U.S. sent Iraq germs in mid-'80s

The Buffalo News ^ | 9/23/2002 | DOUGLAS TURNER

[Gunrunner2]

Just a quick question, other than the debate over dual use chemicals, what exactly did we "arm" Iraq with?

Thanks.

[GOPyouth]

And Bush's case would be a lot stronger if he'd just say that.."

Bush made the case 2 weeks ago at the United Nations. He listed point by point the violations Hussein has made regarding the 1991 ceasefire agreement. 70% of the American people seem to think he's made the case.

[JohnGalt]

The same American people that elected Clinton twice? Oh, those American people. Conservatives should demand a declaration of war debated in the Congress where the left can air the Iraqgate stories (I am sure the R's can find someone) and the Right (Burton?) can air the OKC bombing connection.

Rather the American people will go along with it because Kofi Annan said it was okay.

[Dr. Frank fan]

[the notion that we gave Saddam weapons reinforcing the pro-war case] Yes. And Bush's case would be a lot stronger if he'd just say that,

Perhaps. But it should surprise none of us that he doesn't say this. It would be unrealistic to expect of any head of state.

[>how else could you support a statement such as "there are other regimes far more worthy of being targeted"?] He probably reads the newspapers. Y'know, the actual news part, not the opinion pages.

You sure know a lot of biographical info about Alberta's Child.

Anyway, I hate to break it to you but the statement "Iraq is not the best Next Target in this war, [Syria/Egypt/Canada/fill in the blank] would be a better target!" is, itself, a statement of opinion.

And a very unsupported one, too, unless the speaker both has access to classified information and has performed sophisticated wargame scenarios.

[Dr. Frank fan]

[the American people are on board] The same American people that elected Clinton twice? Oh, those American people.

Wait, I'm confused. First, you said that Bush needs to "take his case" to the American people. I point out that the American people are already on board. So in response you illustrate just how much disdain you have for those same American people.

Question: if in your opinion the American people are such nincompoops, why the hell should Bush have to "make his case" to them in the first place? They're all dummies. Who cares what they think. They're all gullible. What's the point of "making his case" to such idiots?

Conservatives should demand a declaration of war debated in the Congress where the left can air the Iraqgate stories (I am sure the R's can find someone) and the Right (Burton?) can air the OKC bombing connection.

I'd be content for such a thing. I won't hold my breath. In the meantime the threat of Saddam remains, and I'd rather take him out than simply sit around dreaming about pipe dreams wherein we expose all government corruption at the same time. There's such a thing as letting the perfect (getting Saddam + exposing all government corruption) be the enemy of the good (getting Saddam).

Rather the American people will go along with it because Kofi Annan said it was okay.

I don't know where the heck you're getting this idea. "The American people" (the ones you think are idiots, but..) are already on board, and Kofi most certainly is not. He's going to be dragged kicking and screaming into this thing, if at all.

What you're talking about here simply is not based in reality. Nobody cares about Kofi frickin' Annan.

[lavaroise]

So that means the world and Saddam's got it right and Reagan/US wrong? Our leaders are not control freaks, laissez faire so to speak, however I much prefer that than control freak Saddam et al. In other words, this article is bogus in its political implications, especially since right now the left is jubilating for Saddam behind accusations of Bush, Reagan and America: this article being the sick proof of that jubilation.

[GOPyouth]

The same American people that elected Clinton twice? Oh, those American people.

Oh, I see. So, now the people shouldn't count because a terrible candidate with a terrible message couldn't beat Clinton during a good economy?

[JohnGalt]

Your faith in democracy is anethema to the forefathers; that is why they created a Republic with a system of checks and balances so 'things' moved slowly.