President Bush is a Miserable Failure

"BUFDRVR" wrote in message
...
Depends on what the threat is. In the military we call it risk assesment.
Is
the risk that Hussain may be able to arm some terrorists worth the risk of
fighting a conflict without the resources to defeat a regime and secure
all
suspected WMD sites?

I might be willing to accept this risk assessment provided Saddam was the
sole possible source of WMDs to terrorists. But he wasn't: any such list
would have had to include Libya, Syria, Iran & North Korea. Taking a risk
from a small number to zero is one thing; taking it from a small number to a
slightly smaller number isn't nearly as impressive. And, of course, this
does not even consider the possibility that a botched invasion/occupation
might increase some risk factors (more resources for the terrorists,
increased chance that an ally might have a revolution).

Keep in mind that when you are embarking on any major activity that has a
large amount of uncertainty, prudent leadership demands you be more
conservative when you do your risk analysis. You don't bet the farm unless
you are confident that, even if the you get the realistic worst-case
benefits and the costs are the realistic worst-case costs, you won't lose
the farm.

I'm not sure we have enough info to make that call. In the past week we've
seen
the use of mustard and sarin gas. Not too effective in Iraq, against
military
personnel trained to deal with such weapons, but whose to say, without
invasion, if those weapons would have been used in the NYC subway?

Given the apparent age of those munitions (at least, based on what I've read
about them), they'd probably be about as effective as Sarin in the Tokyo
subway. Keep in mind, also, that someone scrounging up old weapons doesn't
necessarily imply that they would have been provided terrorists (it doesn't
mean it wouldn't happen, just not that it is a certainty). To be honest,
when it comes to small quantities of chemical and biological weapons, I'd be
more worried about a covert lab somewhere. After all there have been a
couple of incidents already (Anthrax in the US, ricin in the UK) that could
have been much worse.

The way the Iraqis moved their "stuff" around, there was no reason to
expect
the Al Tuwaitha site above any other. Additionally, according to U.S.
forces,
when they arrived it was already looted.

I'll have to disagree with you here. Granted, the Iraqis moved stuff around
but that was, typically, to prevent it from being found. This stuff had
already been found and inventoried. It was also under IAEA seal so moving it
would have had serious repercussions and it had little military value. As
such, I'd be surprised if it was moved.

As for the "looting", there is not, necessarily a conflict between the
stories of the Iraqis (who said the supplies were intact) and the Americans
(who said the site was looted). Al Tuwaitha was a big site so outer
buildings (that didn't contain any material) could have been looted of
everything but the kitchen sink while the nuclear material wasn't looted
until after the Americans left.