Replies

BTTT ... your analysis works to my mind. Salman Pak was a training haven for nearly every terrorist group willing to come to Baghdad. Documents discovered in Afghanistan show the visits of Iraqi 'Mukbars' to train al Qaeda in production and use of bio and chem weapons. But it doesn't matter to the democrats who wouldn't accept proof if it was irrefutable. They're too bitter about being turn out of power and too involved in trying to prevent this administration from succeeding in the war against terrorism to stop and care about America's safety or the real risks facing US.

I don't think they're sitting in their offices trying to figure out how to destroy America. I think they're just trying to save their own skins. Unfortunately, that doesn't make the results of their actions much different.

I try not to descend into tinfoil hatting, but there does appear to be a connection between the 1993 attack on the WTC and both Iraq and Bin Laden. It seems weird to me that this is not used as part of the case against Saddam today. I'm sure that within the administration it's well known and a major reason he's being targeted, but it's something I'd dearly love to learn more about.

Finally, I wish I could understand the left position. It appears to be inspired by folks like Noam Chomsky, who can sound pretty impressive to the naive and impressionable. But after a little while, you get to understand that his argument simply takes everything we do as aggression, while ignoring what the opposite side does to provoke it. You don't learn about Palastinian suicide bombers from him; you just learn that Israel, with American support, has killed billions of Palastinians.

Unfortunately, the whole left seems to argue like that. Their more erudite case seems to be that we supported Saddam against Iran, so it's hypocritical for us to go back and clean up the mess now. But that means the mess will never be cleaned up. I just can't take that kind of argument seriously.

D