I increasingly believe that, since the Bush folk have not brought forward convincing evidence
Evidence of what, for crying out loud? They have brought forth a ton of evidence, of Saddam's aggression, his training of terrorists, his influence with Palestinian terrorists, his possession of chemical and bioweapons, his frantic struggle to finish creating nuclear weapons, which he will probably have within the year if not sooner. Is this not "convincing"? Or are you determined to discount everything but direct evidence that Saddam plotted 9/11, and wave your hand dismissively over any other threat?
As a fairly nonpolitical friend of mine just said over the phone, has the Bush administration gone crazy.
The Bush administration has been taken a hard look at the nature of the craziness emanating from the Arab world for the last twenty years, the anger that is already there (why I don't lay much weight on the "anger" theory), and the nature of the threat to us. Since all evidence of this craziness has been studiously suppressed from the pages of the sainted New York Times, I'm not surprised your friend haven't heard about it. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. |
