Those who don't want to do something in Iraq for whatever reasons diminish
any evidence.  Those who want to do something enhance any evidence.

>From my perspective, the evidence is sufficient.  Many people are convicted
of crimes in our criminal system based upon circumstantial evidence.  As an
example of how this applies:  The Al Quaeda cells in the US were very
interested in crop dusters.  Saddam has a fleet of crop dusters for
spreading bio and chem WOMM in his area of influence.  Now where in the
world would our Al Quaeda friends get the material to spread in the US?  The
UN says "from Iraq."  For the pro-ouster folks, that, combined with a lot of
other similar "evidence," paints a compelling and chilling picture.  For the
anti-ouster folks, it's just circumstantial, we might be wrong and might be
convicting an innocent man (Saddam).

In February 1998, Clinton et al said that Saddam was very close to having
reconstituted his WOMM and we needed to go in.  But here it is, more than
four years later, and if you assume that Saddam had nothing to do with
September 11, 2001, and you assume that our response in disrupting OBL and
AQ did not foil other plans, then Clinton et al were wrong and Saddam is not
a threat to us.

So, if it were up to you, personally, to be responsible for making the
decision, would you feel comfortable doing nothing more than we are now?  In
spite of the Chezk reports to the contrary, would you feel comfortable with
your assumptions that Saddam did nothing against us, and that he will not in
the future?  Would you ignore his attempts to contract the killing of Bush
41?

Are you confortable that Saddam will not attack Israel, and that we will not
respond if he does, during which response our men and women will be
subjected to WOMM which Saddam has had many more years to develop?

I do not know what I would do, if I had the responsibility that President
Bush has.  It's relatively easy for me to sit here, with basically no say in
the outcome other than my one little vote and my one big mouth, and
pontificate.  However, I do have the responsibilty to use my one puny little
vote as wisely as I can, and therefore I must vote for those who view the
threat from Saddam as viable and imminent.  I understand that there are
others who feel differently, although I cannot follow their logic, other
than to acknowledge that they don't give as much weight as I do to the
information I consider to be evidence.

Whatever the reasons for Clinton's desire to go into Iraq in 1998, I do wish
we would have.  And frankly, you liberals out there should wish that he did
as well.  For had he done this, I feel that the likelihood that September 11
would have happened would have been severely diminished, and Gore would
probably be President right now.

Jon

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html      ///
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

==^================================================================
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^================================================================

Reply via email to