On Thursday in Cincinnati, Ohio, Cheney described Saddam as a "man who provided safe harbor and sanctuary to terrorists for years" and who "provided safe harbor and sanctuary as well for al Qaeda." In Wisconsin on Friday, he said the "al Qaeda organization had a relationship with the Iraqis." Ok, so he doesn't explicitly say that Saddam had a hand in 9/11, but does anyone else think this kind of language could be confusing people in terms of the scope and magnitude of the "relationship" between al Qaeda and Iraq, even thought the 9/11 Commission stated explicitly that there was no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and Saddam? I think Powell has some balls for what he said the other day. He said "But I have seen nothing that makes a direct connection between Saddam Hussein and that awful regime, and what happened on 9/11." Ok, good. That's very good. But shouldn't Cheney qualify his statements? Its not a far stretch. When you say al Qaeda, people think 9/11 9/11 9/11. When you say Iraq had "relationship" with and "habored and provided safe haven for al Qaeda", don't you think there's room for misinterpretation that needs to be addressed to avoid confusion and heavy misunderstanding among the American people? I mean, as recently as June, Cheney said they "didn't know" whether there was a relationship between Saddam and 9/11. COME ON. That's irresponsible and underhanded. We also "didn't know" if Argentina had anything to do with 9/11, but its not mentioned because there is no credible evidence that they did. What Cheney should have said was "there is no evidence that leads us to believe Iraq had anything to do with 9/11", not "we don't know", which implies "maybe". I got these quotes mostly from a CNN article... i'll edit and put the link up after I chow. Mmm.. forbidden donut..