"irrelevant"??????
Why, I was hoping for a useful discussion, but if you ACTUALLY believe that this:
***Months before the United States invaded Iraq in 2003, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld forbade military strategists from developing plans for securing a post-war Iraq ...In fact, said Brig. Gen. Mark Scheid, Rumsfeld said "he would fire the next person" who talked about the need for a post-war plan.***
Is 'irrelevant' to how the occupation of Iraq has developed....
Or that this:
`Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qaeda and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime,' one of the Senate 9-11 Committe reports said. Hussein refused all requests from al-Qaeda to provide material or operational support, said the reports. ...Allegations that Hussein provided chemical and biological weapons training to al-Qaeda operatives also turned out to be false, the reports said. The Defense Intelligence Agency said in 2002 that it was unlikely Iraq gave Bin Laden any useful weapons assistance. ..On two occasions, Hussein rebuffed al-Qaeda emissaries seeking to establish a relationship with his regime, information not reported to U.S. intelligence agencies before the war, the Senate Intelligence reports said.
...According to the 400 page document, an assessment by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in 2005 stated that before U.S. and allied forces invaded, the Saddam Hussein regime did not, in the words of the report, have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates.
Is 'irrelevant' to the question of Saddam's 'relationship' to al Qaeda.
Then I actually DOUBT that you'd think ANYTHING that didn't agree with your personal beliefs in the matter could POSSIBLY be 'relevant'.
Whatever happened to 'facts are facts', and 'let the cards fall where they may'? |
