tar

So wait, you are saying we went into Iraq because we thought Saddam was further along in his nuclear program than he was? I didn't think that was the reason at the time. I thought we went in expecting him to use nerve gas and mustard gas against our troops, and he did not. My theory is concerned with what he did with his chemical and biological weapons, the nuclear program we have learned was not as far along as we thought.

Phi, And I had my second knee replaced and had these spasms that I did not have with the first. Spasms that would bend my knee a little even as I was standing, trying to put my foot on the floor. I would laugh that my leg was too short to reach the ground, but I was not bending my knee, it was bending on its own. Perhaps like the Tourette's. Not really me doing it. Well me, my knee muscles, my brain sending motor control signals to the muscles, but not going through the normal predictive motor simulator circuit, that has some conscious component of command to release the complex of signals that are ready to go. So yes. My spasms I cannot prevent, although I have learned how to subdue them or counteract them or block them, to a certain degree, but smoking, requires a whole large chain of actions that you can interrupt at many various points if you don't wish to smoke. Don't buy them, don't put them in your mouth, don't light them, don't inhale...easy to prevent oneself from smoking. Spasms, not so easy to prevent. Regards, TAR

Phi, Oh, I get you. The tick is way deeply buried below the conscious control, you can't stop it, even if you wanted to. In the cig case, I could find the thing in my mouth, laugh at my dependence and lack of control, knowing exactly the cause, and put the damn thing in the ashtray, and let it burn. Regards, TAR

But they were found, just not in the shape or volume we expected to find them in. And that Sarin did show up years later, so the fact that we did not find what we expected to find does not mean it was not hidden well, moved to another country, or destroyed. And yes, I completely have missed your jokes. Let me ask a simple question. If the police find no pot at the party, does that mean they should not have raided the place? Just interested in your logic. dimreepr, I never was very good at banter, anyway. Besides, I actually want to discuss a way to defeat political Islam. For that we have to first decide what we want to defeat. I don't want to defeat George Bush, or America, or the Republicans, I want to defeat the ideology that is fueling the ISIS fighters. I would rather argue for the U.S. and against those that would take away my way of life, rule of law and human rights and personal freedoms, than look for ways to dis the ideology of the U.S.. Regards, TAR

dimreepr, You are the one saying Saddam had no WMDs when we attacked him. Are you not claiming knowing a negative? Regards, TAR

Or if we are playing chess with Putin, a couple years ago he picked up one of our white rooks and painted it black and put it back down on the board, and said "check". And we pondered our next move. Then he sat down at our game with Assad, and started Kibitzing. ISIS is playing full contact tackle and we are still pondering our next chess move. Perhaps "smart" diplomacy that include using military, economic and diplomatic measures, should also involve playing the same game as our opponent, on what ever level they choose to play. You arguing that the U.S. did the Iraq thing wrong, for the wrong reasons. Regards, TAR

Ten Oz, But on a deeper level, I am arguing from my thoughts and desires at the time of our invasion. Saddam was trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the world, and we knew it. Why are you arguing now, that Bush pulled the wool over our eyes and Saddam was pure as the driven snow, and we shouldn't have gone in? Regards, TAR In terms of what we should have done, we should have followed the guard right to Bagdad when we chased them out of Kuwait. And brought Saddam on charges for adding tremendously to global warming by setting all those wells on fire. I think of our invasion as a continuation of the Kuwait action, with a bunch of Saddam pulling the wool over our eyes, in between. Problem was not that Bush was trying to pull the wool over the American people's eyes, the problem was Bush was playing checkers and Saddam was playing Chess. But Saddam wound up in checkmate, so I guess he lost the game he was playing after all.

Phi, I don't know about Tourette's but I remember that morning, before I quit where I decided not to smoke for an hour when I first woke up and my nicotine levels were low from not smoking for 7 hrs., and I found a lit cigarette in my mouth two or three times in 57 minutes. The last time, I smoked the thing. Regards, TAR

dimreepr, You can't prove a negative. Prove to me that Saddam did not have WMDs when we invaded Iraq. Regards, TAR As in, would Saddam have had WMDs if we didn't invade and had lifted the sanctions. Anything hidden could have been recovered, anything held could have not been destroyed, by international actors or by Saddam himself in an effort to destroy damning evidence. Consider what happens to the grass at a party when the police are out front. Down the toilet. Was considering yesterday how somebody like myself with and IQ of probably in the high 120s would fall around the 95th percentile. That would mean 94 percent of the population has a lower IQ than I have and it would mean that about 16,000,000 Americans are smarter than me. If you take a whole country, of sand and ask your generals, who I presume are resourceful to make it so the Americans do not find any WMDs when they get here, I am pretty sure they would get the job done. If you are having a party on the beach and someone says the cops are coming, get rid of the beer, do you think it would be a problem to make it so that the police did not find any beer in your possession? Saying Saddam did not have WMDs is like Bill saying he was not, at the moment, having sexual relations with Monica.

...and I mean that sir, in the nicest way possible, bless your heart, and have a beautiful day.

You are talking black and white, and the situation is gray. What the intelligence now says is that he had them but cut off his program and was going to resume as soon as the inspectors left and the sanctions were lifted. He didn't have any we found. Does not mean he did not destroy what the inspectors did not. He still had them, and wanted to resume manufacture when the world left. The numbers of shells and their condition that existed in Iraq when we got there was not what we expected, almost none. A few old shells here and there. I am not saying we did not find any, nor am I saying we were not wrong in thinking he was still manufacturing when he had suspended manufacture. I am saying he absolutely had WMDs and disposed of them or hid them so they would not be found. Are you suggesting he never had them?

iNow, I am not inventing reality I am proposing a theory that satisfies all the facts and explains how it should happen that we sell Sadam WMDs and the technology, he uses some, and the rest and any more he manufactured are thought very correctly to be in his possession. The international community searches for them and he plays cat and mouse with the inspector, and we don't find his stash. When we actually go in a take control, there are no weapons. If they did exist at some point, and were not used, then they must have been hidden, moved to another country or destroyed. I have a theory that he felt the weight of the world coming down on him and destroyed the damning evidence in the trenches of fire, to make the U.S. look foolish and him look persecuted. In addition, Saddam had some relationship with Syria, where crossing the border and hiding the munitions underground in Syria would not be hard, and it would escape the pervue of the inspectors, and the reach of the coalition, and retain the WMDs in known hands. Fits all the facts, and explains why intelligence had WMDs there, yet the international inspectors and then our own troops did not find them. Regards, TAR Do we know the history of the WMDs that were used by both sides during the 5 1/2 years of Syria's civil war? Have they all been destroyed now? Does anybody over there, you think, maybe knows were at least one shell is hidden, that escaped the international eye? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction Say he had them, we couldn't find them, some turned up later...consistent with my theory, and in any case, the statement Saddam did not have WMDs is not accurate.

If she listens to Bill it would be good for the country but she would look like Bill's puppet. If she doesn't listen to Bill and stands on her own, I am not sure she has the gravitas, on her own, to pull it off. So opinion, yes, but it still raises the question of whether Bill is an advantage or disadvantage to Hilary. Thread, In your opinion, if Bill was allowed a third term, and Bill and Hilary were running against each other to be the democrat nominee for President, who would be the better choice? Who do you think would win? If they were no longer married. Regards, TAR Are we electing Hilary, or are we electing the package?

Somebody accused me of being secretly a Jets fan, not wanting Bill's expertise as former coach (on the sidelines as waterboy) to help the giants. I took that as an assumption that I would not like Bill Clinton to help the country, because I was on a different team (some deplorable team or another) and would not like to see Hilary get good advice. I suggested in return that I think Bill is better presidential material than Hilary and suggested the partnership of Bill and Hilary is strong, mostly because of Bill, and t his, suggesting that McAdoo would be overshadowed by Parcells on the sidelines, and therefore Hilary would be in competition for power in the White House, and this would be a disadvantage for Hilary, and for the presidency and for the country. Regards, TAR

"Its the way I look when my husband drags me to an action movie."

Bill is her better half. Without Bill she has very little weight. If she had divorced Bill back during the impeachment, would she be the democrat candidate for president now?

SwansonT, You are assuming I would not want Bill to have influence over Hilary. I absolutely would. In fact I am counting on it. I think he is much more presidential than she is. His gravitas beats her's with a stick. Regards, TAR The both of them in a Cabinet meeting saying different things, I listen to him.

DrmDoc, So you are the cabinet member, and Bill comes in and says Hillary is sick and can't come down, but she has sent him to take the briefing, do you give him the briefing? Regards, TAR

Nice, but when you're freezing to death in the blizzard and you can't get in the damn car because of the thick flying snow and the howling wind and the scarf over your face, you might wish you had not bought that model.

Bill is not "just an advisor" though. He is President Bill Clinton. Like if Bill Parcells became water boy for the Giants. His presence on the sideline, would be unlike any water boy before. would having Bill on the sidelines be an advantage or disadvantage for McAdoo?

what if you are the same size and weight of another member of the family Should you submit to a dna scan to enter your vehical?

I think perhaps ISIS has intelligence equal or superior to ours.

Can Hilary name Bill as her Chief of Staff for instance? I don't know. Could he then take briefings for her? Could he relay orders?

SwansonT, There was an abstract I just looked at, talking about the constitution providing NO powers for former presidents, but some former presidents have claimed Executive Privilege in NOT handing over certain secrets and information to congress and such, so there is a little ambiguity. I am not calling anyone dimmer than I am, but if I was a member of Hillary's cabinet assembling for a briefing of the president, and Bill came in the room and said Hilary sent him down to take the briefing, I would not be clear as to whether it would be OK to go ahead, or not. Regards, TAR

SwansonT, I do not know what top secret information Bill was privy to that he was not to share with anybody, including his family and spouse. But when Hilary learns those things, as part of her job as president, someone in her family already knows the thing, someone she is married to, and might be sleeping in the same bed with, knows the thing or at least knows you know the thing. A spousal partnership is potentially closer than a relationship with a child or a spouse or a parent or an advisor, and the bond that presidents have with each other is also a special club, where each knows the secrets the other knows. Bill and Hilary, in the White House together, both being presidents, will be a new situation for them, for us and for the world. We have not covered it. It has never happened before. It would be interesting if one of the debate questions is Mr. Trump, what roles will your wife play in the White House and as First Lady of the U.S. should you win the election? Secretary Cinton, what roles will your husband play in the White House and as First Laddie of the U.S., should you win the election? Regards, TAR