I said I could conceive of it. But while I consider it pretty much proven that we armed Saddam in the first place, and I remember Afghan being our buddy because it was fighting the Soviets, it is far from conventional wisdom that the CIA is running covert operations through al Qhaeda. What does that make 9/11, for example?????
No, if you are going to have footnotes and attribution in your piece, that statement requires one or the other. This is not an editorial. It purports to be fact. And maybe that statement is just that, fact, but I am not going to believe it on the author's say-so, professor of economics or not. Dana On Sat, 31 May 2003 15:35:04 -0400, Maureen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 11:37 AM 5/31/03, Dana wrote: >> actually, I agree. And while I am in here, I've taken a look at Kevin's >> article, and found it troubling but unsurprising. I do have an issue >> with >> the bald unattributed assertion that al-Qaeda is actually a CIA "asset." > > Why? It is a known fact that CIA armed the Afghan rebels in their fight > with Soviets, and that alQaeda recruited from those rebels. The CIA has > always used whichever asset they needed at the time to get the job done. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5 Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
