Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
Call me naive, but I trust the opinion of 2 former CIA directors appointed by a president of the party not currently in power, more than I trust some jackoff from the New Republic.
|
Is it enough for you to infer that there is a connection if there is no evidence of top-level control* over those connections? Because it seems to me that we have given a pass to a much clearer set of links with the Saudi government based on our belief that the ruling family had no control over those connections. Oh, and also based on the fact that SA sells us a lot of oil, which in my view shouldn't color our judgments of those culpable for 9/11 (and those who aided and abetted those culpable for 9/11). Assuming this is a way we're justifying the Iraq project, that is.
I can't remember if I posted this in response to your earlier post about this connction, so excuse me if I'm being repetitive.
Also, I see your point about the "appointed by the other party" bit, but you may want to think about the amount of ass-covering that's sprinkled into these guys' statements as well.
* I say this not to imply that Saddam was in the dark about this, but because your earlier article based a lot of its conclusion that the fedayeen guy was actually an Iraqi intel agent based upon some pretty flimsy stuff (the "panic" of the Iraqis when he was detained, the sophistication of his evasive answers that indicated counteintel training).
Threaded Mode