[Clinton's a rapist]

We stall for a few months at least -- we want to do this on our timetable. He has no incentive to strike us first. If he does that, he is a dead man. At some point, we will either just do a few token strikes (if we feel he really has us by the b*lls) or, if we feel we can blunt the impact of any retaliation, we will move in on Iraq. My guess is, we will target his CBW inventory first -- more to protect Israel and to set the appropriate psychological context for the conflict than because it will do anything to protect us -- then proceed to a general bombing campaign and a ground invasion. We will probably offer Saddam's life as a bargaining chip, since we don't really know what he's got up his sleeve. What happens next depends on whether he values his life more than his hold on power. If he is defiant, we will take him out, and we'll find out whether he's bluffing, and just how much damage his sleepers can do.

[AMDG&BVMH]

He has no incentive to strike us first

Agree . . .

If he is defiant, we will take him out, and we'll find out whether he's bluffing, and just how much damage his sleepers can do.

And in the meantime, they're looking for the sleepers, right? (Or just a lone angry guy?). (And still letting a bunch of people come in from that region and across the Mex. border and etc. . . .) My hope is that he'll let the UN inspectors back in. Clinton (the rapist- HA!)did not have a strategy when the inspectors were kicked out. Of course Saddam doesn't want to lose that capability, but if he uses it, he's dead, as you say.

Yeah, I know it's war, but I don't think we can take the hit domestically with bio. Esp. if we are not doing enough to stop it at the borders, etc. Of course, the threat of response HAS to be serious enough to convince him to let the inspectors back in. It's a game of "chicken" with our grannies and kids as the hostages of a potential bio strike. Agree: at a certain point, we may have to respond and so he'll let loose the sleepers.