Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Journeyman
Ok... now what? No seriously: Now... what?
All I got refuting the "none of these has turned out to be accurate" is a statement of "theories that Ramzi Yousef was an Iraqi agent and Iraq was behind the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center." This, in turn, points to footnote 73, which states "DOD memo, Wolfowitz to Rumsfeld, "Preventing More Events," Sept. 17, 2001. We review contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda in chapter 2. We have found no credible evidence to support theories of Iraqi government involvement in the 1993 WTC bombing. Wolfowitz added in his memo that he had attempted in June to get the CIA to explore these theories."
Essentially page 334-337 talks of some concerns in the week after 9/11/2001 that Iraq was involved. But nothing came of that. It also has no statements concerning WMD attainment, or attainment attempts. The only region that these pages state Saddam were a threat to was Iraq, in which some concerns were expressed over north and south military operations against the no-fly zones.
So... now what?
|
The popular gist of the situation of Saddam & WMD (Pre-Iraq War), as you know, was the possibility of a openly hostile dictator like Hussein selling his WMD to terrorists, or maybe a friend of a terrorist, or maybe the cousin of a friend of a terrorist, etc...then what? Is the possibility of a terrorist WMD attack cause for alarm? Is it reasonable to expect that such a thing will happen? Is the world supposed to wait for something to happen? What is the world supposed to do about terrorists with WMD? The 'problem' with 9/11 is that now ANYTHING is possible. The worst case scenario that one can think of, because of 9/11, is now in the realm of possibility. Maybe the US is over-reacting to those attacks, but maybe not.