XPost: nj.politics, ny.politics, nyc.politics   
   XPost: or.politics, pa.politics, seattle.politics   
   XPost: tx.politics   
   From: bshatzer@OregonVOS.net   
      
   On Fri, 28 Nov 2003, Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal   
   attack ) wrote:   
      
      
   > 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.   
      
   Only problem is, there just ain't no evidence that Saddam was 'supporting   
   terrorism'.   
      
   Even the dubya concedes there is no evidence of a Saddam/9-11 link and   
   even the DoD concedes that there is no evidence of any sustantive link   
   at all between al Qaeda (or any other terrorist group) and Saddam.   
      
   Which is of course the whole tragedy of the Iraq adventure.  Resources   
   which -could- have been devoted to fighting terrorists who genuinely   
   threatened the US and US interests are being squandered to no particularly   
   good purpose in Iraq.  Whatever the outcome in Iraq, it will not leave us   
   one bit safer from those who -genuinely- threaten us.   
      
   Peace and justice,   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)