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

champ76 said

Reb, I make a living out of trying to figure out why words, which may or may not turn out to be important, may be in one document and not another. Like Dads, I got curious when the title of the post paints with a broad brush, but in reading the details, may in fact be misleading. As I said maybe three pages ago, let's just wait and read the report to see if the Pentagon makes a distinction between links and operational links. Then we can have more of this fun.

Click to expand...

I understand where your coming from. I understand the importance of meanings of words--my biggie on this forum is "liberalism" and "conservatism"

I'm willing to come here and eat lots of crow if the Pentagon found any substantive connection between AQ and Hussein. Numerous government agencies have pretty much concluded that what the administration told the American people was highly misleading, or patently false.

The connection made was not grounded in any real truth or a connection that rationalized an invasion of Iraq--and I think the Pentagon report will simply reiterate, arguably in doublespeak, like BD said that there was no real political, economic, or military links between Hussein and AQ. It galls me because it invoked a very sad moment in history and the fear of the American fear to get into a premeditated war.

To me, arguing about the various ways the Pentagon defines "operational" doesn't distract from the overall big picture: the administration arguably misled the American public regarding Hussein/AQ.