[Poohbah]

Then let the U.N. deal with Iraq, since it was their inspectors who were dealing with "Iraqi intransigence."

Ah. You are looking for an excuse to do nothing.

I never found anyone willing to accept their end of a proposed bet on this issue. Curious...

If you were wrong about Iraq having WMDs, then you'd SURELY have no problem accepting the mission of cleaning up the consequences of a WMD attack against the United States...

...without protective gear of any sort.

[Alberta's Child]

If you were wrong about Iraq having WMDs, then you'd SURELY have no problem accepting the mission of cleaning up the consequences of a WMD attack against the United States...

If I were wrong about Iraq having WMDs, then three successive presidents put this country at risk by assigning the role of weapons inspections to a foreign organization (the United Nations) that has no legitimate role in the defense of this country.

I'll take you up on your bet, but only if you agree to this: if it turns out that Iraq does have WMDs, then I'll take it upon myself to clean up the results of the attack if you agree to render swift, punitive justice to those three presidents.

[Alberta's Child]

Ah. You are looking for an excuse to do nothing.

No, I'm looking for the U.S. do do something effective that addresses a real problem. There's no excuse for the fact that throoughout the last ten years the U.S. was far more effective in maintaining a no-fly zone over Iraq than at protecting the citizens of this country from foreign assailants.