Scott Ritter Returns

Writing in The Guardian, Scott Ritter claims that the UN weapons inspection program was used unwittingly in a botched American plot to overthrow Saddam. In addition to the diplomatic consequences, he writes, the Iraqi government tortured and killed hundreds of suspected conspirators.

[Via Lew Rockwell.]

Comments

[quasibill]

Actually, to threadjack right away, I thought the more thought provoking article over at LRC today was the one about the immigration judge stating that fear of torture is an adequate justification for failing to honor an extradition request, even if it is for a horrible mass-murderer or terrorist.

Tell me again our justification for "extraordinary rendition" from foreign countries?

[quasibill]

And to comment on the actual subject - Ritter may actually have useful knowledge, but at this point his credibility is so shattered that I hesitate to point to anything he says for support, just out of a desire to avoid getting into a discussion about his credibility.

I need to hear some other corroborating evidence before I put much stock in this story.

[joe]

Why is Scott Ritter's credibility shattered?

[Jesse Walker]

Because he said that Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction. Make a lousy call like that, and you're discredited for life.

(Actually, he did say some foolish things during the earliest stages of the Iraq war. But I don't think that instantly discredits everything else he has to say.)

[joe]

My recollection is that Ritter was deemed to lack credibility because he asserted, as far back as 2001, that Iraq had no WMD program. The right wingers who control the media determined that this was such an indefensible, irrational, counterfactual statement that Ritter had to be working for Saddam Hussein himself. Ha ha ha.

Then he was accused of being a child molester in the runup to the war. Of all the disheartening things I've seen over the past five years, that fact that our press and public let the administration and their media enablers get away with that unquestioned is probably the worst.

[joe]

Jesse,

Saying that our military will win tactical battelfield victories, but that we will eventually lose because we cannot win politically, doesn't sound foolish to me.

[Jesse Walker]

Yes, but saying that the U.S. wouldn't be able to take Baghdad was a wee bit off.

[quasibill]

To be honest, I don't even remember anymore the exact problems. I just remember having this discussion (repeatedly) and always ending up regretting using Ritter for support. Jesse's link isn't that bad, so either I'm misremembering, or there was something else about Ritter that made me regret bringing him up.

Like I said, I'm actually sympathetic to most of what he says, but I just hesitate to cite to him anymore. It always seemed to degenerate into a discussion about his credibility, and I remember always being on the losing end of that discussion. None of which changes the fact that everything he has said about Iraq has essentially been true. Just that I don't think you will convert any of the hawks by using Ritter's statements.

[thad]

Ritter buries the lede:

"Then, with French technical assistance provided via the French economic liaison in Baghdad - whether by rogue element, or with official permission is still unknown - the Mukhabarat broke Unscom's encryption system, so they could listen in on all "secure" phone calls between Baghdad and New York."

[joe]

"Yes, but saying that the U.S. wouldn't be able to take Baghdad was a wee bit off."

Would you describe Baghdad as secured right now? Exactly what Ritter predicted - that our forces would be unable to secure it from a guerilla resistance - seems to have come to pass.

[bigbigslacker]

This Ritter exchange always struck me as a little weird:

TIME: You've spoke about having seen the children's prisons in Iraq. Can you describe what you saw there?
RITTER: The prison in question is at the General Security Services headquarters, which was inspected by my team in Jan. 1998. It appeared to be a prison for children ? toddlers up to pre-adolescents ? whose only crime was to be the offspring of those who have spoken out politically against the regime of Saddam Hussein. It was a horrific scene. Actually I'm not going to describe what I saw there because what I saw was so horrible that it can be used by those who would want to promote war with Iraq, and right now I'm waging peace.

[Ruthless]

I hope somebody has paged Justin Raimondo.

[Jennifer]

Wow, Slacker. That alone is enough to make me lose respect for Ritter. I was always against the Iraq war, too, but I vigorously oppose the idea that truth should be suppressed by anybody in the interest of furthering their political goals. In that regard, he's no better than the presumed patriots who want to keep the Abu Ghraib photos under wraps.

[rafuzo]

Exactly what Ritter predicted - that our forces would be unable to secure it from a guerilla resistance - seems to have come to pass.

joe, you split hairs so well it's a wonder you'd ever hold Bush's feet to the fire for the WMD claim.

[Phil]

Yes, thad, the REAL story is not an attempt by the CIA to hijack an UNSCOM inspection to assassinate another country's leader, which ended in tragedy; it's Those Goddamned Smelly Perfidious French.

Smarter trolls, please.

[rafuzo]

I am constantly amazed that anyone takes much of what shows up on lewrockwell.com too seriously.

Oh wait, nobody does.

[R C Dean]

Lets be clear - Ritter was saying we couldn't take Baghhdad from Saddam, and couldn't beat his regime on the battlefield.

Obviously, these claims are utterly refuted.

As for his claim that Saddam didn't have a WMD program - clearly he did, although it appears to have been largely mothballed waiting the lifting of sanctions.

I still don't know what happened to the stock of WMD's Saddam held in the early '90s. Does anyone?

[joe]

Jennifer, it's a little unfair to accuse Ritter of "hiding the truth" when, in fact, he answered the question, and even provided the information that he was, supposedly, trying to conceal.

He didn't lie about seeing them. He didn't play down how bad they were. He admitted they were real, and horrible beyond description, then tried to steer the conversation back to a more familiar topic.

Is that what the Abu Ghraib apologists do? Maybe if Ritter had replied that the kids weren't covered by the Geneva Convention, and were being initiated into a fraternity...

[joe]

RC, his prediction could be read either way. There are clearly parts of Baghdad, even today, that are unsafe for American forces, in which Iraqis with rocket launchers can walk around with impunity.

"I still don't know what happened to the stock of WMD's Saddam held in the early '90s. Does anyone?" Most were destroyed by the UN inspection teams. Others by the regime itself, and still others by American and British aircraft in Operation Desert Fox. This is what the Iraqi Survey Group determined.

[bigbigslacker]

Joe, yes, the news reports of the charges against Ritter came out during the "rush to war". But his solicitation of a 14yr old girl for mutual manual manipulation was in April 2001. His second stab at the dating scene was in June, only by this time he had moved up to 16 year olds. I doubt even Rove has the ability to travel back in time to make Ritter horny for young girls in an effort to damage his credibility. You seem to be suggesting it was a trumped-up charge, as with Tom DeLay. Why?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30595

[Mike H.]

Am I the only one that's grown fantastically tired of having the same debate over and over?

[bigbigslacker]

BTW, I separate the two. Ritter may be a dirty old perv, but that doesn't automatically make him a liar on matters unrelated to his perviness.

Mike H, you didn't like the movie Groundhog Day, did you:)

[Frank]

In other news from LewRockwell.com...

Thomas di Lorenzo creates a tour de force article by comparing Bush with that rat-bastard-Lincoln, 57 times! Damn, he's on fire!
...
Thomas Woods makes a well-written article on the Catholic Church and libertarianism and at the same time types out his pre-written apology to his KKK friends that he's sorry for worshipping the Whore of Babylon...
Gary North contemplates on how the Fed should be abolished with the gold standard since that would allow you to trade in your dollars for gold bars to stone fags, pagans, Communists, democrats...
Lew Rockwell eats a whole box of fudge popsicles!
...

[Mike H.]

No, not at all!

[Jesse Walker]

Joe: In the context of the time, it was pretty clear that he was talking about America's ability to take Baghdad, not its ability to hold it. He was wrong.

There is an enormous difference, of course, between being wrong in a prediction and lying about your experiences. In this article, Ritter presents what he says were his experiences. Whether or not anyone here is inclined to believe him, it seems like a pretty significant piece of testimony.

[drf]

Joe:

happy friday to you! and our teams are rivals this weekend. My Tribe (my AL favorite) and your Bosox. May the baseball be as exciting as it's been this month! Good luck!

This phrase jumped out at me

"The right wingers who control the media"

While i'm not one to buy into the "liberal media bias", I do think certain news organizations are blatantly biased to one side or the other, I fount it refreshing to see that particular combinations of words.

The crass failure of the US to have good policy and the trust of the US in the UN to wage this war seem to be the two pillars that fell causing this mega clusterfuck today. (prob'ly add the third being the trigger happy administration we have right now.)

there's plenty of flaming to go around. and it is a good illustration of what happens when government transfers policies. can't wait to see how the dems fuck us up with PATRIOT, etc...

cheers,
drf

[joe]

drf,

Our teams are not "rivals." They are co-belligerants against the Evil Empire.

By "right wingers who control the media," btw, I was not talking about FoxNooz primarily, but the RNC and White House spinners who were so clearly sending their marching orders to every major media outlet in the country for three years.

[SY]

IIRC, Ritter was taking some substantial money from the Baathists.

[Les]

bbslacker, the charges against Ritter were dropped for lack of evidence.

I disagree with Ritter's decision to censor himself in regards to Sadaam's atrocities, but I do think he's been more right than wrong about things.

[joe]

SY, I recall those charges being made. IIRC, the sum total of the evidence for that charge was the fact that he stated the Iraq did not have any weapons of mass destruction.

Or you may have him confused with George Galloway, who successfully sued a newspaper for libel for making that charge against him.

[drf]

Joe: LOL.

(now that motiv from Star Wars is in my head. heh heh heh)

🙂

And the RNC/White House spinners certainly are talented. I like how georgie has those cute nicknames for the white house reporters. sigh.

good baseball to you!
drf

[SY]

No, he was given something like $200K to do a film that never got made. Kept the $200K. At least that's how the story went.

[stubby]

Joe:

GG did not win his trial based on the truth or falsity of the papers that were the subject of the Telegraph story...it has not been determined whether GG did or did not receive money from Baathists in Iraq...the judge in GG's trial concluded that the Telegraph had gone beyond strictly reporting on the documents (which appeared to indicate that GG received money from Saddam's regime) and commented on them to the extent that GG was defamed...the Telegraph did not attempt to prove or disprove the papers' authenticity. The Telegraph says it does not know if the papers are authentic or not, and no one else has proved the matter either.

There are still reasons to believe that GG received money from the oil for food scam and that he received money from Saddam's regime. There are also reasons to believe the the funds collected by his charity for the Palistinian child were misused, but no one has been able to figure that out because the books and records were moved to Jordan.

GG has not been vindicated, in law or in fact.

Let's not forget that Liberace successfully sued a British tabloid for libel after it called him a "deadly, winking, sniggering, snuggling, chromium-plated, scent-impregnated, luminous, quivering, giggling, fruit-flavored, mincing, ice-covered heap of mother love."

[Les]

SY, are you talking about "In Shifting Sands"? Because that film certainly did get made.

[joe]

So, stubby, the only evidence you can point to are some documents that even the paper that printed them won't endorse as genuine?

And what the hell is "it has not been determined whether GG did or did not receive money from Baathists in Iraq?" What are you, Dennis Hastert?

[SY]

Les, may have been, dunno, just going from inexpert dim memory of second-hand stories.

[bigbigslacker]

"charges against Ritter were dropped for lack of evidence"

Les, point taken. In a court of law he is "not guilty". But there is no doubt he was arrested by police who were under the impression he was going to meet two under-aged girls on two separate occasions to do things that are marginally illegal. Maybe it was all just one big mix up and the police were 100% incorrect, but that seems rather doubtful. If it were so, I'd think Ritter or his supporters would have made an effort to clarify the misunderstanding (and sue those responsible). That the prosecutor was uncertain of expending resources pursuing the case is in no way an indication of Ritters guilt or innocence. I can understand why a prosecutor may not want to expend limited resources nailing some guy who was merely attempting to be sort of lewd, when they probably have plenty of perps who have "gone all the way" and need a good busting. According to the news stories, he did not express any interest in touching the girls - only himself. (He should have just rented some videos - duh)

[Les]

SY, that's usually my source, as well.

[joe]

"In a court of law he is "not guilty". But there is no doubt he was arrested by police who were under the impression he was going to meet two under-aged girls on two separate occasions to do things that are marginally illegal. Maybe it was all just one big mix up and the police were 100% incorrect, but that seems rather doubtful."

What site am I on?

[Hakluyt]

MikeH,

Oh definately. Quite boring. 🙂

joe,

GG never received any money directly; a charity he is affiliated with did though (the paper trail for that is fully documented). Only the ignorant (such as yourself) think that its an issue of direct payments. Now, whether he was in cahoots with the individual involved in funneling the money to the charity is the question.

...that Iraq had no WMD program.

...did not have any weapons of mass destruction.

Which is it?

[Les]

bbslacker, I see what you're saying, but the fact is that nobody outside of the situation itself has any idea whatsoever of what happened. It's possible that he wanted to use these girls sexually, it's possible they made false claims, it's possible the cops screwed up, and it's possible that all of the above are true. But we have no way of knowing since the file was sealed by the courts and (for whatever reason) he's decided not to explain what happened.

That said, I think it's irrelevent to his points of view regarding U.S. foreign policy towards Iraq, which, like I said, I think has turned out more right than wrong.

[joe]

"...that Iraq had no WMD program.

...did not have any weapons of mass destruction.

Which is it?"

Both. Haven't you been reading the news over the past two years?

And by "fully documented," are you referring to something beyond the suspect documents involved in the lawsuit? I ask, because I'm genuinely ignorant of this affair.

[Hakluyt]

BTW, whatever one may think about the Iraq war, its pretty clear that Galloway is a scumbag, as can be attested to by his own statements: http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/000941.html

My favorite:

?Actually, the Iraqi resistance does not target its own civilians. But the people that are being fought by the resistance in Iraq are the people that are working for the occupation.?

Note that Zarqawi, etc. have specifically stated that part of their strategy is to target Shi'ites indiscriminately in an effort to create a civil war.

[x]

z

[Hakluyt]

joe,

Iraq did have a very minimal weapons program left in place.

I suggest you look into the May 2005 report out of the committee that Coleman heads.

[joe]

I don't believe the report of a partisan committee would be terribly enlightening.

"very minimal...still in place" is some pretty broad language.

But I agree that there is a lot to dislike about Galloway. But making shit up about your political opponents, making up treasonout conspiracies, rather than arguing on the merits and adhering to the truth, is just so "Great Cultural Revolution" for my tastes.

It isn't enough that he says these things - oh, no, he has to be an agent of Saddam Hussein, too.

[Hakluyt]

joe,

BTW, Dr. Mahdi Obeidi (head of Iraq's nuclear centrifuge program) kept materials, blueprints, etc. of Iraq's suspended nuclear weapons program buried in his back yard awaiting orders from the regime to get the program in full gear again.

Also, some small amounts of WMD munitions have been found in Iraq; whether that's because they are part of a larger cache, or because they're simply forgotten parts of a largely destroyed stockpiled can't be said for certain (though the latter is probably the most accurate determination).

[Hakluyt]

joe,

Maybe you ought to read it first. Oh wait, that's because your a partisan yourself - you're just not a Republican.

Anyway, its not entirely correct to say that there were no WMDs in Iraq; there were some. But that points out the problem with this issue though; its a binary affair to you fools ("hawks" and "doves" that is).

...he has to be an agent of Saddam Hussein, too.

Given his dozens of meetings what Tariq Aziz, his advocacy for that scumbag, how he liked to disco dance with him, etc. its not a problematic idea. Now of course he's a hero of the left because he opposed the Iraq war; anything else he might have done or said is irrelavent.

[thoreau]

Maybe it was all just one big mix up and the police were 100% incorrect, but that seems rather doubtful. If it were so, I'd think Ritter or his supporters would have made an effort to clarify the misunderstanding (and sue those responsible). That the prosecutor was uncertain of expending resources pursuing the case is in no way an indication of Ritters guilt or innocence.

Maybe he's guilty and the evidence is scant. Or maybe as an innocent man he sees nothing to gain in reminding the public of the allegations against him. Those sorts of allegations, even if false, can still hurt a person.

So, since I have no idea whether or not to believe the allegations, I choose to disregard them when evaluating matters unrelated to his sexual habits. Note that there's a difference between "disregard" and "disbelieve."

[thoreau]

The only thing I know for certain about the Iraqi WMD program is that no useful WMD ever made their way into terrorist hands. If they had, we'd know about it by now. Probably the hard way.

[Hakluyt]

joe,

There is a limited amount of attention anyone can devote to the subject...

Which is really no excuse for simply dismissing something as partisan.

...and the Republicans haven't exactly established themselves as a credible source on this subject.

Ahh, a tu quoque.

OK, on the plans and stored equipment - doesn't that appear to indicate the desire for a future nuclear program, rather than an ongoing one?

The program remained in situ; as such it was ongoing.

Its more than just one mere shell. The fact that you think its just one shell is indicative of the fact that you haven't spent much time reading up on this subject.

[Hakluyt]

thoreau,

...no useful WMD ever made their way into terrorist hands.

Well, they never used any against anyone certainly. If indeed Zarqawi and his henchmen had found some they might sit on it for a while in order to figure out how best to use it. Patience is one the most significant qualities that Al-Qaeda has been able to muster over the years. They work on their own timetable.

[joe]

Hakluyt,

"Which is really no excuse for simply dismissing something as partisan." Wait, it IS partisan, in that it represents the work of one political party, and was produced for the purpose of pushing the policy of that party.

"Ahh, a tu quoque." Actually, it's an ad homenim. And of course it is - I'm talking about making a judgement about whether or not to read something, based on the credibility of its author. I can't address the report on its own merits as I make this determination, because I haven't read the report. I don't take the copy of the home-typed handout from the guy with the dirty beard at the subway station, either. Just so many hours in the day, you have to judge which books to read by their covers.

"The program remained in situ; as such it was ongoing." The "situ" in question was underneath the guy's garden. I'm sorry, if you've put something into long-term storage and buried it beneath a tree, that means you're not currently using it.

"The program remained in situ; as such it was ongoing." You are right about that. Once the third or fourth report on the absence of WMDs was released by the government, I stopped paying attention to people who claim that there really, really are WMDs there.

Your answers to me and to thoreau seem to be pointing in a certain direction. Spill it, Croesus - what do you think?

[thoreau]

First he stays away from the religion and ID threads.

Then he starts making arguments that could be construed as saying there were WMD in Iraq.

Hakluyt, are you feeling OK?

[thoreau]

Somebody get champagne, stat! I'll get the brie and baguettes.

Hakluyt, whatever is wrong, we're gonna get you through this. Just hang in there.

[Deus ex Machina]

If I recall, George Galloway during the 1980s was a huge opponent of Saddam Hussein and was one of the first to denounce the gassing of the Kurds, as well as the attempts by the US to cover it up.

[Les]

Deus ex, if that's true, he changed his tune.

On Saddam Hussein: ""Just as Stalin industrialized the Soviet Union, so on a different scale Saddam plotted Iraqis own Great Leap Forward? He
managed to keep his country together until 1991. Indeed, he is likely to have been the leader in history who came closest to creating a truly Iraqi
national identity, and he developed Iraq and the living, health, social and education standards of his own people." (I'm Not the Only One,
Galloway''s autobiography)

To Saddam Hussein: "Your Excellency, Mr President. I greet you in the name of the many thousands of people in Britain who stood against the tide and opposed the war and aggression against Iraq and continue to oppose the war by economic means which is [sic] aimed to strangle the life out of the great people of Iraq... I greet you too, in the name of the Palestinian people... I thought the President would appreciate to know that even today, three years after the war, I still meet families who are calling their newborn sons Saddam. I salute your courage, your strength your indefatigability. And if I want you to know that we are with you until victory, until victory until Jerusalem!"
(Speech made in Baghdad, 1994)

[bigbigslacker]

Les, joe, thoreau...agreed, its certainly not impossible he is innocent. He did show some integrity in at least mentioning Saddam's brutal treatment of dissident's children, despite the revelations harm to his own cause.

[joe]

Cripes, slacker, I thought you were talking about Galloway!

I nearly fell out of my chair.

[Hakluyt]

joe,

Wait, it IS partisan, in that it represents the work of one political party, and was produced for the purpose of pushing the policy of that party.

Thank you for a fine example of a genetic fallacy.

Actually, it's an ad homenim.

A tu quoque is a type of ad hominem you dolt; just as is poisoning the well and other similar devices. As I keep writing, a university education was wasted on you.

...based on the credibility of its author.

So, what exactly do you know about Norm Coleman? Oh that's right, he's not a member of your party.

I can't address the report on its own merits as I make this determination...

I see, so ignorance gives you license to prattle on in this way. Heh.

...if you've put something into long-term storage and buried it beneath a tree, that means you're not currently using it.

When did we morph into "not currently using it" from phrase in play from "ongoing program." Notice the subtle shift in word usage whenever joe is losing.

Your answers to me and to thoreau seem to be pointing in a certain direction.

They aren't pointing in any direction. That you think I am is more of indication of your particular mental framework than anything.

thoreau,

There WMDs there; just not many of them. BTW, because you apparently are playing Mr. Dense tonight, I'll repeat what I wrote on the matter:

Also, some small amounts of WMD munitions have been found in Iraq; whether that's because they are part of a larger cache, or because they're simply forgotten parts of a largely destroyed stockpiled can't be said for certain (though the latter is probably the most accurate determination).

Maybe instead of skimming through the posts you should spend some time and read them before you start telling me what I believe.

I'm neither in the "hawk" or "dove" camp, so your attempt to categorize me is fruitless.

[thoreau]

As long as we're talking about weapons inspections, I'm now the proud owner of a Sig P226 9mm. It was tough finding a used one in the newer design that newer design that Jason Ligon recommended, but I managed to find one after checking several stores. It's being held at the range until the paperwork clears with the state police, but it's mine. That gives me time to go shopping for a locked box to store it in.

Thanks to everybody for the advice that they've given. I'm sure it won't be my last purchase. Mr. Nice Guy and I both liked the S&W 686+. I'll have to look for one of those eventually.

[M. Simon]

There were reports of a thwarted chemical attack in Jordan a while back. The good were thought to come from Syria. IIRC.

Syria is not known to have a WMD program.

Before the start of ground operations Saddam was trucking a lot of stuff into Syria.

[joe]

"A tu quoque is a type of ad hominem you dolt"

Yes, it is. It's just not THIS type of ad homenim. There's no "quoque" in that statement.

"So, what exactly do you know about Norm Coleman?" He did an ideological and partisan flip-flop to advance his career, he ran a cheap shot campaign, and he got humiliated trying to shoehorn an investigation into a national media circus. Ergo, he's not a trustworthy person. You have a habit of assuming everyone ignorant, and it keeps coming back to haunt you.

"Notice the subtle shift in word usage whenever joe is losing." You know, if Hak was at good at debating as he is at declaring victory...we'd probably get to see him win an argument more often.

"They aren't pointing in any direction. That you think I am is more of indication of your particular mental framework than anything." Merde de poulet.

"I'm neither in the "hawk" or "dove" camp, so your attempt to categorize me is fruitless" You hear that? The Hakluyt is far more advanced you mere mortals, with your primitive avian political terms. His position on the war is beyond your puny minds to understand!

[Hakluyt]

joe,

It's just not THIS type of ad homenim.

Sure it is. You are damning their current position based on past behavior/positions; or rather, you are arguing that their position lacks merit based on some supposed past wrong/claim. That is a tu quoque. Its essentially an argument about the so-called hypocrisy of the individual/group in question and how that hypcrisy negates the validity of a current claim/position. Do I have to explain everything to you as if you were ten? Again that a university education was wasted on you.

He did an ideological and partisan flip-flop to advance his career...

I see. Sorry, your language speaks more to your own partisanship than anything else. I mean really, you give yourself away a partisan hack.

...he ran a cheap shot campaign...

That's a common enough accusation made by Democrats and Republicans against one another. Cheap shot in what way?

...and he got humiliated trying to shoehorn an investigation into a national media circus.

He did? How exactly did he get humiliated. Your comments (as usual) are short on substance.

...we'd probably get to see him win an argument more often.

I've won nearly every argument we've ever been in. Remember your moronic commentary on Penn Coal when you repeatedly insisted that I was wrong about a legal rule found in that case that is obvious to anyone who has ever read anything about regulatory takings? Or your similarly moronic commentary on the Lemon test where you insisted that you had indeed listed all three prongs but then hastily beat a retreat when I showed you were wrong?

His position on the war is beyond your puny minds to understand!

I'm not discussing anyone else's mind besides thoreau's in that statement (that's why I directed it to thoreau after all). Leave it to you to try to conflate my comments into something that they are not. Its unfortunate that your (meaning you singularly) mental framework is so limited (I'm sure joe will now conflate this remark - what a scumbag).

I'll note that you avoided the following (I wonder why?):

When did we morph into "not currently using it" from phrase in play from "ongoing program."

[thoreau]

Again that a university education was wasted on you.

Well, joe displays not only a respectable knowledge base, but also the ability to offer thoughtful analyses when constrained by incomplete information, the ability to offer novel propositions without having to rely on somebody else's conclusions, and the ability to hold his own in an argument even when the other side isn't offering any contradictions for him to exploit.

Sure, I frequently disagree with him, and he often gets down in the mud and fights dirty like the rest of us, but there are also plenty of times when he displays the traits outlined above.

I'd say joe displays what I'd expect from an educated person. I may take issue with his perspective on many things, but he still displays the traits of an educated mind.

[thoreau]

In other news, my plan to go to the range and enjoy my new toy today was thwarted by car trouble. Driving back home from church I noticed some car problems and decided maybe it would be better to simply hold off on driving until my trusted mechanic's shop opens on Monday morning.

God, mechanic, work, and wife willing, I will be able to enjoy my new toy some evening this week.

[Hakluyt]

M. Simon,

Syria is not known to have a WMD program.

That's wrong: http://www.state.gov/t/us/rm/24135.htm

If you want to argue with John Bolton (aka, "The Walrus) have at it.

[joe]

Hak, you dipshit, "tu quoque" means "you also." It is a variety of ad homenim in which one attempts to defend oneself from a charge by making the same charge against the accuser. It does not refer to a personal attack based on just any "past behavior/position."

The rest of you simian chest pounding isn't worth comment.