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: email@example.com 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 ==^================================================================