If the U.S. military fires upon someone, is that all the proof needed that the target was guilty?

[sabrina 1]

172. Of course I demanded that. Bush was the president, I never believed a word he said.

The US military was in someone else's country, they were sent there based on lies. I do not blame the soldiers, but I sure as hell blamed the lying administration who sent them there and yes, questioned every word they said. And we did that to prevent them from sending soldiers, some of them MY friends and family, into other people's countries who were bound to fight back considering they were being invaded.

If an army landed in this country dropping WMDs on our cities, what do you think the average American would do?

I questioned the claim that Al Zarqawi was an important leader of Al Queda just as I am questioning the same claim now against Al Awlaki. If either of them was, it should not be hard to prove.

As it turned out, we on the Left were correct about Al Zarqawi, he never was anyone of importance, a fact finally admitted to by a US General. But he made a good scapegoat. He was nothing more than a common, petty thief after all and no threat to the US. And I was called all sorts of names and given much the same answers I am getting now.