No the distinctions are important.
Tim, do you really think I am that stupid? Of course, the Bushies did think that and tried to float the notion that these distinctions were huge. People just laughed.
Besides........do you really think Americans sat there and discerned between "there COULD be links between al Qaeda and Saddam", or "there were meetings REPORTED between al Qaeda and Saddam", or "al Qaeda and Saddam and al Qaeda MAY have been working together"? Americans had no reason to do that because they thought that their president was telling the truth.
Plus, complicating matters even more, you had C. Rice, Cheney, Rummy, Wolfie and Bush all saying something slightly different. In fact, its Bush who was the loose cannon and went further than the rest. Why do you think they have him on a teleprompter now? The GOP should think twice before running a stupid man again for president......not with the internet and multiple sound bytes.
Trust me, things are worse that what they seem. We are seeing only the tip of the iceberg of this presidency.
They didn't hint that Saddam was behind 9/11, and in fact their was no evidence to suggest that Saddam had a role in 9/11. They did suggest that Saddam had links to Al Qaida and in fact their is weak uncertain evidence of a possible minor, low level, former connection. If you want to say that they spun this connection a bit hard then that might be true but they didn't say anything that seems to be a flat out lie in this area. They also strongly said that Iraq had connections to terrorism. And indeed there is a lot of evidence of such connections.
Go back and read the stuff that Al and I have posted. Cheney, for one, did say that there was a connection between Saddam and 9/11..........on national tv.
You keep trying to defend the indefensible.
ted |
