Again, no they haven't: "the commission also found "no credible evidence" that al Qaeda collaborated with Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq on the Sept. 11 strikes or any other attacks on the United States"
Not collaborating with AQ on attacks against the US,
and
Not being "linked" to AQ at all,
are not the same thing.
[Media Reports are not enough! ] Duh! Are you even reading the posts in sequence before you start commenting on them? You are making my point...
When I said "Media Reports are not enough!" I was characterizing your POV, not mine... (and then exploring the ramifications of that POV). sorry for confusion. It should read: "So you think that Media Reports are not enough, eh? ..."
What I am saying about Salman Pak is for every expert you trot forward to agree with us...I could find an expert who would not.
That's obvious and I'm not disputing that. But in terms of mobilizing the country, there's only really one "expert" who should matter:
The Commander-in-Chief.
A strong, persuasive one would be able to swat contrarian "experts" like flies. Bush, unfortunately, is not.
The problem is Bush's inability to communicate. That's all it is.
That's not "all" it is. Obviously (like I said in my original post) he's got a hostile media. His inability to communicate well just means he is not able to overcome that, as Reagan was. And we are all the worse for it.
[No, but it *can* be based on the *intelligence data* behind those leaks, articles, and conspiracy theories of authors who write books. ] I give up... You aren't even arguing the topic at hand.
????
What exactly is the topic at hand, if not, Things Bush should be saying? I'm saying that Bush should be making his case based on intelligence data - the same intelligence data which *others* have been using for months now, to build a case for a connection. How in the world is that not relevant? *puzzled*
Have a nice day...