Smoking Something: War critics are comfortably numb
Posted: 04/17/2008
Smoking Something: War critics are comfortably numb by Daniel Clark
The summary of a recent Pentagon report says there was "no 'smoking gun'" connecting Saddam Hussein to al-Qaeda. One can just imagine how furiously somebody must have lobbied to have that language included, because those are the same three magical words that have been successfully used to convince the public that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction.
Because the "smoking gun" standard is entirely subjective, the existence of such a thing can never be proven, at least not to the satisfaction of a determined contrarian. Thus have the most intransigent critics of the war effort succeeded in granting themselves veto power over the facts. Regardless of the evidence of Saddam's WMD, there cannot be a "smoking gun" until Hans Blix, Cindy Sheehan and the New York Times agree to say that there is.
That's the degree of denial that's necessary to characterize the Pentagon report as anything other than an absolute vindication of the war in Iraq. That study, comprised of information culled from the evidence left behind by Saddam's government, makes it clear to all but the willfully obtuse that removing the Iraqi dictator was essential to any serious effort to combat terrorism.
A Senate Intelligence Committee report issued in 2006 had taken an imprisoned Saddam Hussein's word for it that he had not cooperated with al-Qaeda, although the terror group had met repeatedly with his Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS). This new study, which has received far less media attention, tells another story. "Captured documents reveal that the regime was willing to co-opt or support organizations it knew to be part of al-Qaeda," it concludes, "as long as that organization's near-term goals supported Saddam's long-term vision."
The identities of two of Saddam's beneficiaries ought to be enough to cause the Senate to rescind, and apologize for, its attempted exoneration of the deposed Iraqi government. One of those groups is Egyptian Islamic Jihad, Ayman al-Zawahiri's organization that became the nucleus of al-Qaeda. The other is the Afghani Islamic Party, which Stephen Hayes of The Weekly Standard tells us controlled that part of Afghanistan where Osama bin Laden established his training camps in the early 90s.
In addition, Saddam has funded Ansar al-Islam, which has become the core of al-Qaeda in Iraq, as well as Filipino al-Qaeda affiliate Abu Sayyaf, and a Bahrainian group called the Army of Muhammad, which an IIS document describes as an "offshoot of bin Laden" whose use of a different title "can be a way of camouflaging the organization."
This tells us not only that Iraq was collaborating with al-Qaeda, but that it was doing so surreptitiously. That's why we're learning that Saddam assisted many affiliates of, and precursors to, bin Laden's organization, but we're not likely to find a picture of the Butcher of Baghdad directly handing Osama an enormous check, as if he'd just won the Dinah Shore Classic.
Not that it would make any difference, as long as we are operating under the "smoking gun" standard. Even if we had a video of the two men's lips meeting as they nibbled their way from opposite ends of a long strand of spaghetti, the Democrats and therefore the news media would forcefully deny any relation between them. They'd probably even argue that if the two villains were really in cahoots, they'd never be careless enough to be seen together.
Perhaps because of our gullibility regarding dual-use materials related to Saddam's WMD programs, he seems to have understood that all he needed was a modicum of deniability in order to placate the West. If an al-Qaeda terror cell wanted to be eligible for Iraqi funding, all it needed to do was change its name to al-Cougar Mellencamp, and it could count on the rest of the world to play dumb.
By swiftly dismissing the evidence as it arises, the three magic words have spared the "Bush lied" chorus responsibility for everything about which it has been proven wrong. Critics of inaccurate prewar intelligence have themselves been far less accurate in their anti-war intelligence, such as their certainty that Islamic terrorists would never cooperate with an infidel like Saddam. As long as they maintain that there's "no smoking gun" to the contrary, however, they need never admit fault. By refusing to accept unwanted realities, they've relegated themselves to the land of the anti-war lotus-eaters, where they remain comfortably numb to the impact of the emerging facts. The tragedy is that most American news consumers have become unwittingly trapped in that haze-filled netherworld with them.
-- Daniel Clark is a Staff Writer for the New Media Alliance. The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets.
Disclaimer: Worldview Weekend, Christian Worldview Network and its columnists do not necessarily endorse or agree with every opinion expressed in every article posted on this site. We do however, encourage a healthy and friendly debate on the issues of our day. Whether you agree or disagree, we encourage you to post your feedback by using the feedback button.
No seated President has the right under the U.S. Constitution created by folks with a Biblical worldview I might add to declare war on any foreign nation that has not attacked or that does not threaten American freedom without the consent of Congress.
Contrary to your article and what it portrays, Iraq and Iran are no more guilty of supporting terrorists than Saudi Arabia where all of those involved in 9/11 came from. America is in bed with Saudi Arabia. If Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction, who do you think supplied them with these weapons?? That's right, we did when we were their ally.
As a Christian how do you obey God's commands by supporting non-Christian offensive wars against "enemies" who never attacked us? The American Revolution was just because we were attacked by England! God blessed our nation when we obeyed His Commands. Now He curses our Nation because we do not obey His Commands.
How should a Christian react? Be fruitful and multiply, promote and teach His virtues within our homes, vote for representatives who are true Christians, subdue our country with the Sword of Truth not war in foreign lands, take dominion here for the cause of Jesus Christ. I am not talking about a physical revolution, I am talking about a heart changing revolution powered by Obediance to God's Word, Preaching the truth, taking back our schools, taking back control from the faltering cursed government. Actively involving ourselves in Civil magistrates and the blessings will be poured out once more.
Our hope is in Jesus Christ, why don't more Christians start iving obediently and answering od's call expressed in Genesis 1:28 and taking dominion over all areas of life for Godnd His glory. Then the war will be one. That is heavenly patriotism and not the huministic kind.
E. Click here to reply to this post
I applaud your patriotism
Posted On: 04/17/08 07:45:35 AM
Age 30, MN
As a 30 year old Iraq and afghanistan Vet and excpecting to return to Iraq in four months I applaud your patriotism. I want to tell you though its ok to admit as a patriot that our invasion of Iraq was premature and stupid, and even though some of the al queda facts you are sighting, saddams regime and its relationship with al queda was very vague. As a Vet and someone who has fought there our efforts were sqaundered in 2003. We Should've put our efforts into Afgahnistan. Now with that said that isn't the way it is now and as a marine I need and I do except our mission. We CAN NOT leave Iraq until our mission is complete, and that mission is a safe and democratic Iraq we owe the people there at least that much. So what happend in 2003 is irrevelant no matter what you think about it. I get irritated when people think they need to be patriotic and thery agree with the desicions the goverment made regardless. Write about our mission now not the mistakes the goverment made in 2003. Thank You and God Bless Click here to reply to this post
Not the Iraqi dictator but the CIA
Posted On: 04/17/08 07:25:14 AM
Age 61, MO
I respectfully but adamently disagree with this article. al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden are products of the CIA. The U.S. government has be on a decades long mission to stir up trouble in the mid east so they could appease their fascist owners to gain control over the heroin trade out of Afghanistan and to gain control over oil in Iraq and Iran. The U.S. government has burned the candle from both ends, playing one mid east country against another as part of its imperialistic world conquest. The "wax" and the money are running out, and now the U.S. citizens are about to get burned (left to pay the bill). The "war on terror" was contrived by the Bush Administration to con the U.S. citizens into going along with these government imperialistic globalist efforts. If Saddam Husein needed to "go," then so do many U.S. government officials, including the CIA. The article accuses the mainstream media of being anti war. I find the opposite to be true. Legitimate questions about what really happened on 911 have never been answered, but rather systematically covered up or left unreported by the media. Bank holdups get more criminal investigation than the Trade Center disaster did. George Cancilla Click here to reply to this post
Woodrow Kroll, David Jeremiah,Sean McDowell, Josh McDowell, David Barton, Carl Kerby, Frank Harber, Kerby Anderson, and the Branson Family Reunion DVD Set! This is a $74.95 value for only $34.95! FREE worksheet with purchase!
Russell O'Quinn, Steve Saint, Dr. Michael Youssef, Dr. Erwin Lutzer, Bob Lepine, Star Parker, Kirk Cameron, Ray Comfort, and the Branson Family Reunion DVD Set! This is a $74.95 value for only $34.95!
