Had a grin on her face, and it was a gesture of (sarcastic) affection. I meant no harm and if REB's feelings were hurt by my abuse, then I apologize.
Actually, I think that you guys are being "sneaky" by insisting that the committee only investigated whether an Osama/Saddam link existed that affected 9/11. What the committee said: was closer to "...reports of subsequent contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan “do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship,†and added that two unidentified senior bin Laden associates "have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al-Qaida and Iraq." "
If the headline had included the word "substantive" or "meaningful" it might have been marginally clearer, but I certainly understood that that was what they meant. If you guys want to invoke the "6 degrees of separation" rule to prove some trivial Osama/Saddam link, fine. But the article and the investigation was about a link that might cause harm to Americans, or boost the prospects of the al Queda organization. Repeat: no link found.
Current Events » in reply to re: You can't prove a negative, ya freak.
My daughter called me a freak, last week or so
The whole thread (53 posts)
- "9/11 panel sees no link between Iraq, al-Qaida"
- Lefties can't read past headlines, it seems. (n/t)
- re: "9/11 panel sees no link between Iraq, al-Qaida"
- ...with requard to attacking America on 9/11 -And change link to evidence
- More BS. There is a link.
- Linkage.....interesting, please explain..........
- Colin Powell: No link to Al Qaeda
- Ah yeah, let's disparage the bi-partisan commisson now
- Cheney says there is.
