You can work on these for a while. There are others, but then I'm nearly as lazy as you. I'll probably get around to them later on.

Thanks for volunteering to respond to them, though!

The dodge:
Measure US, Brits, by their actions, not words.

My reply:
Re: The action, which is . . .



. . . protecting Iraqi Shiites and Kurds from helicopter assaults and aerial bombardments by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's military.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld asserted for the first time yesterday that U.S. and British warplanes enforcing "no-fly" zones over Iraq are performing "aerial" weapons inspections under a United Nations resolution, a statement that expands the stated mission of the air patrols.

First paragraph's wrong, as Rumsfeld has been referring to the aerial patrols as inspectors at least since the president's address to the U.N.:
"Some people have asked the question now that Iraq has agreed to unconditional inspections, why does Congress need to react?" he asked. "If we want to measure the depth of (Iraq's) so-called change of heart, I suggest we watch what they do, not what they say."

Immediately after Iraq delivered its letter to Annan pledging cooperation with U.N inspectors, its air defense gunners and missileers began firing on coalition patrol aircraft, Rumsfeld said.

He told the senators two inspection regimes are in play -- ground inspections and air inspections. Iraq threw ground inspectors out in 1998.

"The air inspections -- operations Northern Watch and Southern Watch -- have been flying at the risk of their lives," he said. "Since delivering the letter promising unconditional access, (the Iraqis) have fired at coalition aircraft somewhere between 15 and 20 times -- a considerable increase from the period before the letter."
(Source Sept. 19, 2002)

Is it really that difficult for the folks in the field to do the modicum of required research to appease the conscious reader? It's small wonder the Post is not considered cutting-edge material, but it should be required reading for aspirations in journalism. It's loaded with journalistic don'ts.

The U.S. government has long justified the missions as necessary to protect Iraqi Shiites and Kurds from helicopter assaults and aerial bombardments by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's military.

Paragraph two assumes that we are trying to protect the Iraqi Shiites and Kurds from helicopter assaults and aerial bombardments that do not include weapons. If we're in the air to stop aerial assaults, odds are we're looking for airborne weapons and weapons systems.

One U.S. official said Rumsfeld's comments represented the first time that a senior administration official had argued that warplanes patrolling the no-fly zones were actually performing weapons inspections under U.N. auspices. Outside experts agreed.

The Post should check sources, as well as facts.

But those flights ended with the demise of UNSCOM in 1998, when its inspectors pulled out of Iraq. Clawson said it is a "stretch" for Rumsfeld to argue that U.S. and British warplanes enforcing the no-fly zones are performing the same mission, since the U-2s flew over all of Iraq and were specifically asked to do so by the United Nations.

Repositioning is merely a political tactic. The only way to get what you want is to go and get it. Sometimes, the path taken is not a direct course.

Funny how easy it is to blindside the Post,
Dan




(The thread is here.)

- ><><><>< - ><><>< - ><>< - ><><>< - ><><><>< -

The stretch:
US Govt supplied Iraq with biological weapons in 80s

This one, btw, was a repeat performance of no reply -- and you even asked for comments. I had expected at least a little courtesy.

My reply:
Re: What . . . ?



How weapons are accrued have nothing to do with how they are used.

Grown folks make grown-folk decisions, S_M, and Iraq has made a lot of very bad ones. They're about to deal with that fact -- how about you?

And, yes, today's morality does count for something,
Dan




(The thread is here.)

- ><><><>< - ><><>< - ><>< - ><><>< - ><><><>< -

The stretch:
"Iraq admitted it had made weapons out of all three."

My reply:
Re: Who did . . . ?



Whose helicopters would have spread this material around a battlefield?

You'll find the answer living in one of his palaces in Iraq.
Dan




(The thread is here.)

- ><><><>< - ><><>< - ><>< - ><><>< - ><><><>< -

The accusation:
Heck, Cheney's boss was AWOL.

My reply:
Have you ever been in the Reserves, B . . . ?



That's where me and Bush were. Yep, reservists in the roaring 80s. A man could get so lost in the paperwork. It happens, even with officers. Orders are issued that say one thing, and everyone expects another. And the service requirements actually vary from state to state, and unit to unit, with some commanders playing Colonel Blake, and others running around as Colonel Potter -- and the occasional General Patton.
According to paperwork I looked at some time ago, he out-processed his unit, since his civilian occupation required him to move. In the region he moved to, he could not attend regularly scheduled Reservist meetings. His location was reported and acknowledged by local commanders. Unless these same commanders say anything, nothing more is required.
I used to be Radar O'Reily at Ft. Hayes, Ohio,
Dan




(The thread is here.)

Enjoy,
Dan