See the washington times today - a CIA report on french perfidity in this matter. The government made many arguements, most of which boiled down to "Saddam Hussein's Iraq isw too dangerous to be allowed to exist post 9/11". The obvious spreahead for this arguement is the WMD issue. So that's what he went with. But there were other arguements raised, and the result is one less country trying to develop WMD that is hostile to the US.
IanTyger
I'm not saying he lied (I'm ESPECIALLY not saying he lied). I'm saying he emphasized one aspect of the total danger (Saddam Hussein's Iraq regime was ready, willing, and almost able to acquire WMD). Remember, this was a regime that had already used WMD, and was under probation, if you will, for various crimes. We claimed he had violated his terms of the cease-fire (he had continually flouted them, ever since the gulf war had ended), and decided that we
The only people who have the resources to make Afganistan free are the Afganis. Likewise the Iraqis are the only ones who can make themselves free. The best we can do is create favorable conditions.
How about this arguement, then? Link
Bush used the potential of Iraqi WMDs to invade Iraq so that we would have Iran (a country that there is not question anymore about being inimical to the USA and attempting to acquire WMD) caught in a two-front vise. So that we would have battle-hardened troops on the border of Iran. He took advantage of Saddam's intransigence. This compares to the
Glenn Reynolds finds them, and pulls out the gems. I link to them, and add my comments. I must call attention to one thing here though. DW came to me this morning and said the UN inspectors looking for WMD in Iraq have concluded that Iraq had none. To which my response was "That's not the point of the war." And now I find out the rest of the story: <BR
Shame he voted against funding it, and now professes that he didn't think that was an authorization to, you know, actually use force
Exactly. Kerry has been running on his Vietnam record. Why hasn't he been running on his Senate record? Also, I've been hearing a lot about this "7 miutes" thing. Would those 7 minutes have mattered? Generally speaking, by the time the decision has to be made by the president, too much time has elapsed for a split-second decision to matter. Would you have condemned Sir Francis Drake for finishing his round of golf before leaving to take ship a
I draw your attention to the following articles ( part 1 and part 2 ). Written by one of the many people who are more eloquent that I, they cut to heart of why I still support President Bush and will be voting for him on 2 Novemb
No, there are 100. It's too early for me - I just woke up. LAte shift will do that to you.
What gets me is a parent apparently demanded that the teacher also post Kery's picture; not any of the other 49 senators...
This is a quick note jotted off in haste - I'll be updating it later. But the link goees to a story about a NJ teacher who is in hot water for posting a picture of President GW Bush in a display of other presidents. More to follow when I have time
Got a link? I'd be interested in seeing more about this.
Well, the burn itself hasn't actually happened yet - looks like most of the time is re-encoding the video. (Which I don't understand, since the video is already in MPEG format)
I may have mentioned this before, but we don't have a TV in use. What we do have is a computer with a TV tuner in it (actually, with 2 tuners, but I digress). It has software to do timeshifting and recording to HD; all the useful TiVO functions (including a prgram guide). I've been recording TV shows on and off. This is great for for us; but we have no way of getting
An old optical illusion, but still a good one
Moral doesn't put food on the table, sandy. That's the problem with it. When looking at tradeoffs between morality and economy, if morality trumps economy, you die. If you can afford morality, great. But too many times, too many people try to push morality beyond the point at which it is sustainable. Draginol has given a couple of examples here. I would add: - over-irrigation in the american west. Sure, it keeps food prices down, and keep farm
The referenced post says one thing to me - that Stardock is tryign to remake one of my favorite games of all time. More power to them!
One current method of fighting robots that sign themselves or other people up for mailing lists, contests, etc. is to have a random alphanumeric string presented in a way that makes it difficult to OCR the string. What happens when OCR tech improves? (Note, I believe that humna-grade OCR is considered to be an AI-complete problem, along with natural language
Whoah. Settle down there, both of you. If Matt Rustler can quote USC, I'd have to come down on his side. Drmiler, was your father also a resident of CA? And was the transaction being done in CA? Because the example I was using was a transaction where the giver was a resident of the state, but the recipient was a transient. Regardless of whether a SPECIFIC cut-out of these laws exists for interfamilial transactions, the general case is still pr
Via the Volokh Conspiracy comes this Neal Stephenson trivia contest - but see note (Enoch Root is not the answer).<!-- Ju-Anchor-Footer-Sta
Guns kill such an infinitesimally small number of kids each year. And frankly, at the age of 11, I was safely handling firearms; there's no excuse for a teenager to shoot himself or a friend because "he didn't know it was loaded" or he "was just horsing around". I'm not a big fan of government intervention into the raising and education of children, but deaths of children due to firearms to me is a case of child negligence. If a child kills himself by
Sweden and switzerland also are about the size of American states. The problem is that we don't have any way of making one-to-one comparisons in this. We can only look at historical trends, and even then there are so many influences that it make sit hard to find root causes. My biggest issue with so-called gun-control is that freedoms, once lost, are difficult to return. Also, violence is not a root cause, it is a symptom. I have no need to go
OK - I'll have to change my analogy. I didn't know about the father to son exception. Make that friend to friend then across state lines.
Was it legal for the presenter to give it to him? Was it legal for him to accept? And does he still have it, transporting it in violation of several federal laws? Mind you, I'm not a big supporter of the laws in question - as the commentor on the site says, these laws have dubious relationships with the 2nd Amendment. But still... how is a senator any diffe