| Saturday, June 19, 2004 |
00:10 - Wrong. Bah. Sufficient.
http://www.livejournal.com/users/level_head/130347.html
|
(top)  |
Zjonni pointed me at this analysis by LiveJournal user "level_head" of the miasma swirling about the Mohammed Atta/al-Ani meeting in Prague and the purported transfer of $100,000 in planning funds from Saddam to the 9/11 conspirators. It seems pretty solid; but it's over a month old, and I'm getting really sick of seeing seemingly hugely relevant stories like this get glossed over and ignored, and the charge for keeping them burning turned over to the tender mercies of the blogosphere. Where the hell are FDR's "fireside chats"? Why do we have to rely for our filtration and delivery of the news in this all-important world-shaking war on private news sources with naked biases and clear agendas? Why doesn't Bush feel it necessary to defend himself once in a while? Peh.
Anyway: this discussion still focuses to a sigh-inducing degree on the idea that attacking Iraq was a matter of revenge for 9/11, when I place a lot more importance on the aspects of the war that involve ridding the Middle East of a dictator who sought to combine the worst features of Hitler and Stalin into a single man, adding only incompetence as his own special personal touch. But if direct causality on the 9/11 axis is what makes your duck quack, it's a good thing to at least read over and ponder.
But read through the comments as well, particularly the thread started by the "no_intentions" guy. Man... what a piece of work. The way the argument ends—I'm telling you, credits need to roll.
|
|
Brian Tiemann
