Prudentially, pragmatically and given the consequences there isn't and wasn't. But, ignoring evidence of links between the Ba'athist Mukharabat and al-Q isn't wise. this is different than saying that SH was behind 9-11 which is not the case
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,314700,00.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,12469,798270,00.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,12469,798284,00.html http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/fr/fr010919_1_n.shtml http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/09/21/iraq/index.html?pn=1 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/08/25/wnidal25.xml&sSheet=/portal/2002/08/25/ixport.html&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=150520 http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/628wqxma.asp http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/527uwabl.asp
On 9/18/06, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
>
> On Sep 18, 2006, at 10:20 AM, Michael Pugliese wrote:
>
> > Weakest
> > part of the left-liberal case against the war.
>
> You write as if there's a reasonable case for the war.
>
> Doug
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
-- Michael Pugliese