New evidence corraborates Czech intelligence that Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi diplomat in Prague.


Al-Ani scheduled a meeting on April 8,2001 with a "Hamburg student" according to an appointment calendar subsequently turned up by Czech intelligence in a surreptitious search of the Iraq Embassy (presumably after the defeat of Iraq in April 2003.)


Just go back to sleep, people. Viacom Corporation (aka the Ministry of Truth) has already defined goodthink on this subject. Any further curiosity on this subject is doubleplusungood, as subsequent posters will demonstrate.

New evidence corraborates Czech intelligence that Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi diplomat in Prague.


Al-Ani scheduled a meeting on April 8,2001 with a "Hamburg student" according to an appointment calendar subsequently turned up by Czech intelligence in a surreptitious search of the Iraq Embassy (presumably after the defeat of Iraq in April 2003.)


Just go back to sleep, people. Viacom Corporation (aka the Ministry of Truth) has already defined goodthink on this subject. Any further curiosity on this subject is doubleplusungood, as subsequent posters will demonstrate.

Originally Posted by Seadog '66

Originally Posted by TrollKing

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

Originally Posted by TrollKing

anyway, for shits and giggles, howzabout the source of authority is something internal-- our ability as a species, due to our faculties of reason and imagination, to "put ourselves in another's place"?

we see something happen to someone, and we, either voluntarily or unconsciously, put ourselves in their position. it happens all the time to those of us who aren't nutcases. so we as a society create ("construct") the concept of human rights, to relieve ourselves of, or protect ourselves from, the thought that it could happen to us.

Now that's a very fine practical definition of the Golden Rule!!

(in my best elvis presley [which is really not very good at all])

thank you, ma'am.


TK

More like: "Thank you. Thank you very much."

Hmm. I though that phrase came from Beavis.

Originally Posted by Seadog '66

Originally Posted by TrollKing

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

Originally Posted by TrollKing

anyway, for shits and giggles, howzabout the source of authority is something internal-- our ability as a species, due to our faculties of reason and imagination, to "put ourselves in another's place"?

we see something happen to someone, and we, either voluntarily or unconsciously, put ourselves in their position. it happens all the time to those of us who aren't nutcases. so we as a society create ("construct") the concept of human rights, to relieve ourselves of, or protect ourselves from, the thought that it could happen to us.

Now that's a very fine practical definition of the Golden Rule!!

(in my best elvis presley [which is really not very good at all])

thank you, ma'am.


TK

More like: "Thank you. Thank you very much."

Hmm. I though that phrase came from Beavis.

Originally Posted by msm

If Iraq has its own uranium, why have they ever gone to other countries for uranium? (And they have; that's not in dispute.)

Most likely because merely "having uranium" (...ore (...underground)) and having useable uranium in sufficient quantities to run a reactor (which, IIRC, is what FAS indicated the yellowcake facilities were established for back before the Israelis bombed Osirak) are separated by an enormous gulf of time and capital expenditure. If, for example, China has yellowcake already mined, or the United States has some already process -- or even already refined -- one would be amiss to insist on "buying Iraqi".
Or have you never gone grocery shopping while there was still food in your refrigerator?

I am skeptical that Justin is correct, but I don't care enough to prove it.

msm in a nutshell... BTW, everything I pointed out came from the article you linked.

________________________________

"If I had to choose between betraying my country and betraying my friend, I hope I should have the guts to betray my country." --E. M. Forster

Originally Posted by msm

If Iraq has its own uranium, why have they ever gone to other countries for uranium? (And they have; that's not in dispute.)

Most likely because merely "having uranium" (...ore (...underground)) and having useable uranium in sufficient quantities to run a reactor (which, IIRC, is what FAS indicated the yellowcake facilities were established for back before the Israelis bombed Osirak) are separated by an enormous gulf of time and capital expenditure. If, for example, China has yellowcake already mined, or the United States has some already process -- or even already refined -- one would be amiss to insist on "buying Iraqi".
Or have you never gone grocery shopping while there was still food in your refrigerator?

I am skeptical that Justin is correct, but I don't care enough to prove it.

msm in a nutshell... BTW, everything I pointed out came from the article you linked.

________________________________

"If I had to choose between betraying my country and betraying my friend, I hope I should have the guts to betray my country." --E. M. Forster

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

Originally Posted by TrollKing

anyway, for shits and giggles, howzabout the source of authority is something internal-- our ability as a species, due to our faculties of reason and imagination, to "put ourselves in another's place"?

we see something happen to someone, and we, either voluntarily or unconsciously, put ourselves in their position. it happens all the time to those of us who aren't nutcases. so we as a society create ("construct") the concept of human rights, to relieve ourselves of, or protect ourselves from, the thought that it could happen to us.

Now that's a very fine practical definition of the Golden Rule!!

Yep. Some evolutionary behaviorists have been proposing that moral behavior is in part genetic. Diving into the water to save someone else who is drowning puts one's own genes at risk, but preserves the genes of others in the breeding pool. From a Darwinistic perspective, empathy for others is proposed as a survival trait. Thus, to some degree, a sympathy with others akin to the golden rule might be genetic.

The Enlightenment philosophers cheated, using God in many of their arguments for the existence of Natural Law. I distrust arguments based on philosophers claiming to understand what God wants. I see them as projecting their own views upon God.

An alternate secular definition of 'rights' is based on what the government dare not do to the People. If the government does not dare limit speech, speech is free. What should the government fear? The People. Either through democracy or revolution, should the government significantly infringe upon the Rights of the People, the government must fear loss of power and authority. Thus, the Patriot Act is and ought to be controversial. The government is infringing upon rights. It is up to the People to decide whether trading off a essential liberty to get temporary safety is worth it.

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

Originally Posted by TrollKing

anyway, for shits and giggles, howzabout the source of authority is something internal-- our ability as a species, due to our faculties of reason and imagination, to "put ourselves in another's place"?

we see something happen to someone, and we, either voluntarily or unconsciously, put ourselves in their position. it happens all the time to those of us who aren't nutcases. so we as a society create ("construct") the concept of human rights, to relieve ourselves of, or protect ourselves from, the thought that it could happen to us.

Now that's a very fine practical definition of the Golden Rule!!

Yep. Some evolutionary behaviorists have been proposing that moral behavior is in part genetic. Diving into the water to save someone else who is drowning puts one's own genes at risk, but preserves the genes of others in the breeding pool. From a Darwinistic perspective, empathy for others is proposed as a survival trait. Thus, to some degree, a sympathy with others akin to the golden rule might be genetic.

The Enlightenment philosophers cheated, using God in many of their arguments for the existence of Natural Law. I distrust arguments based on philosophers claiming to understand what God wants. I see them as projecting their own views upon God.

An alternate secular definition of 'rights' is based on what the government dare not do to the People. If the government does not dare limit speech, speech is free. What should the government fear? The People. Either through democracy or revolution, should the government significantly infringe upon the Rights of the People, the government must fear loss of power and authority. Thus, the Patriot Act is and ought to be controversial. The government is infringing upon rights. It is up to the People to decide whether trading off a essential liberty to get temporary safety is worth it.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

Originally Posted by TrollKing

anyway, for shits and giggles, howzabout the source of authority is something internal-- our ability as a species, due to our faculties of reason and imagination, to "put ourselves in another's place"?

we see something happen to someone, and we, either voluntarily or unconsciously, put ourselves in their position. it happens all the time to those of us who aren't nutcases. so we as a society create ("construct") the concept of human rights, to relieve ourselves of, or protect ourselves from, the thought that it could happen to us.

Now that's a very fine practical definition of the Golden Rule!!

Yep. Some evolutionary behaviorists have been proposing that moral behavior is in part genetic. Diving into the water to save someone else who is drowning puts one's own genes at risk, but preserves the genes of others in the breeding pool. From a Darwinistic perspective, empathy for others is proposed as a survival trait. Thus, to some degree, a sympathy with others akin to the golden rule might be genetic.

Even simpler than that, a potential breeder who cooperates with those around him is going to be able to both better provide for his offspring, and ensure that the others with whom his offspring end up living their lives are more favorably disposed towards his family. I've said it before: civilization is a survival trait.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

Originally Posted by TrollKing

anyway, for shits and giggles, howzabout the source of authority is something internal-- our ability as a species, due to our faculties of reason and imagination, to "put ourselves in another's place"?

we see something happen to someone, and we, either voluntarily or unconsciously, put ourselves in their position. it happens all the time to those of us who aren't nutcases. so we as a society create ("construct") the concept of human rights, to relieve ourselves of, or protect ourselves from, the thought that it could happen to us.

Now that's a very fine practical definition of the Golden Rule!!

Yep. Some evolutionary behaviorists have been proposing that moral behavior is in part genetic. Diving into the water to save someone else who is drowning puts one's own genes at risk, but preserves the genes of others in the breeding pool. From a Darwinistic perspective, empathy for others is proposed as a survival trait. Thus, to some degree, a sympathy with others akin to the golden rule might be genetic.

Even simpler than that, a potential breeder who cooperates with those around him is going to be able to both better provide for his offspring, and ensure that the others with whom his offspring end up living their lives are more favorably disposed towards his family. I've said it before: civilization is a survival trait.

They're back! I'd eat one, but they're too darn big.



This is exacly what we needed to confirm a 4T. Now, all the Horsemen are mounted and ready to ride.

--Saint Croak The Amphibian

They're back! I'd eat one, but they're too darn big.



This is exacly what we needed to confirm a 4T. Now, all the Horsemen are mounted and ready to ride.

--Saint Croak The Amphibian

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Even simpler than that, a potential breeder who cooperates with those around him is going to be able to both better provide for his offspring, and ensure that the others with whom his offspring end up living their lives are more favorably disposed towards his family. I've said it before: civilization is a survival trait.

that's more or less what i was getting at with the whole "....evolutionary advantage to be able to discern right from wrong....proto-human A, proto-human B...." bit.


TK

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Even simpler than that, a potential breeder who cooperates with those around him is going to be able to both better provide for his offspring, and ensure that the others with whom his offspring end up living their lives are more favorably disposed towards his family. I've said it before: civilization is a survival trait.

that's more or less what i was getting at with the whole "....evolutionary advantage to be able to discern right from wrong....proto-human A, proto-human B...." bit.


TK

Originally Posted by Witchiepoo

Originally Posted by TrollKing

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Even simpler than that, a potential breeder who cooperates with those around him is going to be able to both better provide for his offspring, and ensure that the others with whom his offspring end up living their lives are more favorably disposed towards his family. I've said it before: civilization is a survival trait.

that's more or less what i was getting at with the whole "....evolutionary advantage to be able to discern right from wrong....proto-human A, proto-human B...." bit.


TK

Caring for others isn't an exclusively human trait, either.

If a person only has morals because "god says so," I don't consider that to be genuine morality. Real values are intrinsic to a person's character, not injected by religion.

....OMG... I've discovered my homeland... 8) 8)

Originally Posted by Witchiepoo

Originally Posted by TrollKing

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Even simpler than that, a potential breeder who cooperates with those around him is going to be able to both better provide for his offspring, and ensure that the others with whom his offspring end up living their lives are more favorably disposed towards his family. I've said it before: civilization is a survival trait.

that's more or less what i was getting at with the whole "....evolutionary advantage to be able to discern right from wrong....proto-human A, proto-human B...." bit.


TK

Caring for others isn't an exclusively human trait, either.

If a person only has morals because "god says so," I don't consider that to be genuine morality. Real values are intrinsic to a person's character, not injected by religion.

....OMG... I've discovered my homeland... 8) 8)

Originally Posted by Witchiepoo

If a person only has morals because "god says so," I don't consider that to be genuine morality. Real values are intrinsic to a person's character, not injected by religion.

I am not thrilled by people who are moral because they want rewards in heaven, or wish to avoid punishments in hell. I think I see where you are coming from. Still, some whose values are religious can be truly moral. I wouldn't suggest that either the religious or the secular have a monopoly on morality. There are good and evil people in both camps.

Originally Posted by Witchiepoo

If a person only has morals because "god says so," I don't consider that to be genuine morality. Real values are intrinsic to a person's character, not injected by religion.

I am not thrilled by people who are moral because they want rewards in heaven, or wish to avoid punishments in hell. I think I see where you are coming from. Still, some whose values are religious can be truly moral. I wouldn't suggest that either the religious or the secular have a monopoly on morality. There are good and evil people in both camps.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Originally Posted by msm

If Iraq has its own uranium, why have they ever gone to other countries for uranium? (And they have; that's not in dispute.)

Most likely because merely "having uranium" (...ore (...underground)) and having useable uranium in sufficient quantities to run a reactor (which, IIRC, is what FAS indicated the yellowcake facilities were established for back before the Israelis bombed Osirak) are separated by an enormous gulf of time and capital expenditure. If, for example, China has yellowcake already mined, or the United States has some already process -- or even already refined -- one would be amiss to insist on "buying Iraqi".

Great, Justin. So now you are arguing that Iraq DID shop around for yellowcake, which was precisely what British Intelligence said.

Glad to have you on board!!

It is precisely these two distinct claims:

(1) British Intelligence indicates that Iraq shopped for yellowcake (this claim made by Bush) and

(2) Iraq shopped for yellowcake (this claim made by British Intelligence)

that have both been called lies by the media and Bush opponents in general.

As British intelligence to this day says that Iraq shopped for yellowcake, claim #1 is not a lie, no matter how often the media claims it is. So, no Bush lie.

As for #2, you seem to agree with British Intelligence and Joe Wilson (who has changed sides on this, even if Kiff closes her eyes to that flip-flop). So, it seems the consensus is now to agree with British Intelligence on #2. So, no British Intelligence lie.

So, why did you earlier point out that Iraq has its own uranium, if you agree that that doesn't matter?

Arguing this sort of minuteia (sp?) is distasteful to me, but it is precisely the sort of minuteia (sp?) continuously raised by Bush opponents about a decison to invade a country with whom we had been at war with for twelve years, a country whose mass graves are still being uncovered, a country that we now know was effectively bribing it way out of the ineffective sanctions placed against it, among said sanctions being a bar against importing uranium, a country that we know now was attempting to buy nuclear weapons from North Korea, and a country that we now know was contacted by Pakistan as a potential buyer of nuclear technology before the new post-9/11 environment changed Pakistan's policies.

All this minuteia (sp?) will look silly to future generations who will look back on this era as crucial in determining what sort of controls humanity placed on WMD, a mere 60 years after their invention.

Should controls be left to corrupt, bribable entities such as the U.N., France, and Russia, allowing organizations such as Al Qaeda and their future progeny to obtain WMD?

Or should we address this problem seriously?

The reality of human existence is that these weapons will never be completely eliminated. However, it is very likely that these weapons can be made a monopoly holding by mature, rational great powers, and irrational actors such as Al Qaeda and their progeny will be barred from obtaining them.

If we fail, the future will be grim. But American deaths will be in the minority of the dead.

So, when people like you bend over backwards to find every possible way that Saddam's regime could be innocent, and deride all the evidence that Saddam could be guilty as charged, I feel I must speak up.

The international regime inherited by Bush was childish and irrational. Institutions such as the U.N. are flawed and incompetent at protecting us, or even managing a single beknighted nation without U.N. officials taking bribes and trafficing in sex slaves. It is not, as it is, a institution the world's nations should yield their sovereignty to. If that happened, a new dark age would result that might cost humanity centuries.

The U.N.'s fatal flaw is allowing any nation be a voting member, regardless of the nature of that nation or its government. It is like expecting wolves to gaurd the henhouse.

Moving towards a more rational international regime inevitably will rattle spoons diplomatically. Better that then go on with the way things were.

What does all this have to do with Iraq, you ask?

Precisely this:

During the 1990's, Iraq was the showcase of what was wrong with the international regime. U.N. sanctions were only taken seriously by the U.S. (and a few others, like Britain). The U.N., as we now know, was actively profiting from the "Oil for Food" program. Kofi Annan's own son was on the take. The whole charade was a cash cow for U.N. bureacrats, and the money intended for the Iraqi people was used to bribe them (as well as officials in France, Russia, and even British parliment members, and even western journalists) into looking the other way.

Meanwhile, the poverty of the Iraqi people was blamed on America.

It was B.S. piled on top of B.S., and it is all exposed now. The whole house of lies has fallen.

As all Americans know, the only sorts of governments you can even HALF trust are those that are transparent in their dealing and held accountable to the governed on a regular basis. None of this describes the international regimes in the 1990's.

We now have a chance at improving the situation. Thanks to America saying "Hell, let's just invade and get this thing over with, and screw those foreigners anyway, they don't know what they're doing."

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Originally Posted by msm

If Iraq has its own uranium, why have they ever gone to other countries for uranium? (And they have; that's not in dispute.)

Most likely because merely "having uranium" (...ore (...underground)) and having useable uranium in sufficient quantities to run a reactor (which, IIRC, is what FAS indicated the yellowcake facilities were established for back before the Israelis bombed Osirak) are separated by an enormous gulf of time and capital expenditure. If, for example, China has yellowcake already mined, or the United States has some already process -- or even already refined -- one would be amiss to insist on "buying Iraqi".

Great, Justin. So now you are arguing that Iraq DID shop around for yellowcake, which was precisely what British Intelligence said.

Glad to have you on board!!

It is precisely these two distinct claims:

(1) British Intelligence indicates that Iraq shopped for yellowcake (this claim made by Bush) and

(2) Iraq shopped for yellowcake (this claim made by British Intelligence)

that have both been called lies by the media and Bush opponents in general.

As British intelligence to this day says that Iraq shopped for yellowcake, claim #1 is not a lie, no matter how often the media claims it is. So, no Bush lie.

As for #2, you seem to agree with British Intelligence and Joe Wilson (who has changed sides on this, even if Kiff closes her eyes to that flip-flop). So, it seems the consensus is now to agree with British Intelligence on #2. So, no British Intelligence lie.

So, why did you earlier point out that Iraq has its own uranium, if you agree that that doesn't matter?

Arguing this sort of minuteia (sp?) is distasteful to me, but it is precisely the sort of minuteia (sp?) continuously raised by Bush opponents about a decison to invade a country with whom we had been at war with for twelve years, a country whose mass graves are still being uncovered, a country that we now know was effectively bribing it way out of the ineffective sanctions placed against it, among said sanctions being a bar against importing uranium, a country that we know now was attempting to buy nuclear weapons from North Korea, and a country that we now know was contacted by Pakistan as a potential buyer of nuclear technology before the new post-9/11 environment changed Pakistan's policies.

All this minuteia (sp?) will look silly to future generations who will look back on this era as crucial in determining what sort of controls humanity placed on WMD, a mere 60 years after their invention.

Should controls be left to corrupt, bribable entities such as the U.N., France, and Russia, allowing organizations such as Al Qaeda and their future progeny to obtain WMD?

Or should we address this problem seriously?

The reality of human existence is that these weapons will never be completely eliminated. However, it is very likely that these weapons can be made a monopoly holding by mature, rational great powers, and irrational actors such as Al Qaeda and their progeny will be barred from obtaining them.

If we fail, the future will be grim. But American deaths will be in the minority of the dead.

So, when people like you bend over backwards to find every possible way that Saddam's regime could be innocent, and deride all the evidence that Saddam could be guilty as charged, I feel I must speak up.

The international regime inherited by Bush was childish and irrational. Institutions such as the U.N. are flawed and incompetent at protecting us, or even managing a single beknighted nation without U.N. officials taking bribes and trafficing in sex slaves. It is not, as it is, a institution the world's nations should yield their sovereignty to. If that happened, a new dark age would result that might cost humanity centuries.

The U.N.'s fatal flaw is allowing any nation be a voting member, regardless of the nature of that nation or its government. It is like expecting wolves to gaurd the henhouse.

Moving towards a more rational international regime inevitably will rattle spoons diplomatically. Better that then go on with the way things were.

What does all this have to do with Iraq, you ask?

Precisely this:

During the 1990's, Iraq was the showcase of what was wrong with the international regime. U.N. sanctions were only taken seriously by the U.S. (and a few others, like Britain). The U.N., as we now know, was actively profiting from the "Oil for Food" program. Kofi Annan's own son was on the take. The whole charade was a cash cow for U.N. bureacrats, and the money intended for the Iraqi people was used to bribe them (as well as officials in France, Russia, and even British parliment members, and even western journalists) into looking the other way.

Meanwhile, the poverty of the Iraqi people was blamed on America.

It was B.S. piled on top of B.S., and it is all exposed now. The whole house of lies has fallen.

As all Americans know, the only sorts of governments you can even HALF trust are those that are transparent in their dealing and held accountable to the governed on a regular basis. None of this describes the international regimes in the 1990's.

We now have a chance at improving the situation. Thanks to America saying "Hell, let's just invade and get this thing over with, and screw those foreigners anyway, they don't know what they're doing."

Originally Posted by msm

All this minuteia (sp?) will look silly to future generations who will look back on this era as crucial in determining what sort of controls humanity placed on WMD, a mere 60 years after their invention.

About 60 years too late, I should think, as nukes were used as soon as they were invented. Unilateral use of such weaponry remains the official policy of the power that first used them. I'm afraid the cat got out of the bag a long time ago.

Since then the peace has been maintained by deterrence. Within 4 years of their invention, there were two nuclear powers and the number has grown since then. Eventually everybody is going to have them. They haven't been used for the simply reason that they are ineffective weapons. They cannot be used to compel, only destroy.

Yes the possibility of nihilistic terrorists gaining nukes and using them is a threat, but not one being taken very seriously by the Bush administration.

Originally Posted by msm

All this minuteia (sp?) will look silly to future generations who will look back on this era as crucial in determining what sort of controls humanity placed on WMD, a mere 60 years after their invention.

About 60 years too late, I should think, as nukes were used as soon as they were invented. Unilateral use of such weaponry remains the official policy of the power that first used them. I'm afraid the cat got out of the bag a long time ago.

Since then the peace has been maintained by deterrence. Within 4 years of their invention, there were two nuclear powers and the number has grown since then. Eventually everybody is going to have them. They haven't been used for the simply reason that they are ineffective weapons. They cannot be used to compel, only destroy.

Yes the possibility of nihilistic terrorists gaining nukes and using them is a threat, but not one being taken very seriously by the Bush administration.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Yes the possibility of nihilistic terrorists gaining nukes and using them is a threat, but not one being taken very seriously by the Bush administration.

After a lot of obvious irrelevant throat-clearing, you got to the issue: WMD in the hands of irrational actors.

The Bush admin. doesn't take the threat seriously? Care to back that up?

Also, please contrast to other American administrations. Which one took this issue more seriously? Give examples.

As for "everyone getting them", in the future "everyone" may mean around 8 truly sovereign powers. Technology is rearranging human institutions on a global level.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Yes the possibility of nihilistic terrorists gaining nukes and using them is a threat, but not one being taken very seriously by the Bush administration.

After a lot of obvious irrelevant throat-clearing, you got to the issue: WMD in the hands of irrational actors.

The Bush admin. doesn't take the threat seriously? Care to back that up?

Also, please contrast to other American administrations. Which one took this issue more seriously? Give examples.

As for "everyone getting them", in the future "everyone" may mean around 8 truly sovereign powers. Technology is rearranging human institutions on a global level.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Yes the possibility of nihilistic terrorists gaining nukes and using them is a threat, but not one being taken very seriously by the Bush administration.

Advocate for the Devil wonders if the poster has any credible evidence to back up this horrific charge?

• It has been called the most dangerous piece of luggage in the world?the black bag know as the ?nuclear football.? It is handcuffed to a trusted military aide who is always by the side of the president of the United States. Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Robert ?Buzz? Patterson was one of these military aides, and the commander in chief he was called to serve was William Jefferson Clinton. What Buzz Patterson saw shocked him?and finally led him to write this stunning book. It is a warning of just what harm an irresponsible president can do to our national security?harm that, Patterson shows, made the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and our potential war with Iraq, almost inevitable.
  
  In Dereliction of Duty, Lieutenant Colonel Patterson reveals the amazing and cavalier disregard with which Bill Clinton treated our nation?s most sensitive military secrets, the lives of our men and women in uniform, and the integrity of the office of president. In Dereliction of Duty, you?ll find out:
  
  ? How President Clinton lost he nuclear codes and never found them
  
  ? How the president kept American pilots in the air waiting for the go-ahead to strike Iraq?while he watched golf. Result: mission scrapped.

Or is this just another time when liberals accuse their opponents of doing exactly what they themselves do?