Osama & Saddam
Its interesting to see the investment those against the Iraq war have in proselytizing the belief that Saddam had no involvement in the September 11th attacks.
This was exposed several months ago after a poll was published showing that a majority of Americans believed that Saddam was "in some way responsible" for the 3,000 dead Americans in New York.
There was a spasm of media interest in the poll, all attempting to reverse this thinking. Those that hoped no relationship come to light, including most of the media, probably convinced themselves that they were "educating" the public by repeating the no-Saddam connection line. Columnists, commentators, analysts and other pundits angrily denounced the poll results, each taking care to mention there was no proof.
At this time, there is no concrete evidence that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. However, evidence continues to be uncovered showing Osama and Saddam did have a working relationship.
The breath of coverage and the emotions of reporting the poll reveal how important this issue is to the anti-war media and anti-war activists. The issue of Saddam's involvement even turned up in a "study" by the University of Maryland as one of the questions used to try and paint Fox News viewers as being "misinformed".
The fact that a university would perform such a biased study (every question favored an anti-war pre-disposition) combined with the fact that the media would report such a work, further illustrates the significance of debunking any Saddam connection to al Qaeda.
Ironically, whether or not Saddam had anything to do with 9/11 was always inconsequential to those who supported removing the tyrant. Don't get me wrong, it would prove sweet justice had he been involved, now that the Baathists are scurrying for cover instead of running the country. A smoking gun was simply unnecessary to justify removing the Butcher of Baghdad from power. It would just be a bonus.
What is interesting is seeing how important there be no talk of any Saddam - al Qaeda connection for those who did not support U.S. efforts.
At first, they repeatedly stated the two were mortal enemies - one a secular dictator, the other a radical fundamentalist. Notwithstanding that history is rife with such partnerships, along with the inconvenience that alliances against a common enemy are completely inline with Islamic teachings - "they would never work together". Of course Saddam was an open financial supporter of Hezbollah and last I checked they're Muslim and fundamentalist and radical.
As evidence mounts that the two did indeed have contact with each other the argument is beginning to shift. "Well, there's still no proof of direct Iraqi involvement in 9/11".
This has taken a more dramatic turn:
OSAMA BIN LADEN and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda--perhaps even for Mohamed Atta--according to a top secret U.S. government memorandum obtained by THE WEEKLY STANDARD.
It will be interesting to see how the mainstream media, who trumpeted the "no relationship" angle will report this development. The story will likely be ignored or die a quick death. If it does develop legs, we will undoubtedly be bombarded with the fact that there still is no direct evidence linking Saddam to 9/11.
Of course, nothing short of a video tape of Osama and Saddam planning the operation would satisfy the "peace" crowd. To be honest, even a video would not suffice. They would simply move the bar again. For most, even that fact will not be sufficient to change their minds and admit Bush was right.
My question is this: Since any Iraqi - al Qaeda connection is and was inconsequential to the pro-war camp position on removing Saddam, why is it so important for the anti-warriors to deny it?
Part of the answer is those that opposed the removal of Saddam largely ignored the reasons for doing so. They don't realize this was a non-issue in the pre-war argument of going to war in Iraq.
More importantly - think how devastating this will be to the anti-war crowd if such a link can be proven. The more the public learns of Saddam's links to al Qaeda the more difficult to ignore the possibility of Saddam's involvement in 9/11. Even the perception is powerful and compelling. 9/11 is not the anti-war crowd's favorite topic.
Which is precisely why the anti-war crowd must suppress or deny not only Saddam's 9/11 ties, but any al Qaeda link, as well. No matter where the truth rests, it is crucial to their cause that the public not believe in any Saddam and Osama cooperation. At this point, many of them must undoubtedly convince themselves.
Which begs question - what exactly is their cause again?
This was exposed several months ago after a poll was published showing that a majority of Americans believed that Saddam was "in some way responsible" for the 3,000 dead Americans in New York.
There was a spasm of media interest in the poll, all attempting to reverse this thinking. Those that hoped no relationship come to light, including most of the media, probably convinced themselves that they were "educating" the public by repeating the no-Saddam connection line. Columnists, commentators, analysts and other pundits angrily denounced the poll results, each taking care to mention there was no proof.
At this time, there is no concrete evidence that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. However, evidence continues to be uncovered showing Osama and Saddam did have a working relationship.
The breath of coverage and the emotions of reporting the poll reveal how important this issue is to the anti-war media and anti-war activists. The issue of Saddam's involvement even turned up in a "study" by the University of Maryland as one of the questions used to try and paint Fox News viewers as being "misinformed".
The fact that a university would perform such a biased study (every question favored an anti-war pre-disposition) combined with the fact that the media would report such a work, further illustrates the significance of debunking any Saddam connection to al Qaeda.
Ironically, whether or not Saddam had anything to do with 9/11 was always inconsequential to those who supported removing the tyrant. Don't get me wrong, it would prove sweet justice had he been involved, now that the Baathists are scurrying for cover instead of running the country. A smoking gun was simply unnecessary to justify removing the Butcher of Baghdad from power. It would just be a bonus.
What is interesting is seeing how important there be no talk of any Saddam - al Qaeda connection for those who did not support U.S. efforts.
At first, they repeatedly stated the two were mortal enemies - one a secular dictator, the other a radical fundamentalist. Notwithstanding that history is rife with such partnerships, along with the inconvenience that alliances against a common enemy are completely inline with Islamic teachings - "they would never work together". Of course Saddam was an open financial supporter of Hezbollah and last I checked they're Muslim and fundamentalist and radical.
As evidence mounts that the two did indeed have contact with each other the argument is beginning to shift. "Well, there's still no proof of direct Iraqi involvement in 9/11".
This has taken a more dramatic turn:
OSAMA BIN LADEN and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda--perhaps even for Mohamed Atta--according to a top secret U.S. government memorandum obtained by THE WEEKLY STANDARD.
It will be interesting to see how the mainstream media, who trumpeted the "no relationship" angle will report this development. The story will likely be ignored or die a quick death. If it does develop legs, we will undoubtedly be bombarded with the fact that there still is no direct evidence linking Saddam to 9/11.
Of course, nothing short of a video tape of Osama and Saddam planning the operation would satisfy the "peace" crowd. To be honest, even a video would not suffice. They would simply move the bar again. For most, even that fact will not be sufficient to change their minds and admit Bush was right.
My question is this: Since any Iraqi - al Qaeda connection is and was inconsequential to the pro-war camp position on removing Saddam, why is it so important for the anti-warriors to deny it?
Part of the answer is those that opposed the removal of Saddam largely ignored the reasons for doing so. They don't realize this was a non-issue in the pre-war argument of going to war in Iraq.
More importantly - think how devastating this will be to the anti-war crowd if such a link can be proven. The more the public learns of Saddam's links to al Qaeda the more difficult to ignore the possibility of Saddam's involvement in 9/11. Even the perception is powerful and compelling. 9/11 is not the anti-war crowd's favorite topic.
Which is precisely why the anti-war crowd must suppress or deny not only Saddam's 9/11 ties, but any al Qaeda link, as well. No matter where the truth rests, it is crucial to their cause that the public not believe in any Saddam and Osama cooperation. At this point, many of them must undoubtedly convince themselves.
Which begs question - what exactly is their cause again?
posted by Richard at
11:07 AM
<< Home