Iraq - Al Qaeda link becoming more clear

[Mad Mike]

Today the CIA confirmed Powell's statements of an Al Qaeda cell in bagdad and stated that there is no way Iraq could not know of this going on.

"We see disturbing signs that al Qaeda has established a presence in both Iran and Iraq," Tenet said

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/02/11/terrorism.congress/index.html

Also today, it has been reported that a new tape from Bin Laden has surfaced. In it Bin laden is said to be "in partnership with Iraq".

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,78232,00.html

Anyone still want to keep their head in the sand and assume there is no link?

[redman]

Bush's critics have an amazing capacity to simply assume that he's stupid and will make a poor decision, rather than assuming (as they should by now) that he's an organized, capable and thoughtful guy who is doing his best to identify threats and dispose of them systematically. Iraq's a good example of this.

Iraq is not simply about terror. It's not simply about WMD's. It's not simply about the relative ease with which we can remove the Iraqi threat (as contrasted with other threats like North Korea). It's about all of these things combined and more.

The Administration has identified in Iraq a regime:

1) with an established history of developing - and using - WMD's;

2) defying the UN's efforts to block those efforts;

3) supporting international terrorist groups that are enemies of the U.S. and our allies, including by assisting them in developing their own WMD's;

4) that can't be contained by other countries in the region;

5) against whom the U.N. (potentially?) and/or American allies can be persuaded to form a military coalition to invade them; and

6) can be relatively quickly removed from power in the event that we go in and invade.

To the critics of going to war with Iraq now, I defy you to identify another country about whom all of these arguments can be made.

[Skins24]

Well I'm all for the war, but I can name a country who fits the bill (except #4).

France

[redman]

Originally posted by rskin24

Well I'm all for the war, but I can name a country who fits the bill (except #4).

France

That was funny! :laugh:

[Mad Mike]

Originally posted by redman

Bush's critics have an amazing capacity to simply assume that he's stupid and will make a poor decision, rather than assuming (as they should by now) that he's an organized, capable and thoughtful guy who is doing his best to identify threats and dispose of them systematically. Iraq's a good example of this.

Iraq is not simply about terror. It's not simply about WMD's. It's not simply about the relative ease with which we can remove the Iraqi threat (as contrasted with other threats like North Korea). It's about all of these things combined and more.

The Administration has identified in Iraq a regime:

1) with an established history of developing - and using - WMD's;

2) defying the UN's efforts to block those efforts;

3) supporting international terrorist groups that are enemies of the U.S. and our allies, including by assisting them in developing their own WMD's;

4) that can't be contained by other countries in the region;

5) against whom the U.N. (potentially?) and/or American allies can be persuaded to form a military coalition to invade them; and

6) can be relatively quickly removed from power in the event that we go in and invade.

To the critics of going to war with Iraq now, I defy you to identify another country about whom all of these arguments can be made.

VERY well said redman!