[Monti Cello]

To immediately jump to spin control in the next paragraph is not conducive to making me believe you are really interested in this story.

I'm trying to get some support for your claim that, The position of this administration is the Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.

You respond with an article quoting Bush, "There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties," the president said. But he also said, "We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11" attacks.

You are the one spinning. Citing a 'lack of evidence' is a far cry from definitively stating there was no link -- the case is still open on the 9/11 connection. A little intellectual honesty, please.

As for spin, all I've done is descibe the contents of the Feith memo, and widely-available press accounts that indicate a longstanding military alliance between Al Qaeda and Saddam.

Do you just dismiss all those accounts out of hand? If it's shown that Saddam provided support for al qaeda terrorism in general, would that be sufficient cause for us to involve Iraq in our military response?

[txhurl]

I could've sworn there was enough unclassified stuff about Salman Pak alone to cement the AQ-SH relationship. Wasn't there?

[JohnGalt]

I dismiss the accounts of the Feith memo because the administration did not reach the same conclusions. You are either naive to the nature of politics, or you are merely attempting to push propaganda to push your unstated agenda. The position of this Administration being privy to vastly more pieces of intelligence and trained to filter from conflicting reports what is a fact and what is a lie, things the Feith memo is pure crap so they chose to ignore it.

Whose side are you on?