Saddam & 9/11 Revisited
I don't know whether or not Saddam had anything to do with September 11th. Nobody knows. However, those who opposed the liberation of Iraq, pretend to know. They are absolutely certain that Osama and Saddam would never work together to attack their mutual enemy. Osama being a fundamentalist Muslim and Saddam being secular (I guess they don't consider Hezbollah radical enough). Curious.
Oh, they have their theories. Its amusing how they've all become experts in Islam and Middle East politics and history, even though virtually every pre-war prediction they made was flat out wrong. The Muslim Street rising? Siege of Baghdad? Quagmire? Burning oil fields? Thousands of casualties? Millions of refugees? Missiles landing in Tel Aviv? Interesting at the fall of Baghdad no one was interested in how the American military in victory prevented all these catastrophes. No, for days they were consumed with the looting of the National Museum that turned out to never have happened.
Back to Saddam.
Further down, I discussed the panic that reverberated throughout the media when polls showed that a majority of Americans believed Saddam "may have been involved" in the attacks. Lots of coverage was given to the poll all so the mainstream media, which was almost unanimously anti-war, could point out that there was "no proof" of any connection. This claim of "no proof" was routinely made by talking heads even as more and more evidence was emerging of Iraqi links to al Qaeda.
To understand the hysteria, you have to realize that even circumstantial evidence of Saddam's involvement behind 9/11 would be as damaging to the Left in this country as finding huge stockpiles of WMD's. Evidence like the ringleader of the first World Trade Center bombing escaping to...Iraq. Of course, the Left has no interest in finding the truth about Saddam or WMD's. Their interest lies in damaging Bush politically.
Richard Clarke took special care to make the "no proof" point clear in his testimony and in his book even though he himself has acknowledged connections in the past. Richard Clarke was against the liberation of Iraq. Of course "no proof" means there's must be nothing connecting the two mad men and only a fool or a liar could make such a claim in this day. I don't think Richard Clarke is a fool.
Oh, they have their theories. Its amusing how they've all become experts in Islam and Middle East politics and history, even though virtually every pre-war prediction they made was flat out wrong. The Muslim Street rising? Siege of Baghdad? Quagmire? Burning oil fields? Thousands of casualties? Millions of refugees? Missiles landing in Tel Aviv? Interesting at the fall of Baghdad no one was interested in how the American military in victory prevented all these catastrophes. No, for days they were consumed with the looting of the National Museum that turned out to never have happened.
Back to Saddam.
Further down, I discussed the panic that reverberated throughout the media when polls showed that a majority of Americans believed Saddam "may have been involved" in the attacks. Lots of coverage was given to the poll all so the mainstream media, which was almost unanimously anti-war, could point out that there was "no proof" of any connection. This claim of "no proof" was routinely made by talking heads even as more and more evidence was emerging of Iraqi links to al Qaeda.
To understand the hysteria, you have to realize that even circumstantial evidence of Saddam's involvement behind 9/11 would be as damaging to the Left in this country as finding huge stockpiles of WMD's. Evidence like the ringleader of the first World Trade Center bombing escaping to...Iraq. Of course, the Left has no interest in finding the truth about Saddam or WMD's. Their interest lies in damaging Bush politically.
Richard Clarke took special care to make the "no proof" point clear in his testimony and in his book even though he himself has acknowledged connections in the past. Richard Clarke was against the liberation of Iraq. Of course "no proof" means there's must be nothing connecting the two mad men and only a fool or a liar could make such a claim in this day. I don't think Richard Clarke is a fool.
posted by Richard at
9:33 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home