IronLionZion wrote: Except for the fact that Hans Blix asserted Iraq was fully co-operating in November effectively negates your argument.
Since when is Hans Blix an authority on this matter? But just for the fun of it let's assume Hans was correct. Blix negates only his own arguments.
That was November when?
I assume you mean November 2002!
November 2002 was 14 months after 9/11; 13 months after the invasion of Afghanistan. Up until that November Saddam wasn't cooperating. What led Saddam to change his behavior and appear to cooperate? Hmmmm? Could it be that he believed he had by that November successfully hidden the WMD stuff for use on another day.
Sure, then he might have said to 'Ol Hans, bring on your inspectors, you won't find anything.
FACT
Saddam committed in the 1991 Armistice Agreement to destroy/disassemble all the WMD stuff he had and provide evidence he had accomplished that. Even by Blix's alleged November, Saddam had provided zero evidence that he had destroyed/disassembled
all the WMD stuff. In fact, even by Bush's March 2003 Saddam had provided zero evidence that he had destroyed/disassembled
all the WMD stuff.
OPINION
The absence of evidence that Saddam and Osama had a
"formal relationship" is not evidence that Saddam and Osama did not have a productive
informal relationship. Anyone here not aware of the numerous news stories describing various incidents of this
informal relationship has not been paying adequate attention. I've posted evidence of their
informal relationship myself in Forum VI of this series several times.
A QUESTION
All those of you who continually villify Bush, ought to ask yourselves this question:
How would you have proceded to stop another 9/11? How would you have stopped the financing, training and equiping of 19 more terrorists, armed with plastic box cutters, from hijacking more airliners to use as missles; or prevent airliner, train, ship, truck or automobile baggage from carrying a time or radio controlled conventional explosive bomb designed to go off over, near, or in a heavily populated area?
THEORY
Good offense wins wars, good defense slows losing wars, maybe long enough to mount a good offense.