To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (77482 ) 6/22/2006 9:27:50 PM From: Cogito Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 81568 >>Liberals have this great impulse to defend Saddam since Bush hates him and they hate Bush. So they say that there is no connection between Saddam and 9/11, which is probably true, and that there is no connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda, which is certifiably false.<< Nadine - It's not a matter of defending Saddam. It's just a matter of keeping our foreign policy decisions happening in the realm of the truth. You agree that there is "probably" no connection between Saddam and 9/11. So why was Bush always so careful to mention them in the same breath whenever he talked about Saddam? Because he and his people wanted people to believe there was a connection. Yes, Bush was careful to occasionally say that there really wasn't a connection, but his continual linking of the two in his speeches did leave a majority of Americans making the connection. That's manipulation. And really, Nadine, Saddam might have tried to become an Islamist, but he had no standing in the Islamist community. To say otherwise is to distort the facts. The evidence you cite connecting Al Qaeda and Saddam is iffy stuff, believed only by those who really want to believe it. The 9/11 commission said, and I quote verbatim: "But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States." Doing as much as they did to create the opposite impression in the minds of Americans was deception, though very careful deniable deception, on the part of the Bush Administration. Such well traveled ground, this is. I grow weary. I rest my case. Believe what you will. - Allen