William Safire, Water Boy

Bill takes time off from being America's grammarian in chief to opine about the latest offering from Douglas Fieth regarding the supposed connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.

"The Defense Department acknowledged the Oct. 27 letter included a classified annex of "raw reports or products" of U.S. intelligence agencies on "the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," cautioning that it "drew no conclusions." But with so much connective tissue exposed --some the result of "custodial interviews" of prisoners--the burden of proof has shifted to those still grimly in denial."

(my emphasis).

Regarding the last sentence: Bull. Safire, the Weekly Standard, and Edward J. Epstein (Epstein, to his credit, isn't quite ready to hop aboard just yet) are engaged in the journalistic equivalent of throwing a Hail Mary pass and hoping for an interference call from a flag happy referee. They see smoke where, at best, there is fog.

TalkingPointsMemo has done great work in debunking this story. None of the allegations are new, Feith's name at the top of the memo means that it should be taken with a shaker, if not a grain, of salt, and, given the dated nature of the material, it is inconceivable that this information would NOT have been heavily publicized prior to invasion. This information, if true, would be far more damaging to Hussein than any Weapons of Mass Destruction in his possession--it would be grounds for invasion alone. The UN would have signed off on such an invasion if the link between Hussein and Al Qaeda existed--like they essentially did in Afghanistan (UN Resolution Passed on September 18, 2001).

I've had the displeasure of viewing Safire, in all his vainglorious righteousness, on PBS a few times. It ain't pretty. I'll give him credit for being an intelligent man, but he engages in demogaugery on a scale that shines far brighter than his relatively low rent post at the Gray Lady. This latest fish wrapping can go directly to Fulton Street and take up its true calling.

The War in Iraq has been sold under so many false pretenses that it's hard to keep up with the lying. Let's see: first it was WMD's, then it was Iraqi Liberation from Saddam, then it was Saddam was an imminent threat, then it was the War on Terror, now it's 9/11's Revenge--except that none of these make sense. There are NO WMD's (Condi Rice saying Saddam was the WMD was the most pathetic attempt to salvage that one), Saddam being ANY threat to the United States was/is laughable (he couldn't even control the whole of Iraq--Iraqi Kurdistan was de facto independent since 1991--we maintained the fiction of a united Iraq so as to not upset Turkey, which has its own reasons for opposing an independent Kurdistan), our newfound love for the Iraqi people is offset by the fact that we've killed over 5,000 to date--and face it, we as a country have NEVER been real keen on Middle Eastern human rights to begin with, the War on Terror is a canard when we consider that Iraqi resistance is mostly native in construct, and 9/11's revenge would only be valid IF we attacked Saudi Arabia--unless, of course, we've become so racist against Middle Easterners that we don't care who we kill, as long as we kill someone. And, if that's the case, we will lose--either directly on the battlefield, or, thinking broadly, by becoming our enemy.