Juan Cole writes:
"... Saddam without weapons of mass destruction could not have been 'dangerous' to the United States. Just parroting 'dangerous' doesn't create real danger. Danger has to come from an intent and ability to strike the US. Saddam had neither. He wasn't dangerous to the US. It is absurd that this poor, weak, ramshackle Third World state should have been seen as 'dangerous' to a superpower. That is just propaganda.
"Calling Saddam 'dangerous'... without regard to the evidence falls under the propaganda techniques of name-calling and stirring irrational fear..."
Absolutely? - by Juan Cole
Regulating Banks the Austrian Way
1 minute ago