Tweet
In follow up to my earlier post regarding Rumsfeld's admission of no hard ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda, linked here:
Looks like Rumselfd is now taking a somewhat different position now:
What is it you Bushies say when Kerry takes one position and then later takes a different position? I forget.
Actually, in fairness, what he said in his statement was consistent with what he has said most of the time over this conflict, so it was really a reversal of a position he held for only a few hours before the Bush admin PR team got to him and "found a new nuance" in his statement. I guess that isn't that bad.
Looks like Rumselfd is now taking a somewhat different position now:
When asked about any connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, Rumsfeld said, "To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two."
But a short time later, Rumsfeld released a statement: "A question I answered today at an appearance before the Council on Foreign Relations regarding ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq regrettably was misunderstood.
"I have acknowledged since September 2002 that there were ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq."
But a short time later, Rumsfeld released a statement: "A question I answered today at an appearance before the Council on Foreign Relations regarding ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq regrettably was misunderstood.
"I have acknowledged since September 2002 that there were ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq."
What is it you Bushies say when Kerry takes one position and then later takes a different position? I forget.
Actually, in fairness, what he said in his statement was consistent with what he has said most of the time over this conflict, so it was really a reversal of a position he held for only a few hours before the Bush admin PR team got to him and "found a new nuance" in his statement. I guess that isn't that bad.
Comment