The U.S. Will Not Go to War Against Iraq: Not ever

"And all for the price of a handful of dust."
That is a nice literary reference. T.S. Elliot could almost have been writing about this eruption of advanced terrorism in our complacent societies:

There is shadow under this red rock,
(Come in under the shadow of this red rock),
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.

I can't make it out. To judge from comments on this thread by Lucius, he might know what is going on.

As I recall, maybe four months ago, I was discussing the anthrax issue with right_to_defend, who I believe is a medical or biomedical professional with some government connections. This was around the time that media was pushing the line -- bogus, as it later turned out -- that the anthrax sent after 9-11 had been sub-typed to a specific US weapons lab. I questioned whether this was really true, and predicted that not only would no such identification be forthcoming, but also that there would be no attack on Iraq in the foreseeable future, for the reasons I have outlined in this thread. At that time, right_to_defend bought into the government line, having heard it directly from a Pentagon source. The same source apparently told right_to_defend that an attack on Iraq was very close. Anyway, right_to_defend has come around to accept my analysis -- after all, my predictions turned out to be correct, while the Pentagon "insider" turned out to be full of hot air. I think right_to_defend is a bit ticked off about the way this matter is being handled -- a feeling I don't share, since I believe Saddam genuinely has Bush boxed into a corner (with 9-11, this is the ultimate legacy of Bill Clinton). Maybe right_to_defend overstepped the mark in criticizing Bush?

Hope I have recapped everything correctly here. If you are lurking, right_to_defend, feel free to freep-mail me if you have any corrections or comments.

Oh, and I forgot to ask...which cabinet level briefing did John Debyshire attend?

Ya know, when commonsense and just smidgen of wisdom used to be the norm, people would realize they didn't have the pertinent intel which would provide them with an informed opinion. But now that any stupid scenerio which is advanced by the biased media, we find the ignorant and distracted American populace will buy in to it simply because they see it on their TV set. .

To judge from comments on this thread by Lucius, he might know what is going on.

I would have if anyone had freepmailed me and told me, but nobody did. Didn't agree with him, but nothing I read would seem to justify the penalty, which is a complete nuking, not a ban. If you go to the new search, and check his name, you will see that his posts have been deleted from the forum. They do this if someone is a previously banned poster, and comes back under a new screenname, or if someone keeps more than one screenname active.

...these are not civilized people.

Indeed. Though I would not favor the nuclear option until all others are exhausted and our nation stands at death's door, our leaders must decide if they are ready to be brutal enough to send our enemies a message they'll not soon forget.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.