XPost: nj.politics, ny.politics, nyc.politics   
   XPost: or.politics, pa.politics, seattle.politics   
   XPost: tx.politics   
   From: stderr2@backpacker.com   
      
   slim wrote:   
   >   
   > "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )" wrote:   
   > >   
   > > 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.   
   >   
   > Thats NOT what ShrubCo told us.   
   >   
   Yes it is.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)