Pres. Bush insists that there is a link between Al Qaida & Saddam while the official CIA reports deny that. Mushraff at times blame RAW agents for bombings in Karachi but the police blame the local extremists. Similar is the case with Vajpayee administration & their boggy man ISI.
I want to know, how can people of such authority make openly conflicting statements? Doesn’t it make 'em look bad from a political point of view & a liar?
Or is it all part of politics? And they just say what their political advisers tell them to say?
Ahmadjee Bhaijan, the trick is in believing both sides. I believe in Bush as well as CIA, they are both right. There’s nothing conflicting about what they believe. Lack of proof does not necessarily mean lack of involvement. In Politics, gut feelings is more important than hard evidence.
As far as Musharraf is concerned, he is just a liar, so I dont believe him even if he spoke the truth. Vajpaee is somewhat believable. But not fully.
The last time I checked, the President was getting information from CIA so either one has to be giving his opinion rather than a factual statement.
Ahmadjee Bhaijan, it is a very tricky game. America is using psychological warfare with Saddam by sending him conflicting messages. Poor guy does not know what to make of it.