Today on Air America Radio, Randi Rhodes made the "point" that the 19 9/11 hijackers were mostly Saudis. Michael Moore has made the same "point" in his film. My question is ... so what?
The implication seems to be that Bush should have attacked Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq.
First off, I don't think the Left really believes this. Had Bush attacked Saudi Arabia, the Left would be bashing Bush for that. There are many (many, many) good reasons to bash Bush. But the Left does so largely irrespective of any good reasons. They attack Bush largely because he is a Republican. Clinton's wars drew little outrage from the Left.
(Yes, Clinton had more allies in the Balkans, but so did Bush I in the Gulf War; yet the latter was not spared from Leftist criticism).
But more importantly, the hijackers' nationalities are irrelevent because (1) individuals often act independently, and (2) governments often hire foreigners to do their dirty work. Thus, the hijackers may have been acting alone, or on the behest of ... [fill in the government of your choice].
A criminal's nationality is irrelevent to anything. So why do some on the Left keep harping on the hijackers being Saudi? I think because they (rightly) oppose Bush's Iraq War, yet they still feel the need to offer Americans a foreign target, in order to prove that they're pro-national security. Which is silly, but I suppose that's considered politically prudent in a nation gripped with war fever.
What MLK’s ‘Letter from Birmingham Jail’ tells us about Ahed Tamimi in a cold Israeli cell - There are many parallels between Martin Luther King Jr's call for "direct political action" leading to a crisis for the Jim Crow South, in his letter from ...
16 hours ago