# Iraq invasion harming the War on Terror: the smoking gun? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 27, 2004, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-invasion-harming-the-war-on-terror-the-smoking-gun/236754 "2004-03-27T16:59:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2004, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-invasion-harming-the-war-on-terror-the-smoking-gun/236754/1 "2004-03-27T16:59:59Z")
Guardian story [here](http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/comment/story/0,14259,1178658,00.html). > [@](#): > > The fact that the Pentagon pulled the fighting force most equipped for hunting down Osama bin Laden from Afghanistan in March 2002 in order to pre- position it for Iraq cannot be denied. > > Fifth Group Special Forces were a rare breed in the US military: they spoke Arabic, Pastun and Dari. They had been in Afghanistan for half a year, had developed a network of local sources and alliances, and believed that they were closing in on bin Laden. > > Without warning, they were then given the task of tracking down Saddam. “We were going nuts on the ground about that decision,” one of them recalls. > > “In spite of the fact that it had taken five months to establish trust, suddenly there were two days to hand over to people who spoke no Dari, Pastun or Arabic, and had no rapport.” > > Along with the redeployment of human assets came a reallocation of sophisticated hardware. The US air force has only two specially-equipped RC135 U spy planes. They had successfully vectored in on al-Qaida leadership radio transmissions and cellphone calls, but they would no longer circle over the mountains of the Pakistan/Afghanistan border. You’ll note that the author is a former Dem strategist. And this was from an opinion column, and we know how reluctant papers are to fact-check the facts in opinion columns. But the truth or falsity of these statements is verifiable: the nature and claimed uniqueness of the Fifth Group Special Forces, where and when they were deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq; the nature and claimed uniqueness of those two “specially-equipped” RC 135 U spy planes, and their deployment. It’s long been obvious that Iraq _had_ to hurt the WoT simply by virtue of the limited time and attention of Cabinet-level strategymakers, the negligible US money devoted to Afghanistan, and the current state of Afghanistan. But examples of _specific_ diversions would make the point far more concretely than such big-picture stuff. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2004, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-invasion-harming-the-war-on-terror-the-smoking-gun/236754/2 "2004-03-27T17:56:00Z")
A simple opinion column will generally cause (if anything) a one or two day wonder in Washington. The way it plays out will be more telling. If the guys being quoted go on record with other papers and news outlets and it starts to get play in the larger world than it could be damaging to an administration that’s already spending some time making sure they don’t lose ground on their strongest plus-issue, National Security and the WoT. Odds are it doesn’t get play here as it’s on the other side of the Atlantic. But who knows? Could be another firestorm for the president. My prediction: With Clarke’s testimony and if this begins to get real play Rice, Rumsfeld or Wolfowitz will get the ax as a means of protecting the president and finding a fall guy. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2004, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-invasion-harming-the-war-on-terror-the-smoking-gun/236754/3 "2004-03-27T18:01:32Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > It’s long been obvious that Iraq _had_ to hurt the WoT simply by virtue of the limited time and attention of Cabinet-level strategymakers, the negligible US money devoted to Afghanistan, and the current state of Afghanistan. But examples of _specific_ diversions would make the point far more concretely than such big-picture stuff. Except that those of us who still support th US effort in Iraq, do see it as part of the overall, global WOT. This is only going to mean anything to those who already believe it isn’t. And no, I don’t think Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Gorgon\_Heap](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/f475e1/32.png) [@Gorgon\_Heap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorgon_Heap)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2004, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-invasion-harming-the-war-on-terror-the-smoking-gun/236754/4 "2004-03-27T18:22:22Z")
**JC** , I’m betting if it actually came down to it, it’ll be Wolfowitz. Rummsfeld has too much power, and Cheyney might protect him too, if it’s in his best interests. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2004, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-invasion-harming-the-war-on-terror-the-smoking-gun/236754/5 "2004-03-27T18:28:51Z")
> [@](#): > > Except that those of us who still support th US effort in Iraq, do see it as part of the overall, global WOT. Despite all the evidence to the contrary? Well, that is what Bush and company are hoping. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2004, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-invasion-harming-the-war-on-terror-the-smoking-gun/236754/6 "2004-03-27T19:15:19Z")
> [@furt](#): > > Except that those of us who still support th US effort in Iraq, do see it as part of the overall, global WOT. This is only going to mean anything to those who already believe it isn’t. Well, the problem is that the immense majority of the countries of the world, their people and their leaders disagree with you so when the president of the USA says to the world “In the war against terror you are either with us or against us, and I define the war against terrorism as anythuing I want and right now Iraq is in it” then he has automatically put the world in a position where they have no other option but to say “we do not support your war in Iraq and if you wish to call that ‘war on terror’ then fine, we do not support your ‘war on terror’” . I canot think of a more counterproductive policy. It’s like radical feminists who think they can garner support for anything they say by saying it’s rape. No, if you call anything and everything “rape” then you are diluting the fight against rape and losing support for it. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2004, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-invasion-harming-the-war-on-terror-the-smoking-gun/236754/7 "2004-03-28T03:06:13Z")
> [@furt](#): > > Except that those of us who still support th US effort in Iraq, do see it as part of the overall, global WOT. Hey, I see Iraq as part of the WoT too - just like it’s still part of a soccer match when you kick the ball into your own goal. Or three balls into one’s own goal, really, since Iraq is a threefer for Osama: 1. Pulled US attention and resources from going after him and al-Qaeda; 2. Opened up a new field of operation and recruiting; and 3. Made true his predictions that the US would take over an oil-rich nation in the Islamic heartland, making him look prophetic. At any rate, Clarke’s main critique of the Bushies is that both before _and after_ 9/11, they’ve seen terrorism in terms of rogue states, rather than in terms of organizations that aren’t dependent on any one nation-state. 9/11 was an attack from the latter; Iraq was all about the former. Not the same war, no matter what you call it. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2004, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-invasion-harming-the-war-on-terror-the-smoking-gun/236754/8 "2004-03-28T03:11:25Z")
> [@Jonathan Chance](#): > > Odds are it doesn’t get play here as it’s on the other side of the Atlantic. > > But who knows? Could be another firestorm for the president. I think it depends on whether this guy’s claims can be substantiated. If it happens, it’ll reverberate out of the blogsphere and into the news most people see. > [@](#): > > My prediction: With Clarke’s testimony and if this begins to get real play Rice, Rumsfeld or Wolfowitz will get the ax as a means of protecting the president and finding a fall guy. Bush the Younger seems to both subscribe to and demand adherence to a near-Mafia-style code of loyalty. He won’t fire anyone that close to him until the moment the firestorm is about to engulf him if he doesn’t. And by then, it will anyway. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2004, 6:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-invasion-harming-the-war-on-terror-the-smoking-gun/236754/9 "2004-03-28T06:16:56Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Bush the Younger seems to both subscribe to and demand adherence to a near-Mafia-style code of loyalty. He won’t fire anyone that close to him until the moment the firestorm is about to engulf him if he doesn’t. And by then, it will anyway. But doesn’t that analysis presuppose that Bush, rather than Cheney or Rove is actually calling the shots? I’m not convinced this is the case. The “Mafia-style code of loyalty” factor could be just part of the script. ---
**Author:** ![New\_Iskander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/db5fbb/32.png) [@New\_Iskander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Iskander)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2004, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-invasion-harming-the-war-on-terror-the-smoking-gun/236754/10 "2004-03-28T06:26:23Z")
**RTFirefly** , The example you cite was either dictated by necessity or was a mistake; in the final analysis it doesn’t matter much. Nothing always goes perfect, in war, peace or other matters. Lincoln was criticized forever through Civil war; so was FDR through WWII. Nothing wrong with good criticism. What is most important, however, is commitment to win by the President. If you imply that Bush is not commited to eliminate the threat of terror, I think you are wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2004, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-invasion-harming-the-war-on-terror-the-smoking-gun/236754/11 "2004-03-28T14:45:38Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > I think it depends on whether this guy’s claims can be substantiated. If it happens, it’ll reverberate out of the blogsphere and into the news most people see. > Bush the Younger seems to both subscribe to and demand adherence to a near-Mafia-style code of loyalty. He won’t fire anyone that close to him until the moment the firestorm is about to engulf him if he doesn’t. And by then, it will anyway. I dunno, RT. It’s pretty clear that the way Rice has been left out there as point on this issue means that it’s her job to win or lose. If this keeps growing into a real election issue then she’s over the side for (publicly) not ‘keeping the president properly appraised’ or somesuch and (privately) for not defusing the situation. Rumsfeld does have powerful patrons, Wolfowitz is in the background. Rice is way out there in front with her future hanging on it. I agree with you that GWB subscribes to a very strong code of loyalty. But Rove doesn’t…and this is an election year. Any decent campaign manager knows that if getting re-elected means throwing members of your team off a bridge then that’s what you do. Because if you don’t win the election nothing else matters a bit. ---
**Author:** ![AZCowboy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/97f17d/32.png) [@AZCowboy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AZCowboy)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2004, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-invasion-harming-the-war-on-terror-the-smoking-gun/236754/12 "2004-03-28T16:44:50Z")
> [@Jonathan Chance](#): > > I agree with you that GWB subscribes to a very strong code of loyalty. But Rove doesn’t…and this is an election year. Any decent campaign manager knows that if getting re-elected means throwing members of your team off a bridge then that’s what you do. Because if you don’t win the election nothing else matters a bit. I’ll bet that Condi not only knows this, but is prepared to willingly go off that bridge for her boss. Whether he will let her is the question. I have little doubt of what Rove’s opinion will be. Suffice to say, it shall be quite interesting to see what plays out. So far, these issues (along with Clarke’s contentions) haven’t caught fire with the electorate. But this particular issue was raised with Rumsfeld on _This Week With George Stephanopoulos_ today, so it may begin to grab some traction. ---
**Author:** ![pantom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/34f0e0/32.png) [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2004, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-invasion-harming-the-war-on-terror-the-smoking-gun/236754/13 "2004-03-28T21:26:56Z")
Actually, watching Clarke this morning on _Meet the Press]_ he clearly stated three reasons why Iraq has “undermined the war on terror”, that looked a lot like **RT Firefly** ’s list: > [@](#): > > MR. CLARKE: Well, I think it’s obvious, but there are three major reasons. Who are we fighting in the war on terrorism? We’re fighting Islamic radicals and they are drawing people from the youth of the Islamic world into hating us. Now, after September 11, people in the Islamic world said, “Wait a minute. Maybe we’ve gone too far here. Maybe this Islamic movement, this radical movement, has to be suppressed,” and we had a moment, we had a window of opportunity, where we could change the ideology in the Islamic world. Instead, we’ve inflamed the ideology. We’ve played right into the hands of al-Qaeda and others. We’ve done what Osama bin Laden said we would do… > We’re going to catch bin Laden. I have no doubt about that. In the next few months, he’ll be found dead or alive. But it’s two years too late because during those two years, al-Qaeda has morphed into a hydra-headed organization, independent cells like the organization that did the attack in Madrid. > And that’s the second reason. The attack in Madrid showed the vulnerabilities of the rails in Spain. We have all sorts of vulnerabilities in our country, chemical plants, railroads. We’ve done a very good job on passenger aircraft now, but there are all these other vulnerabilities that require enormous amount of money to reduce those vulnerabilities, and we’re not doing that. > MR. RUSSERT: And three? > MR. CLARKE: And three is that we actually diverted military resources and intelligence resources from Afghanistan and from the hunt for bin Laden to the war in Iraq. > MR. RUSSERT: But Saddam is gone and that’s a good thing? > MR. CLARKE: Saddam is gone is a good thing. If Fidel were gone, it would be a good thing. If Kim Il Sung were gone, it would be a good thing. And let’s just make clear, our military performed admirably and they are heroes, but what price are we paying for this war on Iraq? Transcript: [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/ID/4608698/](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/ID/4608698/) ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2004, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-invasion-harming-the-war-on-terror-the-smoking-gun/236754/14 "2004-03-28T21:55:34Z")
> [@](#): > > If you imply that Bush is not commited to eliminate the threat of terror, I think you are wrong. Oh, Bush is probably committed to some sort of goal. The question becomes, “How does he define that goal?” Eliminating a non-threat to the U.S., Saddam Hussein, while removing resources from the effort to restrict and capture Al-Qaeda demonstrated that his definition of the terror to which he is committed is probably wrong. I’m sure that Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson were committed to containing the “communist threat.” Of course, had they considered identifying the threat, not as “communism” but as “anti-democratic forces” they might have taken a different tack in Vietnam, Iran, Guatemala, Angola, and a number of other places and 20th century history might have been much different–we might have even increased the number of democratic nations in the world today without killing off several million people through “limited” warfare and terrorism. Lincoln had a single objective: compell the states in rebellion to return to the Union. Where is Bush’s equivalent single objective? The issue is not the resolve that Bush might demonstrate. He has already demonstrated the resolve to alienate most of the potential allies in an effort to go after his own private objectives. \* The issue is whether Bush’s objective is the correct one. \*(Linzer of the _Associated Press_ has an article, this weekend, outlining the ways in which our purported allies have been dragging their feet on intelligence sharing–the proximate cause is the “third party rule,” but that rule survives due to fears of how the U.S. may use the information.) ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2004, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-invasion-harming-the-war-on-terror-the-smoking-gun/236754/15 "2004-03-28T22:19:04Z")
Rumsfeld was on AABC’s “ThisWeek” this AM (no transcript up yet), and was asked that very question. He stumbled a bit, and said he thought the troop movement was probably part of a normal rotation, but didn’t really know for sure. One might have expected him to have a better prepared answer, knowing the question is out there. ---
**Author:** ![AZCowboy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/97f17d/32.png) [@AZCowboy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AZCowboy)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2004, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-invasion-harming-the-war-on-terror-the-smoking-gun/236754/16 "2004-03-28T23:38:46Z")
Interestingly, the question wasn’t as detailed as the allegations referenced in the OP, which appeared to allow Rumsfeld the room he needed to give such a generic answer. ---
**Author:** ![New\_Iskander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/db5fbb/32.png) [@New\_Iskander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Iskander)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2004, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-invasion-harming-the-war-on-terror-the-smoking-gun/236754/17 "2004-03-29T05:13:13Z")
> [@pantom](#): > > MR. CLARKE: …after September 11, people in the Islamic world said, “Wait a minute. Maybe we’ve gone too far here. Maybe this Islamic movement, this radical movement, has to be suppressed,” and we had a moment, we had a window of opportunity, where we could change the ideology in the Islamic world… This is so inane it defies description. This is kindergarten mentality. The only thing comes to mind: “It gives me sharp and shooting pains to listen to such drool…” from Morris Bishop, “How to treat elves” ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2004, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-invasion-harming-the-war-on-terror-the-smoking-gun/236754/18 "2004-03-29T16:57:02Z")
**pantom** - thanks for the transcript. I’m hoping for specific details to back up Clarke’s point #3, hence the OP. (I just bought his book, and I’m hoping he might have some specifics there.) > [@New Iskander](#): > > This is so inane it defies description. This is kindergarten mentality. The only thing comes to mind: > > “It gives me sharp and shooting pains to listen to such drool…” While I’m not sure such a substanceless response deserves a reply, just why do you say that? If you assume (as most do) that, between 9/11 and the Iraq run-up, most Muslims had less sympathy for Islamic terrorists than for us, Clarke’s comment makes perfect sense: take advantage of the moment to ally with the sane majority of the Islamic world and isolate the terrorists. Every now and then you get lucky, and morality and _realpolitik_ are on the same page; the brief post-9/11, pre-Iraq buildup interval appears to have been one of those times. Those moments don’t come along often enough that you can afford to throw one away, yet that apparently is what we did by going into Iraq. > [@](#): > > What is most important, however, is commitment to win by the President. If you imply that Bush is not commited to eliminate the threat of terror, I think you are wrong. The first question is, if that commitment exists, how has it translated itself into actions? If Bush did indeed divert specific, significant resources from the hunt for al-Qaeda to the war on Iraq, then this would indicate that while Bush may be ‘committed’ to eliminating the threat of terror, he has other competing commitments that rank ahead of that one. As Jesus said, “Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.” Consider how much treasure we’ve committed to the respective wars in Iraq and against al-Qaeda, and you tell me where Bush’s heart is. ---
**Author:** ![New\_Iskander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/db5fbb/32.png) [@New\_Iskander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Iskander)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2004, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-invasion-harming-the-war-on-terror-the-smoking-gun/236754/19 "2004-03-29T17:25:00Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > If you assume (as most do) that, between 9/11 and the Iraq run-up, most Muslims had less sympathy for Islamic terrorists than for us, Clarke’s comment makes perfect sense: take advantage of the moment to ally with the sane majority of the Islamic world and isolate the terrorists. “Assume” is the operative term here. One can “assume” anything to make oneself feel better, the question is what relation is that assumption has to do with reality. I’ll try again: > [@](#): > > MR. CLARKE: …after September 11, people in the Islamic world said, “Wait a minute. Maybe we’ve gone too far here. Maybe this Islamic movement, this radical movement, has to be suppressed”… Cite?! > [@RTFirefly](#): > > If Bush did indeed divert specific, significant resources from the hunt for al-Qaeda to the war on Iraq, then this would indicate that while Bush may be ‘committed’ to eliminating the threat of terror, he has other competing commitments that rank ahead of that one. To me, “this would indicate” that he is fighting the war on his own terms. > [@RTFirefly](#): > > As Jesus said, “Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.” Consider how much treasure we’ve committed to the respective wars in Iraq and against al-Qaeda, and you tell me where Bush’s heart is. The most serious accusation I’ve heard against Bush so far is that he is not expending enough treasure on Iraq. I agree with Bush critics that now, after such an unprecedented and brave attempt to change the heart of the Middle East, “Iraq must be swimming in” $$$$$$$$$$… Besides, if it is true as some other Bush critics say, that alQ is now moving to Iraq, then that’s where the fight is, no? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2004, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-invasion-harming-the-war-on-terror-the-smoking-gun/236754/20 "2004-03-29T18:14:41Z")
An interesting bit from the [Washington Post](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28976-2004Mar27.html): > [@](#): > > Flynt Leverett, a former CIA analyst and Middle East specialist who left Bush’s National Security Council staff a year ago, also agrees. > > “Clarke’s critique of administration decision-making and how it did not balance the imperative of finishing the job against al Qaeda versus what they wanted to do in Iraq is absolutely on the money,” Leverett said. > > He said that Arabic-speaking Special Forces officers and CIA officers who were doing a good job tracking Osama bin Laden, Ayman Zawahiri and other al Qaeda leaders were pulled out of Afghanistan in March 2002 to begin preparing for Iraq. “We took the people out who could have caught them,” he said. “But even if we get bin Laden or Zawahiri now, it is two years too late. Al Qaeda is a very different organization now. It has had time to adapt. The administration should have finished this job.” Seems to be at least a partial confirmation of the report I cited in the OP. > [@New Iskander](#): > > “Assume” is the operative term here. One can “assume” anything to make oneself feel better, the question is what relation is that assumption has to do with reality. Again, no evidence, just dismissal. I think I’ve run out of reasons to continue any sort of discussion with you. But thanks for playing; enjoy your copy of the home game. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-invasion-harming-the-war-on-terror-the-smoking-gun/236754.md?page=2)