I clicked this into a tab when I saw it long ago, and have now finally, thankfully read this excellent pair of interviews. I realized when I first saw it that i would have to devote some extra time to seriously study it, and tonight was that time.
It appears to me that the “precautionary principle” so exalted amongst the “environmentalists” and global warming alarmists was the MOST sensible position for President Bush’s administration to take, given the intelligence debate that is clearly apparent in this presentation.
S&F, posting this was a great service for me, and the FR community.
Dog and JV... I would be extremely interested in any insight that either or both of you could bring into this thread. No time pressure: when you get a chance.
First we should thank our FRiend freeper Ikez78 who conducted this wonderful interview.
The problem that we have faced in the Saddam regime/Al Qaeda relation and Saddam regime WMD is that we allowed the Left to define the rules of the debate. For example the Left has been saying if there was "no operational" relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda then according to the them Saddam has no relation with Al Qaeda or with terrorism as many liberals want to say.
It is true that Saddam had no operational relationship with Al Qaeda but it is certain from both Iraqi and Al Qaeda documents that I translated and published on Free Republic that Saddam regime did turn a blind eye on Al Qaeda terrorists coming to Iraq under Zarqawi before the war to establish their terrorist base. Also Saddam regime had trained insude Iraq for many years what they called "Arab Feedayeen" i.e. the foreign Arab terrorists who without any doubt became the backbone of Al Qaeda in Iraq once Saddam regime fell.
Saddam regime was a very dangerous terrorist regime and we are much better because it does not exist anymore.