Opting for the Inflammatory but Less Likely Interpretation

Anne Kornblut’s article in the WaPo attempts to claim, in the headline to the article, that “Palin Links Iraq to Sept. 11 In Talk to Troops in Alaska”.

Gov. Sarah Palin linked the war in Iraq with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, telling an Iraq-bound brigade of soldiers that included her son that they would “defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans.”

So have we been fighting al Qaeda in Iraq for, what, 5 years?

Was it al Qaeda who attacked us on 9/11?

Are we defending “innocent [Iraqis]” from remnants of al Qaeda in Iraq?

Now watch this waffle as she apparently understands but downplays the point I just made instead opting for the less supportable but more inflammatory interpretation:

The idea that the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein helped al-Qaeda plan the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, a view once promoted by Bush administration officials, has since been rejected even by the president himself. But it is widely agreed that militants allied with al-Qaeda have taken root in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion.

Yes, Ms. Kornblut and in the present, while speaking at a deployment ceremony for a unit going to Iraq, it seems very likely she was pointing to the present situation (AQ in Iraq) as it applies to 9/11 vs. the less likely interpretation that she was referring to Saddam who has been gone for 5 years.

Your objective press at work.

[Crossposted at QandO]

Permalinks


Share this!

Enjoy reading? Share it with your friends!

Send this to a friend