Sorry Teribus--your crystal ball has proven, shall we say, cloudier than that of most posters on this topic. There is no way to predict Saddam's health, had Bush not invaded, nor whether any rival could have arisen. The sons could easily have been at each others' throats. Etc.

Your glib assurances of how the future would have played out don't carry much weight.



My problem, however, is that it's just too easy to slash your feeble arguments to ribbons. I've really got to stop doing it--but it's just too much fun.

"Putting words in your mouth'--not likely. Just quoting you and your fellow sufferers in self-delusion. You give yourselves plenty of rope---to say the least.



To return to your favorite topic--the one we had so much fun with in 2005--I'm sure you remember. The one you were talking about--I think it was about a week ago.

So, whether Atta was in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official is "unconfirmed". Not only that, it's "UNCONFIRMED AT THIS POINT". And this is a BIG DEAL. Since otherwise you wouldn't have put it in ALL CAPITALS. I want to tell you I am IMPRESSED.

Almost as impressed as I was with your earlier arguments on this topic. My all-time favorite of your debate points has to be your post of 3 Dec 2005 10:11 PM.



Ron Davies 03 Dec 05 05:47 PM Fuck all absolutely nothing!!!

Ron Davies 03 Dec 05 09:05 AM Fuck all absolutely nothing!!!


Etc.



You get the idea.


I have to admit, as I said at the time, that the posting of 3 Dec 2005 10:11 PM is an unanswerable argument.

And it does of course show all your talents at a glance---including your amazing grasp of all the issues, wonderful command of English, and subtle wit.

I can't hold a candle to you in arguments of this sort.



As Gamble Rogers said, "Ah, nostalgia".



Just one cavil.


Perhaps you can tell us why Cheney's answer on 8 Sept 2002 to the question "Has anything changed in your mind?" was not a simple "No, sir."   With no following song and dance starting "Well, I want to be very careful about how I say this..."---proceeding to mention Atta, Prague, alleged new information, etc.

As I said earlier, now's the time for you to be really creative--to let the fantasist in you take wing. I'm sure you can think of a delightfully imaginative reason why Cheney did not simply say "No sir" and let Russert go on to a completely different topic.

Who knows, maybe you can be even more creative than you were on 3 Dec 2005---though admittedly that posting would be hard to beat.

But you can give it a try--for old times' sake.

Looking forward to your typically well-argued, calm, logical response.