Oh-oh!Originally posted by j2k4@17 June 2004 - 20:53
Given this circumstance, it could be concluded that, by ignorantly and innocently discussing this non-issue, the members of this board are attempting to interfere in the internal politics of the United States.
Does this mean we will be invaded?
Whilst there may not have been a specific link made by Rumsfeld et al, (although again, some very ambigious statements have been made in this regard over the last couple of years) there was, rightly or wrongly, such a linkage in the minds of the general public; if opinion polls are to be believed (which I agree, is debateable).
Consequently, I wondered, if by refuting this link in their conclusions, the Panel would raise questions of trust in the minds of the voters given the ongoing cost of Iraq in blood and money.
Regarding any actual connections that may or may not have existed between Al Qaeda and Iraq, I am unaware of any actual event or material support of this nature. These accusations always seem to be of the vague, the scary monster will get you, type - never specific examples.
As far as I have seen to date, Saddams connections were with Palestinian groups, mainly Arafat's people. This, as far as one can tell, was to play to the Arabic crowd more than any deep seated ideological commitment on his part.
Bookmarks