Although the Berg video has faded from the attention of most people, the controversy still flavors our national debate in subtle ways. Take, for example, this excerpt from a Bush statement on the alleged link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein: "He [Hussein] was a threat because he provided safe haven for a terrorist like Zarqawi, who is still killing innocents inside of Iraq."
What, prithee, was the evidence that Saddam Hussein gave Al Zarqawi safe haven? Simply this: We were once told that, after losing a leg, Al Zarqawi was fitted with a prosthetic in a Baghdad hospital, at a time when Saddam Hussein was still in power. And that's it. That's the connection.
Trouble is, that story changed on April 6 (the same day Nick Berg was released from American -- oops: Iraqi police -- custody). On that date, administration sources made damn sure that CNN carried a story explaining that Al Zarqawi did not lose a leg after all, and thus did not receive a prosthetic in Baghdad. This report made the subsequently-released Berg video less embarrassing -- for in that video, the terrorist alleged to be Al Zarqawi betrays no hint of a prosthetic.
The obvious question: If U.S. intelligence did not know whether or not the man lost a leg, if no-one knows what he did or underwent in Iraq, then how can Bush be sure of the relationship between Al Zarqawi and Saddam Hussein?
And we haven't even addressed the controversy over whether Al Zarqawi should be considered an Al Qaeda leader or an independent thug with similar goals.
No comments:
Post a Comment