[Chris Alger]

" think there probably are links between Iraq and al Qaeda, and to Hizbollah as well."

The only reason you "think" this is that the government told you to. But the issue is what the evidence shows. Iraqi links to Hizbollah, and Iranian-funded Shi'ite group? News to me (I don't think even Bush has said this). But who cares? Hizbollah sprang up in reponse to Israel's aggression in southern Lebanon. Even the conservative Economist notes that it can claim to be a legitimate national resistance group, unlike Al Queda mass murderers. (In fact, there's a very interesting story about how Israel was able to curtail Hizbollah suicide bombings by agreeing to limit attacks on civilians, while refusing the same deal with Palestinian terrorists -- another case of Israel welcoming Palestinian terror to reap its political benefits).

"At any rate would you agree that you might be wrong if in the course of the war we capture a bunch of al Qaeda in Iraq, discover a training camp there for Iraqi and al Qadea in the use of biological/chemical weapons--especially if this is corroborated by Iraqi military and security sources?"

No, because you could say the same about going to war with any country. Say someone proposed carpet bombing Muslim-majority areas of some U.S. city. You oppose it, and they say: but would it be wrong if we discovered ....?

The whole idea is ridiculous because every inch of Iraq has been photographed and mapped down to the tiniest details and the U.S. has hundreds of al Qaeda and Taliban prisoners in cusotdy (and probably torturing them), and a world-wide network of intelligence. That none of this shows any link between Iraq and al Qaeda doesn't make it an open, unproven question, but proves beyond all reason that the widely-spread claim of a link between them is a bald-faced lie.

"I don't think this war is being based on lies, but rather on a lot of classified information as well as on strategic goals in the larger war against terror."

The "secret information" excuse is an old dodge, and less credible than usual here. Bush is scambling to convince people that there's a reason for his war, but can't quite do it. If there was any information at that would help him, he'd use it. Your argument is a variation on the theme of "I don't understand why my leaders act as they do, but I must assume they have their reasons."

Hizbollah has "threatened" the US. It threatened to fight back if attacked: "The American administration will bear responsibility for any aggressive act against Lebanon," a statement from the Shi'ite Muslim group said. "We are fully willing and ready to confront all possibilities to defend our people." What's wrong with that? What would you do in their situation?