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 : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DavesM who wrote (11822)	7/19/2004 10:52:59 PM
From: Orcastraiter	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 90947

That's not a link between Iraq and Bin Laden. It's bin Laden laying out his reasons for being at war with the US, and part of his war was the on going war between the US and the UN and Iraq. It does not mean that Iraq was collaborating with bin Laden any more than the Chinese who bin Laden mentioned. It boils down to one thing. If Bush knew that Saddam was not involved with 9-11, but that he felt that he should attack Saddam anyway, he should have explicitly stated such. He should have said to the American people before the beginning of the war, Saddam has no part in 9-11 that we know of, but we're taking him out anyway...and then list the reasons for it. By not explicitly stating such he allowed that idea to fester in the minds of the American people. I've heard it a million times on Fox...Saddam and Al Qaeda, Saddam and bin Laden. Even the Halliburton Truck driver that was captured mentioned that he was doing his duty there in Iraq because of 9-11. But that goes against what the President said about Saddam not being involved in 9-11 (after the war was started) And the 9-11 commission's report. Bush should have had the Balls to say it explicitly, instead of letting it be implicitly interpreted wrongly. Orca