Though I understand your sentiment, we actually don't need any evidence at all, including this. The reason is that we already have sufficient reason to take Saddam out. We have proof that he was a party to the 1st WTC bombings. We need no additional proof of anything to go after him.
We are at war. War time decisions are not equivalent to court case evidentiary proceedings.
If Saddam is at all linked to the anthrax mailings, he's toast.
I agree with you and I especially don't want to turn this into another OJ show.
But the info I have suggests that Iraq was not involved. My source is with the Mossad.
I agree with you and I especially don't want to turn this into another OJ show.
But the info I have suggests that Iraq was not involved. My source is with the Mossad. I'm open to revision however.