Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by IJ Reilly, Sep 17, 2003.
Re: More Backpedaling
this doesn't seem like a good example of back-pedaling at all.
for one thing, not being able to establish a link doesn't disprove the existence of one, it proves that you can't find it. and for another, i would bet that the Iraqi aid to Al Qaeda has been more of a sin of omission rather than commission--as in, rather than directly aiding them financially or strategically, it seems more likely that the regime simply sympathized with the group, and as such allowed them a more or less safe haven. i think in that sense the overthrowing of the regime is a step towards a region less friendly towards terrorism.
either way, though, this is hardly backpedaling. that's more what the administration is doing w.r.t. WMDs.
Re: Re: More Backpedaling
This is an important issue here. 70% of your population think there is a link. No link has been proven, despite the best minds in your intelligence dept putting their efforts into establishing one for well over a year.
With that in mind, I don't think it's good enough to muddy the waters with suggestions of "sins of omissions". Either there were links or there weren't.
What is known is that Sadam hated Bin Laden. If you are suggesting that he sympathised with him and allowed Al Qaida "more-or-less safe haven" in Iraq you should substantiate that, otherwise you could be accused of adding more disinformation to an already very ill-informed debate.
Let's put it this way: when it was to the administration's advantage to shade the debate towards implicating Saddam in the 9-11 attacks, then they did not hesitate to give the public that impression. We got statements like:
So now, the "full disclosure" we get nearly a year later is that they've got no evidence to support the earlier assertions, just the same vague accusations.
imo, this is some pretty substantial backpedaling.
can't figure out why the sudden annoucements, though. there's got to be a reason the administration that never admits a fault is pretty vocal about telling the public there's no link.
maybe they've got evidence the democratic candidates were going to hit them w/ it pretty hard. take the wind out of their sails.
I suspect you are right. Karl Rove is probably telling the President that they need to put some daylight between themselves and the claims they were making last winter and spring.
yep, this reeks of pre-election posturing.
this administration has taken the technique of "implication" to a new level. just where did the majority of the public get the idea that iraq was involved in 9/11? i suspect that many quotes from bush, rummy and rice are gonna surface that implicate indirectly( and maybe directly) iraq's supposed involvement in 9/11.
might as well get it all aired out now so it'll lose steam before the real campaigning begins. it's no coincidence that rummy and bush are both taking trips to the public confessional...the quicker they can make it an historical footnote, the cleaner the re-election slate...
i personally don't think it's gonna work.