The government has not said it was contemplating attack because of the terrorism on 9-11-2001.
That's what they say publically. I'd bet a ton that behind the scenes it's a different story. There is a lot more going on in the planning / strategy area of the Bush admin than we'll ever know. The Bush admin has some of the best military minds ever assembled- and they are always thinking 3 steps ahead.
WTF? If that is the basis of your posting and thoughts, then forget it, it ain't worth the time...
Removing Saddam is a part of the War on Terrorism. Do you know what started that? Did we? Good grief. You can't be serious.
Huh???? Ah, do you live under a rock, or perhaps my previous summation applies. There has been reasonable conclusive evidence released that implicates the Iraqis in the events leading up to 9/11. If you think that the intelligence community is going to a "full disclosure" of what they know to the public, then you are even more naiventhen I had initially suspected. If you think that this is some kind of plot....well, then you should don the tin foil chapeau and join the rest of the conspiracy crowd.
Having spent a day or two in the military intelligence community, be assured that if there was any...ANY! dissenting evidence, it would have been leaked by the lilly-livered popinjays that Xlinton skillfully placed in the military. If anything, it is WORSE than your worst nightmare. Only something that extreme would merit the extreme silence from the "perfumed princes of the pentagon". There is great hay being made by people who are "out-of-the-loop" FORMER this and that'rs who get the EXACTLY same data that you and I get and yearn for their 15 seconds of fame as a sound-byte on CNN. No, the ones who HAVE the data are being strangly silent.
Methinks that they are scared $hitless that Saddam is going to do something unless he is stopped. But, the thought of war as a deterrent is so unthinkable that they are in a quandry. But he has to be stopped.
Given the recent spate of malfeasance on the part of our ostensible "unbiased" press, I already view these writings skeptically. I am relativly certain that, if I fostered the appropriate anti-war, anti-GOP administration comments, I would quickly find myself being referred to as a "well-placed source". So desparate is the press to find someone, anyone, with a hint of credability who is opposed to any sembalance of war, that they are resurrecting the dinosaurs of the cold-war for comments.
Yeah, I REALLY believe that they are briefed on world status (From CNN Headline news maybe!). Until a credible source on the INSIDE comes forward and says differently, I fear that we have only been told enough to prevent an outright panic and provide the basis of understanding for what our government, which I currently trust, is doing. If you can't handle that, then, I recommend Zimbabwe. A realator named Mugabe can get you a deal on a hobby farm
Semper Fi