Replies

The genius of this speech by Pres. Bush, OP, is that he did INDEED make the prosecution of the terrorists AND those that aided/abetted/harbored them the Legitimating Cause of any action he would pursue in the ENTIRE War on Terror. (Fortunately, just today our friend, John Kerry, spoke publicly to terrorism and state his fear that the use of WMDs by terrorists WITHIN the US is our major concern.)

Incidentally, if you were to UPDATE the same provision in the constitution that gives the Congress the authority to declare war, what would you claim a "letter of reprisal" to mean in our day and age. (Since we're told that the Constitution is the "living" document, let's let it breathe new life into the "letter of reprisal."

I'd say that a reprisal is a "payback." A letter of reprisal is an authorization to pay back someone who has committed an act of such damage to you, that you authorize all necessary WARTIME action for a specific purpose.

This sounds SUSPICIOUSLY like the "Authorization" granted Pres. Bush by Congress to pursue ANYONE who aided/abetted/harbored any terrorist who acted on 9/11 and any other terrorist group connected to world terrorism.

We don't need NO STINKIN' declaration of War.

We have a "Letter of Reprisal."

It does indeed.

The point of my #47 is that Bush should Re-State his Case, and Re-Formulate it in those terms. Those terms exactly.

When you bet on Two Horses ("WMD" and "Anti-Terrorism"), and your Second Horse ("Anti-Terrorism") wins the Race... it's not too late to point out to the Naysayers that you did, in fact, bet on the Second Horse (even when the First Horse barely even Showed).

The authenticity Habboush's memo to Saddam Hussein has reportedly been attested to yet again by Prime Minister Allawi, just Tuesday.

Among the contents of this memo is a statement by Habboush to Hussein that Atta: "displayed extraordinary effort" and had demonstrated his ability to lead the team that would be "responsible for attacking the targets that we have agreed to destroy".

The phrase "responsible for attacking the targets that we have agreed to destroy" clearly implies more than mere association between Hussein and al Qaeda, it implies at a minimum tacit assent and approval, and in the context of Atta's continuing contacts with Iraqi Intelligence, can be taken as evidence of Iraqi control of the operation.

The US government has consistently atributed 9-11 to Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda network, and this attribution need not be subject to radical revision. But it is looking all the more likely that while al Qaeda provided the manpower, Saddam Hussein provided at least part of the funding as well as overall direction, using the assets of al Qaeda to attack a mutul enemy - the USA.

It certainly puts Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi intelligence service at the center of the entire enterprise and provide a context for understanding the contact between Atta and al Ani in Prague going back a year.

This entire picture is crying out to be explained graphically and in detail by the President to the American people, much along the lines just suggested.