XPost: nj.politics, ny.politics, nyc.politics   
   XPost: or.politics, pa.politics, seattle.politics   
   XPost: tx.politics   
   From: stderr2@backpacker.com   
      
   stan@temple.edu wrote:   
   >   
   > In nj.politics "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal   
   attack )"  wrote:   
   > >   
   > > I'm not claiming that Saddam was involved in 9/11. I don't know whether   
   > > he was or not. I know he didn't want to make his links to al Qaeda all   
   > > that obvious. In any case, you have no evidence that Saudi Arabia was   
   > > involved in 9/11, yet you claim just because bin Laden chose to use   
   > > mostly Saudis that that must be the case. Of course that defines logic   
   > > since bin Laden hates the Saudi government and wants to use Saudis to   
   > > cause problems between that government and the US.   
   >   
   > Bush had no evidence that Saddam was planning to attack United States   
   > interests, yet we now have another Vietnam in Iraq.   
   >   
   Post 9/11, we decided that supporting terrorism was enough for the US to   
   act. Saddam supported terrorism and was an incurable malignancy sitting   
   in the heart of the Middle East, the heart from which the red blood of   
   terrorism flows. How you could argue that leaving that there and not   
   surgically removing it, I can't understand.   
      
      
   --   
   "Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."   
   +-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)