Maybe Andrew Sullivan will keep on this...There are many questions that need to be answered......I'm glad that someone else agrees with me, and it does appear he does. The researcher in me says the questions are there, and should be obvious to most who are really trying to find out, and have an open mind about it.
Per Sullivan:
DOING THE RIGHT THING: I cannot independently judge this material. But others can. All I know is that we shouldn't rest until the case debunking these claims has been effectively made.
We need to be told: Why is this intelligence faulty?
How?
Has it been cherry-picked?
By whom?
Why?
Above all, the blogosphere has to keep this story from being buried by the anti-war media establishment.
The cumulative weight of all this intelligence is stunning. Even if there are some holes in it, the broad picture it paints is unsurprising. The notion that the pragmatic Saddam, who had grown closer and closer to Islamism in the 1990s, would eschew any contacts with al Qaeda has always struck me as bizarre. The alliance is a natural. More important: you're in the administration after 9/11. All sorts of intelligence like this crosses your desk. You can't confirm all of it for absolutely sure. But just as surely, you cannot ignore it. The consequences of complacency are too horrifying for words. They still are. Yet today's 20/20 critics seem eager to claim that, even after 9/11, the administration should only have acted against Saddam if it had proven beyond any reasonable doubt that he was indeed in league with al Qaeda. Well, they were wrong before this report. They are triply wrong now.
Thank God we have toppled Saddam. And thank God we had a president who, after so many years of complacency, weakness and denial, took the action that was vital to protect this country |
