[Clinton's a rapist]

I have to wonder if Saddam is really that stupid to give anthrax to terrorists that can be traced back to him.

You still don't get it. He wants the anthrax to be traced back to him. Otherwise, the threat to use it has no deterrence value whatsoever.

[habs4ever]

You've been working this angle for sometime, and now you think Saddam has notified the WH that he has enough anthrax and agents in place to kill hundreds of thousands.Well, following deterrent theory, he still gets wiped out, regardless of him killing a small city off.This insurance policy isn't much of one, as if it is place,and this is what is being telegraphed, you can bet that all aliens will be deported, and all Muslims will be interned, and nukes will be used on Iraq.Not much of a deal, from Saddam's point of view.Perhaps, you better unwind a bit.There is no equivalance of equal threats to make his "loaded gun" such a viable threat as you presume.

[Dan Day]

You still don't get it. He wants the anthrax to be traced back to him. Otherwise, the threat to use it has no deterrence value whatsoever.

Too much like a bad spy movie.

If he wants us to know it's him, all he has to do is send a telegram or issue a press release.

[WRhine]

You still don't get it. He wants the anthrax to be traced back to him. Otherwise, the threat to use it has no deterrence value whatsoever.

Why would you think Saddam, with our troops in the region, would want GW to know that he is behind the Anthrax attacks in the U.S.? Doesn't add up for obvious reasons. I am not saying Saddam Hussein is not involved in this Anthrax terrorism. I am saying it makes no sense to tell GW this. To flip this card to GW is like asking to be nuked. Heck, George Bush Senior was ready to nuke Iraq during the Gulf War if they used chemical or biological weapons in their own country as a defensive act!

[GregoryFul]

It would be interesting (frightening) to know what threats have been presented to Washington, and how credibile they are thought to be. That Cheney expects more US civilian than military casualties is ominous. He seems ready to risk the threats, and wanting to inform the public. But Sharon's voiced concern about US moves towards appeasement says something different.

Perhaps we are just messing around in Afghanistan (a country in rubble from many years of war) for public consumption. Neither side really thinks it is worth very much, except for the political effect of the human disaster sure to come this winter. Washington does not expect it to trigger significant retaliation. In fact it is likely the opponent wanted this action in Afghanistan. It certainly was provoked.

Our unseen opponent has demonstrated disciplined organization, pretty good targeting, efficient tactics, and deadly effect. We are in for more demonstrations unless Washington accommodates, I think.

Iraq is off the table until we can disarm the threat in this country.