Iraq and 9/11

[Smash255]

First of all, I wasn't talking about my case on WMD being stronger, I never thought the case was impenetrable.  I was talking about my case for war by basing it on Iraq's ties to terror is stronger than Bush's case as based on WMD.  I should have spoken more clearly.

Iran, Syria, North Korea, and Bush's best friends who he refuses to release any information about their /11 involvment (the Saudi's) were and still are a much bigger terror threat than Saddam was

[Smash255]

First of all, I wasn't talking about my case on WMD being stronger, I never thought the case was impenetrable.  I was talking about my case for war by basing it on Iraq's ties to terror is stronger than Bush's case as based on WMD.  I should have spoken more clearly.

Iran, Syria, North Korea, and Bush's best friends who he refuses to release any information about their /11 involvment (the Saudi's) were and still are a much bigger terror threat than Saddam was

Was North Korea a bigger threat?  I don't think so.  They are a problem, sure, but they don't have any involvement with Islamic terrorism.  Iran and Syria are threats, I agree, and I wish Bush would deal with them.  As for Saudi Arabia, I agree again, but there are (unfortuneately) real practical constraints that limit our options there.  Like, for example, an exceedingly anti-US population (you think occupying Iraq was bad?  Just try Saudi Arabia.).  And yes, Buhs is too close to the Saudis.

What really took the cake with the Saudi's was the blacking out of any Saudi related material in the documents.  Even Shelby R ALA who was one of the heads of the Joint Intelligence Committe that made the report sharply criticized Bush over the Saudi secretevness.  Anyway I don't know if we should have invaded Saudi Arabia or not, we shoul have put a hell of a lot more pressure on them.  Also when your figthing a war on terror doesn't it make sense to get rid of your bigger threats first.  Saddam is a piece of crap evil tyrant, but as far as threats to the United States he was way down the list

[Smash255]

I'd say Saudi was the #2 terror sponsor after Afghanistan when we started this campaign.

If I were to list the threats, I'd say
1. Afghanistan
2. Saudi Arabia
3. Iran
4. Iraq
5. Syria
6. Libya
7. Sudan

We did the right thing going into Afghanistan right away.  I also think we were right to make Iraq the second to go, because Iran and Saudi, IMHO, are tough nuts to crack.  Saudi has a hostile population, and Iran has hostile terrain.  If you can get yourself in a position to threaten those guys by putting forces in Iraq, and in the process, take out a state sponsor of these groups, you've made a solid move.

Still, I wish there was an easy answer to the Saudi problem, because you and I know they are sending cash to Al Qaeda and these other groups as I sit here typing, and I can't begin to estimate how many could die because of it.

I would put Syria ahead of Iraq, and although they aren't Islamic Fundamentalists North Korea because of their dangerous weapons program.  Pakistan would also be high up on that list I don't trust Musharaff..  We were never going to do anything with Syria or Iran by going into Iraq

Saudi Arabia is a mess, by befriending the government Bush has turned a mess into a disaster.  Going to war with them would have been very tough no quuestion about it, but all the secretive stuff is miind boggiling.  He says that we will do everything to we can to stop terrorism and get the ones that attacked us.  Meanwhile #1 in both has become our allies.  He said we will find out everything about the attacks, but refuses to relase info, blacks info out from reports vital to that