KillForFreedom, To use your own expression "there can be no question about it" that Israel is applying terrorist tactics but the difference is that they are using their soldiers to do it. When will you wake up to the fact that it takes two to tango. Palestinians have been cheated for decades and the US has been complicit in this crime.Even a worm can turn. The blindness you exhibit shows that your kind will never learn from history. You cannot supress a people indefinitely without expecting consequences. As for Saddam supporting terror, he was merely following the US example, which has supported right wing militias in Central America, which killed thousands of poor peasants. All this in the name of supporting 'democracy'. There are none so blind as the blind. Bush is the blindest of them all because he is just a pawn in the neoconservative game led by Cheney. The US will never be safe until it realizes that it cannot defeat popular movements that arise through political and social injustice. Terrorism is but another weapon that the militarily inferior use. To always regard it as having no proper cause and to be wanton, is to invite more of it. So go ahead and vote Bush and you will assuredly get more than you bargain for. There is a school of thought in Europe that would welcome a Bush victory because it believes that Bush will launch even more aggressive military actions and that these will eventually result in a heavy defeat, before it will get the message, just as in Vietnam. There they were not militarily defeated, their people just got tired of seeing innocent people killed to no purpose and they withdrew with their tails between their legsd, after losing fifty thousand men. The 'threat' that Vietnam was percived to pose, was no threat at all.Likewise Iraq. Message was edited by: brolly2_1 Message was edited by: brolly2_1

KillFor Freedom, On almost every count you are wrong. There is nothing in your rhetoric that gives me any cause to change my views and we have gone over the same old ground ad nauseum. I can only think that you have a lot of spare time on your hands, as you have never said anything that doesn't come straight out of the neocon's handbook, and one can read it there in more ideological purity and detail. Sufficient for me to quote Colin Powell, who referred privately to the neocons as "----ing crazies",at a meeting with Jack Straw.That about sums you and them up!

KillForFreedom, I have never supported Communist expansion because I have no faith in any single ideology. I prefer to look for the historical context in which an ideology is fashioned and to understand its origins. I regard the Neoconservative ideology from the same perspective and reject it as being dangerous to all, as in the way you feel about Communism. As for the personal remarks, I will confess that I sometimes go over the top in this direction.

"My discussion was that the world, outside the US, rejects Mr Bush's argument even though half of Americans support Mr Bush. You argument is that Iraq had something to do with terrorist groups, and the US invasion of Iraq is a good thing to do." Well, almost. My argument is that Saddam was a sponsor of global terror, and I think many or most would agree, as this is easy to demonstrate even when restricted to the liberal press. It follows logically, that it is tough to believe he selectively excluded al Qaeda from the group of international terrorists he sponsored, and further (from my chronology post) there is a growing body of evidence that he had explicit ties to al Qaeda over the past decade as well. Bush had declared war on global terror and its sponsors, and Iraq was clearly in the latter group. I recognized that popular European opinion does not agree with this. "Mr Bush told the world that he attacks Hussein because he had connection with al Qaeda and can attack the US (or Israel?) by nuclear weapons in 45 min. I understand that both were officially denied by the US investigators.: Again, sort of. Bush said he would attack Hussein because he was: i) in breach of most of the conditions of the cessation of hostilities from 1991, which Hussein signed, ii) he was known to have had stockpiles of chem and bio weapons, as determined by UNMOVIC in the mid-90s, and was actively thwarting UN inspection, iii) he was clearly a sponsor of global terror, and in combination with i) and ii) above, was a 'clear and present danger' to U.S. security. I believe the evidence supports this reasoning, and the resulting invasion. "You refer to HAMAS, PFLP, PFP, PKK, Abu Nidal Organization. Were those groups imminent threats to the US like al Qaeda that attacked New York?" No, not so far. Al Qaeda, however, was obviously such a threat. Al Qaeda was demonstrably working with elements of Iraqi intelligence and industry to develop chem- and bio-weapons. "Are they now significantly weaker (and, is the world safer) because the financial aide from Iraq stopped?: Yes, and they are on notice that the strongest military and economic force on the globe is out destroy them. "By the way, why are all terrorists against the US? There could be some that are against Saddam." Indeed, al Qaeda was against Saddam until the early 1990s, when a cessation of hostilities was agreed upon. This was included even in the 9-11 Commission report, which was otherwise blinkered unto irrelevance. "You claim that "Saddam was a state sponsor of terrorism." Was he such a big man?" Any state sponsor of terrorism should be destroyed. Unfortuantely many are much more powerful than the Taliban and Hussein, and will therefore require a great deal more finesse. Also, many have complexities that require careful consideration, such as Iran, which is an odd amalgam of democracy and theocracy. "What he did was to invade a small neighboring country, and not more than that (disregarding the conflicts before the gulf war). Saddam was not a fine man, but Iraq was not a serious threat to the US (as to waste hundreds of millions of dollars in the war)." This is where I disagree with the European popular sentiment. Saddam had only to deliver a relatively small quantity of a binary nerve agent such as VX, or a biologically active substance such as smallpox into the hands of one of his pet terror groups, and the damage to the U.S., Israel or Europe would have been immense in human and economic terms. "Your argument is not convincing. I (and the people of the world) believe that the US has not right to militarily attack ANY country unless the country poses an imminent threat to the US or to the world (as represented bu the UN)." I feel that Iraq was a potent and imminent threat, as laid out above. Further, Hussein had territorial ambitions and was a genocidal tyrant within his own country, much like Milosevic. (As an aside, did you disagree with the U.S. involvement in the Balkans?) "What America can argue is only that once started it cannot be stopped." This is a tough argument. We could walk away. In fact, I believe there would be some merit to an isolationist approach. Perhaps we are wrong, and radical Islam is not such great threat. And perhaps it would be better to seal the borders and allow the outside world to take the brunt if we are correct. I find it very difficult to argue with this approach. It is disturbing, however, that the chief proponent of this isolationism is Pat Buchanan, a rather unsavory character in my book. KFF

KappNets, I appreciate your ability to discuss these issues without rancor. It is a sign of your objectivity, which seems all too rare these days. "As I understand, Saddam had such enemies as Iran, Kuwait, and Israel. Maybe some others. The US could be one of the enemies, but it is a different matter if he considered of attacking the US by force. If he had chemical or nuclear weapons, they were probably meant to attack neighboring countries or as deterrent force." Indeed, this is the conclusion reached by the Duelfer report. According to what I have read so far (the full text has not yet been released to the public) the conclusions as to Hussein's intent for his weapons programs derive primarily from Hussein's statements under interrogation. Saddam is clearly a practiced statesman, and has many times shown his duplicity. I believe he has everything to gain by undermining the credibility of the Bush doctrine, and that this explains his statements. You said the US "could" be one of these enemies. I can demonstrate that America WAS one of these enemies, based on Saddam's actions rather than what he has said. According to the testimony of Laurie Mylroie before the 9-11 commission, when Iraqi forces controlled Kuwait, the identification papers for Ramzi Youssef were doctored to establish his identity as Kuwaiti. Youssef was actually from Baluchistan, but this 'legend' was manufactured along with several others to facilitate the 1993 World Trade Center attack. Further, in 2000 Ahmed Hikmat Shakir, an officer in the Fedayeen Saddam, met with Al Qaeda personnel in Kuala Lumpur for September 11 planning. Additional evidence that Saddam considered the US an enemy includes the failed 1993 assassination attempt on George Bush senior, and the failed 1999 attempt to bomb the offices of Radio Free Europe in Prague (which is operated by the US). "What types of terrorist organizations would he help? Probably local groups." He has demonstrably assisted a wide variety of terror groups including the PLO, HAMAS, PFLP, PKK, Abu Nidal Orgainzation and others. These are primarily regionally focused groups, on that we can agree. "His connection with al Qaeda is officially denied by the US." It is denied by the 9-11 commission, which was a political/partisan fig leaf, the 2004 equivalent of the Warren Commission, which covered up the conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy. One need look no further than the roster of the 9-11 commission to see this. Democratic partisans Richard Ben Veniste and Jamie Gorelick were very clearly placed on the commission to shift blame to the Bush administration, and to reinforce the idea that there was no link to al Qaeda. I heavily discount their findings with respect to the origins and financing of the attacks. "As I understand, many terrorist groups act locally, and al Qaeda is an exception. Was Saddam really a sponsor of global terror?" This is an interesting point. Much of Saddam's terror support prior to al Qaeda was regional in nature. His support for al Qaeda was almost certainly targeting the US alone. "I understand that it is recently decided that Hussein did not have "stockpiles of chem and bio weapons" nor nuclear weapons when the war began last year." I believe the Duelfer report concluded that at the time of the US invasion, Saddam had no significant stockpiles of CBNR weapons. This is not surprising, actually. I believe that Hussein had SOME quantities of chemical and biological weapons before the war began. (In fact the inspection teams did find limited numbers of chemical gas artillery shells, as well as UAVs with aerosolization capability.) He may not have had the immense stockpiles that he possessed in the mid-1990s, though it is established fact, based on the reports of the UNMOVIC inspectors, that he did have such stockpiles after the first Iraq war was concluded. I think it is accurate to say that the UN inspectors succeded in limiting his ability to maintain these stockpiles, but only until they were forced out of Iraq in 1998. Hussein had three years with no inspections to rebuild his CBNR programs unfettered. The resumption of inspections in the year or so before the second invasion may have again placed limits on these programs. But these inspections were hindered in every possible way by the Iraqis. This was a game of cat and mouse rather than open cooperation, and this indicates that Saddam had some amount of CBNRs that he was hiding. What other conclusion could one reach when the Iraqi government was emptying warehouses and removing top soil to front-run the UN teams? In my opinion, it is irrelevant whether he had large stockpiles or only small amounts, because it would only take a very small amount of binary nerve agent or biological material to make Septmber 11th seem like a modest preview. "It is suspected that he just wanted to leave the matter ambiguous as an effective means of deterrent force." This is possible, but does not diminish the rationale of the Bush administration in its course of action. "We all now know that he was not an imminent threat when the war broke out." I disagree. As I said above, even a small amount of CBNR weapons delivered to al Qaeda or other group with global reach (which Iraqi intelligence could and did facilitate) would present a grave and imminent threat. "We could very probably contain him by way of UN watchdog groups and economic sanction. Much less expensively." Probably we could, I agree with this. But probably is not good enough for most Americans that I know, not after September 11. Better to err on the side of caution, regardless of the popularity of the Bush approach with the international community. Despite popular opinion (and the distortive statements of candidate Kerry) most US allies are in full support of US actions against al Qaeda to this day. "With the fuss in the UN just before the war in mind, it is now clear that Mr Bush was too nervous or too one-sided about assessing the danger of Hussein. A novice-policeman or a novice-judiciary, or cowboy-style decision of a mindless sheriff pursuing a wanted man. Not a professional." This is clearly the consensus of popular opinion in Europe, though I dispute the wisdom of such a conclusion. How quickly the popular consensus has forgotten the consensus that existed prior to the invasion. I believe it is dishonest to fault the Bush administration, after the fact, for 'selling the war' based on WMD intelligence. The intelligence services of Britain, Spain, Australia, Germany, Egypt, Israel, Czech Republic and Russia all concurred at the time. So did the Senate intelligence committee. So did John Kerry. The following is taken from Kerry's October 9, 2002 speech on the floor of the U.S. Senate: "When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region." For Kerry and others to now say that Bush misled us based on this same intelligence is inaccurate and unfair. It also leads to serious questions about Kerry's judgment. This potential threat, and the position we find ourselves in today, are of primary importance to U.S. (and European) security. Political gamesmanship on this issue is dangerous and irresponsible. Also keep in mind that the UN Security Council is a highly politicized organization. One conclusion of the Duelfer report that you have not mentioned is that France and Russia had an ulterior motive for denying military force under a UN mandate--the oil for food vouchers. In addition both countries were holding billions of dollars in Iraqi debt that is unlikely to be paid in full, or at all, now that Iraq requires reconstruction. Further, France especially has a long history of using its influence in Europe and before the UN to offset US hegemony. It is awfully simplistic to say that Bush failed to gain UN backing for the invasion. Perhaps is is more accurate to say that UN, because of the motives of several security council member, failed to support the correct policy. "I agree that Saddam and Kim should be removed, but we must discuss how to do it. The US probably wanted to destroy the USSR, but did not do so, and the result was the self-destruction of USSR." Which was forced by long and tenacious US policy, despite rampant popular objections. We were all very fortunate that Reagan chose to ignore these objections and withstand the unpopularity of his choices. "We could adopt a similar approach also against other countries like Iraq." This, to me, is the key area of disagreement. With the Soviets, we had the benefit of time, since the Soviet aggressor had to rely on Cold War tactics. Iraq was different precisely because he could (and did) attack the US with complete deniability. We did not have the time to wait him out any further. And by the way, he was given twelve years to come around, during which time he violated the majority of the agreement (1441) that ended the 1991 hostilities. "This is what the European countries suggested. That is why the majority of the world including Europe and Asia likes Kerry better than Bush." No doubt. But as I have stated, Europe had its own motives, the last of which was protecting the security of its citizens and those of the US. "It is a bad habit of the US to take lightly of small or weak countries." I could not agree with you more on this point, and I fault the US administrations of the past twenty five years for this. Not very smart at all. "Small countries must take time to change socially, and the advanced countries cannot change them by speed-before-quality type of interventions. Is not the Iraq war an example of unsuccessful intervention? (We must wait, yes, but...)" Iraq was highly unlikely to change without outside intervention. The Iraq intervention has been both successful and unsuccesful to date. As you say, time will tell if Iraq can follow the model of El Salvador and Afghanistan. We should all hope that the elections work out as the Bush adminstration has planned. The alternative is dreadful to imagine. "By the way, as I understand, Iran is not a threat to the world. I do not understand why Mr Bush included Iran as a member of the evil axis." I understand why he included them, as Iran is now the primary sponsor of global terror. However, I believe this was a mistake. As I said in my previous post, Iran is a special case, being a hybrid theocracy and democratic republic. I believe freedom will evolve further in Iran of its own volition, as the theocracy has failed to provide the basics of a decent society for its citizens. Also, it was an odd choice to include in the Axis of Evil because we allied with Iran for the invasion of Afghanistan. "You are discussing POSSIBILITY. I do not think he had an intention of attacking the US by VX. Is not it a case of overreaction in self-defense? If you want to invade a country, you must have a solid evidence." Yes, I am discussing possibility. A possibility too horrible to leave alone. I think Saddam had an intention of CONTINUING to attack the US, and that highly portable systems such as chem- or bio-weapons were a very good choice for him. He would have maintained deniability and yet had a major strategic impact if he was successful in delivering a WMD attack through the vehicle of al Qaeda or other terrorist network. I believe Bush had solid evidence, starting in the early 1990s and carrying on throughout that decade, that Iraq intended to, and did attack the US at home and abroad in collaboration with al Qaeda.

"Skillfully put, but so shot full of holes it quite exceeds my patience," This is unfortunate, but not unusual. "But there is one matter I would invite you to comment on: So where are these quantities now? What do you suppose their fate to have been? Aren’t you in the least bit worried?" No, not in the least. Bush may have relied on incomplete or faulty intelligence when he told us that Iraq had immense stockpiles, but Bush could not have known this at the time. In fact, Hussein's behavior indicated otherwise. Further, it is entirely possible that Hussein destroyed, hid and/or exported the bulk of his CBNR materials in the months leading up to the war. As the U.S.-led coalition was building its forces prior to the invasion, this is exactly what one would expect Hussein to have done. David Kay has made it clear that he believes that large amounts of chemical and bio-weapons materials were exported to Syria and are now stored in bunkers there. Those opposed to the war have argued that Hussein would never trust his weapons with a foreign country, but this is contradicted by historical fact. In the lead-up the 1991 war, the Iraqi military moved the bulk of its air force to Iranian soil. Iran was Saddam's oldest enemy, Syria on the other hand had been an ally. It would be surprising if he did not move much of his illicit weapons to Syria before the 2003 invasion, based on this history. "Since Saddam, by your understandings, had these weapons for quite some time" Not only by my understandings, by the reports of the UN inspection teams. "and, again by your understandings, had both motive and opportunity, why did we not see an attack?" The planning for September 11 required ten years. For al Qaeda (or other group) to mount a succesful CBNR attack would take a great deal of time. This alone might answer your question. There are a number of other possibilities. Al Qaeda's plan to detonate chemical devices in Jordan and continental Europe were interdicted. Why is it so impossible to believe that the same could be true in the US?

ronr327, You appear to be feeling a bit ornery this morning. I appear to have misunderstood your question, "Aren't you in the least bit worried?" Your recent post has reinforced my confusion. If you are asking am I worried that the Bush administration pursued the wrong policy because no WMD were found, then my answer is "No, not in the least." If you are asking am I worried about where these weapons may be now, and who may have access to them, then the answer is "Yes, very much." As for support for the David Kay contentions, this was widely reported, including on AP I believe. Here is a link to the Telegraph, which I think had the earliest interview. I have others if you require: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/01/25/wirq25.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/01/25/ixnewstop.html As for my methods, I try to restrict my discussion to objective facts and common sense thinking about our current situation.

ronr, “http://democrats.com/view2.cfm?id=19102 ” This article deserves more than casual comment. What is required is a comparison of Risen/NY Times’ spin vs. David Kay’s actual words in his various interviews. I will leave that for another post. Suffice to say at this point, the NY Times is a MUCH less than reliable source. All the news that’s fit to spin. I would have thought the Jason Blair and Dan Rather scandals would have taught you to read with a more skeptical eye. “Confused? An elephant in your living room can have that effect.” A sloppy and rather cheap shot, ron. My confusion was with your question, not with the situation in Iraq. “Do you suppose your “confusion” over the elephant’s presence carried any credibility?” Credibility is earned, ron, and so far you are scoring below 50th percentile. “So then, hasn’t the President been either blind (incompetent?), or blatantly deceptive, by insisting he believed those weapons existed,” In a word, ‘no’. As I said in a previous post, before the Iraq invasion of 2003, most observers believed Saddam had CBNR weapons in his possession. Those in this consensus included the intelligence services of Russia, Czech Republic, Egypt, Britain, Australia, etc. Also in accord were the Senate intelligence committee, and John Kerry. Go back to my original post and you can read Kerry’s own words. Or simply do a search on Kerry and October 9 and speech. As with your credibility, your score is subpar on research. It is dishonest (or uninformed) to accuse President Bush of incompetence or inaccuracy before the invasion. It is also a failure of basic logic. Most believed Saddam had CBNR weapons before mid-2003. “having failed to secure them, insisting to the American people that the Iraq war – urgently required on the basis of those weapons – has made us safer? It certainly can’t be a “slam dunk” that we are safer.” We are safer in terms of the threat posed by the Hussein regime, its ongoing series of attacks on the U.S. at home and abroad, and its massive procurement efforts across the range of weapons systems. That much should be very clear, even to one such as yourself. “Perhaps the President has now accepted the absence of those weapons so he can claim to have made us safer without so frightening a matter left twisting in the wind. But then you still believe in those weapons.” Chuckle. There are beliefs/speculation and there are facts. I BELIEVE that President Bush has ‘accepted that there were no weapons found in Iraq’ to remove some of the force of his opponent’s rhetoric. The FACTS are that such weapons were found in Iraq, just not in the quantities expected. One can speculate as to the reasons for this, and there are many possibilities. They may have been destroyed. They may still be hidden in the sand (remember when ISG pulled an entire fighter aircraft out of a sand dune)? They may have been, as David Kay has indicated, transported out of Iraq to other countries, such as Syria. In one interview, Kay provided the detailed locations where he believed they were stored in Syria. “Where did your urgency go?” My urgency has been reduced by the active policies of the Bush administration. Al Qaeda is on the run, Afghanistan is a democratic republic, and Iraq will be in January as well. Solid progress, thus the urgency, in comparison to January 2003, is reduced. “No indignation at an administration which ignores so critical a question?” No, rather a great deal of respect for an administration that dealt with the urgent threat of the Hussein regime, the Taliban regime, and al Qaeda. The work continues. No one is ignoring any of these threats. You are ignoring the work that the administration continues to pursue at great cost in American lives and treasure. “I will freely concede you have good documentation for your David Kay claim, and so I apologize for my aspersion, but - for the moment - only in this particular instance.” Well, then, a limited thank you is deserved. “But I find this bit of business concerning Kay more than a little puzzling. The source for Kay’s Syria contention is Telegraph piece you cite. All references I could discover seem to circle back to that. A day or two later, in the New York Times [ http://democrats.com/view2.cfm?id=19102 ], he appeared to undercut most of what is found in the Telegraph, although the matter is not pursued in any depth” This appearance results precisely because the NY Times has become a tool of the left propagandists. Really has been for some time. “Dr. Kay said there was also no conclusive evidence that Iraq had moved any unconventional weapons to Syria, as some Bush administration officials have suggested. He said there had been persistent reports from Iraqis saying they or someone they knew had seen cargo being moved across the border, but there is no proof that such movements involved weapons materials.” Were they shipping food? Clothing? What was the explanation for this sudden ramp in heavy trucks crossing that border? Again, this was one of many possible explanations. More important, it has no impact on Bush’s original reasoning for taking down the Hussein regime. To repeat, you cannot logically indict Bush for decisions he made in 2002/early 2003 based on what he could not have known at that time, especially when most agreed that Hussein had CBNR weapons capability before the invasion. “The curious thing is that he never seems to have returned to the Telegraph contentions. Many months later, in August of 2004, he gave an extensive interview in Chemical and Engineering News: [ http://pubs.acs.org/cen/coverstory/8231/8231kay.html ] There is no mention of WMD’s and Syria there, although it is quite a broad and in depth discussion. Given Kay’s clear concern for the whole question of WMD’s, that is strange indeed. Note especially the conclusion of the piece, beginning with the C&EN question: “C&EN: Why, after you resigned, did you say ISG needed to continue its work even though you believed it wouldn't find weapons?” I would also note that Kay’s own words in the C&EN interview show that Bush was neither incompetent nor lying before the war: “Almost all those inspectors who spoke out before the war believed that Iraq had WMD, whether they were currently involved with inspections or had been involved in the past. As is true among scientists, the inspection community--and there were not that many inspectors--had an informal contact network that kept us all informed of what was being unearthed. And I think most inspectors were of the opinion that the evidence indicated that Saddam was still hiding something.” “ That is indeed the persona you have projected (at least recently), but such measured calm, in light of the: “Yes very much” just elicited, rings hollow, more evasion (or denial?) than "objective".” In comparison to earlier postings, my persona has shifted. There is a reason for this. When I first began to participate in OpenDemocracy, based on its charter, I expected a reasoned exchange of ideas. I found the nastiness and emotionality here VERY frustrating. Despite my continuing disappointment in this regard (which your most recent post does nothing to dispel) I now endeavor to remain objective.

"It's amazing that KFF is still involved in 'flogging a dead horse'. It is abundantly clear to anyone with a brain bigger than a walnut, that Saddam Hussein was a busted flush from the WMD point of view, long before the war started." It is abundantly clear that you ignore any fact that does not comport with your view. If Iraqi possession of WMD was disproven long before the war started, why did the UN inspectors, who were on the ground in Iraq up to that point believe he was hiding WMD? Why did John Kerry agree with this assessment? Why did the intelligence agencies of most major powers agree? Why did the UN security council pass resolution 1441, which you can read here: http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/scres/2002/res1441e.pdf Resolution 1441 states in part, "Recognizing the threat Iraq's non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security," "Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accuate, full, final and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles . . . as well as all other nuclear programmes, . . ." You are the one flogging the dead horse, brolly, the broken nag that is the argument that Bush could or should have 'known' that Iraq had no WMD. The UN Security Council even disagrees with you. Imagine that. "The BBC is to put out a series of three documentaries in the next week or so, which deals with 'The Terror Myth'." Ah, this must be that same BBC that apologized to the Blair government for falsifying the reports of David Kelly, leading to his suicide. More propaganda from the chief of anti-war propagandists. We'll see what they have to say when medical waste is detonated in London or Birmingham. Was the fear of terror in Madrid misplaced? I think not. "Much of the currently perceived threat from international terrorism, the series argues, "is a fantasy that has been exaggerated and distorted by politicians. It is a dark illusion that has spread unquestioned through governments around the world, the security services, and the international media." The series' explanation for this is even bolder: "In an age when all the grand ideas have lost credibility, fear of a phantom enemy is all the politicians have left to maintain their power." Tell that to those who died in Madrid and Georgia, or those that narrowly escaped chemical extermination in Jordan a couple of months ago. "I agree with the views expressed in the article and with the programmes producer; the 'War on terror' as far as WMD are concerned is largely an exaggeration on the part of the politicians." And of course you would. But to retain this view, you must continue to ignore the facts that any objective observer can see. Go to it, it seems par for your course.