Exhaustive review sponsored by the Pentagon finds NO link between Saddam, al Qaida

DD is pointing out a valid point from a particular perspective many don't have. Why some people are resentful of his attempts to give insight to issues is beyond me. As to the subject at hand, when I first saw the thread, I was surprised because the military has found links between Saddam and AQ before, though not operational links. The links were published by the Army's counterterrorism center at WP, and when I have the chance, I'll find them for everyone. The continued exhaustive review of captured documents was an attempt to find operational links, which would be more damning against Saddam. None were found. So it's a story, just not the whole story, as DD pointed out.

Resentful??

It's just a little exasperation with the pattern of playing games with semantics.

Words are important indeed. But sometimes he stretches common sense.

The Pentagon has clandestine capabilities using small teams. What term do they use to describe a secret "operation." What's the official word for an operation if less than division is involved?

Here are examples of explicit used of the word "operation" by the Pentagon not involving a division of troops:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=ARK20050925&articleId=1001

No one I know of is aware of any proven link between Saddam and an Al Queda "effort" against the United States. I would believe Saddam would have had his own attempts to get links with Al Queda and Islamists -- to infiltrate them and keep tabs on them.