Posted: Sep 16th 2003, 3:14 pm
I'll state that there's evidence that at least one of the hijackers met with Iraqis Intelligence officers. Other than that no... I don't think Saddam was a major player. What I stated was that the US picked a fight with the biggest baddest bully on that block. Iraq was the military power of the middle east. They had billions of dollars worth of the latest Russian, Chinese and French military hardware. It lasted for 21 days.You seem to be confusing Afganistan and Iraq. Are you one of those 60% that think there's evidence that Saddam had a hand in 9/11?
Do you think that raised or lowered the amount of orders for French, Russian and Chinese military hardware?
What effect do you think it had on governments and their forgein policy plans in places like Syria, Iran and N. Korea when it comes to state sponsored terrorism?
Why don't I hear questions like that being asked to Donald Rumsfeld?
If he's not buried under rocks in Tora Bora, he's more than likely somewhere in the mountains between Afganistan and Packistan. More than likely in a small party with limited contact. Very unlikely to beable to plan or assist in any major planning without giving away his location. (Low Threat)Where is Osama bin Laden?
Same boat as above.Where is Mullah Omar?
Cause we need the money to study socialized prescription drug plans, social security, welfare...and the rest of Herr Hillary's Plans!Why is the 9/11 Commission underfunded?
Because it would delay the rebuilding of Iraq even longer. The quickest way to bring stablity to that region is to setup a society that is capable of producing wealth. Content people are much less likely to become radical extremist. The sooner we have basic facilities the sooner more extensive facilities can be built that will provide jobs and income to those people. Its much harder to convince a person with a job and a family to blow himself up for Allah.Why have contracts for the rebuilding of Iraq been awarded without bidding and competition?
Why is it that you think these questions aren't asked? I here them over and over and over again!!! I think its more that the left doesn't like the answers more than they right hasn't listened to them.These are only a few of what should be put up to our Prez. But if they do, they'll never get back into the Whitehouse again. Its sad that our Prez can't answer the tough questions, and has to kick people out of his house for doing so...
First off most of them are answered, the left doesn't want to here it. So they continue to dig and dig and dig looking for the incriminating piece of evidence. The right on the other hand says look all you want thats great, but why are you looking so hard now when its Bush , but when it was good old Bill and there was evidence you didn't want to look at it and asked everyone to move along. Its not the discussion the right has a problem with its the double standard.Why, when there are good arguements against Bush does the right always point fingers back at Clinton? Own up and answer them without diverting attention and pointing fingers!