On Thursday, June 17, 2004, at 07:41 AM, Doug Henwood posted a story on saddam-bin laden "links":
> Administration officials disputed suggestions that Cheney's comments
> conflicted with the report's findings.
>
> Officials said Cheney asserted on Monday that there were links between
> Saddam and al Qaeda, not that Saddam helped al Qaeda carry out attacks
> against the United States, although critics say Cheney and other
> officials at times created the impression that Saddam was involved in
> the Sept. 11 attacks.
ok, so what exactly does it mean to say there are "links" if it doesn't mean that they're helping with attacks? are they having afternoon coffees? if hitchens were a true orwellian, he would be tearing this tripe apart.
>
> "It's not surprising people make that connection," Cheney said at one
> point as polls showed most Americans believed Iraq was involved.
yes, especially when you keep saying there are "links" -- a code word that means they cooperate against the US.
>
> "The administration's statements rest on a solid foundation of history
> and facts. The record of links between Iraq and al Qaeda is clear to
> anyone who has open eyes and an open mind," a White House official
> said on Wednesday.
if you say it enough, it will be true.
>
> Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld declared in September 2002: "We know
> that al-Qaeda is operating in Iraq today."
well, let's see, al-qaida has also operated, over a number of years and quite successfully, in the US (and in saudi arabia). in fact, they're probably here, now, too. does that mean there are "links" between Bush and bin Laden? oh, wait . . .
j