In his online Slate column of March 10, 2003
Pious Nonsense
Christopher Hitchens says:
Speaking of casuistry, Carter helpfully added that "American
efforts to tie Iraq to the 9/11 terrorist attacks have been
unconvincing." This might be narrowly true, with respect of
the planning of the last attacks and given the use of the weak
word "unconvincing." But the same day's New York Times carried
a report with persuasive evidence of a substantial number of
Bin-Ladenists on Iraqi soil
Mr. Hitchens, Carter was playing it safe; there is NO evidence
tieing Iraq to the 9/11 terrorist attacks and in fact as previously
reported here there is evidence to the contrary. Furthermore,
there is also "persuasive evidence" of Bin-Ladenists on United States soil
(and before 9/11 too). Does that mean we should invade ourselves?