Quote:
With due respect,I think it is you who are misreading what I say. I wasn't saying that Colin Powell thought an invasion of Iraq was not justified. For there is a trinity of supposed reasons for an invasion of Iraq, the initial one being the implication of Saddam in the tragedy of 9-11 and subsequently the war on terror. The other two being the 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' and an argument for toppling an evil ruler.
Now Colin Powell has stated that he believed Saddam had weapons of Mass Destruction (pre-war) and whether or not Powell preferred a 'containment' policy for Iraq he certainly wouldn't deny that it was a murderous regime. But based on his comments, about there being no direct connection between Al-Qaeda and Saddam, would you or MavKikiNYC or anyone for that matter agree with an inference that if Colin Powell supported an invasion of Iraq, it wouldn't be or shouldn't have been based on Saddam's perceived implication in 9-11?
|
The only justifiable links between 9/11 and the Iraq invasion are indirect links IMO. I feel that what Powell says is compatible with that opinion. Just because he says he knows of no direct links, does not rule out the possiblity that he knows of indirect links. But to say that there is a direct link between Iraq and 9/11 is not supported by the publicly available evidence IMO.