Quote:
Originally Posted by f0ca1
See, this is where you try to nitpick your way out of defending what the Administration said.
I mean, like, a connection, like, a collaborative one, like, maybe a connection that was strong enough to be part of the case for war, like type.
Dig it?
There is no such thing.
As pointed out, al Qaeda had/has a hell of a lot more connections by my standard, the war-case standard, with Saudi Arabia, than it had with Iraq.
|
OK now you have to demonstrate to me that the administration was saying that they had a "collaborative" connection as part of their argument to go to war. I don't think you'll find it because I don't think that is what anyone said. You see, if we can agree that all the administration has said is that there was communications between the two, we will have no argument.
But let's say you are right just for a second. Wouldn't we have cause to go to war against Saddam just because of all the other reasons? I mean, he didn't cooperate with the weapons inspections, he violated the UN Security Council's Resolution more that a dozen times, and even when given a final ultimatum UNSC Res 1441 he still thumbed his nose at them. That resolution gave us the right to use force against him. So Bush gave him a certain amount of time to leave the country and he still didn't go. We got a use of force passed through both houses of congress which amounts to a Declaration of War and he still would not cooperate.
Do you remember any of this going down prior to our invasion?