All too true. What would Saddam's motivation for supporting these attacks have been? Vengeance? Pure Evil?
I can certainly believe that Iraq gave sanctuary and funds to Arab or Muslim radicals, but it's less clear that they were the masterminds or even knew what was in the works. In any case, if Hussein did give money to someone who hated America and would do anything to hurt us, that would qualify as justification for war, and a warning to others to be more careful with terrorists. But Morison doesn't prove that he's at the center of it all.
BTW, the Epstein site is fascinating.
What was Mohammed Atta's motive? What are the motives of the Arab terrorists who kill themselves in Israel at the age of 16?
Sadaam has a lot more to revenge than any of them,(their current and future counterparts, I mean), and a lot more to lose if the U.S. starts bombing.
I had a conversation with someone about this article yesterday. The person said "if all of this is true, I don't want to know about it. I don't want to believe it, because that would mean the entire nation, our entire system is corrupt. "
That's the root of the problem, really. Everyone (especially the liberals) has been so busy covering their own backside, or lying to themselves about the state of the world, that we ended up with September 11.
If every person who read this thread wrote a letter to the Wall Street Journal, urging the editors to pursue this story, they just might decide to keep pressing this story, on the front page instead of the editorial page. Then it would be impossible to ignore.
This is one address that will work.
Because the New York Times and the Washington Post haven't immediately picked it up, the WSJ is already beginning to back away.
to Diddle E. Squat: "So if the Dems got a whiff that this was about to be revealed, you would here them scream about how the administration is reaching, remember Hearst and the Maine, and that Bush is trying to blame everything short of the Patriots Superbowl win on Iraq as an excuse to invade."
All I can say is that if Bush is planning to make any big revelations, he better do it next week. Can you imagine how it will look if he makes the speech to the U.N. and it doesn't fly, here or abroad? Then what is he going to do? "Oh, gee, we were gonna tell you, but we didn't want to rile the democrats up too much, so we thought we'd save it until we really need it, until Tommy was ready to take it on?"
I think not. At least I hope not.
I also hope Bush got fired up enough by Clinton's comments last weekend about why we shouldn't invade Iraq to show the American people why we should.
Read the front page of the Washington Post, today, If you want to see the reason. The woman pictured was on Nightline tonight. She was nearly burned to death at the Pentagon last year. It was horrible.
I believe, and again I hope I am right, that Bush is so sure he is going to make a strong enough case for the invasion of Iraq that he can dare to take it before the Congress, and the world. And that Tony Blair believes that,too. Both he and Bush are certainly putting their political futures at risk if that's not true. It may have nothing whatsoever to do with the OKC/bombing or the first WTC bombing.
But, like the WSJ, I hope he does address those issues.
BTW, the purge of intelligence is already well underway at the FBI. All the officials who supervised the OKC bombing investigation are gone.
Bush plays everything very close to the vest. Maureen Dowd and her ilk don't have any comprehension of why and how Bush operates.
Neither do we, perhaps. But I still believe he is a good man. Time will tell as to whether he has what it takes to clean up the mess this country has become, and fight a war in the process.
If you ask me, we have to clean up our own backyard before we start messing with Iraq. The American people know it, and I think(hope again) that Bush does, too.