DISQUS

I agree with you, and with the article's author, as to the essential content of the report. However, people who believe otherwise are not necessarily being deceptive. We may not have any evidence of contact beyond this "toe-touching" because the parties involved were sufficiently secretive to evade our intelligence operations - we just don't know. So the right trumpets the flimsy bits of evidence it finds, claiming they are proof of the connection, while the left interprets the lack of damning evidence as proof of no connection. Both sides are overstating their case, and the public remains ill-informed.

I disagreed with the war in 2003 and I still disagree with it now, but even though no "smoking gun" was found directly linking Saddam to al Qaeda, the report clearly states that Saddam was "willing to co-opt or support organizations it knew to be part of al
Qaeda as long as that organization's near-term goals supported Saddam's longterm
vision." (p. 34) This, along with similar statements throughout the report seem to indicate that, Saddam did in fact support al Qaeda, albeit indirectly.

It's about time someone started telling the whole truth.