Revolutionary Moderation

Question of the day:



Why break the Saddam - 9/11 link now, after convincing 70% of the voters of it?



Tom Tomorrow asks the question I tried to answer yesterday. It occurs to me that my answer was tacked on, and went unexplained if you don't follow the links, so I'm going to spell it out.



Wesley Clark has been arguing for as long as the Bushites have been working toward war with Iraq that it was a bad idea. And in June, he told the following embarrassing (to the administration) tale, which I stealth-linked in the previous post (Click on Clark's name, get this page - click on "presidential candidate", get a whole different story):

CLARK: "There was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001, starting immediately after 9/11, to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein."



RUSSERT: "By who? Who did that?"



CLARK: "Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.' I said, 'But--I'm willing to say it, but what's your evidence?' And I never got any evidence."

This went severly underreported at the time, buut now that Clark is a presidential candidate, what are the chances this wouldn't come up?



Tom disagrees, it seems. His favourite guess can be found here, via here, but it doesn't involve General Wes. Compare and decide!