Yes, I've been telling people that for over a year now. It's never been a very popular position but, so far, it has always proved to be correct.
Let's assume that we do attack Iraq. What do you think the retribution will be? Will Saddam unleash WMDs on our troops only, or will we see thousands (or tens of thousands) of deaths here?
Saddam's WMD are not battlefield weapons. They're like our WMD. They're designed to deter an attack by threatening to inflict unacceptable pain on the civilian population of his potential adversaries. In terms of the dead, he can pretty much dial in whatever casualty numbers he likes, from the hundreds of thousands to the tens of millions. With the dry anthrax that was sent to Daschle and enthusiastic jihadists to serve as human ICBMs, anything in that range would be trivial to accomplish.
What I can't understand is why President Bush is pushing Saddam so hard if he (as you say) knows that Saddam has all the cards.
What is the alternative?
Al Gore, but the Electorial College design saved us.
And I have to admit, you have been correct so far in your prediction of no full scale military action against Saddam. However, the troops are assembling and every theory is correct until eventually proven incorrect. Do you think troops will be sent without at least some of Iraq's anthrax being nullified ? Or are we waiting for proper conditioning, proper drug stockpiling and proper innoculating ?
I'm still a little hazy here, bear with me. What I don't understand is, if President Bush has no intention of actually attacking Iraq, why all the sabre-rattling NOW? Do you think he thought maybe he could bluff Saddam into actually cooperating with weapons inspectors? And if Saddam indeed has the WMD trump card, and Bush knows it, then what would give him the idea that such a bluff was likely to succeed?
Personally, I hope we do attack, and soon. Only because I believe that the WMD threat is not likely to go away on its own, and we might as well act while we've got someone in the White House who is willing to do something about it. As popular as the President is now, he could still lose in 2004, meaning unless we get a sensible Dem in the White House, it would be until at least January 2009 before revisiting the issue.
If attacking Iraq means sacrificing lives here at home, including potentially my loved ones or even myself, I think it's inevitable. And acting now will probably SAVE countless lives down the road. Plus, it would mitigate the deterrent value of WMDs, as other counties would see that we're willing to absorb those losses for the greater good of destroying their regimes.
I hope very much that the WMD threat is overblown. I have a feeling we're going to find out, and soon.