It was known that the Taliban were sheltering bin Laden AND that he was a danger to the United States as early as 1996.

Since guilt by association is the rule, why are the Clintons immune?

Also, Ian, when do you intend to answer my question about why Democrats like you insisted that inspections continue even though the evidence was clear that Saddam was paying the UN and its member countries to sabotage inspections and ensure that no WMD material would be found?

After claiming to be above ad hominems – and more important, while apparently not possessing a response to a valid argument made by one of your opponents – you dealt with your opponent’s argument by making a slur on an author that was quoted.

How much more need I say?

In any event, my comment about Mr. Hitchens is quite a bit different from the invective, some of it even scatological, hurled directly at me in thses discussions.

As for Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore, etc., after long study I have reached a certain conclusion about them and I will say my conclusion, and Dan can throw me out if he pleases (he/Bruce are the bosses): They are not only anti-American, they are crazy (a.k.a. moonbats).

But Ian, please note: Unlike you, I haven’t recently claimed to be totally above ad hominems nor conclusions. In other words, I don’t have the the record to defend here. Sorry man.

BTW, one of the blog hosts has asked everyone to halt their ad hominem attacks. I’ll do my part. Won’t you do yours?

Ian, we have this comment from you in which you piously profess never to engage in ad hominems.

You don’t get it, do you? It’s not a matter of authorities. It’s a matter of facts and logic to one’s argument. I mentioned Christopher Hitchens because he happened to be the author of the best instance or summary of what I regard as my argument. Refute my argument.

I don’t accept Michael Moore Talking Points as a valid argument, sorry bro.

Neither do i accept republican propaganda to defend a war that every reason has turned out to be untrue, or the truth stretched.

And just what are his credentials when it comes to International Law? I mean besides a bottle of single malt?

Even Richard Perle admits “international law … would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone” http://tinyurl.com/vsxi

The British Attorney-General agreed the invasion of Iraq was illegal http://tinyurl.com/4ma5q and so did other legal experts http://tinyurl.com/jr5fa

#20
Oh, and lookee here, guess who was being feted in Texas by Unocal in December 1997: none other than bigshot Taliban government officials. And the U.S. continued to negotiate with the Taliban regime over a pipeline right up through mid-2001 when oilman Bush was President…..BTW, nothing I have said about Unocal, the pipeline and negotiations between the US and the Taliban regime have been debunked. Otherwise, I’m sure you’d provide links.

Here ya go, ass!

During the mid-1990s, Unocal had pursued a possible natural gas pipeline from Turkmenistan’s Dauletabad-Donmez gas basin via Afghanistan to Pakistan, but pulled out after the U.S. missile strikes against Afghanistan in August 1998.

The Afghan government under President Karzai has tried to revive the Trans-Afghan Pipeline (TAP) plan, with periodic talks held between the governments of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Turkmenistan on the issue, but little progress appears to have been made as of early June 2004 (despite the signature on December 9, 2003, of a protocol on the pipeline by the governments of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Turkmenistan). President Karzai has stated his belief that the project could generate $100-$300 million per year in transit fees for Afghanistan, while creating thousands of jobs in the country.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/afghan.html

And some others for fun:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/278rxzvb.asp?pg=2

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5335853/site/newsweek/

BTW, that’s not Michael Moore’s cock you’re sucking. It’s a roll of fat.

The very first link, if/when it is posted, goes into the Unocal thing.

It’s true that the rest of what I gave, if/when it is posted, sidetracks into the Saddam – al Qaeda thing which I think is more interesting, or the real subject, and which again you suggested in #20 in bringing up 9-11 hijackers.

#25 – “All the evidince in the world supporting this or that reason for invading Iraq will never change the simple fact that against international law and treaty, we premptively invaded another nation.”

Bull.

Iraq had no sovereignty under international law. A sane Left writer, Christopher Hitchens, lays it out best:

“Iraq had lost its sovereignty as far as a state can do under international law. There are four conditions under which a state may be deemed or said to have sacrificed its sovereignty. These are: if it participates in regular aggressions against neighboring states or occupations of their territory; if it violates all the letter and spirit of the terms of the non-proliferation treaty, and in other words, fools around promiscuously with the illegal acquisition of weapons of mass destruction; third, if it should violate the Genocide Convention, the signatories to which are obliged without further notice to act either to prevent or punish genocide; and fourth, if it plays host to international gangsters, nihilists, terrorists, and jihadists.

“Iraq met all these four conditions repeatedly, and would demonstrate its willingness to repeat them on many occasions. Its sovereignty was at an end, it was under international sanctions, it was a ward of the international community. Its people were being starved in order to build palaces for their psychopathic dictator. And it was further more imploding as a state and as a society that the divide and rule policy of the Baath party had led to appalling ethnic and confessional hatreds within the country.”

But I prefer to go by U.N. resolutions. Sixteen of them, over twelve years! Resolutions 687 (or is it 678?) and 1441 would only be the biggest highlights.

The important point to remember here is that no peace treaty was ever signed for Gulf War I. Legally speaking, Gulf War I was still in effect. Saddam was merely being held under certain cease-fire conditions – which by the way were also the legal basis of sanctions.

Saddam violated his cease-fire many times. The U.N. said just that, many times. 1441 promised him war if he did not immediately cut the crap and give the U.N. total co-operation. He didn’t. Hence, legally the cease-fire ended and Gulf War I conditions resumed.

So please, no rubbish about “against international law, we invaded another nation” or whatever.

“Dissenting opinions” and based on incorrect facts, untruths and urban legends deserve to be attacked.

I don’t accept Michael Moore Talking Points as a valid argument, sorry bro.

That’s what I responded to.

BTW, nothing I have said about Unocal, the pipeline and negotiations between the US and the Taliban regime have been debunked. Otherwise, I’m sure you’d provide links.