[Thoudothprotest]

Yeah Poobah, I'm a registered voter.

And your willingness to put a rope around someone's neck who is perhaps the only person with guts to say that:

A: Saddam is not a threat to us or his neighbors. He can't maintain his military, much less produce a WMD in any significant time period.

and

B: This war is complete CRAP

yeah, your willingness to put a rope around someone's neck who dissents from the party line is a little unsettling.

I see it a lot around here, but it really never fails to shock me when it's directed at American citizens.

[Poohbah]

Yeah Poobah, I'm a registered voter.

Straight Democratic ticket, I see.

Saddam is not a threat to us or his neighbors. He can't maintain his military, much less produce a WMD in any significant time period.

And when al-Qaeda proves you wrong, can we use your neck for load-testing a rope?

[finnman69]

Are you Al Gore?

[texasbluebell]

I hope anyone who doesn't think Saddam is a threat will take a look at this article that was posted this morning.

Consider This:Clinton’s chief Iraq expert announces his reluctant belief that an invasion is needed

< snip >

"But what Pollack stresses is the terrible danger that, once in possession of nuclear weapons, Saddam will take this as a license to invade Kuwait, and otherwise terrorize the Middle East. The real danger from Saddam's possession of nuclear weapons is the conviction they will create in Saddam that he can act with impunity in the region, safe in the knowledge that the U.S. or Israel will not dare attack him (for fear of risking nuclear annihilation of their troops).

"The frightening scenario described by Pollack, in which Saddam could seize Kuwait and threaten to nuke the Saudi oil fields if we attack, is something I've never seen publicly discussed. But as Pollack lays it out, the scenario is all too realistic. A nuclear-armed Saddam taking over Kuwait and threatening Saudi Arabia leaves us with a choice between ceding him control of the world's oil supply, or of seeing that supply destroyed and contaminated for decades by a nuclear strike, sending the world's economy into radical shock, perhaps for years."

< snip >

[TomB]

If Ritter lied so vociferously, so easily and so often in 1998, why should we believe him now?