Yes, I do. The Administration's citing of Iraq training of al Queda terrorists has not been corroberated by any open sources that I have read.
So, because there are no "open sources" you do not accept the NSA's statements? Do you believe that she is lying? Or are you merely saying that you are reserving judgement until her statements are supported by "open sources"? If the latter, I still think it would be consistent for you to back off your accusations that there is no Iraq-terrorism link and put yourself back in the "undecided" column.
The Islamic Republic of Iran, not secularist Iraq, is the country that sponsored and continues to shield, arm, and train 9-11 suicide bombers and Iran is who the US should be bombing and invading not Iraq.
I believe that the Adminstration has every intention of taking on Iran. Thus their inclusion in the "Axis of Evil." So it doesn't seem to me that you disagree with the Administration regarding the overall goal regarding Iran, only the timing and the structure of the war strategy against them. Do you acknowledge that it is possible that the Administration plan vis-a-vis Iran is to isolate them (in part by removing Saddam from power) and covertly foment the ongoing internal dissent that has manifested in student uprisings?
“There clearly are contacts between al-Qaida and Iraq that can be documented; there clearly is testimony that some of the contacts have been important contacts and that there’s a relationship here,” Rice said.
She said much of the information was coming from al-Qaida operatives captured since the Sept. 11 terrorist hijackings. This included several senior leaders whom the U.S. alleges organized terrorist attacks.
“We clearly know that there were in the past and have been contacts between senior Iraqi officials and members of al-Qaida going back for actually quite a long time,” Rice said.
“We know too that several of the (al-Qaida) detainees, in particular some high-ranking detainees, have said that Iraq provided some training to al-Qaida in chemical weapons development.”
I don't have the full transcript, so I'm not sure who the "we" is that she's referring to. I assume she means the Administration security staff.
Do you believe her? Yes, no, or undecided?
I say "yes." I can respect "undecided." But I don't see how anyone not unthinkingly opposed to the Administration can say "no."