1) The vial of botulin toxin hidden in a scientist’s refrigerator. That is a seriously nasty bug, and if Saddam ever got a free couple of months with nobody watching him, and a half-way decent bio lab (which he did have), he could easily have turned that into a biological warfare agent capable of killing tens of thousands of people. More if released in a major city.

2) Those trucks captured on satellite photos moving large quantities of something into Syria shortly before the U.S. invasion. This was not normal truck movement: it was very obvious that Saddam wanted something hidden away out of Iraq, fast. What did he have to hide? We don’t know. But he certainly did have something to hide, something he didn’t want American troops finding out about.

By the way, I agree that Saddam tried to bluff us by claiming he had more capability than he actually had. But if we believed the bluff, or even if we weren’t sure, that was enough justification for going in. Try this thought experiment: you’re a police officer confronting a suspect who’s got one hand in his coat pocket. He claims that he has a gun in there, and he’s going to shoot you unless you back off. You believe that he does indeed have a gun, because you can see what looks like the outline of a gun in his pocket. Continuing to threaten you, he starts to pull his hand out of his pocket. You have an instant where you know you could draw your gun and kill him before he finishes his motion: do you shoot? Or do you wait and see whether he was bluffing or not? If he wasn’t, you’ll be dead.

Once you’ve thought about it, ask that question to any policemen that you’re friends with. See what they think. Find out what the policy is: if the criminal only had a water pistol in his pocket and was bluffing with it, would your shooting lose you your job, or would it be ruled legitimate self-defence in the line of duty?

Now compare that analogy with the situation with Hussein in March 2003. Draw your own conclusions.

http://insideviewfromiraq.blogspot.com/2004/09/iraq-media-is-misleading-world.html

Specifically, how did Sadaam remain defiant? What was found in Iraq that validates your statement? It seems quite clear that he tried to bluff us into thinking that he had WMDs in order to at least get us to think twice before attacking. Obviously, his bluff failed. Iran and North Korea are far, far more demonstrably dangerous than Iraq was and Bush leaves them alone. There is enough information out there to merit us attacking both of them NOW. He is like Reagan, who invaded Grenada to distract attention from the deadly mess in Lebanon.
Just remember who created this mess in Iraq…the Reagan and Bush administrations. Its on their heads while the sons and daughters of the middle class and poor have to die.

If Kerry is the man to stop this by all means vote for him, but deep down I think we know that is not the case. Its W by a wide margin.

Yes its all about genitalia, who has it and who doesnt in the “backbone” sense. Kerry did go to Vietnam, so did my husband and thousands of others, that doesnt qualify you for Commander in Chief. Backbone does and 20 years of waffling in the Senate show that Kerry is a sweet faced chump that votes his dinner invites not what is right. Weve had three years of Bush and guess what no more attackes. Could it be luck or rather that hes doing something about it! The choice is yours and vote!

God Bless You all

I guess that’s what happens when the US goes multilateral. We still haven’t learned after all our experience w/Europe.

http://www.bugmenot.com

I just used this sight to access The NYT and really enjoyed
Frank “but I’m not bitter” Richs rant.

I had new math, but this everyday math is worse.

And mfg jobs peaked in 1998, don’t even go there. And LLC creation is about as big under Bubba? See Bill Hobbs’ work.

I assure you I am not polarized in support of Bush based on fear. I am angry pure and simple and I believe we must do the dirty work to rid the world of this disease of terrorism.
The idea of negotiating sounds lovely on paper, but I don’t believe you can negotiate with rabid dogs and if the images of the murdered children in Russia doesn’t show you what we are dealing with in this fight then maybe nothing ever will.

If you want to do something about the Sudan then stop bitching and get your butt out there and make your voice heard. There is a rally at the UN on Sept 12 will you be one of the voices that show up or will you only complain about what the Government is not doing?

But we shouldn’t forget that, while the Old Media and an angry and often irrational Democratic party base may not be able to win elections, they may distort politics enough that the war on terrorism becomes as distorted and perhaps even as ineffective as the Vietnam War.

Though the parallels between the two wars aren’t what the NY Times and others would have them be, they do exist. The evil being fought–the North Vietnam police state and the horrors of Saddam–are ignored. (Michael Moore’s pre-invasion Iraq is a peaceful land where children fly kites.) In the Old Media, our successes in Iraq are concealed and our defeats magnified as they were with Vietnam. Atrocities by our soldiers get blown out of proportion. There’s even a domino effect of sorts championed by supporters of the war, although it works the other direction. A democraticized Iraq could lead to a democratic Iran and a Lebanon free of Syria.

That’s perhaps why Kerry, a key propagandist in the Vietnam War, is the Democratic candidate. He fits the role far better than Dean, a ill-tempered New England policy wonk.

Unfortunately, the Democratic Party’s obsession with focus groups, began under Clinton, has forced them in a bizarre situation. They’re having to pretend to support a war that they loathe and the public is picking up on their hypocrisy.

–Mike Perry, Inkling blog , Seattle

The reason I omitted further diplomacy and discussion with Iran from my list of options is because it’s a list of end results, not means. Diplomacy and discussion is a means, not an end. It will either lead to option #3 if it works, or option #2 (or #1) if it doesn’t.

I realize now that there’s a fourth option that I didn’t list, though:

4. Nobody stops Iran, they achieve nuclear status, and we have another North Korea on our hands — except this one is sitting smack dab in the middle of the Middle East, ruled by fanatical Muslim theocrats who hate America and love sponsoring terrorism. And now they have nukes. Oh joy.

On a scale from good (on the left) to bad (on the right), here’s how I see these options:

Good ——— Bad, but could be worse ———— Horrible

#3——————–#2—-#1————————-#4

If left alone, I believe Iran will eventually reach point #4. I think #3 would be absolutely terrific, but short of a successful revolution in Iran that overthrows the mullahs, I really don’t see it happening.

Further diplomacy and discussion would be a really good idea, up to a point. That point is when it’s obvious that Iran, despite claiming it’s heading for #3, is heading for #4 instead, and it’s time to quit talking and start acting.

Bush has already proved that he will take action when he believes it’s necessary. Saddam Hussein had been given twelve years by the world to shape up, and he was still defiant. Pressure was mounting in the international community to remove the sanctions, which were proving ineffective: Hussein had proved that he was willing to let Iraqis die by the thousands due to lack of basic medicines, and spend the “Oil-for-Food” money on weapons instead of medicine & food. The only humanitarian thing to do for Iraq was to remove the sanctions, that was becoming obvious: but removing them with Hussein in power? What, are you crazy? The man was (still is) a raving megalomaniac. So Bush decided, “OK, we’ve talked and we’ve talked, and the situation’s never going to get better just by talking. Time for action.”

Kerry’s record is all talk. I don’t believe he’d ever be capable of recognizing when action is necessary and taking that action. Under a Kerry Presidency, Iran would continue claiming they were heading for option #3, really head for option #4, and the world would continue to believe them and engage them in debate and discussion until it was too late.

Oops! Is it? I always thought it was code for anti-American, anti-Semitic, backstabbing, ungrateful, holier-than-thou, elitist, pro-UN, pro-Palistinian, (the poor dears), hypocritical, pro-appeasement, dishonest, hygenically-challenged, and… well, French.

Which is largely what I think of Kerry, except that I can’t speak as to his personal hygene.

Redhunter – I never called any Bush supporter “stupid” or “simple”. I do believe people are having a basic human reaction to terrorism – they are scared. If the GOP media consultants use this fear to tailor their promotion of Pres. Bush to those who desire unambiguous action against the “bad men” who try to hurt us, then that’s nothing but savvy marketing.

Kevin – I really was not trying to insult anyone, even now as you are insulting me. Ms. Barber’s blog appeals to me because her commentary reminds me of that of the Southern Black women I grew up with in Virginia, esp. on religious and racial matters. No side of any debate has any more of a monopoly on intellect and sophistication than it would have on strength and conviction.

But let’s get sophisticated, shall we? What metrosexual let Osama bin Laden get away since 9/11? On what metrosexual’s watch has this country squandered a budget surplus and posted a net job loss for the first time since Herbert Hoover? Which metrosexual alienates sovereign allies during a global war on terror? Did we elect John Wayne or Carson Kressley? Incidentally, my father served two tours in Vietnam. He never talks about it.

Pres. Bush’s public persona and speech equates thoughtfulness with weakness, and weakness with effeminateness. Pres. Bush insults you by pretending that the war on terror can be won by bombing people of color while erasing your civil liberties. We care nothing for Sudan, do nothing about N. Korea, but Iraq suddenly became America’s last-ditch effort to attack al Qaeda? No. Bush is the candidate of Big Oil, insulting your good sense by pretending that the only solution to terrorism involves sacrificing American lives to protect international energy interests. I condemn no one for supporting the President; fear is a powerful motivator.