It’s no secret that there are a ton of people in our country who don’t like the President, his administration, or any of their current Middle East policies. Throughout history, people have used the clarity of hindsight to re-write history, but what absolutely shocks me is the moronic attempt to re-write the history of 9/11 a mere five years out from the day!

Take, for example, today’s editorial in the New York Times. The writer had this bit of revisionist history to say:

Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terror until the Bush administration decided to invade it. The president now admits that Saddam Hussein was not responsible for 9/11 (although he claimed last night that the invasion was necessary because Iraq posed a “risk”). But he has failed to offer the country a new, realistic reason for being there.

In an editorial that is written in an anti-Bush tone, the statement of “The president now admits that Saddam Hussein was not responsible for 9/11 (although he claimed last night that the invasion was necessary because Iraq posed a “risk”),” carries many misleading premises. First, no one ever said that there was a clear, defined link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. Was the impression given by the Bush Administration that there could be a link? Absolutely.

Let’s not forget that Saddam Hussein - that nice old man who is fighting for his life in an Iraqi court - was hurling nuclear threats all over UN-member nations long before 9/11 happened. Iraq WAS a risk! Iraq was so much of a risk that President Clinton bombed the hell out of an aspirin factory, thinking that it was a weapons lab.

There is no “new, realistic vision” necessary to be in Iraq! One of my way-left extremist professors once asked me if I thought that I, as an American citizen, was safer now that Saddam was out of power. My response was an immediate “Yes!” He said (in front of the entire class), that I was brave to say that.

Brave?

The man used to sit in front of TV cameras with a gun in one hand and a cigar in the other while he said he would nuke Americans in a heartbeat. He would rally against American foreign policy long-before we dug him out of a hole. He would stand there and say how he was developing nuclear weapons that could reach all parts of the world.

Am I glad that this maniac is out of power? Are you fucking serious? Can anyone honestly “no” to that question?

Now most of you extremists are already telling yourselves in your head, “Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11,” and “he didn’t have any weapons of mass destruction.” Correct - he had nothing to do with 9/11 and congratulations to you! You’ve now come into the mainstream because no one ever said that he did. And I’m sorry, you’re wrong. Saddam did have weapons of mass destruction. He had (and used) chemical and biological weapons. Just because it’s not called a “nuke” doesn’t mean it’s not a weapon of mass destruction, idiot.

So for those of you who are so quick to re-write history - remember that when you speak about history, you speak about a moment in time. You don’t speak about an event that happened 2, 3, or 10 years ago and define it in terms of today’s knowledge. That’s dishonest and misleading. You should be ashamed of yourself if you’ve re-written the history of 9/11 or the completely separate war with Iraq.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.