During the Bush era, anti-war Democrats repeatedly accused the Bush Administration of blaming Saddam Hussein for 9/11. I will say that Vice President Cheney certainly discussed certain meetings between Iraqi government members and Al Qaeda members and that Iraq provided some relevant training for terrorist groups, but I always felt that Bush and Cheney were making a case for Iraq under Hussein being a rogue nation, a terror sponsor (mostly bounties to Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel) and a general source of instability in the Gulf region. However, I think Hussein and Bin Laden had different agendas and didn't trust each other; I don't think Hussein, with British and American planes already flying over parts of Iraq, would have wanted to give the US compelling justification for overthrowing his regime.
If Bush felt that Hussein was behind 9/11, he never would have gone to the extent of going through the UN Security Council over a direct attack on the US mainland, and he wouldn't have attacked Afghanistan first. It is certainly true that a majority of people in some polls felt there was a link, but I never personally felt it was the case. I think there was an incidental connection in the sense we wanted to be more proactive about attacks on the homeland and the use of WMD's inflict more scalable civilian casualties; Hussein had the means, motive, and history to use WMD's against enemy nations.
This is not another post to rationalize our involvement in the liberation of Iraq; I personally didn't see the compelling case for invasion in the sense Iraq was constrained militarily and economically, and one could certainly argue Iran has been at least as destabilizing in terms of its actions supporting Iraqi insurgents, its support of Hezbollah, etc. But I believe that our national leaders were acting based on flawed multi-national intelligence. Using a national polls to assess factual claims is meaningless; I'm not interested in seeing polls on whether people support the theory of evolution. There may be 101 reasons to have supported the invasion of Iraq, not all of them true or morally acceptable. Similarly, there may have been a number of people who supported or opposed Obama's election based primarily of his skin color. Just because you find an odd finding, like support for the conspiracy theory Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11, doesn't mean this was the core basis for their decision to support the liberation of Iraq.
But there are a couple of other things which I want to underscore. First, there the recent Washington Post/ABC News poll which showed almost two-thirds of those polled favor the criminal investigation of the original BP accident, which resulted in multiple fatalities. There is ongoing debate over whether the accident was due to some combination of human error and/or mechanical failures or the result of knowingly suboptimal or negligent behavior. It's fairly clear here that there is no real evidence of criminal behavior any more than in any other industrial accident resulting in the loss of life. This really seems to reflect more of an anti-BP feeling and wanting to hold BP accountable. But even bad managerial decisions, just like the fateful decision to launch the space shuttle Challenger in 1986, do not rise to the level of criminal behavior. The AG probe is totally political.
Another example is the recent landslide victory in the South Carolina Democratic Party US Senate nomination to oppose incumbent Jim DeMint this fall by Alvin Greene, a political unknown, an unemployed military veteran whom is facing an obscenity charge from late last year and did not have major events or even a campaign website. (I would not be surprised if voters confused Alvin Greene with legendary soul singer Al Green.) Still, how do you explain Democratic voters voting for Alvin Greene (or Al Green) without knowledge of his political positions or record?
Vote to Sustain EPA Power Grab: Thumbs Down
The Senate voted 53-47 to sustain the controversial attempt by the EPA to try to regulate greenhouse emissions under questionable reference to prior clean air legislation. Opposition was bipartisan. This attempt to work around a difficult vote on relevant climate change legislation is a pure power grab of the Executive Branch over the Legislative Branch. I regard the EPA decision as not only counterproductive from an economic standpoint and unconstitutional.
Political Cartoon
Steve Kelley points out that the real moratorium is Congressional and Obama White House analysis paralysis. Ask a doctor in an emergency room whether they have the time, in the middle of surgery to save someone's life, to research medical journals to research better techniques. Gov. Jindal (R-LA) stands in stark contrast to failed Democratic leadership during Katrina, i.e., Mayor Nagin and Gov. Blanco; he has been jawboning the administration for approval to create sand barrier islands and proactively doing whatever it takes to protect the wetlands, while bureaucrats debate whether barrier islands are necessary and a best practices approach while oil creeps ever closer to shore. Senator Landrieu (D-LA) points out the political show stunt (my words) moratorium costs hundreds of jobs per rig, indirectly thousands.
Quote of the Day
Never cut what you can untie.
Joseph Joubert
Musical Interlude: Chart Hits of 1960
The Everly Brothers, "When Will I Be Loved"
Ray Charles, "Georgia on My Mind"
Marty Robbins, "El Paso" [I remember when I was recruited to join the UTEP faculty, I got a pamphlet on what to do if I got bitten by a rattlesnake... Great sales pitch, guys!]
Roy Orbison, "Only the Lonely"
