overreaction to the threat.

     To prevent the loss of a likely small number of innocent lives in our country, we have spent billions on various defenses and actually have suffered greater losses in our military that we dd on 9/11. At the same time we have killed thousands of innocents chasing the bad guys.

   Al qaeda hardly needs to be successful in its operations. Dispatch one idiot panty bomber and we will spend millions in beefing up airport security and millions on prosecuting and jailing this guy. Send out a few letter bombs and we will spend millions installing see thru scanners.

   So the real question is not whether the threat is real but whether the degree of risk posed by these guys justifies an endless war in Afghanistan and the expenditure of endless money to build the latest version of the Maginot Line.

Ritter was the chief weapons inspector for the United Nations.

Those inspections stopped during the Clinton administration. Why did they stop? Because Saddam wouldn't let the inspectors in? Nope. They were ordered out of Iraq by Bill Clinton, because he was preparing to bomb the shit out that poor miserable country.

You should remember this Phil, as the GOP yelled "wag the dog" for doing so.

The Bush administration, before the Iraq War, brought weapon inspectors back in. Ritter was not part of this team, but you'd think he knew a little something about this.

When the weapon inspectors couldn't find anything, Bush told them to get out of Iraq so he could bomb the shit out that poor miserable country again.

So yes, you're a revisionist, in this case, of the highest order.

did read all, but none of what I saw does not prove Al-Qaeda isn't a threat.  Just the rist 2 for brevity.

2. Assuming, arguendo, that governmts and the press lies, the is someone who placed bombs in bars in Bali, subways in London and Madrid, just did a bomb in Sweden, tried to blow up a plane on Christmas, tried to blow up jet liners with a shoe, did something in NYC, did two embassies in Africa......I could go on for another two pages, but beating a dead horse....
There is no reason to believe that that organization is gone.

Unless you believe those did not happen and they were also a lie, sounds like a threat to me, and that it is spinning pretty fast to say that it is no longer a threat.

2. It may, and just may be true Saddam didn't have weapons.  However, at the time he was shooting at US jets in violation of the treaty and Ritter, the U.N. inspector quit because he said he was not allowed to inspect.  Later he said there was nothing there, but how he reached that conclusion without inspecting is a little questionable.

To just assume that there was no cause is a little leap of faith.

From the wiki article I linked below:

"The IAEA report by Mohamed El Baradei stated that Iraq "has provided the necessary level of cooperation to enable... [our] activities to be completed efficiently and effectively"."

also:

"The UNSCOM report, authored by Richard Butler (Ritter's boss) deplored the restrictions, lack of disclosure, and concealment. While conceding that "[i]n statistical terms, the majority of the inspections of facilities and sites under the ongoing monitoring system were carried out with Iraq's cooperation"

From the wiki entry on Scott Ritter found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Ritter#Weapons_inspector

"[Ritter] also expressed frustration at alleged attempts by the CIA to infiltrate UNSCOM and use the inspectors as a means of gathering intelligence with which to pursue regime change in Iraq – a violation of the terms under which UNSCOM operated, and the very rationale the Iraqi government had given in restricting the inspector’s activities in 1998."

I would also note, according to Richard Clarke, Donald Rumsfeld said on 9/12/2001 that:

"there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan, and there are lots of good targets in Iraq".

What did he say when he quit.  Remember that?  He was the inspector. Why did he quit?  According to him, he quit because he wasn't granted access.

Now, let's see:  He wasn't granted access that he needed, but then he says what % remained.  And he knew that at the time how?

And that was the question I asked originally, which you glossed over very nicely, thank you for ignoring the issue

He went from crying "can't do my job, can't find out" to "nothing there" when views no longer fit his prior statements.  

And I am being called "revisionist." WOW.

At the time he said he was quitting because he didn't have access. You can spin, spin, spin until we are both blue in the face.  You can excuse and make it Bush, but he resigned before that.  Bush didn't bring him back. Spin, spin, spin.

How you can take the quotes I am providing below and make it sound like he thought that there was no danger is something beyond my limited brain capacity.  If the inpspections had become a "mockery" in his own word, it is his change of story that is revisionist.

Here is what he said.

After he resigned he said “I think the danger right now is that without effective inspections, without effective monitoring, Iraq can in a very short period of time measured in months, reconstitute chemical and biological weapons, long-range ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons, and even certain aspects of their developing of nuclear weapons. program.”
When the UN Security Council failed to take action against Iraq for the ongoing failure to cooperate fully with inspectors (a breach of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1154), Ritter resigned, saying, in his letter the Security Council's reaction to Iraq's decision earlier that month to suspend co-operation with the inspection team made a mockery of the disarmament work.
He later said,
The investigations had come to a standstill, were making no effective progress, and in order to make effective progress, we really needed the Security Council to step in a meaningful fashion and seek to enforce its resolutions that we're not complying with.

Let's do this again Phil. Here are the FACTS. Ritter expressed the following when the weapon inspections had stopped.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Ritter#Weapons_inspector

"[Ritter] also expressed frustration at alleged attempts by the CIA to infiltrate UNSCOM and use the inspectors as a means of gathering intelligence with which to pursue regime change in Iraq – a violation of the terms under which UNSCOM operated, and the very rationale the Iraqi government had given in restricting the inspector’s activities in 1998."

YOU quoted Ritter as saying: "I think the danger right now is that without effective inspections, without effective monitoring, Iraq can in a very short period of time measured in months, reconstitute chemical and biological weapons, long-range ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons, and even certain aspects of their developing of nuclear weapons. program."

Now WHERE in all this did Ritter say that Saddam prevented him from doing his job?

"You ask where did Ritter say that Saddam stopped him from inspections.  Let's see.  You recognized the fact that when he quit he complained about the lack of effective inspections."

No, I don't recognize that, because it is not true. Do I really need to post those wiki links again?

"If he wasn't able to complete inspections in a nation as tightly controlled as Iraq was, there must be one person preventing it, and that has to be Bush."

No, it was the CIA that prevented that. Bill Clinton was President at the time, as I have already stated.

"Also, you changed the subject again.  I was talking about Ritter saying he didn't have access and you switch to the CIA infiltrating.  That is a different subject. He still was denied access, according to his first statement."

Whenever I bring up contextual facts on a subject that puts a giant hole in your argument, you say I change the subject. Your quote from Ritter talked SOLELY about a stop to those inspections. There is NOTHING in that quote that puts the blame on Saddam. Rather, when that quote is seen in context with what he had to say about the interference by the CIA with those inspections, you see that Ritter was actually criticizing United States policy for preventing the inspections from continuing.

"In any event, I don't even know why it would be upsetting for the CIA to be on the inspection team.  He was supposed to hand over the info and access."

He was supposed to hand information over to the United Nations, not to US intelligence agencies, especially when those intelligence agencies were not collecting data on WMDs, but collecting data on bombing targets.

From the wiki article I linked to earlier:

"However, he also expressed frustration at alleged attempts by the CIA to infiltrate UNSCOM and use the inspectors as a means of gathering intelligence with which to pursue regime change in Iraq – a violation of the terms under which UNSCOM operated"

I keep talking about what he said when he resigned.  I keep saying he said A when he resigned and he later said B, which is revisionist.

I keep talking about the first things he said, and you keep ignoring them.

What did he say when he resigned? What did he say when he resigned? What did he say when he resigned?

He changed his tune. Who is revisionist, the person going for the original or the person going for the revised opinion?

You ask where did Ritter say that Saddam stopped him from inspections.  Let's see.  You recognized the fact that when he quit he complained about the lack of effective inspections.

Okay. He was in the country that Saddam controls, and he wants to go inside a building of Saddam and Main Street, but can't get in.  Gosh and golly, if he wants to get in, why not just call up Saddam and say, "Hey, Sad-Bro.  Wanna get in this building labeled 'Dangerous WMD.'  Can I get a little love, here, dude."

If he wasn't able to complete inspections in a nation as tightly controlled as Iraq was, there must be one person preventing it, and that has to be Bush.   (ha, ha,. That's a joke. Bush was pres.  If he couldn't get in, the buck stopped somewhere else.)

Also, you changed the subject again.  I was talking about Ritter saying he didn't have access and you switch to the CIA infiltrating.  That is a different subject. He still was denied access, according to his first statement.

Whether the CIA attempted to infiltrate may be Sadam's excuse, but it was pretty lame because he was under an obligation to let inspectors in and didn't have a choice in who was on the team.  In any event, I don't even know why it would be upsetting for the CIA to be on the inspection team.  He was supposed to hand over the info and access.  It was no longer to be a big secret.  

"How do you reconcile a statement that for what ever reason, whose ever fault it was, he was not able to complete inspections with a statement there was nothing there."

Perhaps you think that the job of the weapon inspectors were to do an impression of Bush looking for WMDs under couches, but reality tells a different story. The weapon inspectors were responsible for decommissioning and the reclaimation of weapons that the Reagan administration had happily provided Iraq. It literally was an audit done by bomb squads. Not an easy thing to do in the middle of a genocide.

Regardless, Ritter's own statements on the subject was that the UN team had gotten some 90% of the weapons not destroyed in the first Gulf War (an estimated 10-15% of the total stockpile). Some weapons were not found, as in most audits, but the vast majority of that was biological, and had expired it's shelf life.

The fear was that with no hands on team on the ground, Iraq could find a way to purchase more weapons. This was the rationale behind the UN sanctions, which were so harsh not even chlorine could be imported into the country, resulting in an estimated 2 million Iraqis, and 600,000 children dying mostly from dysentary. A genocide further compounded by the US bombing water sanitation sites in Iraq.

But as it turned out, Iraq was not able to get any more weapons, and Saddam tried to talk big in hope that it would deter Iran, a nation that had very good reason to seek revenge on Saddam.

How do you reconcile a statement that for what ever reason, whose ever fault it was, he was not able to complete inspections with a statement there was nothing there.

I don't care if it was FDR's fault.  If he couldn't complete inspections because the moon was in Leo and the rising sign was in Saturn, if he couldn't complete inspections because his passport was not stamped, if he couldn't complete inspections because his contact lens was scratchered, it doesn't matter.

If he couldn't complete inspections and had to quit, how can he then give an assement there was nothing there?

Sorry, all the rest is distraction unless I can harmonize those statements.

"It is the two statements that still don't reconcile."

The only statement that doesn't reconcile is your statement that Saddam ended the inspections.

"If he couldn't complete the inspection, how can he know 90% were taken care of.  If you don't look everywhere you think you need to, it is not possible to say what is missing."

He did as complete an inspection as one could hope to accomplish, given the realities on the ground.

"Finally, if someone is supposed to disarm, why is 10% permissible?"

It was permissible, because it was concluded that whatever weapons Iraq still had, had expired it's shelf life. In other words, they had useless weapons that couldn't be used for anything.  

"At the time, if Ritter could not complete his inspection, how could he know it was talk at the time?"

He didn't. That's why he was pissed that Clinton pulled the inspectors.

It is what he knew at the time.  It is the two statements that still don't reconcile.

If he couldn't complete the inspection, how can he know 90% were taken care of.  If you don't look everywhere you think you need to, it is not possible to say what is missing.

Finally, if someone is supposed to disarm, why is 10% permissible?  

Indeed, the fact that Saddam talked big in the hope of detering Iran created an interesting situation.  At the time, if Ritter could not complete his inspection, how could he know it was talk at the time? With a track record like that, I don't think you assume it is hot air.