Hurray! John checked in and is doing all right...mentioned the food at the club! LOL!
Need to get organized for the day's activities...
lysander - Season starts next week for "Doc"....
Regarding Scott Ritter: Colonel Hunt, the older Fox military commentator, said if Ritter were in uniiform he would deserve to be taken out and shot! Says he has flipped, brought up the movie deal (which the colonel didn't know about when he got into it with Ritter a couple of weeks ago) and expressed extreme disgust with the guy.
President has left for Detroit.
I guess what bothers me about inspections is they are a crutch for the appeasers and doves.
Consider carefully.
The appeasers say we should not conduct a coup de main in Iraq as there is no proof that Saddam is actually building weapons of mass destructions.
In lieu of a descent, they offer we should insist Baghdad readmit inspectors with the condition they be allowed to inspect anything, anywhere, at any time.
Suppose Iraq relents and allows this to occur (there are reports they may do just that). Since the inspectors would not have military support (estimates say it would require about a division-sized force to provide such assistance - a virtual invasion in any event), no matter what was said, they would not have unfettered access. The first time the group approached anything sensitive, you can bet the Iraqi Army will provide a welcoming party that will point the way to the exit.
Nevertheless, the appeasers and doves will now turn their rhetoric and say the "inspections have not turned up any evidence of WMDs." Of course, because the peaceniks operate on a logical falicy - that you can find something that someone really doesn't want you to find. That will not stop them from saying we need more evidence - evidence which will not be possible to obtain precisely because of Saddam's intransigence.
It is posited we are a Nation of laws and we have an obligation to uphold so-called international law. All right, I presume that for sake of argument. If that is true, then it is worth noting that felons are not permitted to own firearms - because they have demonstrated their disregard for societal rules demonstrably in a process provided in law. Saddam, in the international arena, is akin to a convicted felon, having despoiled a neighboring country at the point of a gun; therefore, he is not permitted to have weapons that allow him to make nasty with other countries in the region. It is clear he is trying to do just that, so he should be removed.
[I hope the Administration lurks - I think I have just provided the answer to the "international law" question.]