Replies

Your Clintonian denials are duly noted.

That an al Qaeda member trained in Iraq in WMD has not escaped notice. Keep discounting is.

The links between Iraq and AQ pre 9/11 have been provided for you MANY times. The press wrote over 100 articles about the growing relationship between Saddam and bin Laden in the 90's.

Your denials are silly. And so are you.

bbl

Your Clintonian denials are duly noted.

Oh, so it's 'Clintonian' now to not accept every sensationalist report that has no factual evidence behind it? I thought that would be conservative

The links between Iraq and AQ pre 9/11 have been provided for you MANY times. The press wrote over 100 articles about the growing relationship between Saddam and bin Laden in the 90's.

The Weekly Standard and National Review are not magazines I would consider part of the media. But if you want to accept press releases from the PNAC as factual evidence that's your business. I'm just wondering if you'll be as 'gung-ho' about this WOST if it's led by someone of another party. Frankly I don't think so. Your partisan values are glaring

Your denials are silly. And so are you.

If refusal to sell out my values and my ability to deduce there has been no evidence provided by the administration to support your claims is silly, than I'm ridiculous as h#ll. Didn't you get the RNC memo? It's not about 'terrorism' in Iraq anymore. It's 'spreading democracy'

If the AQ/Iraq link has been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, then why isn't Bush shouting it out at the top of his lungs? Just because a few terrorists may have trained within Iraq's borders doesn't mean there was an official collaboration between Saddam Hussein and AQ.

By the way, I've seen a picture of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Hussein. What conclusions should I draw from that?

"That an al Qaeda member trained in Iraq in WMD has not escaped notice. Keep discounting is."

We've had intelligence that Iraq trained Al Qaeda in the mid-1990s in bombmaking (think embassy bombings), hijacking (think 9/11) and some chemical weapons stuff (think this plot).

but the danger of such training is hard to gauge until it becomes 'actionable'.

"The press wrote over 100 articles about the growing relationship between Saddam and bin Laden in the 90's. "

The press did report that ... oh back before our invasion of Iraq. Since then, the absense of such reports and lack of follow through from the documents seized after april 2003, excepting of course the Weekly Standard's continued reporting, is as curious as the scrubbed-clean missing chemical warhead shells in Iraq.

I think the press WILL NOT REPORT ON ANYTHING FAVORABLE TO BUSH UNTIL AFTER THE ELECTION. We are in the election 'spin zone', and boy is the wind blowing hard.