I didn't see any claims in the NRO article that haven't been thoroughly debunked. Some people will go a really long way to keep claiming that Saddam was a threat in and we were therefore retroactively justified in going after him in spite of the fact that all the pre-war "intelligence" was a bag of willful lies.
Sometimes, you know, the emperor really just has not clothes no matter how much your establishment wants to believe otherwise. Judah On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 6:52 AM, Gruss Gott <[email protected]> wrote: > > No because if by now you don't see Iraq as a massive squandering of resources > that took our focus off of what was of top strategic importance - Afghanistan > and china - then you're a fool. > > > > On Sep 16, 2011, at 8:46 AM, Sam <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Saddam: What We Now Know >> Bin Laden struck first, but Saddam was at least as big a terror threat. >> http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/277115/saddam-what-we-now-know-jim-lacey?page=1 >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:342690 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
