REB,
I doubt that the American public would have supported going to war without the implied threat that Iraqi WMD's could be used against Americans here at home and abroad. A war simply to execute "regime change" would not have met muster. As for Al Qaeda links, there still isn't any convincing evidence that links Iraq with Al Qaeda's terrorism. A letter about a possible meeting from several years is not exactly a "smoking gun." Heck, we had far more communication with Bin Laden coolaborating against the Russians in Afghanistan.
Donald
P.S. I was not against the war. I was against going to war without securing UN support. In the long run, this would have served our interests better, especially given that Iraq posed no effective threat to American interests.
Current Events » in reply to Re: Whose moving agenda?
Re: Whose moving agenda?
The whole thread (75 posts)
- Tests Cast Doubt on Chemical Find in Iraq . . .
- Re: Tests Cast Doubt on Chemical Find
- Not unexpected
- Thanks Don
- Re: Not unexpected
- Please post any links showing short lifespans
- I had earlier...a couple of times
- The moving agenda.
- I am unmoved
- Re: The moving agenda.
- Whose moving agenda?
- Well lets just forget about the banned scud missiles
- Re: Whose moving agenda?
- Got a source?
- Re: Whose moving agenda?
- Re: Whose moving agenda?
- Again, what is your support and/or proof?
- Here is another one
- Re: Again, what is your support and/or proof?
- Hmmm, And will Fox News be right this time?
- Talk about grasping at straws...
- Again, what is your support and/or proof?
- Re: Whose moving agenda?
- Whose moving agenda?
- The moving agenda.
- I had earlier...a couple of times
