SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: carranza2 who wrote (76407)2/21/2003 6:48:13 PM
From: tekboy  Read Replies (1) of 281500
 
I must be missing something, but I don't think that Bush has ever explicitly said there was a linkage.

Not on the record. More than once in the Woodward book, though, he is directly quoted as saying that he thinks Iraq was behind 9/11, although he can't prove it. To my knowledge these quote have never been disavowed, or even much remarked upon (don't get me started about the godawfulness of the Woodward book and the patheticness of the reviews it received).

Even a 40-60% contingency that Saddam will acquire a nuke or two in the next two or so years, in my view, is sufficiently dangerous such that we would be insane not to disarm him, the lack of an UN resolution notwithsanding.

I understand your position. But not everyone feels that way, and if the administration were to be honest about the tenuousness of the links between al Qaeda and Iraq, support for the new war would be significantly lower than it is.

tb@whichispartlywhytheyarenotbeinghonestaboutit,ofcourse.com
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News