What The World Thinks of America (BBC program)

How about reading the second link I provided, so I don't have to read it for you, to answer your question.

if you read all of both links, and do some googling of other accounts that have just appeared on the web, you'll be better prepared to know if Iraq was involved with Al Qaeda.

Yesterday, allegations of new evidence of connections between Iraq and al Qaeda contained in a classified annex attached to Feith’s Oct. 27 letter to leaders of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence were published in the Weekly Standard. [..] The classified annex summarized raw intelligence reports but did not analyze them or address their accuracy, according to a senior administration official familiar with the matter.

nimh, Gotta remain sceptical about these last minute allegations about connecting Saddam with Al Qaida - especially since the president already said none existed. Let's hear some concrete evidence before we jump to any conclusions.

nimh, Gotta remain sceptical about these last minute allegations about connecting Saddam with Al Qaida - especially since the president already said none existed. Let's hear some concrete evidence before we jump to any conclusions.

voracity? now the left is voracious, as well as any other epithets you've applied ?

personally, i barely had sufficient appetite to finish my lunch . . .

Last time I Googled about it, in reaction to the Weekly Standard article....

Seems to be a topic on the site, today, Boss, just havin' a little fun, no offense intended . . .

The essential question regarding the entire Iraq issue must be : Are we (not just the US, but the entire world community) safer now from the threat of terrorism ?

Is there anyone who would disagree with the response that we are all less safe from those who hate us and would choose to kill us in a heartbeat if given the chance?

Bin Laden's second-in-command (undeniably a hateful, violent, terrorist) has been able to use the Bush administration's extremist short-sighted militaristic policy quite effectively against the US. In recent broadcasts, al-Zawahiri has described the war on terrorism as "a war on Islam " and criticised Islamic leaders who co-operated with the US. "George W. Bush appoints corrupt leaders and protects them," he said in a tape broadcast by Al-Jazeera television.

Every sane person in the world...

...now knows that Bush fabricated an Iraq-terrorism link to generate support for a war that people everywhere would otherwise have refused to support. And now, one year later, people (regardless of their feelings about Saddam) view Bush as a liar and an invader.

Look at Spain - the people ousted their government for supporting Bush. Look at the continuing anti-war protests all over the world.

It is insane to think we can be safe without sincere legitimate support from the world community. The excruciatingly frustrating thing is that, after 911, we had the world community squarely in our corner. Bush and his lunatic cronies blew it.

My point ..... We are less safe now than we were a year ago. Much less safe. For that reason alone, the Lunatic-in-Chief has to go.

As an observation, i will note that throughout the attempt "to get" Clinton, i heard insulting remarks and insulting characterizations of him constantly. The attempt to grab the moral high ground is typical of conservatives, and typically feeble and groundless.

The essential question regarding the entire Iraq issue must be : Are we (not just the US, but the entire world community) safer now from the threat of terrorism ?

Is there anyone who would disagree with the response that we are all less safe from those who hate us and would choose to kill us in a heartbeat if given the chance?
...
My point ..... We are less safe now than we were a year ago.

angie wrote:

Bin Laden's second-in-command (undeniably a hateful, violent, terrorist) has been able to use the Bush administration's extremist short-sighted militaristic policy quite effectively against the US. In recent broadcasts, al-Zawahiri has described the war on terrorism as "a war on Islam " and criticised Islamic leaders who co-operated with the US. "George W. Bush appoints corrupt leaders and protects them," he said in a tape broadcast by Al-Jazeera television.

I'm sure he would speak about any US President in the same way, or anyone who opposes Al Qaeda.

All any Arab has to do is look at a democratic Iraq, blossoming with freedom from the ashes of Saddam's dictatorship, to see why they should turn away from terrorism.

And I think most rational people understand that Iraq supported terrorism. It is a documented fact that Saddam provided money to the families of suicide bombers, thereby supporting terrorism against Israel. There are many other links between Iraq and terrorism

The voters in Spain ousted their government because of perceived lying about who was responsible for the attacks on their people. The Spanish government that supported the Coalition was projected to have won had it not been for their response to the attacks.

angie wrote:

The excruciatingly frustrating thing is that, after 911, we had the world community squarely in our corner. Bush and his lunatic cronies blew it.

Maybe we should have done nothing and waited to be attacked again, eh? Then the world would have even more sympathy for us. But instead, the US Congress (all Bush "cronies?") voted to give the President the capability to take action against Iraq, and he did,

and the American people are grateful and overwhelmingly supportive of that decision.

A few people in other countries may have been opposed to the war in Iraq.

angie wrote:

My point ..... We are less safe now than we were a year ago. Much less safe. For that reason alone, the Lunatic-in-Chief has to go.

I don't understand why any discussion of our President by certain political groups always has to include hatred and insults. Even at the height of the Lewinsky scandal, those opposed to President Clinton were more inclined to point and laugh than to engage in name-calling and hatred. It doesn't contribute anything meaningful to a rational discussion.

But no links between Iraq and 9/11, which is what the US were at war about.

Still waving the banner of 911 retaliation, the US then set course for attacking a country and a regime that had nothing whatsoever to do with 911.

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;