That Sadaam Hussein was in cahoots with Al Qaida remains absurd. Like most dictators, he was too ego-centric to allow any outside influence to influence him. And Islamic fundamentalism would be a direct threat to his power.
It was absurd the first time I heard the allegation, and it’s absurd still.
Sadaam would not have put up with some cleric stealing his spotlight. And that’s all Osama Bin Laden is: a cleric. And one whose agenda directly opposed Sadaam’s.
To suggest a tie between the two would mean accepting that Sadaam was open to a theocratic state. That one’s like trying to swallow an ostrich egg: it can’t get stuck in your craw because it’s such a whopper that you just can’t get it there.
These facts were self-evident when lies were being tossed around like so much salad, dressed with half-truths and deception.
Why intelligent legislators and other leaders did not see this, or see it and choose not to act on it, befuddles me. The entire proposition was nothing other than absurd. A bad fairy tale.
And if one piece of the chain is false, one has to doubt the veracity of all that follow.
I saw all this as it was happening, but nobody said a thing like it. No one questioned the total absurdity of a megalomaniacal dictator even acknowledging a radical cleric who, if established in his country, would undermine his absolute power.
Sadaam was not a nice man, but he didn’t have room for competition. In fact, he gained power by having his competition taken out back and shot.
History can be a good teacher, but only if you listen. Is everyone else deaf?
No comments:
Post a Comment