I think you've lost sight of context and substance in your dogged pursuit of semantic exoneration for your Glorious Leader.
One of the Bush Administration's many rationalizations for attacking Iraq was based on the claim that Iraq and al Qaeda had connections strong enough to threaten the US through joint ventures or assistance. That means substantive connections, connections for which there is absolutely no evidence despite the BA's hysterical claims. Spurned pleas for help don't form a relationship as Cheney claimed; the presence of one name on both membership rosters doesn't form a relationship. There is not one shred of evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda ever worked together or ever cooperated on anything, let alone any sort of action to threaten the US.
I can understand your desperation in wanting at least one claim of the Bush Administration to turn out true, after so many of their claims and promises have proven false. It's not easy to decide whether dishonesty or incompetency is the lesser evil of the horse you've bet on. Not a very palatable choice.
Current Events » in reply to re: Sources? No problem.
re: Sources? No problem.
The whole thread (37 posts)
- More lies...
- The only one who has been lying is the New York Times.