Replies

This is the message the administration need to get out. If you can link Iraq to attacks on the U.S. (all right I know you can but I mean if you can get the links so solid that the media cannot continue to ignore them) then 80% of the country will be behind invading Iraq and will turn very quickly on those who are oppossed no matter what happens there. Yet the administration has not been very stringent making the case despite the evidence. They need to understand the difference betweeen evidence and "proof" and just present the evidence they have and let America make the decision whether it is "proof" or not. I am confident the majority will be convinced like I am that Iraq was attacking the U.S. and needed to be taken out.

On a side note, does anyone else ever wonder why ex-clinton advisors like Mynroie, Woosely, and Ijaz all link Iraq to al Queda but bet get none of the coverage Clarke does for critizing Bush. Of course there is not bias here, move along citizens (or comrades if they have their way).

I think you hit on the problem with the evidence v. proof thing. Unfortunately the media types think we have to have "proof" before act. If something happens for which we have "evidence", and we don't act, they get hysterical. Also, certain evidence, they dismiss out of hand (Czech intelligence on meeting of Atta). They also put the burden of "proof" on us to prove Saddam had WMD rather than Saddam having to prove he didn't (as specified in the cease fire agreement).

I agree completely. But what about the Saudi's? Weren't 15 of the 19 hijackers from Saudi Arabia? Why haven't we done more yet to address the threat from that repressive regime?

Bomb em all and let God sort it out