NO! Chemical weapons in Iraq???
 

Hundreds of chemical weapons found in Iraq

From an intelligence report with portions of it just declassified today:

Now I'm going to point out first of all that this article clearly states that the weapons were quite degraded to varying degrees. However, something tells me I still don't want to be around degraded mustard or sarin gas.

I, for one, have always believed they were there. As the link says, they are expecting to find more because they find them all the time. While this may not prove Saddam was trying to make more, I think it is clear that there was no mistaking that he had not destroyed his WMD chem weapons. 500 or so is a lot, regardless of condition. You don't just casually mix WMD with other munitions. Maybe one or two by mistake, but not 500.

One other thing I found to be very interesting -

Depending on the form, 500 is all that much either.

But if it is all degraded then odds are this is pre-first Gulf War stuff which means it is somewhat likely that we were the original source for Iraq having it.

Of course, if it was all degraded it also means that Iraq wasn't even capable of maintaining what it already had which doesn't speak well to the likelihood of them being able to develop more anytime soon. If these provided a strong case for Saddam's evil intentions I'm guessing it would have all been declassified long before now. There was certainly no declassification lag in the early days of the war when every suspected WMD site was put on display for the media like Geraldo Rivera opening Al Capone's vault (with similar results).

I'm more interested in the claim that the insurgents have been using mustard and sarin in attacks since I've never heard this before.

I supported the war and still do (though never for the reasons Bush put forward) but it was support based on an unacceptable probability and it turns out the result was negative.

Tee Hee, scaeagles just got pantz.

Big deal... I remember making the point all the way back on... was it the cocktail board?... that any chemical weapons Saddam might have at that time would have been degraded past the point of having any usefulness. Funny, but I also remember Scaeagles ridiculing that point at the time.

There was never any disputing he had them. We gave them to him. I don't find it all that hard to believe that some caches got forgotten, misplaced, however you want to classify it, especially when you consider the fact that we can't find $9Billion dollars we sent over there much more recently.

Source

Sounds like Santorum is grasping for straws as he's booted out the door...

yeah..Fase!


:p

I got more chemical weapons in my underpants after a night of tacos and beer than all of Iraq...

Note that no one is saying anything that I didn't. This is why I am quoting myself.

I pointed out they were heavily degraded.

My point is that Saddam did not misplace 500 chem weapons, and there are most likely more. So he clearly was lying about having destroyed all of his chemical weapons.

This is my point.

Aw Leo- the point doesn't matter when people can act like smug condescending .....yeah.....

What was the point? That Saddam is a liar, a coward, and a bully? Fine, I don't know anyone who disputes that.

Explain to me the difference between True Warrior 43 and Saddam.

When someone lies about disposing of chemical weapons when under a cease fire that requires inspections that are not being allowed, then it would seem as if one of the original points for invasion was certainly valid. This is the point.

So as to not be misconstrued, whether WMD are there was never something I thought was a precondition for invasion of Iraq. The first violation of the cease fire was, and those violations included denial of inspections.

just cuz this is so deserving of being repeated ;)

No offense to GC's imagery intended, but when new news breaks, I don't think it is a dead horse. 500 chem weapons found with the prediction of more to come is new news.

This isn't new news.

FoxNews Debunks Santorum's WMD Claim
Source & Link to FoxNews Clip

An unnamed defense department official doesn't mean much to me. Unnamed sources never do, particularly in matters of politics.

If you had heard his before, then it is certainly old news. I had not heard this before even though I try to remain somewhat informed.

Again, the first comment I made in the OP was to acknowledge that hese were degraded. The extent to which is varied.

My point is not that these were the end all of the WMD programs we expected to find. My point is that Saddam had claimed he had destroyed all his chemical weapons. He had not. You don't misplace (at least) 500 chemical weapons.

and the wheels keep spinning- but no one is getting anywhere.

Leo,

I can see what you are saying. But didn't they find degraded weapons last year as well?

And Nephy, you should know better than this. If they found 500 units of weapons grade,or near grade mustard, sarin or other chemicals I can guarentee the responses would be different. You should know by now that all of us "left wing-nuts" are open to calm, rational arguments and debates and have even been known to change our stance on something when presented with a convincing enough argument. If you have something other than "the wheels keep spinning" and calling us condensending then please share it, if not, don't be suprised when the :rolleyes:s start comming.

There was a report of two found, if I recall. At that time, the response was "Big deal! Two?". The response now is "Big deal! They were highly degraded!".

I could see that perhaps two chem weapons could be mixed in with stashes of conventional weapons accidentally. However, with 500 or so, an oversight is not likely. Rather, it would seem that a specific strategy was in place that should Saddam choose to use them, there was a much larger opportunity for impact with them located in several different places and therefore available to scattered troops. Having them in one or two places would limit their effectiveness and if those one or two sites were captured, they would be unavailable for use.

To me, this continues to support the same version of the story that's been unfolding since after the invasion (and was predicted by those evil liberal nay-sayers before the invasion)...Sadaam was lying about his intentions (omg, stop the presses) and secretly harboring the desire to rev up his chemical weapons program again. But desire and action were no aquainted with each other, and the constant scrutiny had him in a position where everything was on hold. He had to burry everything he had and let it rot in the desert. So despite his desires, Iraq's capability to produce viable, dangerous chemical weapons in quantity was years behind where they were before Desert Storm.

Okay, so he didn't destroy them all...but the sanctions and scrutiny did that job for him. They were destroyed by time. Mission Accomplished.

Yes, I can expect rudeness. Thanks- I manage to refrain from rolling eyes myself-

I never called you a left wing nut- nor does that thought go through my mind when I read these things-

I find alot of the responses to what he posted to be rude and condescending and no- my faith that certain people are susceptible to the possibility of changing their mind is very very low.

I am expressing my frustration without making it personal- and I don't really appreciate anyone telling me what I can or can not express. Heaven forbid I express my opinion without vetting it with people here first.

Good lord.

(and trust me- I am never surprised by it when people resort to rolling their eyes- it's expected from some quarters)

Actually, if I recall, the liberal mantra prior to the Bush election was that Saddam was a dangerous man with WMDs. During the second election, John Kerry said that if you didn't believe Saddam was a dangerous man with WMD, you shouldn't vote for him. After the Bush elections it was the same thing. After Bush action, it became that he had no WMD because he had destroyed them all and therefore action was unnecessary. Now it is that it is no big deal because they were old and degraded. In fact, I've heard some reports on the local radio about liberals questioning why it took so long to find these and why we're only finding out now from his recently declassified document.

So no matter what, spin from the left will be critical.

GD, I honestly don't recall anyone on the left saying Saddam still had WMD post invasion.

It was neither from the left nor the right, but what I'm referring to is the post-invasion analysissess (or whatever the fvck the plural of that word is...analyses, that's it) that concluded over and over again that Sadaam really really really really wanted to be WMD capable, but was completely nackered by the UN watchdogs. So yeah, finding chemical weapons that were degraded beyond usefullness continues to support that. Weapons that he had to bury in the desert and not even glance at for fear of being discovered are as good as destroyed. Inert chemical weapons are not WMDs. It all comes down to the fact that even without Sadaam's cooperation, the UN's constant nagging accomplished exactly what it was supposed to. It rendered him powerless.

Should I accept that premise (which isn't unreasonable), how were we to know that without the required full and unfettered access required by the cease fire and UN resolutions related to the cease fire?

Should I split this thread? There's a conversation going on about WMD in Iraq then there's another discussion about how people feel about others expressing their thoughts. Mabe we should have one big thread where people can post their generalities about posting habits and content.

Well, how about the proponderance of things like that video of Sadaam from just after the Gulf War where he tells his top aides exactly that? Or the fistfulls of defectors that told us exactly that?

Like I said, this is just another piece in a long list of evidence that started coming in before the invasion and continues to be corroborated.

Isn't that called "The Parking Lot?"

I seem to recall Bush making a big stink about Saddam having WMD and that is why we were going in.

But I could just be having false memories ;)

Have they found these yet?

Quite simply these weapons in this condition do not support Bush's case for going to war. The case he made was based on Iraq actually being an imminent threat for being in possession of usable WMDs and in active development of more effective WMDs.

My case for the war didn't really care whether he had them or was persuing them but rathre that we simply couldn't take the chance that he had them or was persuing them. Turns out he didn't (though he may have believed he did) really have either. So long as Iraq was stonewalling efforts to definitively establish their capacity, they posed an unacceptable threat. Even though the threat, in hindsight, was pretty close to nil, I still think the war was justified on my grounds but unjustified on Bush's grounds.

As I said above, if these finds strongly supported Bush's case for the war do you really think it would have taken this long for word to get out and
that Rick Santorum would have been the mouthpiece of choice?

I'd still like to hear more about the insurgents apparently using mustard and sarin gas as that would be a major story.

No, but they know where they are.

This was the final straw in Bush's arguments. What were the 17 UN resolutions about, including the final one immediately prior to the invasion? It was ALL about the fact that Saddam would not allow verification.

Yes, Bush (and many other intelligence services throughout the world) thought he had a much larger capacity. But the fact is that the invasion happened because Saddam would not comply with inspection requirements from the first cease fire, supported by numerous UN resolutions.

To say war was unjusitifed on Bush's grounds and then to recite the very reason the invasion happened seems strange.

Those photos that uber posted kinda look like a relative of this

Optimus Prime could be a weapon of mass destruction. He was a bad a$s.

If you need more than one straw to justify going to war, you shouldn't be going to war.

Be that as it may....I am just pointing out that I agree with Alex regarding Saddam not allowing verification was enough reason all by itself, and wondering why he does not take into account the final UN resolutions that would have prevented war if Saddam had capitulated to what he had already agreed to. War did not happen until that final rejection of his commitment.

And I disagree with you, Sac. The first Gulf War never ended. There was no peace accord signed, only a cease fire agreement. So one straw was all that was required. And Saddam had more than enough chances.

Bush wanted to invade Iraq since the day he got into office. He was just scrambling for a reason to. He scared the whole nation into agreeing with him using 9/11 as leverage. There are no WMDs in Iraq. He knew that and changed his strategy to 'liberating the Iraqi people'. Now there are a lot of dead soliders who are gone because of Powell waving around vials. Even he said he was hesitant.
There's no justifying what is going on. People are catching on, that's why his numbers are still low even after killing Zarqawi.

Well, if you want to talk about beating a dead horse, that would be it, GC. 500 (approx) chemical weapons (granted old and degraded, but certainly not destroyed and spread out in a way to allow for usage rather than for surrender) is new news. The Bush as war monger who wanted to do it no matter what argument is just.....old. For someone who wanted it no matter what he sure did give Saddam a whole lot of chances to avoid it.

This whole subject is a dead horse. Bush knew it, that's why he switched his logic to 'liberation'. It's all bunk.
If this story was so new and informative and groundbreaking, they would have given it to Frist or McCain to reveal. It's garbage so they gave it to Santorum so he can use it to possibly get reelected. The media's not picking up on this story. You know why? And don't say because the media is liberal, it's not. The press is in Bush's pocket. They're not picking it up because it's a nothing story. Nothing to report. Nada. Straws...grasp, grasp.

What about bin Laden? What about Afghanastan? Why don't we hear about that anymore?

Well, disagreements will continue to mount. So many things I disagree with GC I won't bother.

Bin Laden has made himself a non story. A video or audio tape every three months means he probably isn't doing much. Would love to catch him, sure.

Afghanistan....moving along, not swimmingly by any means, but the elected government is functioning.

Yeah, we only hear from bin Laden when Bush needs a boost and *wham* there's another tape on the news... And what about Afghanistan? It's a mess there and in Iraq and in New Orleans for that matter. But these things have all dropped off our radar while we focus on numb sh!t things like gay marriage amendments. Boy, is our country not paying attention or what? Our politicians should focus more on benefitting the country rather than getting reelected or keeping their jobs or giving blowjobs to corporate America.

That's not true. All of those other reasons that could have been used to justify restarting the war existed for 13 years. The reason given for why it had to be done now was that he possessed the weapons and was actively developing new weapons that we could not allow to get into the hands of terrorist organizations that wouldn't hesitate to use them.

The reasons from which Bush hung his assertion that war in 2003 was necessary were unfounded. Now, I believe that the case they'd have liked to make is very similar to the reasons I believe the war needed to be prosecuted (and would have been legally justifiable prior to 9/11 and became more imperative after) but that they chose not to present that justification because they didn't think it would sell enough of the population. So, they chose instead to present an imminent threat that turned out not to exist rather than the unacceptable risk that did. I have no doubt that they believed their case to be strong and valid but they were still wrong.

It is only after they failed to find the massive WMD caches they expected that the administration began to present alternate justifications and that was rightly perceived as desparation on their part, even if some of the altnerate justifications are actually pretty valid reasons.

And why not? I'd love to hear you come to the defense of Rick "Man on Dog"* Santorum. That guy's an idiot!




*Source

Do you really believe that somehow the Bush administration and Al Qaeda are coordinating these tapes? Or that they are just fabrications of the Bush administration?

Hearing from bin Laden gives Bush a boost? So....killing Zarqawi doesn't give Bush a boost, but hearing from an uncaptured (dead or alive) bin Laden is staged to give him a boost. I fail to follow the logic.

But it is. Regardless of the intelligence, believed or not, correct or not, the invasion itself came down to the final UN resolutions with Saddam refusing to allow inspections to verify or debunk the intelligence. All he had to do was agree and there was no invasion. It's that simple.

Heck, liberation's a great reason if we actually were liberating someone...
Source

And this is after we went in...

I find the timing of the bin Laden tape the day before the 2004 elections to be suspect. You're implying a coordination effort between the US and al Qaeda, I'm not. These tapes often do not need to be released to the media at all. Especially coming from such a secretive Administration. But they release them. Why? Fear. Fear rallies people behind the POTUS.

Regarding Santorum being the one who brought it out (but wait - you said it was old news, so how could Santorum have brought new info to the public in an effort to win his election?), I couldn't pretend to know why he was the one who held the press conference.

Hoekstra, however, is the chair of the House Intelligence committee. Does his presence make it anymore credible? If Santorum wasn't there would you have a differing opinion?

bin Laden reminds people of 9/11 and the president who stood on rubble putting his arm around a fireman. Zarqawi reminds people of a failed, unjustified Iraq war.

Oh, you're talking loophole, Leo. Yes, the UN sanction violations gave Bush the loophole he needed to justify invading Iraq. And fvck the irony of Bush hiding behind an international body he doesn't even believe in in order to wage his war...it's not funny.

You don't actually mean that Bush's for true reasons for invading Iraq begins and ends at violated sanctions, right?

You're not following me. It is old news, Santorum is trying to present it like it's new.
Nope, this story is not sticking with anyone. (123 news stories about Santorum on GoogleNews, compared to 1100 regarding the Senate's withdrawl vote.) And if Bush's own network, Fox "News" is debunking it, then I'm thinking something stinks.

Cut and Run.

And the case for the final UN resolution came down to declarations that Iraq possessed and was persuing WMDs. We even showed pictures of where they were keeping them to the U.N.

Again, the violations justification for the war existed for 13 years. The possession argument is the one that made it happen. The Bush administration hitched their wagon to the wrong horse.

But all of that is moot. The Bush administration is essentially arguing against you, Leo, that these finds are of any great significance. After 3 years of ridicule on this exact issue do you really think they would hesitate to trumpet any affirming discoveries?

I've never considered giving Saddam repeated chances to comply and his refusal to be a loophole.

And still, even allowing that you are correct on the passage of the final UN resolution, it came down to Saddam saying that no one could come in to verify or debunk that very intelligence.

There is a theory - quite reasonable, really - as to why this is not being trumpeted. To summarize, the oil for food program investigation showed that China, Russia, and France were violating sanctions and selling arms to Iraq. There is evidence that the Russians specifically assisted in removal of WMDs and production capabilities in the two weeks prior to the invasion when the final UN resolutions were making the rounds. They did this because the equipment was Russian, Chinese, and French.

Talking up the evidence at present which points fingers at three security council members while at the same time needing their assistance with the Iranian and North Korean situations is not a good thing to do.

Spin? Perhaps. But not unreasonable considering what is know about the interactions of those three countries with Saddam.

Again, 500 is new to me. Last i had heard they had found two.

You're equating the method by which Iraq could have avoided the war with the argument by which Bush pressed for it.

The argument was not that we needed unfettered access so that we could find out whether Iraq had them and was developing them but that we needed unfettered access so that we could find what he had and was developing and destroy them.

In fact, you could argue that in an environment where the world intelligence community had determined that Iraq absolutely was in possession of a usable arsenal and persuing an active development program that it would be impossible for Hussein to have provided sufficiently full access to disprove these claims. Those already convinced would simply assume he was doing an unexpectedly good job of hiding them (kind of like what happened when we did go in and didn't really find anything).

The President should simply have said:

"In a climate where we are actively at war with a certain strain of Islamic fundamentalism the prevarications of Saddam Hussein can not be left sitting on our flank. For 13 years his unwillingness to comply with the terms ending the Gulf War in 1991 have been an irritant in the world of international diplomacy. A game that has cost his country millions of dollars and thousands of lives. But until 9/11 it was just an irritant. However, we now find ourselves at war with a certain strain of Islamic fundamentalism who have shown themselves willing to use any weapon to strike us. Similarly, Saddam Hussein has shown himself willing to use aggressive violence to achieve goals of territorial expansion and to fulfill fantasies of revenge. We can not leave Saddam Hussein on our flank as we prosecute this war against Al Qaeda, just waiting for the day when his capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction comes into alignment with both his desire to do us harm and the desire of Al Qaeda to destroy us. Either he must do everything in his power to show he poses no risk to us in our war with Al Qaeda or we have no other option but to ensure he is not in a powerful position to interfere with that war."

That, in my view, is the real justification for the war. That, in my view, is what the Bush administration didn't have the political balls to say to the American people, and that, in my view, is why they are stuck defending inept justifications for a just war.

Nice to see things back to normal around here. Welcome home, Leo. :)

I can see your logic, but still disagree. Bush did present arguments that said he was in possession and was trying to get more. However, he also said (indirectly through the resolutions sought and passed in the UN) that should Saddam allow for the inspections, there will be no war. So rather than equating, I am linking as inseparable.

Condition of cease fire
+ lack of compliance
+ wide spread intelligence claiming WMDs
- Saddam allowing inspection access
= war.

Whether full inspections allowed by Saddam would have led to cries that he was just hiding them effectively....what ifs can go any and every direction. I could say "What if we went into Iraq prior to the last UN resolutions and delays and had found Russian, French, and Chinese equipment?". Lots of scenarios to theorize about.

Edited to add - I do like your speech.

We'll have to disagree. I see what you're saying as fundamentally flawed but if the posts I've already made haven't made my view clear then I don't have it in me.

That isn't a what if, that is a reality.

Shortly following the beginning of the war a program of unrestricted inspection began. Nothing was found. The general response from certain circles was "well he hid them pretty good then."

It isn't a hypothetical.

I can accept that. However, it does appear that some pretty good hiding had been going on if they are still uncovering the old ones.

Disagreement is fine. I don't see your argument as "fundamentally flawed", just incomplete in that you don't allow for the fact that an out was given that would have allowed Saddam to disprove the arguments being presented.

My summary of the road to war:
"I think A. You say B. I will continue to think and act on A until you allow me to pursue the path that will prove B."

Would have been worth it just to hear Bush say "pervarications".

Ah crap. I've never been good at stopping when I say I'll stop.

The summary you provide there is approximately my road to war. The summary that would be Bush's road to war is:

"I know A. You say B. I will continue to act on A until you allow us to dismantle A."

A turned out to be wrong. In your summary (that is closer to my justification than Bush's) it isn't so important whether A is actually true or not. In the Bush version is is extremely important.

You view the U.N. resolutions as a trigger. I view them as a convenient excuse for doing what they were going to do anyway (and Bush has said as much, that while the support of the U.N. was important it wasn't necessary).

Just why is it so important to have a war against international terrorism anyway? Is it really so dangerous? Al Queda has inflicted exactly one successful attack on U.S. soil, killing around 3,000 people.

To date, around 2,500 American soldiers have died, and approximately 80,000 Iraqi civilians, in the war that became "necessary" from the 3,000 deaths. This is to say nothing of deaths in Afghanistan. And yet, international terrorist casualties in America remain at that same 3,000.

If the U.S. is being successful at preventing further terrorist attacks in America, I congratulate it ... but none of it is being done through warfare.

Why war?

Luckily, I won't be around to read more of scaeagles very loose rationale for bloody, murderous war. I was beginning to like the guy, he's very nice in person ... but it kills me to read how cavalier he is with other peoples' lives and misery.

It was the trigger. One that Saddam pulled. No one forced him to do so. So I cannot see it as an excuse, because Saddam held the power and no one else.

Another modification then -
"Most of the world knows A. You are pretty much the only one saying B. Show us B is not true and we will not be forced to dismantle and dispose of B."

Why was it so important to have a war on Japan? Were they really so dangerous? The attack on Pearl Harbor killed just over 2700 people.

To answer my own question, it was because they had designs on much more than Pearl Harbor. Radical islamic terrorists have their agenda as well.

If disagreement or my "cavalier attitude" causes you not to like me, so be it. I will not lose sleep. I do fail to see anything suggesting I am cavalier. All I am suggesting is that Saddam was the one who chose war and no one else.

So Bush didn't choose to ignore the prewar intelligence that indicated that Iraq's chemical and nuclear capabilities were moving backwards? He didn't choose to set an agenda from the beginning of his presidency to find a justification for war? Powell didn't choose to ignore his own missgivings and present spun intelligence to the UN? Rice didn't choose to identify a photograph of empty tubes as parts for nuclear missiles when in fact the intelligence report she had said that they could be used for nuclear missiles in a pinch, but weren't designed for it? Wow, Sadaam had more power than I thought if he made all those people do that.

That's just a bizarre thing to say. How many deaths would it take before retaliation is warranted? How many people do you get to kill before you move from "cost of doing business" to "nuiance that needs to be dealt with"?

Sounds like you're awfully cavalier about lives as well.

"When did you stop beating your wife?"

Considering that Saddam engaged in the exact same behavior for almost 13 years without war resulting I'm guessing that someone else must have changed the equation.

If I tell you to let me in your house or I'll shoot you, your death isn't a suicide.

I'm trying to stop, but she just makes me keep doing it.

I've committed a violent crime. A home invasion robbery. The police extracted me and slapped my hand and put me on probation. I repeatedly violate my probation. A tipster tells them I have a bomb and hostages in my house. I won't let them in to check it out so they break down the door.

Who is responsible?

Lots of conflicting intelligence. His choice? Force Saddam to verify. Saddam would not verify in spite of his previous commitment to do so.

As far as something in the equation changing, I agree. The change was a new doctrine of preemption based on the 9/11 attacks. Preemption over what a sovereign state can do? How dare we, you say. Except Iraq wasn't truly sovereign at the time. They were under the conditions of a cease fire.

You joke, but your equation is a loaded question. It presupposes wrong doing while failing to establish it. It was worded purposefully such that the only direct responses were "Yes, come and dismantle the weapons we've been making" or "No, I won't let you see the weapons we've been making." The third option of "I never started beating my wife" was eliminated.

No need to due to the conditions of the cease fire. Proof was the responsibiliy of Saddam, no one else.

The police. If it turns out they barged in and shot the guy only to find that he had no hostages and no bombs and hadn't really done anything more than be rude to police when they demanded entry and that the tipsters was his ex-wife who never really liked him.

Except the conditions of his probation include submitting to searches. I didn't say they shot him, only that they broke down the door. OK - I'll add that he went and hid in a closet.

If they didn't shoot him, then the analogy isn't quite apt. Also, yours was an expansion on mine in which he was shot.

But it really doesn't matter. You've switched from arguing justification to arguing responsibility. They aren't necessarily the same thing. However, since the justification Bush gave for the war turned out to be wrong I would argue that he has none. And while you may not be responsible for the results of a justified act, I would say you generally are responsible for the results of an unjustified one.

Again, he could have put himself on solid, in my opinion, grounds for pressing the war but chose not to because they didn't think they could sell it successfully. Instead they overreached and presented a version of events that I honestly believe they believed to be true because they knew it would sell better. But in doing so they put themselves onto more tenuous ground and just end up looking silly flailing about for any handhold when that ground gave way under them.

How is it not suitable?

"I've committed a violent crime. A home invasion robbery."
Saddam invaded Kuwait.

"The police extracted me and slapped my hand and put me on probation."
Coalition forces kicked him and sent him back to Iraq with sanctions and a cease fire agreement.

"I repeatedly violate my probation."
How many times did Saddam violate conditions of the cease fire?

"A tipster tells them I have a bomb and hostages in my house."
How many intelligence services were telling us he had WMD?

"I won't let them in to check it out so they break down the door."
He is supposed to let us in, no questions asked, as a condition for the cease fire. He doesn't, so we invade.

He didn't die, so not being shot actually makes it a better analogy.

If you don't see why it isn't apt I don't think I can explain it to you so that you'll accept it.

We may not have shot Saddam Hussein but we shot an awful lot of people. So, if you insist on your analogy it would be like the police knocked down the door arrested the criminal and shot his friends who just happened to be there.

OK - he had a bunch of friends in his house with him who shot at the police after they broke in the door. They were killed.

Not that it matters, I suppose. It's an analogy.

Yes, one that has gotten off the point that it is silly to say that Saddam is the only one who holds responsibility for going to war.

Was that the point? I don't seem to recall that. At least it wasn't my point. Oh, well.

So much for another LoT beat-your-head-against-the-wall thread.

No, it was my point.

Synchronized headbanging:


"@#$%!! Liberals!!"


"@#$%!! Conservatives!!"

BANG YOUR HEAD!!!
METAL HEALTH WILL DRIVE YOU MAD!!!

oh sorry, wrong thread :)

You know, CoasterMatt, I was going to post that but I thought 'Nah, no one would get it.' :D

I've been enjoying this exchange between two superior last word-igans. I hope they don't stop.

Moi? Don't know what you're referring to.

(OK - I admit when I saw Alex posted "No, it was my point.", I resisted the urge to post something else.)

Don't give up! You're scaeagles! You can debate a tree back into the ground. You can do it. :D

:D

Well, how upset could anyone be at the passing of a lawyer? One meal seems about right.

I think that fence they have around the defendants at his trial make them all look like bad little babies in their play pens.

"Better get used to these bars, kid." ~ Marty McFly

:D