Saddam and bin Laden
I am one of those people who think it is possible that Saddam used al Qaeda as an independent contractor to attack the US. I did not come to this conclusion because President Bush or Vice President Cheney think there is evidence to ties between Iraq and al Qaeda. So all you libs who think I have been duped by the administration or Fox News--back off. Logic suggest that Saddam would use any means he thought he could get away with to attack the US.
There is also all the evidence that suggest more than one meeting in Prague between Atta and an Iraqi contact. The NY Times may never review Stephen Hayes book that discusses these contacts, but they should. They would also learn about an Iraqi agent meeting with 9-11 plotters in Asia. Then there are all the other meetings in Afghanistan where the plot could have been discussed.
What is really strange is the lack of curiosity about this evidence and the eagerness to come to the conclusion that there is no evidence. You would think that people could put aside their partisan bias and look at the facts with an inquiring mind. Can they just not get their minds around the possibility that Saddam could have conspired with others to harm the US? If that were the case, wouldn't you be foolish to dismiss it out of hand?
OK NY Times, send one of your reporters out to look at the same evidence Hayes discusses. If he is wrong, I am sure you will find out. If he is right, then have the decency to admit you were wrong.
I am one of those people who think it is possible that Saddam used al Qaeda as an independent contractor to attack the US. I did not come to this conclusion because President Bush or Vice President Cheney think there is evidence to ties between Iraq and al Qaeda. So all you libs who think I have been duped by the administration or Fox News--back off. Logic suggest that Saddam would use any means he thought he could get away with to attack the US.
There is also all the evidence that suggest more than one meeting in Prague between Atta and an Iraqi contact. The NY Times may never review Stephen Hayes book that discusses these contacts, but they should. They would also learn about an Iraqi agent meeting with 9-11 plotters in Asia. Then there are all the other meetings in Afghanistan where the plot could have been discussed.
What is really strange is the lack of curiosity about this evidence and the eagerness to come to the conclusion that there is no evidence. You would think that people could put aside their partisan bias and look at the facts with an inquiring mind. Can they just not get their minds around the possibility that Saddam could have conspired with others to harm the US? If that were the case, wouldn't you be foolish to dismiss it out of hand?
OK NY Times, send one of your reporters out to look at the same evidence Hayes discusses. If he is wrong, I am sure you will find out. If he is right, then have the decency to admit you were wrong.
Comments
Post a Comment