>>>The big topic on talk radio here on Thursday was an article in the Los Angeles Times that day. The article described how the main source of information that the administration used was delivered from a man who was captured by the US and then turned over to the Egyptian authorities. He was tortured by the Egyptians and eventually gave them information tying Iraq to Al-Queda.
>>>
>>>This information was viewed as highly suspect by many. But the administration gladly added it to it's list of proof for war.
>>
>>I am not sure I understand correctly. With "proof for war", are you referring to "reasons to go to war against Iraq"?
>
>yes I think he does mean that... "very close links between Saddam and al Quida" was the specific reason that Iraq was an imminent danger, just like al Quida.
So, if that is correct, and a "confession" was obtained under torture, then that would mean that the entire war was not justified! Well, some of us were already starting to suspect so.
Difference in opinions hath cost many millions of lives: for instance, whether flesh be bread, or bread be flesh; whether whistling be a vice or a virtue; whether it be better to kiss a post, or throw it into the fire... (from Gulliver's Travels)
