How Many Here Would Vote For The Following candidates,

[_Droopy]

Droopy wrote:
Saddam was attacked and deposed for several important reasons, not the least of which was to prevent his dismantled and dispersed (including dispersion outside Iraq) WMD programs from being reconstituted in the future (after the Oil for Food program had worked its magic and the heat was off). In other words, it was to prevent Saddam's WMD from ever becoming an imminent threat, or clear and present danger.

You mean the WMD programs that we never found after the Invasion? Yeah, all that stuff just magically disappeared into thin air the second US troops crossed into Iraq I guess...

Educate yourself on this issue. I'm not going to do it for you because:

1. You clearly do not have either the temperament or intellectual capability to be educated and
2. Its all over the web, in your local public library, and otherwise, at your fingertips. Your bull-in-a-china-closet ignorance here bespeaks a mind wasted, and that's a tragedy, regardless of political belief.

Droopy wrote:
I hope we never see a president - republican, democrat, or otherwise - that is willing to wait for a country like Iraq to demonstrate that they posess a nuclear weapons program capable of destroying the US before we decide to intervene. I can't fathom why people think that is a good idea.


Ok, I'm calling b***s*** on this. Show some evidence that Saddam even had the ability to seriously persue a nuclear weapons program. Considering the one reactor that Iraq had was inoperable thanks to the Israelis, I find that extremely difficult to believe.

I didn't write the post you're responding to.

Droopy wrote:
The really frightening, indeed, terrifying thing about this is that this individual represents the Democratic Party's voter base. Angus, following Mr. Franklin, deserves neither liberty or security.

I've never voted for a Democrat in my life, Dumbass. But thanks for confirming that you're an idiot that thinks that anyone that doesn't believe in your extremely narrow and poorly educated view of conservatism must be a "liberal" or a "socialist' or a "democrat".

In my experience, virtually all who disagree with the conservative/classical liberal political philosophy are of the Left. Either that, or they're of the extreme populist wing of the Right (Buchannanism) or the more extreme Rothbardian anarchist libertarians.

And why I'm talking to this person at all is quite beyond me. I think I'll stop.

[_Droopy]

Basically Bush took a reasonable harmless secular dictator and could keep the various tribal factions and Shia and Sunni fundamentalists from trying to kill each other and replaced him with a free-range cluster of religious and tribal clashes with all involved making a national past time of taking pot shoots at US troops.

This person isn't even anywhere on the scale. Pure, desperate, unremitting ignorance. Incredible. What I see here is an inability to even keep up to speed on the most recent political and military developments in Iraq, let alone the nature and history of Saddam's brutal regime (and his long standing state support for Al Quada and terrorism generally).

This is utterly fantastic.

[_Angus McAwesome]

Droopy wrote:
Saddam was attacked and deposed for several important reasons, not the least of which was to prevent his dismantled and dispersed (including dispersion outside Iraq) WMD programs from being reconstituted in the future (after the Oil for Food program had worked its magic and the heat was off). In other words, it was to prevent Saddam's WMD from ever becoming an imminent threat, or clear and present danger.

You mean the WMD programs that we never found after the Invasion? Yeah, all that stuff just magically disappeared into thin air the second US troops crossed into Iraq I guess...

Educate yourself on this issue. I'm not going to do it for you because:

1. You clearly do not have either the temperament or intellectual capability to be educated and
2. Its all over the web, in your local public library, and otherwise, at your fingertips. Your bull-in-a-china-closet ignorance here bespeaks a mind wasted, and that's a tragedy, regardless of political belief.

Ok, then if it's all over the web with many public sources to confirm it then show evidence for the WMDs Saddam had that we STILL HAVE NOT FOUND.

Oh, wait... You can't.

Dumbass.

I didn't write the post you're responding to.

So you didn't say "I hope we never see a president - republican, democrat, or otherwise - that is willing to wait for a country like Iraq to demonstrate that they posess a nuclear weapons program capable of destroying the US before we decide to intervene"?

Wow, you really are a dumbass.

In my experience, virtually all who disagree with the conservative/classical liberal political philosophy are of the Left. Either that, or they're of the extreme populist wing of the Right (Buchannanism) or the more extreme Rothbardian anarchist libertarians.

Once again, instead of saying something to prove your argument that Saddam really was a threat to the US and our national interests you pull out more ad hominem BS.

Achievement Unlocked - Dumbass Hattrick

And why I'm talking to this person at all is quite beyond me. I think I'll stop.

That'd be a great idea for you to stop... Only you didn't because you're a dumbass.

This person isn't even anywhere on the scale. Pure, desperate, unremitting ignorance. Incredible. What I see here is an inability to even keep up to speed on the most recent political and military developments in Iraq, let alone the nature and history of Saddam's brutal regime (and his long standing state support for Al Quada and terrorism generally).

Ok, shit-for-brains...

Answer the following:

1. What political developements under Saddam's rule after 1992 were credible threats to the United States or our interests in the region?

2. How did Saddam's treatment of his own populace present a threat to the United States or our interests in the region?

3. Show some credible evidence for Saddam having links to Al Qaeda (learn to spell the organizations name at least, moron).

Do that and you might have something useful to contribute to the thread instead of stealing oxygen in order to post moron of your usual dumbassery.

[_Droopy]

So you didn't say "I hope we never see a president - republican, democrat, or otherwise - that is willing to wait for a country like Iraq to demonstrate that they posess a nuclear weapons program capable of destroying the US before we decide to intervene"?

Nope.

[_GoodK]

So you didn't say "I hope we never see a president - republican, democrat, or otherwise - that is willing to wait for a country like Iraq to demonstrate that they posess a nuclear weapons program capable of destroying the US before we decide to intervene"?

Wow, you really are a dumbass.

No, you are. I said that, and wasn't saying that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program. I was saying I hope we never have a president who would wait as long as you are proposing.

Seriously Angus, there is no shame in changing your stance on an issue like this. Sometimes we are just misinformed.

[_bcspace]

1. What political developements under Saddam's rule after 1992 were credible threats to the United States or our interests in the region?

The fact that he did not abide by the 1991 cease-fire agreement. No new war was started, we simply finished off the first one which Saddam started.

2. How did Saddam's treatment of his own populace present a threat to the United States or our interests in the region?

Non sequitur nor a main reason given. The fact that we were now in a post 9/11 world is the primary reason given and very appropriate. The 9/11 terrorists had upped the ante with a successful direct attack against the US. It would've been more disasterous if WMD had been used. All major world intelligence agencies showed that Iraq had WMD. Saddam had used WMD before AND had harbored terrorists in the past. Therefore, going into Iraq is highly justified by this alone, the violation of the 1991 cease-fire not withstanding.

The finding of some tons of mustard gas is enough for me and should be for anyone. In addition, the final UN report is inconclusive and it is noted that much material left Iraq to Syria just before the war. And lo and behold, we have within the last year seen the Israeli's destroy a Syrian nuclear facility. Hmmmm.....

3. Show some credible evidence for Saddam having links to Al Qaeda

Also not a reason given. Such links were looked for but only circumstantial ones at best found or claimed before the resumption of the war. However, it was pointed out that a democracy in the Middle East could be very beneficial in the region. This has already been proven.

The only "dumbasses" here are those who opposed the resumption of the war and who oppose the Bush administration citing this reason.

[_Angus McAwesome]

No, you are. I said that, and wasn't saying that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program. I was saying I hope we never have a president who would wait as long as you are proposing.

GoodK, if stopping third world dictators and unfriendly governments from obtaining nuclear weapons was an actual priority of ours, then explain why we went after Saddam, whose weapons program was decades away from producing a viable devices (assuming they could ever get a working nuclear reactor and that various infrastructure assets for such a program, which they didn't have), when there are other nations out there that have the all of the industrial and scientific assets in place to produce a working nuclear device inside of five years (like oh... the DPRK or Iran...)?

So that whole "I hope we never stand by and let rogue nations build nukes" argument is BS from the start. It simply doesn't wash with Iraq as Saddam did not have the the industrial or scientific infrastructure assets needed to produce a viable weapon and there are other nations with the ability to actively peruse a viable nuclear weapons program that could deliver a working device in the near future.

Seriously Angus, there is no shame in changing your stance on an issue like this. Sometimes we are just misinformed.

Then by all means, change your stance. Iraq didn't have a viable nuclear weapons program, Iraq wasn't a threat to the United States directly or even an indirect threat to our interests and allies. He was a sabre rattling blowhard that we had contained very nicely and didn't even remotely pose enough of a threat to us to justify the loss of life of over 4000 US servicemen and the waste of several hundred billion tax dollars.

1. What political developments under Saddam's rule after 1992 were credible threats to the United States or our interests in the region?

The fact that he did not abide by the 1991 cease-fire agreement. No new war was started, we simply finished off the first one which Saddam started.

That presented a threat to the United States how? Oh, that's right... It didn't. Seriously, when are you, GoodK, or Drippy going to actually answer my question and show me what credible threat Saddam posed to the United States?

Quote:
2. How did Saddam's treatment of his own populace present a threat to the United States or our interests in the region?

Non sequitur nor a main reason given. The fact that we were now in a post 9/11 world is the primary reason given and very appropriate. The 9/11 terrorists had upped the ante with a successful direct attack against the US. It would've been more disasterous if WMD had been used. All major world intelligence agencies showed that Iraq had WMD. Saddam had used WMD before AND had harbored terrorists in the past. Therefore, going into Iraq is highly justified by this alone, the violation of the 1991 cease-fire not withstanding.

The finding of some tons of mustard gas is enough for me and should be for anyone. In addition, the final UN report is inconclusive and it is noted that much material left Iraq to Syria just before the war. And lo and behold, we have within the last year seen the Israeli's destroy a Syrian nuclear facility. Hmmmm.....

Ok...

1. Provide concrete evidence that Al Qeada's 9/11 attack was carried out with material support provided by Saddam's government.

2. All of the pre-war intelligence estimates about Saddam having had a significant enough of an amount of WMD to pose a threat to us have since been proven false. Please provide concrete evidence that Saddam actually had the WMD stockpiles or manufacturing capabilities that those false intelligence reports said he had.

3. A few tons of mustard gas isn't even remotely a threat to US. Go read up on blistering agents like mustard gas and you'll rapidly realize that a few tons of the stuff isn't even nearly enough to be a credible threat to anyone, much less the United States.

4. What the “F” do the Syrians and Israelis have to do with this topic?

Provide the above information and you might have a snowball's chance in hell of justifying the loss of over 4000 US Servicemen and several hundred billion tax dollars. I now this hasn't occured to your poor like far-right mind yet, but how much of a threat another nation poses is very much relevent to the decision making process concerning invading them.

Also, do you even know what the hell the term "non sequitor" even means?

3. Show some credible evidence for Saddam having links to Al Qaeda

Also not a reason given. Such links were looked for but only circumstantial ones at best found or claimed before the resumption of the war. However, it was pointed out that a democracy in the Middle East could be very beneficial in the region. This has already been proven.

The only "dumbasses" here are those who opposed the resumption of the war and who oppose the Bush administration citing this reason.[/quote]

Uh, bcspace, President Bush has been saying that the invasion and occupation of Iraq has been a part of the "War on Terror" for quite some time now, so asking for evidence of a direct link between Saddam and Al Qeada is very much relevant.


But here's a new question for all of you...

Someone explain to me what possible benefit there was to invading Iraq that is worth the direct expenses of over 4000 US Servicemen (go look up how much it costs to train and equip the average US soldier and you'll find thatw e lot a LOT of money on this, never mind the cost of life), and several hundred billion tax dollars, and the economic side effects that have occurred since the invasion?

[_Rollo Tomasi]

The first time I cast a vote for president it was for Ronald Reagan in 1984.

For what it's worth, here's my history of voting in presidential elections (to the best of my recollection):

1980 -- Reagan (EDITED TO ADD: in hindsight, I should have gone with Carter).

1984 -- Reagan

1988 -- Dukakis (I now think that Bush the 1st was pretty good, at least compared to his son).

1992 -- Clinton

1996 -- Clinton

2000 -- Bush the 2nd (which, in hindsight, was the greatest lapse of judgment in my life); I think it was more of a "no" vote to Gore, but I sure wish I could get a 'do over.'

2004 -- Kerry (by then, I knew that Bush the 2nd was the worst president in history).

2008? -- leaning towards Obama.

[_GoodK]

Basically Bush took a reasonable harmless secular dictator and could keep the various tribal factions and Shia and Sunni fundamentalists from trying to kill each other and replaced him with a free-range cluster of religious and tribal clashes with all involved making a national past time of taking pot shoots at US troops.

This person isn't even anywhere on the scale. Pure, desperate, unremitting ignorance. Incredible. What I see here is an inability to even keep up to speed on the most recent political and military developments in Iraq, let alone the nature and history of Saddam's brutal regime (and his long standing state support for Al Quada and terrorism generally).

This is utterly fantastic.

It really is. I am embarrassed for Angus and his garbled, adolescent harangue. How he can be this ignorant is beyond me.

Educate yourself on this issue. I'm not going to do it for you because:

1. You clearly do not have either the temperament or intellectual capability to be educated and
2. Its all over the web, in your local public library, and otherwise, at your fingertips. Your bull-in-a-china-closet ignorance here bespeaks a mind wasted, and that's a tragedy, regardless of political belief.

Ouch. Yes, I feel Angus is beyond persuasion. I tried to lead this jack-ass to water -- graciously using non conservative, antitheist articles -- without personal attacks or ad hominems and what does he do? He takes the olive branch being extended to him and pokes himself in the eye with it. What can I do?

Basically Bush took a reasonable harmless secular dictator and could keep the various tribal factions and Shia and Sunni fundamentalists from trying to kill each other and replaced him with a free-range cluster of religious and tribal clashes with all involved making a national past time of taking pot shoots at US troops.

But hey, rationalize that s*** all you want to, GoodK. Just provide some concrete evidence justifying us having gotten into this situation that doesn't sound like slurping on the GOP dick.

What sort of evidence do you expect me to have, you inarticulate potty mouth? Seriously? Do you think speaking like a transient crack whore strengthens your argument? I have tried to point you in the right direction -- and frankly all you have done is talked crap. Now BCspace, of all people, comes out looking more intelligent than you. A Creationist homophobe. Good job.

You dishonest son of a bitch... Show me where I said that Saddam was at all innocent.

Fine, you unlettered, nescient fool :

Basically Bush took a reasonable harmless secular dictator...

Then show how and why he was an actual threat to us. Instead of dismissing my questions and hiding behind some hack journalist how about you show something concrete for once, dumbass.

A hack journalist? You really are hilarious. You would fit in well at the Bizarro FARMS review. Hitchens is a world-class journalist - and again, it doesn't matter what you think of him. Turn off TRL, log out of World of Warcraft, and do some reading. Jesus.

Here again is my first post to you, maybe you missed it the first time. I, like Droopy, wonder what I am doing wasting my time with such a belligerent, uninformed moron.

Sweet Zombie Jesus... The Free Republic? They're about as unbiased a source as Fox News.

Actually, it originally appeared here, Slate is owned by the Washinton Post. Christopher Hitchens doesn't work or write for The Free Republic. I linked to Free Republic because it came up on my Google.

The question then, becomes this: Should the date or timing of this unpostponable confrontation have been left to Saddam Hussein to pick?

Every time some Republitard drags this broke down horse out....

I am not a Republican, but I do stand by my position--despite the trendy, yet tired old song that Saddam was no threat to the U.S.

I've realized that usually people who watch MTV and have a very limited understanding of world history usually say this.

...I like to ask them exactly how and with what Saddam's Iraq would have been able to confront us.

Here, it is simply astonishing how many people remain willing to give Saddam Hussein the benefit of the doubt

It's not all about catching Saddam with his finger on the button, unfortunately. There is some history to consider -- much more history than what is found in Loose Change.

He had no navy to speak of, his remaining air force was a pathetic joke, and his longest ranged ballistic missile system was barely able to hit targets in Israel, much less threaten the continental United States. So once again, where was the threat?

Saddam's regime made it impossible to conduct serious inspections, first of all. Second, the Kay inquiry has already revealed compelling evidence indicating "a complex concealment program, of the designing of missiles well beyond the permitted legal range, of the intimidation of scientists and witnesses, and of the incubation of deadly biological toxins."

"The Baathists declared a very impressive stockpile of weapons as late as 1999 and never cared to inform the U.N inspectorate what they had done with it."

"I am pleased to notice the disappearance from the peacenik argument of one line of attack—namely that Saddam Hussein was "too secular" to have anything to do with jihad forces. The alliance between his murderous fedayeen and the jihadists is now visible to all—perhaps there are some who are still ready to believe that this connection only began this year. Meanwhile, an increasing weight of disclosure shows that the Iraqi Mukhabarat both sought and achieved contact with the Bin Laden forces in the 1990s and subsequently. Again, was one to watch this happening and hope that it remained relatively low-level?"

Much more salient is the story of Saddam's dealings with Kim Jong-il. You may remember the secret and disguised shipload of North Korean Scuds, intercepted on its way to Yemen by the Spanish navy just before war began... "

"there are reams of verifiable contact between al-Qaida and Baghdad. Bin Laden supported Saddam, and his supporters still do, and where do you think this lovely friendship was going?"

"Even more interesting is the fashion in which the deal broke down. Having paid some $10 million dollars to North Korea, the Iraqi side found that foot-dragging was going on—this is the discussion revealed on one of the hard drives—and sought a meeting about where the money might be refunded. North Korea's explanation for its slipped deadline was that things were getting a little ticklish. In the month before the coalition intervened in Iraq, Saddam's envoys came back empty-handed from a meeting in Damascus. It doesn't take a rocket scientist (just for once I can use this expression without toppling into cliché) to deduce that the presence of a large force all along Iraq's borders might have had something to do with North Korea's cold feet."

Finally:

"So the "drumbeat" scared off the deal-makers, and Saddam Hussein never did get Rodong missiles, which might have been able to hit targets far away from Iraq. Elsewhere in the Kay report, there is convincing evidence that Iraqi scientists were working on missiles, and missile fuels, with ranges longer than those permitted by the United Nations. So there is an explanation for why the completed and readied material was never "found" by inspectors before or after the invasion: It hadn't been acquired quite yet. Which meant that Saddam could not confront the international community in the way that North Korea has lately been doing, by brandishing weapons that do in fact have deterrent power. As in previous cases—the parts of a nuclear centrifuge found in the yard of Iraqi scientist Mehdi Obeidi, for example—the man in charge of these covert weapons programs was Saddam's son Qusai. I find I can live with the idea that Qusai never got to succeed his father as Kim Jong-il did. Imagine a North Korea, with attitude, on the sea lanes of the Persian Gulf—and with "deniable" but undeniable ties to al-Qaida. That was in our future if action had not been taken."

[_Angus McAwesome]

Fine, you unlettered, nescient fool :

Basically Bush took a reasonable harmless secular dictator...

So I guess you can't read at all. Since when does "reasonable harmless" mean "innocent", idiot? Like I said, you're a dishonest asshole.

A hack journalist? You really are hilarious.

Anyone that tries to seriously defend Bush's assissine decision to invade Iraq is a hack. I don't give a crap if they've got a dozen Pulitzers sitting on their mantle, just trying to regurgitate excuses for the crap Bush has pulled to get us into iraq is enough to make them a hack.

Turn off TRL, log out of World of Warcraft, and do some reading. Jesus.

I see you're now subscribing to the Drippy La Douche school of ad hominems, dumbas.

Here again is my first post to you, maybe you missed it the first time. I, like Droopy, wonder what I am doing wasting my time with such a belligerent, uninformed moron.

Ok, let's review you're "evidence", shall we?

The question then, becomes this: Should the date or timing of this unpostponable confrontation have been left to Saddam Hussein to pick?

Hitchins says that a confrontation with Saddam was unpostponable, yet offers nothing more then his opinion to back this. Wow, that sure is convincing...

I've realized that usually people who watch MTV and have a very limited understanding of world history usually say this.

Any time you want to debate history, I'm game, GoodK. See, you can toss about worthless ad homs like this all you want and I'll just call you on it. Pick a subject and we'll debate it. Otherwise, shut your damned frool mouth, boy.

Back to going over your "evidence"...

Here, it is simply astonishing how many people remain willing to give Saddam Hussein the benefit of the doubt

It's not all about catching Saddam with his finger on the button, unfortunately. There is some history to consider -- much more history than what is found in Loose Change.

Don't have to catch them with their figure on a button at all. What you do need to do is demonstrate a clear threat to you in order to justify an attack.

Here's an experiment you can perform to show you what I'm talking about. Go walk down the street and the first black guy you see dressed like a "thug", go up to him and punch him a few times. After he gets done beating you in to paste and the cop asks why you assaulted the guy, you try and tell the cop you "thought he might be a threat to you someday".

Because that's exactly the same sort of justification your offering for our invasion of Iraq.

Saddam's regime made it impossible to conduct serious inspections, first of all. Second, the Kay inquiry has already revealed compelling evidence indicating "a complex concealment program, of the designing of missiles well beyond the permitted legal range, of the intimidation of scientists and witnesses, and of the incubation of deadly biological toxins."

I can name dozens of countries, including the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, that refuse to comply with UN inspections. In fact, the US has not just concealed research into nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, we've engaged in massive proliferation of them for decades, possess the means to threaten the entire would with them, and have a long history of belligerent and hostile behavior towars other nations.

Based on your justification for invading Iraq then anyone with the will to do so would be perfectly justified in invading the US.

Also, I still want to know where all the illegal missiles, biowarfare labs, and all that were supposed to find after invading are at...

"The Baathists declared a very impressive stockpile of weapons as late as 1999 and never cared to inform the U.N inspectorate what they had done with it."

Ok, let's see this official state declaration made by the Iraqi government. Also, while you're at it, where the hell are all these WMDs we were supposed to find?

"I am pleased to notice the disappearance from the peacenik argument of one line of attack—namely that Saddam Hussein was "too secular" to have anything to do with jihad forces. The alliance between his murderous fedayeen and the jihadists is now visible to all—perhaps there are some who are still ready to believe that this connection only began this year. Meanwhile, an increasing weight of disclosure shows that the Iraqi Mukhabarat both sought and achieved contact with the Bin Laden forces in the 1990s and subsequently. Again, was one to watch this happening and hope that it remained relatively low-level?"

Ok, let's see this "increasing weight of disclosure" that demonstrates a clear link between the Iraqi government and material support of Al Qeada. I hear a lot of talk about there being evidence, but I'm still not seeing any.

Much more salient is the story of Saddam's dealings with Kim Jong-il. You may remember the secret and disguised shipload of North Korean Scuds, intercepted on its way to Yemen by the Spanish navy just before war began... "

Oh no, not more scuds... You mean the same Scuds that aren't a threat to us thanks to advanced theater and area defense systems we've had in service for over a decade now? Also, why didn't we invade the DPRK? I mean, we have actual confirmation that Kim Jong Il had a viable, working nuclear weapons program, right...

Instead we go after Iraqi's broke ass. That sure makes a lot of sense.

"there are reams of verifiable contact between al-Qaida and Baghdad. Bin Laden supported Saddam, and his supporters still do, and where do you think this lovely friendship was going?"

Ok, then show those reams of verifiable contact. Don't tell me about it, SHOW ME. Unless evidence is provided this is nothing more then hearsay.

"Even more interesting is the fashion in which the deal broke down. Having paid some $10 million dollars to North Korea, the Iraqi side found that foot-dragging was going on—this is the discussion revealed on one of the hard drives—and sought a meeting about where the money might be refunded. North Korea's explanation for its slipped deadline was that things were getting a little ticklish. In the month before the coalition intervened in Iraq, Saddam's envoys came back empty-handed from a meeting in Damascus. It doesn't take a rocket scientist (just for once I can use this expression without toppling into cliché) to deduce that the presence of a large force all along Iraq's borders might have had something to do with North Korea's cold feet."

Seriously, who cares. Other then showing that North Korea was and is a much greater threat to our national interests then Iraq ever was, what is the point of this BS?

"So the "drumbeat" scared off the deal-makers, and Saddam Hussein never did get Rodong missiles, which might have been able to hit targets far away from Iraq. Elsewhere in the Kay report, there is convincing evidence that Iraqi scientists were working on missiles, and missile fuels, with ranges longer than those permitted by the United Nations. So there is an explanation for why the completed and readied material was never "found" by inspectors before or after the invasion: It hadn't been acquired quite yet. Which meant that Saddam could not confront the international community in the way that North Korea has lately been doing, by brandishing weapons that do in fact have deterrent power. As in previous cases—the parts of a nuclear centrifuge found in the yard of Iraqi scientist Mehdi Obeidi, for example—the man in charge of these covert weapons programs was Saddam's son Qusai. I find I can live with the idea that Qusai never got to succeed his father as Kim Jong-il did. Imagine a North Korea, with attitude, on the sea lanes of the Persian Gulf—and with "deniable" but undeniable ties to al-Qaida. That was in our future if action had not been taken."

Oh no... Saddam was trying to buy more Scud-1's? So the great big threat was Saddam trying to get his hand on theater range missiles he ALREADY HAD that were well with in compliance of what he was allowed to have.

If that's the best you've got to offer, GoodK, then just give the “F” up.