[r9etb]

Why does the Administration apparently feel the need to "exaggerate" their claims that Iraq is tied to 9-11 terrorists, resort to using uncorroberated terrorist sources and "cooking the books" if their rationale for invading Iraq is so solid?

Well, look at who's making the charges: anonymous sources and former counterterror guy who's been out of the game for 15 years.

And look at the huge spate of such stories on the eve of Bush's proposed resolution on Iraq.

This is politics, rw2. Democrat politics, from the smell of it.

And you seem to be falling for it.

[rightwing2]

Well, look at who's making the charges: anonymous sources and former counterterror guy who's been out of the game for 15 years. And look at the huge spate of such stories on the eve of Bush's proposed resolution on Iraq. This is politics, rw2. Democrat politics, from the smell of it. And you seem to be falling for it.

I agree that the Democraps led by Dashill (sic) are playing politics with the Iraq issue and I have been the first to defend the President against accusations that he is doing the same, but there is no shortage of very persuasive arguments why the US should not engage in a risky diversion from its just war against Islamicist terrorists with an unprovoked invasion of Iraq. The fact that the Democraps are using these arguments does not make them any less valid. Six four star generals believe that the US would be foolish to engage in an ill-considered invasion of Iraq at this time. As an Army vet, those generals are all the sources I need to back me up against claims that I am somehow falling for liberal anti-war propaganda.

[buffyt]

"But several intelligence experts, including some within the U.S. government, expressed skepticism about the reports." --

Same ones who always fiddle while terrorists plan their next attacks????