And why did virtually the entire Senate (and House) roll over like that? Could it have had something to do with the fact that Bush and all his mouthpieces kept confabulating a connection between 9/11 and Iraq? And that anyone who dared question the case for war was branded as dangerous, unpatriotic, crazy, or treasonous? I agree that they were gutless, and should have stood up to him, but I also think that Bush's propaganda machine was way out of bounds, and had created an environment of fear and panic. He bears the responsibility for that.
They spoke as they believed, Allen. I know it's become an article of faith among the Dems that the idea is ridiculous, but I don't think so, nor do many, many people who are more knowledgeable than I about the jihadi movement. True, there is no evidence that Saddam's agents were in on the planning for 9/11, and that's certainly a plan that OBL & co would have played close to the vest.
But Saddam and Al Qaeda had many contacts, and were searching out ways to help each other (eg Iraqi intelligence listed OBL as an intelligence asset and funneled him aid; the bomber of the 1993 attack was an Iraqi who returned to Baghdad afterwards), but there certainly were control issues on both sides. OBL didn't want to be controlled by Iraq and Saddam didn't want terrorists he couldn't control; that's one reason he was trying to roll his own with Uday's Fedayeen. You could call it a case of 'Iran envy'. Every Mideast dictator wants his own Hizbullah.
Prior to 9/11, the Dems were living in a 'New Middle East' Oslo-fed dream, which even Arafat's launching of a new terror war in 2000 could not shake. They turned their eyes away from Al Qaeda and the worldwide jihadi movement, and so had no response ready after 9/11, when it became obvious to all that the threat had to be taken seriously. So they were on the back foot, as the British say.
Those who had been watching the rise of world wide Wahhabi/Takfiri inspired jihadism with alarm expected something like a 9/11. They had already observed the rise of the Iranian revolution, the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Hizbullah, Hamas, and watched formerly secular leaders like Saddam try mightily to co-opt and ride the wave. In his last years in office, Saddam suddenly became very pious for public consumption, built 50 grandiose mosques, and had a Koran written in his own blood. Of course, he continued to portray himself as the New Saladin, the great Arab Leader who had defied the Great Satan and the Little Satan and lived to boast of it, etc.
Those who were knowledgeable about the Middle East, who watched the rising tide of Islamism and virulent anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism in the Middle East media (something our MSM simply refused to cover. At all.) did not find the notion of a tie up between Saddam and Al Qaeda any more ridiculous than the tie up between Iran and Hizbullah on the Shia side. My enemies' enemy is my friend. They looked for evidence, and they found quite a bit, if not enough to display as proof positive - Saddam being in the position he was, he had to be surreptitious.
But those who were living the Oslo dream, those for whom peace was right around the corner, did not wish to believe the new reality. They listened to the news only in English; what was said in Arabic didn't bother them. They preferred to blame Israel for the continuing Israeli/Pal conflict, figuring that since Israel was the stronger, it had to be to blame. They stuck to their old idea of Saddam as secular ruler, who would never join up with Al Qaeda. Besides, even after 9/11, they deeply, deeply wished to believe that this was just an isolated crime perpetrated by a handful of criminals that could be handled as a police matter. Wishing so much to believe this, they tended to ignore evidence to the contrary, and shoot the messenger of bad news.
This to me, is the real reason for the cries of "There is no connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda! Bush lied!"
As the old saying goes, Denial ain't just a river in Egypt. |
