[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

In any case, if you bet a horse to place or to show and it wins, then you get paid. If you bet it to win, and it doesn't, then you start looking at the Racing Form to the horses in the next race. Bush boxed his bets, but, in my opinion, his WIN money was INITIALLY & ALWAYS placed on those who aided/abetted/harbored terrorists. WMDs was his show horse. It's fighting its way down the stretch, but it looks like, with the sarin bomb, precurser chemicals, and wmd programs, that it's gonna come in at least in the show position. Bush wins on both bets. Not bad for a dyslexic Texic Cowboy.

Interpretations, interpretations.

Which Horse was bet to win?

Answer me this: in Speeches to the American Public, the UN, the "International Community" -- how many times did Bush and his Administration Officials mention the words "Weapons of Mass Destruction", and how many times did they mention the words "Salman Pak"? Feel free to run a Lexus-Nexus search, and get back to me... I'm pretty sure I'm right.

"WMD"s were fronted as the Big, Scary "War Admiral" which was intended to Win the day -- and the Big Horse barely even Showed.

Fortunately, the almost-forgotten "Sea Biscuit" Nag -- the barely-mentioned "Anti-Terrorism" Case -- not only paid back it's status as a "hedged bet", it's proving Day after Day to be the one, legitimate, incontestable FACT of this whole operation which is First Across the Finish Line.

It's a very American story, really -- always bet on the Underdog.

The Neo-Cons played their "War Admiral" WMD Case to the Brink ("Smoking Gun a Mushroom Cloud"? "Thousands of Barrels of Poison Gas"? "Able to strike in 45 minutes"? don't make me laugh!), and frankly -- they failed Our President, and they look like fools...

But coming down the home-stretch, here comes "SeaBiscuit" -- the oft-neglected "Anti-Terrorist" Case -- and it's all true. Salman Pak, Abu Nidal, Mohammed Atta... it's all true, and SeaBiscuit clears the Finish Line!!

Which just goes to prove... SeaBiscuit should've always been our first bet -- Simple, Anti-Terrorist Justice before any UN complications and Messianic Nation-Building -- and after Abu Ghraib, the Neo-Cons should be retired to pasture.

best, OP

[Dr. Frank fan]

The Neo-Cons played their "War Admiral" WMD Case to the Brink ..."Able to strike in 45 minutes"?

Not to be picky but "The Neo-Cons" never said this 45 minutes thing. As far as I understand the 45 minutes claim derives from something that Tony Blair or someone in the Tony Blair government said to his British subjects during the time when Britain was contemplating or planning to join us in the war. I wouldn't really know because I wasn't paying attention and never heard that claim originally, not being a British subject and all. This is something that's between the Blair government and their subjects; but to Americans, the veracity of this "45 minutes" thing is irrelevant either way. Bush never said it, "The Neo-Cons" never said it.

Which just goes to prove... SeaBiscuit should've always been our first bet

Fair enough but one thing to keep in mind is that, in a sense, it was our "first bet", or at least, our first bet did *involve* a healthy does of the anti-terrorist case.

The only reason "WMD" ever gained such prominence was because we were trying to get UN cover for our actions. We had the possibility of bringing Saddam up on "charges" before the UN, but those "charges" had to involve "WMD", not "he is linked to terror" (which, let's face it, many many countries in the UN are).

The effort at the UN failed anyway. So it's like we were going after Al Capone, the FBI got convinced that he need to be taken down (because of all the murdering and gangsterism), but to take him down on federal charges, they had to focus the "case" on charges of... tax evasion. The fact that (in Saddam's case) the "charges" we brought against him haven't panned out as expected, doesn't mean the initial decision to go after him was wrong, any more than if Capone hadn't been a tax evader it would have been wrong for the FBI to go after him.

, Anti-Terrorist Justice before any UN complications and Messianic Nation-Building

I tend to agree with you that the (Powell-inspired) decision to try to get UN cover for our actions was probably, on balance, misguided at best. We seem to have done it because Tony Blair required it to be on board, but I'm not sure those benefits outweighed the costs in the end.

I have no idea what "Messianic Nation-Building" is supposed to mean.

after Abu Ghraib, the Neo-Cons should be retired to pasture.

What exactly "the Neo-Cons" have to do with anything that happened at Abu Ghraib is beyond me.