Why would he suddenly plan an attack with al Qeada against America? What purpose would that serve him? In any event, there is no evidence that such was the case.
4) “Add to that the revelation that the Russians actually passed to us some of their own intel saying that Hussein was going to launch terrorist attacks.”
I heard of this, although I do not know what the basis for their warnings were. At this point, I am certainly not willing to accept it out of hand.
5) “Add to that the presence in Iraq, with Hussein’s approval, of Zarquawi, Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, the ’93 WTC bomber, and the crazies of NE Iraq.”
This does seem to be the case. However, put into context, this seems extremely mild compared with the overt support given by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, to name a few. Some would posit the presence of terrorists as prove positive of a strong relationship that led to the attacks, but people totally ignore the fact that this connection was mild. Those people were popular in the Arab world, including among the people of Iraq. I find nothing incriminating Iraq in 9/11 by the presence of certain operatives.
I can assure you, there is no desperation needed to try to defend what the president himself, the principle person whom some conservatives will say and do anything to protect, has said, which is that there is no evidence of a connection between Iraq and the attacks. What amazed me is how desperate others have become, picking up on a detail here, some comment there, some phrase or action that might somehow be seen as evidence. Meanwhile, Iraq’s neighbors openly helped al Qeada, provided many raw recruits, funding, and schools! It is like the police raiding the next-door neighbor of an international crack house, because they have some marijuana on their lawn.
7) “The 9/11 Commission staff statements report on the movements of the hijackers prior to 9/11. But when it comes to Atta, they assiduously airbrush his two year 2000 trips to Prague, probably because they think it would give credence to the Czech intelligence report that he met with an Iraqi agent handler named al Ani in 2001.”
Ralph E. Luker – 6/
So now proceed the link the 9/11 commission is a tool of liberals who will ignore evidence in order to make Bush look bad? Fascinating interpretation. I guess, like all others within and outside of the administration who have criticized Bush, the 9/11 commission too must be delegitimized in order to protect him?
8) “It must be a terrible thing to be a liberal and have to watch as the libs loose their iron-clad grip on major media.”
The so-called “liberal media bias” will always exist because conservatives will always keep it alive. When Kerry is president and the press bash the crap out of him, conservatives will likely play the myth down a little (or accuse the media of not doing enough to bash him). But then when another Republican is one day elected, conservatives will cite it as evidence on why they are giving him (or her) such a hard time. So don’t kid yourself. I think we both know that the “liberal media” will always be there, whether it exists or not. It is too valuable a PR tool to get rid of.
Richard Henry Morgan – 6/
Actually, the poll you cite says that 7 out of 10 people believe it was “likely” that Saddaam was involved — not that they had dispositive proof. Isn’t it funny how people, like playing the child-hood game of telephone, take what they want to hear, and then pass it off as fact?