Uh, the Turkey comment was mine. My cookie crumbled (again.)

Scott Ritter has a history of being solid Republican conservative, and very hawkish. He's a former Stormin' Norman crony and Geo. Bush supporter. The reason so many people are taking what he says to be a valid assessment is precisely because it's out of character for him. This is not a guy who is pro-Saddam in any way. The only people that don't seem to be listening are the ones who hired him in the first place.

Ironically, although Richard Butler was called to testify in the Senate hearings, Rolf Ekeus was NOT -- and he served the longest as UNSCOM chairman, and during almost all of the period in question (1991-98). The hearings were a sham and the desk was stacked, and yet the pro-attack Foreign Relations Committee still can't come up with a single reason why Saddam would be so suicidal as to attack us. He may be a scoundrel, but he's also a very political creature, and he knows that such an attack would be his death warrant. On the other hand -- say he DOES have these weapons, do you think he would withhold their use if he were under attack by America? I'm hard-pressed to imagine he wouldn't.

But the fact is, the US and UN spent a lot of time looking for solid evidence in Iraq and didn't find a darned thing. If we had any evidence, Bush & Co. would be trumpeting it as loud as they could right before bombing the hell out of another bunch of mid-East civilians. As it stands, attacking Iraq without a shred of proof is the moral equivalent of slaughtering an entire family because you have a gut feeling Dad might commit a crime in the future.

Doug: Which agreement are you specifically saying that Saddam violated and exactly how? There's a few in play here.