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.
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.