no Saddam connection
but we already knew that
"There's no evidence Saddam Hussein had ties with al-Qaida" according to a Senate report.
"Republicans countered that there was little new in the report," which I guess is their way of making the report sound insignificant. In my opinion, however, that tidbit is very significant; it implies that we have been misled for years. But we already knew that, didn't we?
Sure Why Not
19 minutes ago
I think it has always been obvious to anyone who knows anything about the Middle East that the very idea that Saddam had ANY connection with al-qa'ida was preposterous; Bush's persistence, even in the face of today's US Senate's damning report is simply laughable. However, for all the wrong reasons, mainly to satisfy their respective political bases at home, they got rid of Saddam, which I think was unequivocally a good thing; the same may be said of getting rid of the Taliban in Afghanistan. The whole philosophy begind the way the US Administration 'planned' (I will not dignify it by leaving that word out of quotes) for the post-invasion phase was very flawed, though, possibly as a result of Bush's incompetence, but more likely because of the arrogance and ignorance (a fatal combination) of Rumsfeld and Cheney. Why Rumsfeld is still Defense Secretary completely eludes me - that is the single most glaring criticism I have of Bush - a lot of the present abominable situation in Guantanamo, secret detention centres, 'torture' (which water-boarding surely is!), Abu Ghraib and all the rest of the shameful dissimulations which have characterised this US Administration, can be traced down to that one person - Rumsfeld - but of course under your system the buck has to stop at only one desk, that of President Bush. Let's hope the mid-term elections send a strong message.
ReplyDelete