Again in re: to ...
McGentrix wrote:Why are you guys having such a hard time grasping the idea that even though Saddam had numerous contacts with al Qaeda, he had no part in the events of 9/11?
They can be mutually exclusive.
These two aren't mutually exclusive either:
Quote:"This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al-Qaida," [Bush] said. "We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida [..]"
Quote:The independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks said Wednesday that no evidence exists that al-Qaida had strong ties to Saddam ?- [..]
"Bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded," the report said. "There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida also occurred" after bin Laden moved his operations to Afghanistan in 1996, "but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship," it said.
So ... they might well have talked, but they didnt actually collaborate on anything.
Which brings us back to one of the questions we asked way in the beginning, when the war was first pushed for: how relevant a target is Iraq when it comes to retaliating for 9/11? It had no role in the 9/11 attacks -- and how do Iraq's contacts with Al Qaeda people relate and compare to other countries' ties with the group and specifically the perpetrators of 9/11 (Pakistan, Saudi-Arabia, Sudan)? And how does that comparison work out in terms of constituting a convincing case that 9/11 made it necessary to attack Iraq, of all places?
Thanks! Now I gotta clean Coca Cola off my screen!
