MoonDawg's Den: No Wolf, we're not idiots - but you are

MoonDawg's Den

Thursday, September 07, 2006

No Wolf, we're not idiots - but you are

I was watching Wolf Blitzer on CNN last night as he expressed apparent shock at the results of a poll that shows 43% of Americans "at least suspect" that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the 9/11 terror attacks. Why is that so hard to believe, Wolf? Perhaps those Americans, unlike Wolf, are aware that:

* Saddam was a known sponsor of international terrorism
* The Iraqi government was implicated in the 1993 WTC bombing attack
* Iraq and al-Qaeda were developing operational links, as noted in the 9/11 Commission Report

We may never know if Iraq provided logistical support to al-Qaeda for conducting the 9/11 attacks. You're not going to find a memo from Saddam to Osama saying "Hey bud, need any more help with that hijacking gig you're working on?" But perhaps we will learn more as the tens of thousands of Iraqi government documents that were seized after the war are translated by Project Harmony - already, their work has provided evidence that there was greater collaboration between Iraq and al-Qaeda than was previously thought.

What we do know is this: at the very least, the Iraqi regime praised al-Qaeda in print and lauded the 9/11 attacks in art. If Saddam was still in power, it is entirely plausible that such approval would have eventually manifested itself in something far more substantial - and deadly.

9 Comments:

  • I don't doubt that, whether Saddam was involved or not, he would have supported the move.

    Siiighh.

    We live in a very complicated world.

    By Blogger NoSurfGirl, At 6:20 PM, September 08, 2006  

  • Wolf's an idiot for thinking that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11?? Maybe you ought to rethink that statement since Bush said the same thing this week. Is he an idiot too?

    When asked what Iraq had to do on the attacks of the WTC, Bush said:

    "Nothing"

    He then weakly tries to defend his policy, but it doesn't really work although you might think differently.

    Of course, according to the FBI, Osama Bin Laden had nothing to do with 9/11 as well. Sigh...

    By Blogger Jeff, At 11:37 PM, September 08, 2006  

  • Bush made that statement in the course of a press conference, and he is not exactly the finest orator there is when forced to speak off the cuff, to say the least. The administration's more considered statements on the subject have been along the lines of "We just don't know" - which is exactly true - we just don't know what, if any, role Saddam played in 9/11. Anyone who implies - the President included - that this is a settled issue is just flat wrong.

    As to the Osama/FBI nonsense, give me a break. The "Most Wanted" listing for Osama cites the Africa embassy bombing attacks because he was indicted in absentia for those attacks by a federal grand jury - it does not mean the FBI thinks Osama has nothing to do with 9/11, for crying out loud.

    No criminal charges were sought against Osama in relation to 9/11 because - rightfully so - the administration viewed it not as a criminal transgression but as an act of war.

    The US government never indicted Hirohito for Pearl Harbor - so did that mean Hirohito had "nothing to do with" the Pearl Harbor attack? Sheesh...

    By Blogger Garry, At 12:41 AM, September 09, 2006  

  • Bush can't speak off the cuff? No kidding! However, his blunt response, "nothing," is fairly telling. You can't just excuse it as Bush's inability to speak. Otherwise, you can resonably conclude that anything that comes out of his mouth is suspect. However, I might agree with you on that.

    As for the Osama stuff, did you read the article I linked? It doesn't say that "they saw the attacks as an act of war." It says that they have no credible evidence linking bin Laden to the attacks. Your interpretation tries to say that they have the evidence, which they have said they don't.

    By Blogger Jeff, At 1:48 AM, September 09, 2006  

  • I was watching the news the other night, and they were discussing this issue... that the reports from those investigating the sept 11th attacks did not reach the conclusion that Hussein was involved in any way, that Hussein and Al Queda seemed to have a mutual distrust for one another. They implied that Bush exaggerated the contents of these reports in order to have an excuse to be in Iraq.

    It made me think about this post again.

    So is there a such thing as terrorist-rivalry? Would Saddam rather that Al QUeda didn't suceed in the 911 attacks? Or was he glad to see America take one where it hurt?

    By Blogger NoSurfGirl, At 12:45 AM, September 11, 2006  

  • Yes, Jeff, I read the "article" you linked. And again I state that, unlike the embassy bombings, there have been no formal charges filed in relation to 9/11. The FBI spokesman says the same thing in your "Muckraker Report" article. Anything the FBI puts in the public domain is lawyered to death before it's released. But fine, have it your way - Osama had nothing to do with 9/11, it's all a Bush conspiracy. I beg - nay, plead - that the Dems try to sell that Kool Aid on Nov. 7th.

    To nosurfgirl - you seem to be missing my point: we don't know whether or not Saddam was directly involved in 9/11. Nothing directly implicating him or exonerating him has been found to date, but some liberals try to pretend that this is a settled issue, when it is not.

    However we do have definitive evidence of collaboration between Iraq and al-Qaeda, as seen in the 9/11 Commission Report as well as in documentary evidence subsequently found in Iraq (not to mention connections through intermediary terrorist groups such as Ansar al Islam). If anything, the Bush administration has downplayed the links between Saddam and 9/11.

    By Blogger Garry, At 3:18 PM, September 14, 2006  

  • I'll have to do some more research. Thanks for the link.

    By Blogger NoSurfGirl, At 8:47 PM, September 20, 2006  

  • This is also a great article:

    The Saddam-Osama Connection: The Terrorist Testimony.

    It amazes me how liberals pretend they don't believe President Bush, then pretend they believe him for one thing he says, then it's off to disbelief land again!

    By Anonymous Wayne, At 8:01 AM, October 24, 2006  

  • Thanks for the link, Wayne. Yes, the intellectual gymnastics that liberals often perform to validate their worldview can be quite remarkable: "Bush is a liar! Whoops, he said something I agree with - Bush is the friggin' Oracle of Delphi!"

    By Blogger Garry, At 12:36 PM, October 24, 2006  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]



Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home