As unpleasant a mental exercise as it is, try to step into their shoes. If Hussein was involved in 9/11 and even more strongly in the 93 bombing, then Pres. Bush would have an even stronger causes belli for invading Iraq. This moron and ingenious deceiver, both contradictory descriptions of our President held by the liberals, would seem very justified in invading Iraq even by New York Time's standards. That can't happen in the liberal mindset so of all the concepts that must be resisted, Saddam's connections with the World Trade Center bombings must be resisted by the left most of all.
--Saddam's connections with the World Trade Center bombings must be resisted by the left most of all.--
Exactly. That would have been an INCONVENIENT
casus belli, and klintoon would have been skewered for his criminally negligent inaction in the face of state-sponsored terrorism. BJ used more firepower and manpower to kill the Branch Davidians than he ever did fighting al-Qaeda. So his Justice Dept. simply swept everything under the rug, while the media ignored the evidence.
Another convenient truth that was ignored: the fact that Zarqawi was in Iraq organizing the "insurgency" BEFORE the invasion. How the heck woild hundreds of foreign fighters just cross the border into Iraq, unless they had a pre-existing network of contacts, safehouses, etc? The leftist useful idiots' groupthink forces them to say "Saddam was secular. Al-Qaeda are religious fanatics. Therefore, they could NEVER have worked together".
More recently, the useful idiots are desperately trying to deny that the Iraq surge is working (Baghdad violence is generally dropping at this time, even though the surge has barely begun). All of this BS with Plame and the US attorney firings non-scandal are desperate attempts top suck the oxygen out of the real story, i.e. we are WINNING in Iraq.