I don't grasp at straws there, I report what is known because some here deny it. What is known then, is that Saddam and Osama were quite willing to work with each other. Do you deny it? Does AS deny it? Does Orca deny it? Does Chinu deny it?
It seems so, and so you all then speak falsely. After denying the evidence exists and having it thrown in your face instead, you folks want to speculate that nothing came of it. You want to speculate that some indication of bad blood later somehow proves that nothing could have come of Saddams dealings with Osama. I didn't insist that something did. The problem we have here is that you and yours are afraid that if what is known is accepted for what it is, it will lead to reasonable speculation that something did come of it. You fear it would lead to the sort of speculation we heard from Clinton and many analysts prior to 911 and prior to Bush.
Evidence does exist, as well as reasonable speculation (grasping at straws, to you), all prior to Bush becoming President, and so claims that Bush intentionally "pretended" something, or "lied" over this, are in fact revisionist history and hogwash speculation of the worst kind.
When it comes to reasonable speculation, if we hold all the reported connections between Iraq and terrorism and yes, even Al Qaeda terrorism in our minds at once, we find ourselves faced with obvious and quite believable speculations to deal with (such as, again, WERE reasonably made prior to 911). Denying the evidence exists does not deal with it.
Dan B. |
