And there you go again, again.
From the sites you linked:
There is, of course, the possibility the United States does have such evidence but is holding it until after U.S. forces now in Afghanistan can be positioned to do something about it \ufffd to avoid alerting a regime prior to attacking.
Exactly what I said about your methodology. You rely upon the POSSIBILITY that something COULD exist. Typical conspiracy theory religious practice.
Nongovernmental analysts say they have seen no such evidence.
I like that term. "no such evidence".
While a connection between an Iraqi intelligence official and a key member of al-Qaeda was confirmed prior to the Sept. 11 attacks, the intelligence community has not, at least yet, indicated it has found evidence of Iraqi support for the group\ufffds terror operations
So, is that similar to our President's meeting with Yasser?
Of course, if you had bothered to follow the links on the link you posted, you'd have come across this little gem.
[link|http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/newswires/2002_2_6.html#4|Here]
U.S. intelligence officials said, however, that the United States does not have enough information to prove Iraq has supported anti-U.S. terrorism (see GSN, Jan. 24). The last known Iraqi attempt at terrorism was a failed operation to assassinate former U.S. President George Bush in 1993.
Again, your case relies upon non-facts and possibilities.
One member of the Iraqi government (and it isn't Saddam) has a "link" to a member of al Queda.
Just as our President has a link to Yasser and has publicly met with him.
Some recent reports indicated that Iraq could have ties to terrorists, but intelligence officials said the information provided no substantial evidence.
After the history or discussions with you, I don't expect you to recognize what "substantial evidence" means.
To put it in simple terms:
The guys who know this, who study this, say that they have found nothing saying Iraq is supporting Osama.
Which is exactly what I've been saying.
U.S. intelligence officials have concluded that Mohamed Atta, a leader of the terrorists who hijacked the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center and Pentagon, met with Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, a mid-level Iraqi intelligence officer, in Prague, but the meeting does not necessarily tie Iraq to the Sept. 11 attacks.
Emphasis added.
Yes, it is a religion with you.
The experts say that there is no evidence that Saddam supports Osama.
You sole "link" is a mid-level spy meeting with a terrorist in Prague.
A religion is not based upon facts. It is based upon "feelings" and beliefs.
You have one fact and you're going to extrapolate from that into an entire conspiracy.
While the experts in the matter say that such a conspiracy just does not exist.
And its not Osama to Sadam...its Iraq to Al-Q. I don't expect Sadam and Osama would be sharing to many beers at the corner bar.
"Iraq" is nothing more than dirt, oil and plants.
Only the Iraqi government and so forth can have ties to a group of people.
You've floundered so far out of your depth that now you're fantasizing about a secret Iraqi government NOT headed by Saddam that has links to Osama.
Or was that a secret Iraqi government NOT headed by Saddam that has links to a secret al Queda cabal NOT headed by Osama?
Typical conspiracy religion.
And only a true believer would accept such "proof".
