|
John D., as obscure as it may be, I grok what you are saying.
Look, I posted a nice long article where what few links exist between Saddam and AQ are spelled out. Most all of the possibilities are discussed in it. If you ignore it, shame shame on you.
Point is that Saddam's lack of direct involvement in 9/11 got translated into "Saddam didn't ever work with, negotiate with, or entertain options with AQ" and that's a load of malarkey. The connections were loose, no one ever said they extended to 9/11, but that does not mean there were no connections whatsoever.
And, Davros, I guess that is the fine point I'm nit-picking, and is why I can't just say "no links" as you suggest. That would be fallacious. Saddam had a history of supporting terrorist activities, and I don't want that to be forgotten -- even though that alone may not have supported invading Iraq. I simply don't want his slate wiped clean in the eyes of the world -- and in today's black v. white news reporting, that is all too likely an event. Sad fact is this is an area of grey, and mass media doesn't cater to shades of grey.
And, Donut, you're sniping from the peanut gallery again. You have worthwhile things to say other than BS tongue-in-cheek, so speak up.
[ 06-18-2004, 03:07 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]
__________________
 
|