That should put to rest the "revisionist" thesis that the Iraqis, and not Bin Laden, were responsible for 9/11. Not that the "invade the Middle East and 'colonize' it" crowd needs any evidence, or connection to the 9/11 atrocity, to start World War III....
"They are smarter than that."
Other than the leader appears,againt all odds,to still be breathing,how could anyone say Iraqi statecraft bears any resemblane to smart?
posted on 10/11/2001 11:20:56 PM PDT
by John W
If I could see a motive, this evidence would make me very suspicious. But I simply don't see a motive. What does Saddam have to gain from sponsoring a terrorist attack? Right now he's sitting pretty. He's more firmly in power than he has ever been. He's got no reason to provoke a US attack that would unseat him, as we surely would do if he were behind the attack. Saddam may be evil, but he's not stupid or irrational. He's very cunning and Machiavelian.
Do these US intelligence agents who are saying they're not sure this constitutes a connection really exist? What the hell did they think the two were doing, drinking tea and going to baseball games?
posted on 10/12/2001 7:04:15 PM PDT
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson