[Theyknow]

When Bush ran for office did you support him because you believed he would lead the military into action all over the world? Or did you support him because you thought he would avoid meddling in world affairs? Did you think he would ask the nation to create an enormous deficit so we could “rebuild” foreign nations?

Please don’t say we are there because of 9/11 or because Saddam gassed his own people. Saddam used the gas on his own people in the 1980s and we rewarded him for that with an extra billion in agricultural assistance. Whatever evidence there is linking Saddam to 9/11 is weak at very best and unsupported at very least.

It is time to start talking about what neoconservativism is and whether this new foreign policy initiative is one which we can support. Pretending that it isn’t an issue is foolishness plain and simple.

[Flightdeck]

"Whatever evidence there is linking Saddam to 9/11 is weak at very best and unsupported at very least. "

We'll see, pending the release of the intelligence report coming out soon, but anyway it's a moot point. The evidence linking Iraq to TERROR is vast and unimpeachable, and we're in a war on TERROR. It is flat out impossible to defend all of America's resources. Our only chance to prevent another 9/11 is to go on offense.