[the_doc]

I still say that the simpler explanation is that we used the right weapons for the job.

We planned the operation pretty carefully.

You are just discounting any data which doesn't fit your presupposition that our military didn't do a very good job. I think it's easier to believe that they did. I think it's easier to believe that the Iraqis are just lying.

[BamaFan]

I don't know why you are so hung up on the weaponeering. I don't think anyone doubts we have the best weapons inventory and best targeteers around.

I'm not discarding DATA, I'm choosing to not let unconfirmed rumors (fog) affect my bet. If I was a richer man and willing to lose more money, I'd take more chances w/ it. Here's what I know: 1) US Government hasn't confirmed his death, 2) Iraqis have fired SCUDS, which are usually under centralized control, 3) Nobody in Bagdad has tried to claim credit for SH's (I love the OTHER things this acronym can stand for) death in an effort to position himself as a post-war leader.

[the_doc]

BTW, your insinuation that the report that Saddam was wounded is not "data" reveals that you need to be more scientific. It is data. And you are simply discarding it.

Maybe it's bad data. But it's still data. And you have no rational reason whatsoever to call it bad data, much less "fog."