Teribus--

Quiz: What is meant by the following sentences?

a) "Iraq has sent bomb-making and document-forgery experts to work with al-Queda."
b) "Iraq also provided al Queda with chemical and biological weapons training."
c) "And an al Queda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990's for help in acquiring poisons and gases."

Is it possible this could be alleging a link between Iraq and al Queda? To a rational mind, it's just possible.

To yours, evidently not.

Anytime I or anybody else quote Bush or one of his "team" linking Iraq and al Queda up to the 2003 invasion, that's "taking it out of context".

Sorry, it only takes so many "exceptions to the rule" before the "rule" is shot to kingdom come. In fact, in this case, the "exception" is the rule--check also the 2003 State of the Union address, which I cited earlier, as well as others' citations.

Once more with feeling--Bush and his cronies engaged in a steadily increasing and eventually successful propaganda campaign to link Saddam and al Queda between about mid 2002 and the Iraq invasion.

This is a fact--and you have provided no contrary evidence.    I and others have provided many direct quotes from Bush and co during the period in question--supporting this statement. But you still disagree. Fine--would you mind coming up with just one direct quote by Bush--with specific date and source, of course, and during the 2002-2003 period---which says that Saddam had nothing to do with al Queda?

It's a reasonable request. Let's see what you come up with.

Sorry Teribus (pun intended)--you really should have picked out a more seaworthy vessel before lashing yourself to the mast.

Alternatively--Mr. Custer--even though this is an election year and you were the youngest general in the Union army, I don't think you'll be going for the Republican nomination any time soon.

The crowning irony of all this is--I'll bet a nickel you do realize that Bush carried on a campaign 2002-2003 linking Saddam and al Queda. (I suspect your buddy Bearded Bruce also realizes this).

It's just that you've denied it a few times--so now you feel you can't lose face by backing down--perhaps especially since you've also already had to admit that the US had no right to cite UN resolutions as a basis for invasion--UN resolutions are to be enforced by the UN and groups authorized by the UN to do so---which the US in this case emphatically was not.

Your case is crumbling around you--and it's painful to admit it

Pobre cito.