Michael Scott Moore's online journal
|
|
| Radio Free Mike Michael Scott Moore's online journal |
|
|
Friday, December 13, 2002 State sponsorship and warSenator Bob Graham -- who seems to be not just well-briefed about terrorism but also honest, as far as senators can be honest -- made an interesting remark on TV last week. On the Newshour he was asked if he thought a state sponsor was behind September 11. He said, "I think there is very compelling evidence that at least some of the terrorists were assisted not just in financing -- although that was part of it -- by a sovereign foreign government and that we have been derelict in our duty to track that down." I think he means Saudi Arabia. He also said: "I believe the American people should know the extent of the challenge that we face in terms of foreign government involvement. That would motivate the government to take action." If Graham were thinking of Iraq, he wouldn't have added that last sentence, since, of course, we're already taking action against Saddam.The evidence on Iraq, though, is still growing. In this link David Rose summarizes his new Vanity Fair piece on al Qaeda and Saddam (which is not online). The Washington Post notes that last October al Qaeda may have taken some of that nerve poison we're looking for in Iraq. What I think all this means is that a number of governments -- Iraq, Saudi Arabia, maybe Iran or Syria -- knew about September 11 and helped or blessed it as a secret Qaeda operation. Bush has stifled intelligence on sponsorship because he doesn't want to ruin good relations with the Saudis; he doesn't want to wage war on them directly, and he thinks he can make a good case for war with Saddam without bringing up this hornet's nest of sponsoring states. Of course, if we overrun Iraq and take hold of its oil, the OPEC monopoly will crumble, and so will Saudi fortunes. Which might just be Bush's idea. posted by Mike Moore | 4:38 PMBurn, baby, burnAndrew Sullivan is throwing a beautiful snit about Lott, and what he says is not just self-evident but worth saying. posted by Mike Moore | 3:49 PMTuesday, December 10, 2002 Trent LottAll I can add about the Lott fiasco is that of course he should step down. I've thought so ever since he stepped up the first time as Majority Leader. Forcing him down is what was so great about Jim Jeffords' slide to independency in 2001 -- we didn't have to see so much of Lott's smug face. He's always been an embarrassment to the Republicans. posted by Mike Moore | 2:52 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
