Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Rye
And I'm also surprised that we haven't been playing up Saddam's connections to al Qaeda and 9/11.

Your surprise stems from the fact that you haven't thought it through fully. The way to think about it is to bring the possibility into focus, take it seriously for the sake of argument, then see what follows.

Okay, say Saddam is "connected" to 9/11. What exactly does "connected" mean? Does it seem likely that Saddam Hussein, supposedly a "survivor," a "pragmatist," and certainly a sitting duck for US retaliation, would simply allow himself to be loosely "connected" with an ultra-sophisticated plot to destroy the WTC, the Capitol and the White House? And if his "connection" is not so "loose," if in fact he was the actual author and mastermind behind this and other acts of revenge against the United States, how could he do that without facing certain death at the hands of the US military? And, why hasn't the US retaliated against him?

If you've been reading the newspapers and watching TV for the last month, you might be able to suggest one method by which Saddam could deter inevitable retaliation with the technical capabilities at his disposal, and thus hope to carry out such a veiled attack with some degree of impunity: his weapons of mass destruction. His existing WMD capability consists, so far as we know, of the following items: anthrax, VX gas, and botulinum toxin. And if you think back to last year, to the events which followed 9/11, you might remember that some still-unidentified person or persons sent the US political leadership a letter containing a sample of the most highly-weaponized, aerosolizable anthrax powder ever produced, accompanied by a warning: "THIS IS NEXT WE HAVE THIS ANTHRAX YOU CAN NOT STOP US."

And once you have followed all those connections and reconceptualized the events of 9/11 et seq on that basis, you will find there is no big mystery at all to why (a) removing Saddam Hussein is Bush's top post-9/11 priority, (b) Bush is taking his own sweet time about confronting Saddam, despite the clear and present danger he supposedly represents, (c) Bush is playing peek-a-boo with the evidence connecting Saddam to 9/11, (d) the feds are putting on a piss-poor effort to investigate the "puzzle" of the anthrax killings, (e) tthe US just ordered 25 million doses of anthrax vaccine to treat the civilian population after an attack.

58 posted on 10/05/2002 1:40:05 PM PDT by The Great Satan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]


To: The Great Satan
Your theory is quite plausible, and it would explain much of the administration's action (and inaction) concerning Iraq. But if what you're suggesting is true and Iraqi sleepers have anthrax here in the U.S. all ready to spread the disease if we so much as lift a finger against the Hussein regime, and as a result of this the Bush administration has concluded that the risk of initiating regime change in Iraq is too high, then why are making all this noise about going to war with Iraq? It's political suicide for Bush to beat the drums of war and then back off (and I don't think we're going to back off). So it follows that either A) we've decided that the risk of being anthraxed is not as great as the risk of inaction, or B) we've concluded that Saddam is bluffing (even though he may have been responsible for the post 9/11 anthrax attacks).
68 posted on 10/05/2002 2:46:19 PM PDT by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson