From: "Phil Payne" 

"Phil Payne"  wrote in
message news:4505b333{at}w3.nls.net...
> http://www.ft.com/cms/s/1f27d8e4-4106-11db-827f-0000779e2340.html
>
> "In defending the decision to invade Iraq despite its lack of weapons of
> mass destruction, Mr Cheney said the fact that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the
> former head of al-Qaeda in Iraq who was killed in a US air strike this
year,
> was in Baghdad before the war was evidence that Iraq had links to
al-Qaeda."

And then along comes Shrub, hours later:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,,1870427,00.html

"The president conceded some crucial ideological ground, formally
disavowing the neo-conservative accusation that Saddam had played a role in
the attacks on September 11 2001. But he was unapologetic about the
decision to invade Iraq.

"I am often asked why we are in Iraq when Saddam Hussein was not
responsible for the 9/11 attacks," Mr Bush said. "The answer is
that the regime of Saddam Hussein was a clear threat. My administration,
the Congress, and the United Nations saw the threat - and after 9/11,
Saddam's regime posed a risk that the world could not afford to take.
"

I'd still like to know exactly what threat Iraq posed to _ANYONE_.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5