Replies

Finally, the term "weapons of mass destruction," while frightening, is an obfuscation. Chemical weapons are weapons of limited destruction -- horrible but restricted in practicality. Biological weapons are scary beyond imagination, but much more potent in the movies than in real life. They are difficult to deliver -- the explosion immolates the germs -- and not all that effective.

Wait just a second there pinkoman - delivery of smallpox-laden blankets to the Cherokee, Chippewa, Algonquin (sp?), and Iriquois was quite an effective biological weapon. I dont have the exact numbers handy but these tribe's military abilities were seriously affected by the smallpox attacks.

Silly Richard - his mindset is stuck on conventional warfare. That can be deadly.

So, now -- or soon -- is the moment. But this administration has to be carefully watched. It is fundamentally contradictory, enunciating a doctrine of unilateralism while reluctantly seeking a multilateral coalition against Iraq. It kissed off Congress and then embraced it. It is confusing. It is confused.

Actually, Dick, it is political jujitsu. The fact that even now you're still confused by Bush's tactics is a testament to their effectiveness.

The main point of the article, that now is the time, i.e. post 9-11, is well made. The rest of the article demonstrates a rather uninformed view by the author.

The comment that explosives will destroy biological weapons is rather stupid. Bush has pointed out the relationship between Iraq and other terrorists. Iraq is the weapons of mass destruction supplier, and the terrorists are his delivery system. Think of hundreds of terrorists in this country with vials of some biological agent, simply waiting for the order, no doubt delivered via CNN, ABC, CBS reporting the latest Al Queda tape, to deploy their weapons. Such a deployment could be to simply inject themselves, then move about heavily populated areas.

"So, now -- or soon -- is the moment. But this administration has to be carefully watched. It is fundamentally contradictory, enunciating a doctrine of unilateralism while reluctantly seeking a multilateral coalition against Iraq. It kissed off Congress and then embraced it. It is confusing. It is confused."

Here he seems to not understand simple political manuevering.