Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (46096)	9/22/2002 1:16:39 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Conflation, Nadine. There is no doubt the nature of the threat has changed since 9-11. But that is a threat from Al Q, not from nation states. The Bush folk still have not offered serious arguments and evidence why they think the US should invade Iraq to stop Al Q. You, who have read Judith Miller, know that Al Qaeda is not just Al Qaeda, but part of a much larger network, especially since the merger with the Muslim Brotherhood. So all this "gotta stick to Al Qaeda alone" stuff is specious. Also, the connection of Saddam Hussein to terrorists is not just "harboring", and we have hard evidence of it. Who was he training at Salman Pak, with a airliner for highjacking practice? What role has Iraqi intelligence played in Ansar-al-Islam and Al-Aqsa (the IDF will have an answer for you on that second question shortly, I should think)? It is possible to have more than one enemy at once, you know. Invading Iraq was never about stopping Al Qaeda, that is just a straw man you keeping setting up. The Bush administration would have loved to make the connection for the political impetus they would have gotten from it; but their reasons for tackling Iraq were there before 9/11; 9/11 just made them much more urgent.