Steve Malzberg
Friday, Aug. 30, 2002

First, a little review of the facts. As we all know by now, 15 of the 19 9-11 hijackers were Saudi nationals. One reason might be that the Saudi government promotes the most severe form of Islam, known as Wahhabism. It's Islamic fundamentalism taken to the extreme.

This is the same Saudi government that recently ran a Terror-thon on Saudi television. Tens of millions of dollars were raised to support the families of Palestinian homicide bombers. King Fahd himself is reported to have given $2.7 million to support terror. Despite requests from President Bush, the Saudi royals refuse to denounce Palestinian terrorists.

Remember last October when Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal gave New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani a gift of $10 million to go toward rebuilding the city? Of course Giuliani gave the check right back after the prince scolded the U.S. for its support of Israel.

Now some of the families of the victims of 9-11 are suing Saudi Arabia for $300 billion on various charges that the government is involved in terrorism. Included in the suit is the allegation that the Saudis have been paying off Osama bin Laden to make sure that his terrorists didn't strike against the royal family.

So, how does the Saudi government hope to score points with these families and with the American public? Reportedly, they want to donate the horse that won the Kentucky Derby and the Preakness Stakes to the victims' families. You see, the horse was owned by Prince Ahmed bin Salman, who died suddenly in July. The Saudis are looking to make this "donation" during Sept. 11 ceremonies at Ground Zero. What gall!! Oh, by the way, the name of this horse happens to be WAR EMBLEM!

If the families don't come right out and tell the Saudis where they can put their horse manure offer, then Mayor Bloomberg of New York City should, and if he won't, then bring back Rudy Giuliani. Not only did he tell the prince to take his money back last October, but he also once kicked Yasser Arafat out of a Lincoln Center function for New York City to which the Mother of All Terrorists had not been invited.

Speaking of horse manure, allow me to change topics. The big lie being put forth by those on the extreme left is getting out of hand. I'm talking about those who are beating the drums, day in and day out, about how we have no right to topple Saddam Hussein because we don't have any hard evidence to back up what we say we know about his threat to his own people, his threat to his neighbors and his threat to the United States and our security. I'll address this in a moment.

First, I need to point out how the looney leftists are misrepresenting what some Republicans have said, in an effort to make it appear as if these Republicans actually agree with their stance of not going into Iraq.

Outgoing Republican Congressman Dick Armey of Texas was one of the last in the house to sign on to the Gulf War. So it's not shocking by any means that he now says that President Bush needs to make his case to the American people before going into Iraq.

Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Nebr., who is seeking re-election in November, has gotten himself a lot of media face time by saying much the same thing as Armey. Note that neither one of these two has ever said that we should not go get Saddam because he's no threat to us or anyone else.

The New York Times was so anxious to get someone with the stature of a Henry Kissinger on the side of the looney left that they completely misrepresented what he had to say about an attack on Iraq. It turns out that he does agree that such an attack is necessary. Oops! Innocent mistake, I'm sure.

The latest to be welcomed into the peacenik camp by the looney left is James Baker. He was secretary of state during the Gulf War. But even though Baker said in his New York Times op-ed that the U.S. needs to go back to the United Nations and get another resolution authorizing us to get Saddam if he doesn't comply, he also realizes that Saddam is a threat.

As George Will writes in his column today, "He says Iraq's regime should be changed and neither covert action nor Iraqi opposition forces will suffice, so ground forces, 'sufficient to occupy the country will be required'."

That's a far cry from what those on the looney left are saying. But it doesn't stop them from claiming Baker is on their side.

Oh, I almost forgot. Another Republican that the loonies are now proud to be associated with is probably the most conservative of the bunch, Jack Kemp. In case you haven't guessed by now, Kemp isn't buying their position either. So, what exactly is their position? Glad you asked.

The peaceniks say that Saddam is not a threat, period. He's not a threat to anyone, especially not the United States. Just how do they know that? They don't. They can't. Why? Because for the last four years Saddam has not allowed inspectors into Iraq. We only know that the U.N. inspectors destroyed plenty of biological and chemical weapons before they were kicked out.

It would be suicide to assume that a) the inspectors got it all, and b) that Saddam hasn't used the four years to replace some or all of those weapons. In fact, even the New York Times admitted in a recent editorial that Iraq does have chemical and biological weapons. That's just what our government has been saying for months now.

The peaceniks say that Saddam has no links to terrorism. That's just dead wrong. Saddam sends thousands of dollars to the families of Palestinian homicide bombers. These bombers have not only killed Israelis but over 30 Americans as well. He also plotted to kill former President Bush. You may recall that Bill Clinton lobbed a missile or two into Iraq in retaliation.

In addition, we have now learned that one of the most wanted terrorists in the world, Abu Nidal, was living in Iraq for at least a year before he turned up dead last week in what has been called a suicide. Iraq also harbors one of our most wanted, who took part in the first bombing of the World Trade Center.

All these things are what we know. We suspect that Saddam has much more direct links to terrorists and terrorist organizations. We also suspect that he will use his weapons of mass destruction against our troops, our friends, and our interests in the region if we allow him to. We also suspect that he will help bring those weapons to our shores, using terrorists to accomplish his dirty deeds.

But none of the above is good enough for the looney left.

They say they see no "proof." "Where's the proof?" they demand. Folks, that is the same kind of reasoning that made the Clinton administration turn down Osama bin Laden on more than one occasion. The Clintonites didn't feel that they had enough evidence to indict bin Laden in a court of law.

The rest is history.

Some of these same peaceniks then wanted to know why President Bush didn't see 9-11 coming. And you can bet that if we don't get Saddam, and G-d forbid he claims responsibility for an attack against America in the future, many of these two-faced looney leftists will demand to know what Bush knew and when he knew it.

That's the kind of horse manure we're dealing with.

Steve Malzberg's WABC Radio shows can be heard live on the Internet at www.wabcradio.com: Monday-Friday, 6-8 p.m. Eastern time, with Richard Bey on "The Buzz" and Sunday mornings from 9-11 a.m.

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
Al-Qaeda
Saddam Hussein/Iraq
War on Terrorism

A product that might interest you:
Saddam Hussein's race to make a nuclear bomb