"Greylock" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 20:50:01 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Willcox" wrote in message
ress.com...
Ed Huntress wrote:

"Willcox" wrote in message
ess.com...
The mainstream media reporded that the 9-11 commission said there
were
no ties between Iraq and al Qaeda.

Just read the report above, and see how you would report it. Based on
the
actual words of the Commission report, I'd say there was some talk
and
some
wishful thinking, but no "ties."

Tied to defination of "ties" i guess.

Well, if you're going to call an entire institution "liars," you'd better
have your definition down pat. The Commission said there were no ties.
The
quotation omitted that, conveniently.


Which is exactly what they said. No evidence of any cooperative
action
between them.

And no evidence they weren't cooperating, so what'd your point?

The point is, lack of evidence they WERE cooperating is another excuse
for
invading Iraq shot to hell. No WMDs, no evidence of cooperation with Al
Qaeda. . .what's left, that they didn't like us?

Lack of
evidence doesn't prove the opposite.

It doesn't have to, unless you think that guesswork is enough
justification
to invade a country that had not attacked us and that had no visible way
to
do so if they tried. How about. . .hmm. . .Greece? They don't like us
very
much. Shall we invade?

So no matter what the intelligence says, you would do nothing until
AFTER the terrorists have actually COMMMITTED the next attack? Because
intelligence is ALL GUESSWORK - ALL THE TIME.

DID YOU HAVE TO WORK HARD TO GET THAT DAMNED DUMB?

Tell us, oh wise one, just what makes you think that killing tens of
thousands of Iraqi civilians is going to stop a terrorist attack? And then,
after you've bounced that one around the hollow shell where most people keep
their brains, tell us why Saddam would supply terrorists to attack the
United States, when he knew that doing so would leave his fingerprints over
half the Middle East channels the CIA was watching and that we'd respond by
blasting him out of his socks?

The CIA was skeptical of any connection from day one. Read the references in
the 9-11 Commission Report and you'll see where the Commission got its
information. Furthermore, the CIA was doubtful that Saddam had the
capability to do much of anything outside of his immediate neighborhood.

We attacked Iraq under false pretenses, selected and cooked up to make a
good story. In the end, we're left cooking up more stories to justify our
actions. If I'm keeping up, the current story is that we just attacked a
country, killed thousands of their civilians, and wound up with over 1,000
of our own troops killed so we could bring elections for theocratic
political parties to Iraq. Is that the latest, or have we come up with
something else?

--
Ed Huntress