[OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.

[Rigelian]

I said it was a rant because it was essentially a rehashing of what he said before, and it was an attempt to overwhelm my point with potentially (though not necessarily) true statements that did not actually contradict the point.

Not what I would understand by 'rant' then - actually it sounds more like legal cross-examination technique to me..

[tesco samoa]

Standard Operating Procedure
By PAUL KRUGMAN

The mystery of Iraq's missing weapons of mass destruction has become a lot less mysterious. Recent reports in major British newspapers and three major American news magazines, based on leaks from angry intelligence officials, back up the sources who told my colleague Nicholas Kristof that the Bush administration "grossly manipulated intelligence" about W.M.D.'s.

And anyone who talks about an "intelligence failure" is missing the point. The problem lay not with intelligence professionals, but with the Bush and Blair administrations. They wanted a war, so they demanded reports supporting their case, while dismissing contrary evidence.

In Britain, the news media have not been shy about drawing the obvious implications, and the outrage has not been limited to war opponents. The Times of London was ardently pro-war; nonetheless, it ran an analysis under the headline "Lie Another Day." The paper drew parallels between the selling of the war and other misleading claims: "The government is seen as having `spun' the threat from Saddam's weapons just as it spins everything else."

Yet few have made the same argument in this country, even though "spin" is far too mild a word for what the Bush administration does, all the time. Suggestions that the public was manipulated into supporting an Iraq war gain credibility from the fact that misrepresentation and deception are standard operating procedure for this administration, which - to an extent never before seen in U.S. history - systematically and brazenly distorts the facts.

Am I exaggerating? Even as George Bush stunned reporters by declaring that we have "found the weapons of mass destruction," the Republican National Committee declared that the latest tax cut benefits "everyone who pays taxes." That is simply a lie. You've heard about those eight million children denied any tax break by a Last-minute switcheroo. In total, 50 million American households - including a majority of those with members over 65 - get nothing; another 20 million receive less than $100 each. And a great majority of those left behind do pay taxes.

And the bald-faced misrepresentation of an elitist tax cut offering little or nothing to most Americans is only the latest in a long string of blatant misstatements. Misleading the public has been a consistent strategy for the Bush team on issues ranging from tax policy and Social Security reform to energy and the environment. So why should we give the administration the benefit of the doubt on foreign policy?

It's long past time for this administration to be held accountable. Over the Last two years we've become accustomed to the pattern. Each time the administration comes up with another whopper, partisan supporters - a group that includes a large segment of the news media - obediently insist that black is white and up is down. Meanwhile the "liberal" media report only that some people say that black is black and up is up. And some Democratic politicians offer the administration invaluable cover by making excuses and playing down the extent of the lies.

If this same lack of accountability extends to matters of war and peace, we're in very deep trouble. The British seem to understand this: Max Hastings, the veteran war correspondent - who supported Britain's participation in the war - writes that "the prime minister committed British troops and sacrificed British lives on the basis of a deceit, and it stinks."

It's no answer to say that Saddam was a murderous tyrant. I could point out that many of the neoconservatives who fomented this war were nonchalant, or worse, about mass murders by Central American death squads in the 1980's. But the important point is that this isn't about Saddam: it's about us. The public was told that Saddam posed an imminent threat. If that claim was fraudulent, the selling of the war is arguably the worst scandal in American political history - worse than Watergate, worse than Iran-contra. Indeed, the idea that we were deceived into war makes many commentators so uncomfortable that they refuse to admit the possibility.

But here's the thought that should make those commentators really uncomfortable. Suppose that this administration did con us into war. And suppose that it is not held accountable for its deceptions, so Mr. Bush can fight what Mr. Hastings calls a "khaki election" next year. In that case, our political system has become utterly, and perhaps irrevocably, corrupted.

source: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/03/opinion/03KRUG.html

p.s. still no real news on the WMD find in DC

[tbontob]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
I said it was a rant because it was essentially a rehashing of what he said before, and it was an attempt to overwhelm my point with potentially (though not necessarily) true statements that did not actually contradict the point.

No Fyron, if anything, my feelings are you were trying to embarrass him by calling it a rant.

You are the only person on this forum, that I know of, who consistently declares that another person's comments are a rant.

The fact that you are unable to come up with a source which validates your definition leads me to suspect:
a) it is not true
b) if it is true it is colloquial/slang.

My own searches have not come up with a definition which matches yours.

And until you can come up with a definition from a valid and accepted source like Webster’s, Oxford or Cambridge, for your so-called definition, it is at most colloquial/slang.

It is rude and disrespectful to characterize someone’s comments as a rant because you think he has repeated himself.

[ June 03, 2003, 16:29: Message edited by: tbontob ]

[tesco samoa]

you posters should take this off-line. not here

[teal]

I agree wholeheartidly. Whatever happened to the interesting "OT:Politics" thread? I'm very sorry for my role in derailing it into the realm of polemics. Isn't it interesting how the big issues can result in well mannered discussions, but on little things people tend to hold the line and not give up an inch?

[kalthalior]

Byron York, reply to Krugman's WMD NYT article:

WEAPONS OF MASS DECEPTION?
"To the president's opponents, the mother of all Bush "lies" is the administration's case for going to war in Iraq, specifically the president's claim that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. "So whose books were more cooked — Enron's accounts of its financial doings or the administration's prewar reports on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction?" asked Harold Meyerson of The American Prospect, in a column published in the Washington Post. The administration's position, Meyerson concluded, was "as phony a casus belli as the destruction of the Maine in Havana Harbor."

It's an argument that's been heard more and more in recent weeks. "Does it matter that we were misled into war?" asked the New York Times's Paul Krugman. Bush's statements about weapons of mass destruction were "one of the administration's Big Lies of the war on Iraq," wrote The Nation's David Corn. And Democratic senator Robert Byrd has issued almost daily allegations that Bush lied about Iraq.

Such accusations are risky — after all, the search for Iraqi weapons is ongoing, and any day might bring a significant discovery, or evidence that weapons have been destroyed. Still, for the sake of argument, assume there is no discovery. Does that mean Bush was lying?

In the months leading up to the war, there was a bipartisan consensus that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction; the real debate was between those who believed that Saddam would have to be disarmed by force and those who wanted to rely on U.N. inspectors to contain him. The world knew from those inspectors that, when Last checked, Iraq had large stores of anthrax and nerve gas. The world also knew that before the first Gulf War, Iraq had an aggressive nuclear-weapons program. Last December, there was general agreement that Iraq's 12,000-page declaration of its weapons programs was grossly incomplete. And in January of this year, former Clinton administration officials Kenneth Pollack and Martin Indyk wrote in the New York Times that Iraq "must be made to account for the thousands of tons of chemical precursors, the thousands of liters of biological warfare agents, the thousands of missing chemical munitions, the unaccounted-for Scud missiles, and the weaponized VX poison that the United Nations has itself declared missing."

Such a consensus makes it extremely difficult to argue that the president lied about Iraq and WMD; if the administration's case was a lie, then everybody, including much of the political opposition, was in on it. Just as importantly, if it turns out that prewar estimates of Iraq's capabilities were incorrect, the Bush administration can say — truthfully — that it erred on the side of protecting American national security. One could argue that the White House paid insufficient attention to intelligence indicating a threat to American security before September 11. One could also argue that this administration was therefore determined not to underestimate future threats. "What 9/11 did was teach a generation of policymakers to interpret things in an alarmed rather than a relaxed way," says one former administration official.

Did that make the Iraq campaign a lie? The equivalent of Enron bookkeeping? Only the president's most fevered enemies would try to make that case."

I wouldn't describe Krugman, and the paper he works for, as exactly the most fair & unbiased source for information.

[tesco samoa]

The original charges against Iraq, presented to the United Nations and the American public, were explicitly about the weapons themselves.

On Aug. 26, 2002, Vice President Cheney told the VFW National Convention: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."

On Sept. 12, 2002, Bush told the U.N. General Assembly: "United Nations inspections also revealed that Iraq likely maintains stockpiles of VX, mustard and other chemical agents, and that the regime is rebuilding and expanding facilities capable of producing chemical weapons."

On Dec. 2, 2002, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said Hussein would be "misleading the world" if he denied having the Banned weapons. A month later, on Jan. 9, Fleischer asserted: "We know for a fact that there are weapons there."

In Bush's State of the Union address on Jan. 28, he cited evidence that Hussein had enough materials to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin and as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agents.

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, in the same speech to the U.N. on Feb. 5 in which he discussed evidence of the mobile weapons labs Bush referred to Last week, argued: "We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, he's determined to make more."

A month later, on March 7, Powell told the United Nations that Hussein has "clearly not" made a decision to "disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction."

In his Feb. 8 radio address, the president asserted: "We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."

On March 30 on ABC News's "This Week," Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said of the prohibited weapons: "We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.

Dick Cheney
Speech to VFW National Convention
August 26, 2002

Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.

George W. Bush
Speech to UN General Assembly
September 12, 2002

If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.

Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
December 2, 2002

We know for a fact that there are weapons there.

Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
January 9, 2003

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.

George W. Bush
State of the Union Address
January 28, 2003

We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.

Colin Powell
Remarks to UN Security Council
February 5, 2003

We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.

George W. Bush
Radio Address
February 8, 2003

If Iraq had disarmed itself, gotten rid of its weapons of mass destruction over the past 12 years, or over the Last several months since (UN Resolution) 1441 was enacted, we would not be facing the crisis that we now have before us . . . But the suggestion that we are doing this because we want to go to every country in the Middle East and rearrange all of its pieces is not correct.

Colin Powell
Interview with Radio France International
February 28, 2003

So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? . . . I think our judgment has to be clearly not.

Colin Powell
Remarks to UN Security Council
March 7, 2003

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.

George W. Bush
Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003

Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.

Ari Fleisher
Press Briefing
March 21, 2003

There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. And . . . as this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them.

Gen. Tommy Franks
Press Conference
March 22, 2003

I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction.

Defense Policy Board member Kenneth Adelman
Washington Post, p. A27
March 23, 2003

One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites.

Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark
Press Briefing
March 22, 2003

We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.

Donald Rumsfeld
ABC Interview
March 30, 2003

Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of mass destruction U.S. forces find -- and there will be plenty.

Neocon scholar Robert Kagan
Washington Post op-ed
April 9, 2003

But make no mistake -- as I said earlier -- we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found.

Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
April 10, 2003

We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them.

George W. Bush
NBC Interview
April 24, 2003

There are people who in large measure have information that we need . . . so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country.

Donald Rumsfeld
Press Briefing
April 25, 2003

We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so.

George W. Bush
Remarks to Reporters
May 3, 2003

I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now.

Colin Powell
Remarks to Reporters
May 4, 2003

We never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country.

Donald Rumsfeld
Fox News Interview
May 4, 2003

I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein -- because he had a weapons program.

George W. Bush
Remarks to Reporters
May 6, 2003

U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and find" weapons of mass destruction.

Condoleeza Rice
Reuters Interview
May 12, 2003

I just don't know whether it was all destroyed years ago -- I mean, there's no question that there were chemical weapons years ago -- whether they were destroyed right before the war, (or) whether they're still hidden.

Maj. Gen. David Petraeus, Commander 101st Airborne
Press Briefing
May 13, 2003

Before the war, there's no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical. I expected them to be found. I still expect them to be found.

Gen. Michael Hagee, Commandant of the Marine Corps
Interview with Reporters
May 21, 2003

Given time, given the number of prisoners now that we're interrogating, I'm confident that we're going to find weapons of mass destruction.

Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff
NBC Today Show interview
May 26, 2003

They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer.

Donald Rumsfeld
Remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations
May 27, 2003

For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.

Paul Wolfowitz
Vanity Fair interview
May 28, 2003

It was a surprise to me then — it remains a surprise to me now — that we have not uncovered weapons, as you say, in some of the forward dispersal sites. Believe me, it's not for lack of trying. We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they're simply not there.

Lt. Gen. James Conway, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force
Press Interview
May 30, 2003

Do I think we're going to find something? Yeah, I kind of do, because I think there's a lot of information out there."

Maj. Gen. Keith Dayton, Defense Intelligence Agency
Press Conference
May 30, 2003

First -- and this is really the overarching principle -- the United States seeks to liberate Iraq, not occupy Iraq . . . If the President should decide to use force, let me assure you again that the United States would be committed to liberating the people of Iraq, not becoming an occupation force.

Paul Wolfowitz
Speech to Iraqi-American Community
February 23, 2003

The United States has no intention of determining the precise form of Iraq's new government. That choice belongs to the Iraqi people. Yet, we will ensure that one brutal dictator is not replaced by another. All Iraqis must have a voice in the new government . . .

George W. Bush
Speech to the American Enterprise Institute
February 26, 2003

We will help the Iraqi people to find the benefits and assume the duties of self-government. The form of those institutions will arise from Iraq's own culture and its own choices.

George W. Bush
Speech at MacDill AFB
March 26, 2003

But as soon as possible, we want to have working alongside the commander an interim Iraqi authority, people representing the people of Iraq. And, as that authority grows and gets greater credibility from the people of Iraq, we want to turn over more and more responsibilities to them.

Colin Powell
Press Conference
March 26, 2003

The goal is an Iraq that stands on its own feet and that governs itself in freedom and in unity and with respect for the rights of all its citizens. We'd like to get to that goal as quickly as possible.

Paul Wolfowitz
Interview with 60 Minutes II
April 1, 2003

I can assure you that we all want to end this as soon as possible, so we can get on with the task of allowing the Iraqi people to form a new government.

Colin Powell
Press Conference in Belgrade
April 2, 2003

We will leave Iraq completely in the hands of Iraqis as quickly as possible.

Condoleeza Rice
Press Briefing
April 4, 2003

We want to see a situation where power and responsibility is transferred as quickly as possible to the Iraqis themselves, with as much international assistance as possible . . .We have no desire to occupy Iraq . . .

Paul Wolfowitz
Testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee
April 10, 2003

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, could you give us an idea of your views of the interim administration (of Iraq), how quickly it might be set up . . . ?

SECRETARY POWELL: We are anxious to move quickly now that the day of liberation is drawing near. I don't know when it will happen. But, certainly, we can see what's going to happen in the not-too-distant future, we hope.

Colin Powell
Press Conference
April 4, 2003

The task is to create an environment that is sufficiently permissive that the Iraqi people can fashion a new government. And what they will do is come together in one way or another and select an interim authority of some kind. Then that group will propose a constitution and a more permanent authority of some kind. And over some period of months, the Iraqis will have their government selected by Iraqi people.

Donald Rumsfeld
Meet the Press
April 13, 2003

After (Gen. Jay Garner) finishes his job of restoring basic services, the interim Iraqi authority will be established. And that interim authority will be an authority of Iraqis, chosen by Iraqis. And it will be able to function as an authority in the country immediately after Gen. Garner's job is finished, which should be only a few weeks.

Ahmed Chalabi, Chairman of the Iraqi National Congress
Meet the Press
April 13, 2003

I think what we are so proud of is governments which permit their populace to be involved in a process that provides them freedom, provides them liberty. And I think what we will see in the months and years ahead in Iraq will provide a bit of a model for how that can be done . . . . because, Tony, it will be the Iraqi people who decide how to do that, and they will do it on their terms.

Gen. Tommy Franks
Fox News Interview
April 13, 2003

Soon Iraqis will be able to give us guidance about how to move forward and create an Iraqi interim authority. And that authority will begin to allow Iraqis to have sovereignty over their country and in a way that Iraqis will choose; they will create an Iraqi Government.

Marc Grossman, Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs
Interview with Free Iraqi Television
April 16, 2003

The coalition supports the formation, as soon as possible, of the Iraqi Interim Authority -- a transitional administration, run by Iraqis, until a government is established by the people of Iraq through elections. The Interim Authority should be broad-based and fully representative.

Zalmay Khalilzad, Special U.S. Envoy to Iraq
Wall Street Journal op-ed
April 17, 2003

The new ruler of Iraq is going to be an Iraqi. I don't rule anything.

Gen. Jay Garner
Press Interview
April 21, 2003

I think you'll begin to see the governmental process start next week, by the end of next week. It will have Iraqi faces on it. It will be governed by the Iraqis.

Gen. Jay Garner
Press Conference in Baghdad
April 24, 2003

If you're suggesting, how would we feel about an Iranian-type government with a few clerics running everything in the country, the answer is: That isn't going to happen.

Donald Rumsfield
Interview with Associated Press
April 24, 2003

As freedom takes hold in Iraq, the Iraqi people will choose their own leaders and their own government. America has no intention of imposing our form of government or our culture. Yet, we will ensure that all Iraqis have a voice in the new government . . .

George W. Bush
Speech in Dearborne, Michigan
April 28, 2003

By the middle of (this) month, you'll really see a beginning of a nucleus of an Iraqi government with an Iraqi face on it that is dealing with the coalition.

Gen. Jay Garner
Press Conference
May 5, 2003

Soon, Iraqis from every ethnic group will choose members of an interim authority. The people of Iraq are building a free society from the ground up, and they are able to do so because the dictator and his regime are no more.

George W. Bush
Address at the University of South Carolina
May 9, 2003

We will provide the conditions for Iraqis to govern themselves in the future. To that end, the Coalition Provisional Authority will work with responsible Iraqis to begin the process of establishing a government representative of all the Iraqi people.

L. Paul Bremer, Special Envoy to Iraq
Press Conference in Baghdad
May 15, 2003

When Iraqi officials are in a position to shoulder their country's responsibilities, when they have in place the necessary political and other structures to provide food, security and the other necessities, the coalition will have a strong interest in seeing them run their own affairs.

Douglas Feith, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy
Testimony Before the House International Relations Committee
May 15, 2003

We are interested in the quick creation of an Iraqi interim authority and in Iraq's democracy.
Marc Grossman, Undersecretary of State
Interview with China Phoenix TV
May 16, 2003

I've read a report in the American press about a delay (in the transitional authority). I don't know where these stories are coming from because we haven't delayed anything.

L. Paul Bremer
Remarks to Press in Mosul
May 18, 2003

I would think we are talking about more like sometime in July to get a national conference put together.

L. Paul Bremer
Remarks to Reporters in Baghdad
May 21, 2003

As Thomas Jefferson put it, "we are not to expect to be translated from despotism to liberty in a featherbed." It took time and patience, but eventually our Founders got it right -- and we hope so will the people of Iraq -- over time.

Donald Rumsfeld
Wall Street Journal op-ed
May 27, 2003

While our goal is to put functional and political authority in the hands of Iraqis as soon as possible, the Coalition Provisional Authority has the responsibility to fill the vacuum of power . . . by asserting temporary authority over the country. The coalition will do so. It will not tolerate self-appointed "leaders."

Donald Rumsfeld
Speech to the Council on Foreign Relations
May 27, 2003

It will be difficult for a free political life in Iraq to flourish until the conditions are set, but it is a project that we're working on.

Douglas Feith, Undersecretary of Defense
Foreign Press Briefing
May 28, 2003

They told us, "Liberation now," and then they made it occupation. Bush said he was a liberator, not an occupier, and we supported the United States on this basis.

Ahmed Chalabi, Chairman of the Iraqi National Congress
Interview with Trudy Rubin, Philadelphia Inquirer columnist
May 29, 2003

Question: When do you think there might be a government in place, even a provisional government in place in Iraq?

Rumsfeld: I don't know.

Donald Rumsfeld
Infinity Radio Town Hall
May 29, 2003

The CPA (Coalition Provisional Authority) is going to be in charge until there is a sovereign representative, democratic Iraqi government chosen.

Anonymous CPA Official
Interview with The Washington Times
June 2, 2003

just some quotes... they tell their own story quite well.

[tesco samoa]

one Last interesting article

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?nav=hptop_ts

[Narrew]

just some quotes... they tell their own story quite well.

Tesco, true. I doubt that all the nay-sayers will ever be satisfied, and if it is proven that there are WMDs will they apologise? I doubt it.

I would think we all would admit that Saddam SAID he HAD WMDs. Previous inspectors SAID they had them. The Iraqies were very good at hiding things, the chem labs on the trucks were NOT remote baby milk factories.

I don't believe that Saddam destroyed his WMDs, if so, all he had to do was let the U.N. Inspectors back in and he would still be in power.
Bush and Company did tell Saddam thats all he had to do and he would live...NOW

Just as France, Germany and Russia didn't think Bush would follow through with his ultimatium, Saddam (I am sure) was assured that Bush wouldn't follow through either. But supprise, supprise, a politition did what he said. Caught off guard, why would Saddam use his WMDs against a professional army that is prepared for them. Why not take you losses and live another day. Try and move the WMDs out of the country (to Syria more likely) and make the heathens pay.

Turkey screwed us up, if we could have went through Turkey, we might have been able to get troops to the main trails into Syria. Also, I heard that freeze drying these bio-weapons, you can have enough matieral (size of a small envelope) for restarting manufacturing.

In the U.S. if there are no more WMDs are found, the public wont get bent out of shape. We have seen the mass graves, the children that was in prision ect...I am sure many Americans would say that Saddam and his son's were WMDs. The big thing though, we need to find more WMDs for our foreigen "friends". If we don't, then there will be problem.

I say in the next 6 months we will know for sure. Unlike all the anti-Iraq war people, I know that things will not be found overnight. We will, and when we do, I am sure all the media that was against this war will not say a peep. Also, I hope in the next 6 months the new Iraqi goverment will be picking up steam. If I remember correctly, it took over 2 years to get Japans new goverment up to speed. And I would think that there are some similuaries between Imperial Japan and Dictatorship Iraq. So if we couldn't fast track a goverment in Japan, do not expect us to be able to do it in Iraq.

whew, my fingers hurt

[teal]

*If* I remember my history correctly...

In world war II justification for making nuclear weapons was that Hitler was making them. At end of the war is was discovered that Nazi nuclear weapons project was a complete joke. Then many people felt bad about making nuclear weapons, many other people felt good about it.

No point. I just find the parallel somewhat interesting to think about.