Rumsfeld on Iraq & Al Quaeda: no strong, hard evidence that links the two

Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by Pennsylvania Jim, Oct 7, 2004.

  1. Pennsylvania Jim

    Pennsylvania Jim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2000
    Messages:
    7,693
    Likes Received:
    0
    ...but he says there were Al Quaeda members in Baghdad.

    Story here
     
  2. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
    Sounds like the "Rummy" has had too much rummy. :eek:
     
  3. Pennsylvania Jim

    Pennsylvania Jim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2000
    Messages:
    7,693
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually both remarks were consistent, in their contexts. This is how the Bush administration works...making selected statements to selected audiences, that are technically correct (remember "it depends on your definition of "is"?) but intended to mislead.
     
  4. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, I can see how that might be misconstrued to mean that he didn't know of any strong links between the two.
     
  5. Pennsylvania Jim

    Pennsylvania Jim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2000
    Messages:
    7,693
    Likes Received:
    0
    Then he leaves the meeting, and attempts to cloud the issue by saying that there were Al Quaeda members in Baghdad. Technically true, no doubt, just like there were Al Quaeda members in Newark, Boston, Portland, and probably Washington DC.
     
  6. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    I also have to wonder if, supposing that there were al Qai'da members in Baghdad in 2002, they were there to work with Saddam's government or, in league with the Kurdish nationalists, against it.
     

Share This Page

Loading...