Media goes after Saddam--why not Osama?

It's Friday the 13th--September 13, 2002, two days after our national remembrance day of 9-11...two days after most Americans forgot who we are supposed to be "going after" in the War (not) on Terrorism--Osama bin Laden. NOT Saddam Hussein, okay?

Let me say right here and now that if the War on Terrorism was getting bin Laden, I would not be here month after month assailing the "war on terrorism" as a farce in the grand hidden agenda of America's power elites who seem bound and determined to make us forget about OBL. Instead they hand us a poor substitute, a man who may be the only Arab leader in the Middle East who opposes Islamist terrorism and could possibly do something about it by quashing it in his country (you know, the Kurds--the Albanians of the Middle East--and why is it the US supports their iradication in Turkey but arms them in Iraq? Because the Kurds in Iraq are buddies [as are the KLA Albanians] with a certain long-bearded terrorist leader we're supposed to be trying to bring to justice, perhaps?)

So why are we trying to invade a country which NO ONE (certainly not WorldNetDaily's Warhawk-in-Chief Mr. Joseph Farah) has proven has ties to bin Laden, and in fact, bin Laden would love to see invaded? You say, "You're kidding me, right? Bin Laden and Saddam are buddies." Wrong! Saddam runs a very SECULAR Iraq, a SECULAR country, run by SECULAR Sunni Moslems, the same Sunnis that wanted to overthrow the Fundamentalist Islamist Sharia-loving Shiites in Iran over a decade ago and the same Sunnis the US govts. under Reagan and Bush I supported. In fact, bin Laden would love to have an Islamist fundamentalist govt. in Iraq, and love to have Hussein overthrown.

Now I know this column doesn't sound all sweetsy-weetsy, all sentimental the way 9-11 columns "ought" to sound, but I've done my soul-searching, I've done my remembering--and I DO remember who trained, who funded, and who planned for those 19 terrorists to invade the USA, even if George Dubya doesn't, nor Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Rice and the neocon chickenhawk pundits don't! I'm not the only one, thank goodness, who knows what our "mission" should be...

http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north12... Revisiting "Rumsfeld's Rules of 1974" by Gary North

I keep asking myself this question: if the war on terrorism is about taking out al-Qaida and other Islamic fundamentalist/terror groups, if the war on terrorism is about flushing out Osama bin Laden, then why attack one of the few secular Islamic states, a state that is fighting radical Islam within its own borders (for instance, our "allies", the Kurds--who are loosely tied to bin Laden, the same Kurds we hope to enlist to take out Saddam); if we are trying to win against Islamic fundamentalism which forments these terror groups, then why are we going to war against a state we (the CIA) used back in the 80s to try to take out the Islamic fundamentalist regime in Iran (just as why are we helping the Chechnyans vs. Russia, why it's well known that the Chechnyan "freedom fighters" are allied with al-Qaida [just as it is very well known that our KLA buddies have serious ties to Osama, and yet we helped these Albanian terorists destroy Kosovo and are now helping then destroy Macedonia--the same Macedonia that helped us help the KLA!]), and finally, if we are fighting a war on terror against Islamic terorism, then why is it our client Islamic states (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan) are the same ones that developed these terrorists in the first place?

Go To Page: 1 2 3