# Will this be the "Big Bang" September disclosure on Iraqi Weapons? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 28, 2003, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-this-be-the-big-bang-september-disclosure-on-iraqi-weapons/198259 "2003-08-28T19:57:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2003, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-this-be-the-big-bang-september-disclosure-on-iraqi-weapons/198259/101 "2003-09-03T13:25:48Z")
[Links for **Superscyllious**.](http://www.google.com/search?q=iraq+troop+strength+requirements+Bremer&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8) Amazing that he’s heard nothing about Bremer’s own request for 50,000 more troops. Happens when you spend your newsgathering time listening to Limbaugh instead, I suppose. ---
**Author:** ![pantom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/34f0e0/32.png) [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2003, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-this-be-the-big-bang-september-disclosure-on-iraqi-weapons/198259/102 "2003-09-03T13:35:41Z")
More than 1000 wounded I suppose doesn’t show the need for more troops, not if you just ignore it, anyway. However, to continue to argue from actual facts, perhaps not presented on Fox, let us look at the actual words of Abizaid when asked about troop levels (from [http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/29/international/worldspecial/29GENE.html](http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/29/international/worldspecial/29GENE.html), which you’ll have to pay for shortly): > [@](#): > > The top American commander for Iraq said today there was no need for more American troops there, but he encouraged Muslim allies like Turkey and Pakistan to send peacekeepers and said accelerating the training of a new Iraqi army should be considered… > “You can’t underestimate the public perception both within Iraq and within the Arab world about the percentage of the force being so heavily American,” the general said in an interview here at his headquarters… > Rather than increasing the American force, General Abizaid said the priority should be to increase the size of the reconstituted Iraqi security services — now at about 60,000 people — and to persuade other nations, particularly Muslim countries, to contribute military forces like military police, special operations forces and civil affairs specialists. Notice that this general, who didn’t get to be general by being stupid, couched a request for more troops as a call for de-Americanizing the force and internationalizing it. But not everyone was fooled. From the latest Newsweek, available at [http://www.msnbc.com/news/959552.asp?0cl=c1](http://www.msnbc.com/news/959552.asp?0cl=c1) : > [@](#): > > In a remarkable interview last week, Gen. John Abizaid, head of the Central Command, told The New York Times that he needed more troops. This seems to contradict what Donald Rumsfeld said two days earlier, which could be a sign of more internal wrangling, or could mark the beginning of a turnaround. Abizaid attempted to disguise the shift by saying that critics were wrong; he needed no more American troops and instead only wanted foreign forces. But almost no one urging a buildup has been suggesting American troops. For one thing, there are no more American troops available. We would have to move divisions out of Europe or East Asia or mobilize the National Guard. Other than a few neoconservatives, who cannot bear to utter the words “United Nations,” everyone understands that more troops can only come in the form of a multinational force under U.N. mandate. > Abizaid’s explanation for why we need foreign forces is even more remarkable. American troops, he explained, were fueling Iraqi nationalism that was morphing into anti-Americanism: “You can’t underestimate the public perception, both within Iraq and within the Arab world, about the percentage of forces being so heavily American.” But who underestimated this problem of Iraqi nationalism? Certainly not those of us who argued from the day the war ended that the operation should be multinational, with full U.N. authorization. It was the administration itself that argued that American troops were going to be welcomed as liberators; that the postwar period would require few forces; that Iraqis disliked the Europeans and the United Nations, and that America would have absolutely no legitimacy problem. Then there’s this report from today’s NY Times, the lead story on the front page of the paper edition ([http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/03/international/middleeast/03PREX.html?hp](http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/03/international/middleeast/03PREX.html?hp)): > [@](#): > > President Bush agreed today to begin negotiations in the United Nations Security Council to authorize a multinational force for Iraq but insisted that the troops be placed under American command, according to senior administration officials. > Mr. Bush’s decision came in a meeting this afternoon with Secretary of State Colin L. Powell. While not unexpected, it was a tacit admission that the current American-dominated force is stretched too thin. Meantime, what’s actually happening on the ground, besides the fact, which I already posted above, that Centcom is deliberately underreporting injuries to troops? This ([http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64826-2003Aug29.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64826-2003Aug29.html)): > [@](#): > > Attacks on civilians and U.S. military personnel in Iraq have become so commonplace that a brazen assassination attempt last month on two military officers in civilian dress working for the Coalition Provisional Authority wasn’t even reported at the time. > Word of the attack, which left the two Americans shaken but only slightly injured by gunfire, finally turned up last week in the latest security report from Centurion Risk Assessment Services, a British firm staffed by former Royal Marine commandos and British Special forces personnel that counsels journalists and businessmen on how to operate safely in dangerous environments. > … > “Many incidents are not making the headlines,” the report continued. “Most of them are not being reported at all by the forces involved as they are possibly trying to minimize the threats and play down the overall threat to all involved in working in Iraq.” Combined with the underreporting of wounded soldiers, we now have underreporting of overall hostile incidents. Classic wartime news suppression to attempt to make the situation look good. The picture overall is that the Admin is twisting and turning and trying desperately to get out of the trap it fell into, while the rest of the world folds its arms and watches. Payback for being humiliated and run over? Obviously. Payback is a bitch. Of course, if they were actually interested in doing the right thing both by Iraq and by the soldiers they sent over there, they’d stop playing politics and actually solve the problem at hand. But that would take courage, integrity, and a recognition that the rest of the world does actually need to be respected, a recognition that could start by actually reporting what’s really going on in Iraq without reporters having to dig to find the truth. ---
**Author:** ![pantom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/34f0e0/32.png) [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2003, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-this-be-the-big-bang-september-disclosure-on-iraqi-weapons/198259/103 "2003-09-03T13:37:56Z")
**ElvisL1ves** : good work. ---
**Author:** ![T.Mehr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ccd318/32.png) [@T.Mehr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/T.Mehr)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2003, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-this-be-the-big-bang-september-disclosure-on-iraqi-weapons/198259/104 "2003-09-03T13:55:00Z")
An interesting point on **multinational forces** : **Poland** has today taken over the responsibilty for some parts of sothern Iraq, though under US supreme command. During the cold war the east block tried some _nation building_ of it’s own by sending military advisers to countries in the mid-east and africa. Now this is nothing new and everyone knows the american reaction to this. It’s interesting, though that each country of the Warsaw Pact had to contribute to this and Poland was the one that assisted Iraq! As a result, some of the polish officers now deployed in Iraq have been there befor and a lot of them **speak the language**! Now let’s see how the Poles are greeted. As I read, public opinion in Poland is not in favor of the whole thing and polish casualties will put major pressure on the government. ---
**Author:** ![shelbo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/3d9bf3/32.png) [@shelbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/shelbo)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2003, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-this-be-the-big-bang-september-disclosure-on-iraqi-weapons/198259/105 "2003-09-03T18:13:36Z")
It is nice to see (re: pantom’s NYT link) that Colin Powell is back in the loop on this. He appeared to have been out gunned by Rumsfeld and the Pentagon in the early days. He deserves to launch a couple of good “I told you sos” in Don’s direction. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2003, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-this-be-the-big-bang-september-disclosure-on-iraqi-weapons/198259/106 "2003-09-03T18:37:26Z")
-Preferably nuclear-tipped “I told you sos.” ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2003, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-this-be-the-big-bang-september-disclosure-on-iraqi-weapons/198259/107 "2003-09-03T18:54:34Z")
Definitive links there, **pantom**. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2003, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-this-be-the-big-bang-september-disclosure-on-iraqi-weapons/198259/108 "2003-09-03T23:12:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ElvisL1ves \* > \*\*[Links for **Superscyllious**.](http://www.google.com/search?q=iraq+troop+strength+requirements+Bremer&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8) > > Amazing that he’s heard nothing about Bremer’s own request for 50,000 more troops. Happens when you spend your newsgathering time listening to Limbaugh instead, I suppose. \*\* First off, Don’t fucking insult me in GD. Second off, thoses stories you cited are back from July and do not represent a complete picture. It was **alleged** in July that Paul Bremer made an unofficial requiest for more troops. This information was disclosed by an **anonymous** ex-“official.” Rumsfel has denied that such a request was made, officially or unofficially. Bremer says he never made such a request. " Bremer said he had never asked for more troops. “I agree with the CENTCOM commander, John Abizaid, who said earlier this week in a press conference that he believes we have enough troops here,” Bremer said." [http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N24380354.htm](http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N24380354.htm) I find it difficult to beleive that this is all you have to offer to support the contention that it is generally agreed we don’t have enough troops. Do you beleive that general agreement consists of a single anonymous ex-official by himself? I thank you for providing your cite. You have provided a concrete example of how a total falsehood is generated with a little help from carelessness, dishonesty, and foolishness. ---
**Author:** ![pantom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/34f0e0/32.png) [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2003, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-this-be-the-big-bang-september-disclosure-on-iraqi-weapons/198259/109 "2003-09-03T23:26:41Z")
> [@](#): > > Ambassador L. Paul Bremer, an able administrator, lacks resources and the political commitment to achieve his goal of Iraq’s transformation. His operation is nearly broke, and he admits Iraq will need “tens of billions” of dollars for reconstruction next year alone. Yet there is an insufficient sense of urgency in Washington, and needs on the ground in Iraq are going unmet. > Security remains a serious problem in Iraq partly because, contrary to administration assurances, our military force levels are obviously inadequate. A visitor quickly learns in conversations with U.S. military personnel that we need to deploy at least another division. We need more foreign troops, particularly from Muslim allies such as Turkey and Pakistan, but security does not necessarily improve with each new country that deploys forces. It is the number and quality of military forces, not the number of countries that send them, that matters. > Iraq’s reconstruction requires not simply more troops but a different mix of troops – linguists, civil affairs officers, military police, engineers – as well as a significant increase in civilian experts in development and democracy-building. The number of civilian advisers in Iraq is astonishingly low. I was struck by the near-unanimity of opinion among American officers in Iraq that civilian expertise – on reconstruction, judicial reform and local governance – is as important as our military presence. from [http://straighttalkamerica.com/cgi-data/news/files/104.shtml](http://straighttalkamerica.com/cgi-data/news/files/104.shtml), posted Aug 31, 2003. I’ve just instituted a personal policy not to allow citeless bs like your post, **Scylla** , to go unrefuted. Try reading for a change. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2003, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-this-be-the-big-bang-september-disclosure-on-iraqi-weapons/198259/110 "2003-09-03T23:52:31Z")
Pantom: > [@](#): > > I’ve just instituted a personal policy not to allow citeless bs like your post, Scylla, to go unrefuted. > Try reading for a change. Isn’t it ironic that I do have a cite? Isn’t it also ironic that you failed to read it? Isn’t it unbelievably ironic that your cite doesn’t even work? Three for three. Admit it. You’re doing it on purpose. Nobody’s that bad for real. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2003, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-this-be-the-big-bang-september-disclosure-on-iraqi-weapons/198259/111 "2003-09-04T00:08:35Z")
> [@](#): > > [Pentagon rushed postwar plan](http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/09/03/sprj.irq.iraq.reconstruction/index.html) > > A classified draft military review on lessons learned from the war in Iraq says planners did not have enough time to prepare for the so-called Phase IV operation – the rebuilding and reconstruction of Iraq, according to Pentagon sources. > [@](#): > > [U.S. troops must decrease to maintain military readiness](http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/09/03/sprj.irq.cbo.troops/index.html) > > A new report from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office says that under current policies, the U.S. military can maintain current troop strength – 180,000 in and around Iraq – only until March 2004. > > After that time, the report said, a U.S. occupation force numbering between 38,000 and 64,000 personnel could remain in the country indefinitely – at a cost of up to $12 billion per year. > > The report states that by increasing the overall size of the Army – by adding two new divisions, for example – the United States could sustain an occupation force of 85,000 to 129,000 personnel, at a yearly cost of up to $29 billion. > > The Pentagon opposes adding new divisions and is predicting the need for U.S. forces in Iraq will decrease as the security situation improves, other countries contribute soldiers and Iraqis take over military and police duties. ---
**Author:** ![pantom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/34f0e0/32.png) [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2003, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-this-be-the-big-bang-september-disclosure-on-iraqi-weapons/198259/112 "2003-09-04T00:46:41Z")
I wasn’t doing it on purpose! Honest injun! Anyway, this one works: [http://mccain.senate.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=Newscenter.ViewOpEd&Content\_id=1155](http://mccain.senate.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=Newscenter.ViewOpEd&Content_id=1155) I had a whole paragraph reply after this that got eaten by the hamsters, who are being especially obsteperous tonight. It’s worth your life to get a reply in. So, just take the above. I already quoted from it. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2003, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-this-be-the-big-bang-september-disclosure-on-iraqi-weapons/198259/113 "2003-09-04T01:05:50Z")
Pantom: That’s an interesting piece, and worthy of some thought and comment. Of course you know that it does not support the statement I am refuting. I’ll think on it some. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2003, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-this-be-the-big-bang-september-disclosure-on-iraqi-weapons/198259/114 "2003-09-04T01:09:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by T. Mehr \* > \*\*An interesting point on **multinational forces** : > > **Poland** has today taken over the responsibilty for some parts of sothern Iraq, though under US supreme command. \*\* Are you sure? I heard that we’d recently delayed the hand-over indefinitely. I’m searching for where I read this. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2003, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-this-be-the-big-bang-september-disclosure-on-iraqi-weapons/198259/115 "2003-09-04T01:19:09Z")
Well, I _have_ been out of the loop for a while, thank Og. [\*\*U.S. Marines formally hand over control of south-central Iraq to Poles \*\*](http://www.boston.com/dailynews/246/world/U_S_Marines_formally_hand_over:.shtml) Maybe whatever I read was just pertinent to Najaf? ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2003, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-this-be-the-big-bang-september-disclosure-on-iraqi-weapons/198259/116 "2003-09-04T01:31:27Z")
> [@](#): > > _[http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/030903/w090339.html](http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/030903/w090339.html)_ > > While military control was ceremoniously passed to the Poles in south-central Iraq, the handover of the holy city of Najaf was delayed at least two weeks after the car bombing Friday outside the Imam Ali shrine that killed between 85 and 125 people. > > Lt.-Gen. Ricardo Sanchez said the delay was appropriate and the U.S. marines were needed in the area for a while longer. > > The U.S.-led coalition will review the situation in Najaf about mid-month, Sanchez said, after which it is hoped control of the city will be handed over to a Spanish brigade taking part in the international force. > > “It’s absolutely clear to a military commander that the most vulnerable period is when he is in a period of transition,” he told reporters after the ceremony. “We will reassess the situation in about two weeks. … We hope at that point to complete the transfer of authority.” > > 09:33 PM EDT Sep 03 > [@](#): > > \*\*[U.S. Troops Delay Exit From Najaf\*\*](http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/01/international/worldspecial/01TROO.html?ei=5062&en=71993ea084d86dcb&ex=1062993600&partner=GOOGLE&pagewanted=print&position=) > September 1, 2003 > > The United States Marines have postponed turning over control of the area around the city of Najaf to Polish-led forces after last week’s devastating bombing at the city’s holiest Shiite shrine. > > A spokesman for the United States Central Command, Col. Ray Shepherd, said the planned transfer had been delayed by at least two weeks. He said the American military authorities in Iraq were working out the details of how many members of the force would remain in Najaf. > > In Najaf, Maj. Rick Hall, spokesman for the First Battalion, Seventh Marines, said the transfer of the south-central territory around Najaf to an international force led by Poland, set for this week, had been put on hold. I guess I’m not _completely_ loopy ---
**Author:** ![T.Mehr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ccd318/32.png) [@T.Mehr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/T.Mehr)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2003, 7:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-this-be-the-big-bang-september-disclosure-on-iraqi-weapons/198259/117 "2003-09-04T07:45:44Z")
quote: ``` http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/030903/w090339.html While military control was ceremoniously passed to the Poles in south-central Iraq, the handover of the holy city of Najaf was delayed at least two weeks after the car bombing Friday outside the Imam Ali shrine that killed between 85 and 125 people. Lt.-Gen. Ricardo Sanchez said the delay was appropriate and the U.S. marines were needed in the area for a while longer. The U.S.-led coalition will review the situation in Najaf about mid-month, Sanchez said, after which it is hoped control of the city will be handed over to a Spanish brigade taking **U.S. Troops Delay Exit From Najaf** ``` I’m not sure what the intention behind this is. The place didn’t seem to be safe while the US was there and it probably won’t be safer when they are gone. What I think will be interesting to see is whether the Poles/Spaniards/whoever-else-is-there will also be attacked directly. I’m afraid they will. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2003, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-this-be-the-big-bang-september-disclosure-on-iraqi-weapons/198259/118 "2003-09-04T13:42:40Z")
**Scylla** , I’m pretty sure that, with a little reflection, you’ll realize you’re very far from an innocent party in the matter of posting insults, in GD or elsewhere. Don’t complain when you get it back. With a little more reflection, you’ll acknowledge that posting nonfactual information, or asserting or suggesting that other posts are nonfactual without a basis for doing so, is a fundamental violation of the principle of Fighting Ignorance that this board stands for. Got it? Good. ---
**Author:** ![pantom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/34f0e0/32.png) [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2003, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-this-be-the-big-bang-september-disclosure-on-iraqi-weapons/198259/119 "2003-09-05T01:54:04Z")
**Scylla** : you’re right that McCain doesn’t specifically refute claims that more troops are needed. However, it’s pretty obvious from the overall tone and from the specifics of what he said that he is pretty pissed about the Bush Administration’s attempts to do only the absolute minimum necessary to keep Iraq off the front page, which is what their strategy amounts to these days, IMO. I already posted cites that specifically state that the Administration is underreporting both injuries and hostile incidents, both of which go to that strategy. Basically, it amounts to keeping the situation in a low simmer until November 2004 is out of the way. After that, Bush will deal with Iraq in whatever way he’s chosen, which I’m sure has already been decided. Between now & then, he wants it to keep quiet, unless of course he can get a nice October surprise out of it. I’m betting they capture either Saddam or Osama between Labor Day and November 2004. Failing that, they’ll produce irrefutable proof of either WMDs or a Saddam-Al Qaeda link. And before you get all partisan on me, we both know that Clinton - either one of them - would have been equally ruthless in their handling of Iraq or any other war situation. Letting the kind of ruthless bastards that inevitably inhabit the White House get away with this kind of abusive nonsense is inexcusable, though. Voting for Bush - as both you and McCain will - doesn’t mean you have to agree with everything he does. The Administration won’t change its behavior if it knows it can count on its natural core to support it even when it’s wrong. As any chess player will tell you, the threat is often worse than the execution. You don’t have to not vote for him, you - I’m talking here about the core of the Republican Party - just have to _threaten_ him with the prospect. If there’s one thing a politician knows how to do, it’s count votes. If he figures he’ll lose too many because he’s being inept in Iraq, he’ll quickly decide to become competent, and he’ll do it well before it threatens his election prospects. Or to put it bluntly, I’d rather lose the election than my life. I do commute every working day into NYC, and I’d rather not have that little nagging feeling at the back of my throat getting a little worse every day because I feel that the Admin isn’t doing its best to keep me and my fellow citizens safe. Even goat-felching bastids like you. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2003, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-this-be-the-big-bang-september-disclosure-on-iraqi-weapons/198259/120 "2003-09-05T02:36:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ElvisL1ves \* > \*\ ***Scylla** , I’m pretty sure that, with a little reflection, you’ll realize you’re very far from an innocent party in the matter of posting insults, in GD or elsewhere. I don’t care what your opinion is. Don’t insult me in GD. Insult my arguments if you like. Attack them to your heart’s content in whatever terms you like. But, you’re not allowed to call me names. Do it again, and I use the report button. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-this-be-the-big-bang-september-disclosure-on-iraqi-weapons/198259.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-this-be-the-big-bang-september-disclosure-on-iraqi-weapons/198259.md?page=7)