soon as they were made. ( For example, claiming that the IAEA had said Iraq was using those aluminum rods to develop a nuclear capability. The head of the IAEA himself put that lie to rest. )

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

1. Although Israel is widely known to have nuclear weapons, it has not used WMD against another country.

2. Iraq has used chemical weapons against Iran as well as it's own population.

---

_______________________________________________

1. Although Israel is widely known to have nuclear weapons, it has not used WMD against another country.

We have, though. Would an invasion of the US by, say, China, be justified on those grounds?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Give me a break. Just about every country fighting in WWI used chemical weapons.

The war was never about simple possession of WMD. We sure weren't about to invade India or France (although I think Rummy might have wanted to do the latter a few times)

---

_______________________________________________

Give me a break. Just about every country fighting in WWI used chemical weapons. That's right. Though we're still the only country to have used atomic weapons.

The war was never about simple possession of WMD. Now give me a break. You're the one who just made the argument that we went to war because Iraq not only had WMDs, but had actually used them in the past. Now the war was never about "simple possession of WMD."

What, exactly and specifically, is the war in Iraq about?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

We have been through this before, but for sake of conversation the WMD or use was not the reason, it was a combination of factors that in sum created the threat. Just like chemical compounds that on their own are harmeless but when mixed together become volatile and explosive. Saddam was volatile and explosive.

As for the US use of WMD, we used them to end a conflict that would have gone on and on and it ulitmatley saved lives. Was it horrible? Yes, but like Iraq it was avoidable had the leaders of Japan just surrendered. Iraq could have been avoided if Saddam would have been awakened from his dilusional nap or someone would have just been able to kill him.

"I am Saddam, president and leader of Iraq!" "Sure you are Saddam, now just open your mouth a bit wider so we can look in there and we will have someone come in and read you a bedtime story"

clever use of 9/11 to justify something thats not related. Next youll be telling me about the tyranny of Eurasia and Eastasia (prize to the first one who gets the allusion). You know who has the most chemical/nuclear weapons? Us! and who has started the most wars recently? Us. Now, youre telling me that its the rest of the world that needs to disarm? Im not saying WMDs should be easily accesible to rouge forces, but just that your logic is very arrogant. What would you have us do to make the world safe? Which country is next? You can make chlorine gas, cyanide gas, and even mustard gas with household chemicals and maybe one trip to a chemical store. Does that mean we should invade every country with these materials, should we invade every corner store.

1984? am i winner? i never win.

---

f/k/a mclamb6

We have been through this before, but for sake of conversation the WMD or use was not the reason, it was a combination of factors that in sum created the threat.

5280, we have been through this before, and I still can't seem to get a straightforward answer from anyone. In theend, it just comes down to arguing that there was a "combination" of factors that made invading Iraq imperative.

The problem I have with this is that if we can't clearly enunciate the reasons we have invaded another country, there is no reason for anyone to think that we really have valid reasons.

First the administration argues that we're going to invade because Hussein has WMD, except that claim turns out to be shaky, to say the least.

Then we say we're going to war in Iraq to fight terrorism, except that even the administration cedes that Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11.

Then we claim that we invaded to oust an evil tyrant and liberate the Iraqi people, except there are lots of evil tyrants and oppressed peoples out there, and we're pretty cozy with some of the tyrants.

Ultimately, we don't appear to have any guidelines set in place by which we decide to go to war- we just take this kind of thing on a "case by case" basis. It's arbitrary. And in addition to the fact that the rest of the world will eventually come to see such arbitrary behavior as intolerable bullying, it's wrong in and of itself.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

There most certainly is a link between 9/11 and Iraq. Iraq is/was know to harbor and aid al-quaeda. Iraq is a terrorist nation who went against UN sanctions and decrees that ordered it to destroy all WMD. WE didn't order them to disarm...The UN did...Up to 80 tons of Sarin, Mustard, and VX toxins are unaccounted for...Scattered throughout the country the size of California. I for one don't wait anymore...The rest of the UN minus Britain may want to..but we didn't.

Regarding the article link you posted:

"Kay, who led a U.S. team hunting for weapons, said it appears that the shell was one of tens of thousands produced for the Iran-Iraq war"

Veeerrry speculative. Far from a rock-hard case that Saddam had an active and effective WMD program that posed an imminent thrteat to the US.

From the same article:

"Hans Blix and David Kay — said the shell was likely a stray weapon that had been scavenged by militants and did not signify that Iraq had large stockpiles of such weapons."

A few relics from the Iran Iraq war hardly constitute an active, vibrant and effective WMD program that posed an imminent threat to the security of the U.S. There are farmers and miners in the US who probably have a bigger stockpile of materials that would make for quite effective WMDs.

Why did we choose Iraq over the other rogue nations? Seems North Korea poses a greater threat and Saudi Arabia is arguably a more repressive regime, especially for women.

---

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~





No sidewindin bushwackin, hornswaglin, cracker croaker is gonna rouin me bishen cutter!

I've asked you this before.....and you failed to provide any support for your allegations....but where is the PROOF of the alleged links between Iraq and 9/11?

Please tell us all......the Bush administration would especially like to know, as I'm sure they want to tell the voters in the U.S., as well as the rest of the world, why they were not wrong in invading Iraq.

Can you back up your statement that there is a link between Iraq and 9/11? If you can, you could be an instant millionaire because thus far, no one is able to.

Can you name any Iraqi terrorists involved in 9/11? Can you name any Iraqi terrorist involved in the attacks to the Kenyan and Tanzanian US embassies? Can you back up your assertion that the Iraqi government is linked to terrorism?

So far, no WMD have been found, so it looks like Iraq did destroy whatever they had. Certainly you don't intend to say that the little firecraker with traces of sarin qualifies as a WMD, or do you?

Up to 80 tons??? Who says it is/was 80 tons??? Who confirms this number??? If it is the US government, I would be a little worried because thus far they can't say the truth even when they try.

Did Iraq attack the USA or did the USA attack Iraq?

What freedom are our soldiers fighting when we live in a country that expects 18 year olds to die for a false pretense, however the same 18 year old is not considered mature enough to drink a freakin' beer.

The US should be concerned about rebuilding their own nation, which is host to over 33 million people living below the poverty level. That is about 9 million more than the entire population of Iraq.

Why not invade Cuba? I mean, it is ruled by a dictator and surely Bush can make the claim there are WMDs there even though it is not true.

"First the administration argues that we're going to invade because Hussein has WMD."

Found

"Then we say we're going to war in Iraq to fight terrorism, except that even the administration cedes that Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11."

That's now changed...

Atta, leader of the 9/11 hijackers in the United States, met with Ahmed al-Ani, an Iraqi intelligence official..

While we're on the subject of WMD's... Seems it's a lot like any in a long line of knee-jerk scares we receive through the media (like child abductions, SARS, second-hand smoke, antibiotic-resistant bacteria) that while horrific if they happen, are highly, highly unlikely:

Nerve agents are difficult to effectively deploy, which is the major reason they haven't been widely used to date.

al Qaeda allegedly experimented with the use of chemical weapons, but found them too difficult to use safely. Intelligence gathered during the invasion of Afghanistan revealed that the terrorist network had experiemented with nerve agents on animals in training camps.

Anecdotal stories about attempts to train terrorist hopefuls in their use indicated that, as often as not, the operatives managed to poison themselves. One story described a failed experiment which ended with the mercy killing of a young operative who accidentally exposed himself to the toxin, incurring gruesome results.

Nerve agents mostly come in gas or liquid forms. They can be released through the use of pressurized containers or sprayers, or attached to bombs (a more complicated process). Because they tend to be highly volatile compounds, they quickly disperse in open air, which can result in only minimal dosages to the intended victims.

They can also be deployed on rockets for long-distance and battlefield uses, but again, the effectiveness of this technique is somewhat debatable. There is a theory that this sort of attack was used on U.S. troops during the first Gulf War, which has been proposed as a possible explanation for the mysterious illness suffered by veterans of the conflict, known as Gulf War Syndrome.

Because of these limitations, nerve agents are generally more lethal when used in closed spaces. The most effective use of a nerve agent for terrorism was the Tokyo Subway attack of 1995. Containers of sarin gas were placed on trains running through the subway system, all of which passed through a central station, resulting in exposures both on the trains and on the platforms. Nearly 6,000 people were exposed to the gas. Even with the relatively enclosed spaces, only 12 people died, and a few hundred hospitalized.

---

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~





No sidewindin bushwackin, hornswaglin, cracker croaker is gonna rouin me bishen cutter!

It could be any day really, but I think a day like today when "Fahrenheit 911" opens at Cannes is kind of slick.

It's also neat to see the "media" working the mass gay marriage thing, the school anniversary of school desegregation.......a significant day of news events, perfect for gauging how the "media" would treat another event that is just as important as the other two, but gets much less play.

---

**All of these words finding themselves together were greatly astonished and delighted for assuredly, they had never met before**

Found them today. Turn on your TV or look at any news website. It should be staring you right in your face.

Here's the link to the other article.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/...Article.asp?ID=13323