Re: Define Terrorism (was Re: Poll - Did you believe ...)

[G]

Very true, Bush's interpretation appears to have been wrong. So now you have to ask yourself "Was his interpretation of the intelligence valid?" Or did he basically allow himself to be duped. The difference is subtle, but important.

I know that there is little or no data that directly connects Iraq to 9/11, but for me personally, i dont NEED a direct link. In my mind, states, regimes, kings, presidents, cultures, societies....ANY group that supports,  fosters, cares for, protects, harbors or gives moral support.....to terrorrists, is guilty. There is no more "direct or indirect anymore", there is only "for or against".
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Kris Baca
  To: CF-Community
  Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2004 2:27 PM
  Subject: Re: Define Terrorism (was Re: Poll - Did you believe ...)

  Hi Brian,

  Good point, but it brings Mr. Bush's judgment into question since his
  interpretation turned out to be wrong and General Zinni's turned out
  to be right.

  About 9/11, I'm angry too but the data connecting Iraq has never
  existed.  There has been data, however, connecting both Saudi Arabia
  and Iran.  Maybe one of them was a better target?

  <snip>

---

[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]

---