Britain: al-Qaeda capable of unconventional attack

USA Today ^ | June 17, 2003 | AP

[FairOpinion]

LONDON (AP)

[FairOpinion]

I think she is right. Next question, with Al Qaeda still being a serious threat, who wants to trust one of the terrorist-appeasing, anti-US Democrats with the life and security of your loved ones and yourselves?

[FairOpinion]

In another article they quote her as also saying:

"The head of Britain's domestic intelligence agency says it is "only a matter of time" before terrorists try to attack a Western city with some type of chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapon."

http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=89AAE04F-A576-4274-887B764CC3301086

[dead]

From today’s Sydney Morning Herald:

The debate about the threat posed by al-Qaeda was settled unequivocally by events of September 11, 2001. As we argued before the Iraqi action, we could not afford for the debate about whether Iraq might pass WMDs to terrorists to be settled in the same way.
- Alexander Downer, Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs.

Action against Saddam relied heavily on UN information

[Howlin]

Next question, with Al Qaeda still being a serious threat, who wants to trust one of the terrorist-appeasing, anti-US Democrats with the life and security of your loved ones and yourselves?

Not just the "next" question; it's the ONLY question.

[FairOpinion]

Thanks for the link to the article

Action against Saddam relied heavily on UN information


I missed the post.