Of course, there is no mention of Hussein’s threat to unleash terror, that he delivered to April Glaspie

Of course, there is no mention of Hussein’s threat to unleash terror, that he delivered to April Glaspie

And there is no mention of Putin’s own intel, delivered to Bush, that Hussein was going to employ terrorists to attack the US.

However, don’t worry, you are not alone

Mr. Lederer, Thank you for your post. It is a nice change to read some honest and intelligent posts without degrading into partisan attacks. I agree with you 100%. I cannot explain the evidence you cite because I don’t know whether they are all accurate or not. However, I will not be convinced of a connection between 9/11 and Iraq even if all of them are indeed accurate for the following reason:

We just don’t know

1) There has been a historic animosity between the two groups that bin Laden does not seem to have forgotten (although there seems to be evidence suggesting that he was thinking about it) 2) There are so many other nations whose connection was so much stronger, it seems strange to me as to why there would need to be a connection. There was nothing that Iraq had that al Qeada needed. It had money, recruits, supplies, training facilities, territory http://www.rksloans.com/title-loans-mt, and others from Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia at least. 3) Saddam Hussein had no reason to participate in any way. It would get him nothing and he knew that his situation was precarious enough to avoid such a direct confrontation with the US. He may have been crazy, but he was also paranoid, and I know of nothing that would suggest him participating in a direct attack against the United States.

In short, a connection between Iraq and al Qeada seems likely, but not enough to distinguish Iraq from others. The connection between Iraq and 9/11 is certainly possible, but the evidence simply does not seem to be there. I also believe that had WMD been found just as promised, people would not even dwell on the 9/11 connection because there would be no need. It is my suspicion that 9/11 and WMD are two things that some people will not allow to be analyzed intelligently for fear of the « wrong » answer appearing: which is that, for whatever reason, the war against Iraq was not worth it.

1) « Actually, the poll you cite says that 7 out of 10 people believe it was « likely » that Saddaam was involved — not that they had dispositive proof. Isn’t it funny how people, like playing the child-hood game of telephone, take what they want to hear, and then pass it off as fact? »

The only thing I find funny is how some people turn to petty insults out of either desperation for a cogent argument, or frustration at having to focus on semantics in order to avoid discussing the real issue at hand. 70% of Americans believe that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks. President Bush, after the war, said that there was no evidence to demonstrate this and the 9/11 commission says the same. In other words, Bush knew that 70% of the American people believed something for which no evidence exists. You dismiss this out of hand, accusing me of playing some childish trick. That is your right of course, but it is rather sad to see a person of your intelligence be forced to such lengths to defend Bush.

The president disagrees with you, as does the intelligence community and the 9/11 commission, as well as myself. Bush never said that the evidence was not conclusive, or that the evidence suggests a link. He said there was no evidence linking Iraq to the attacks of 9/11. Most conservatives are still willing, even at this point, to maintain that Saddam was involved (or as you say, was likely to have been involved) as I have little doubt they will for the rest of their lives, or at least so long as they put partisanship ahead of reasoned analysis based on evidence.

Laisser un commentaire

Votre adresse e-mail ne sera pas publiée.