Today we live in a world of information and disinformation where the Internet can be used to pass on distortions and lies very quickly.
There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of websites out there seeking to prove that 9/11 was some kind of government "inside job" perpetrated on us by the U.S. government as a "pretext" for war. People who believe this nonsense will invariably mention the "Northwoods" document, which talks about a plan that was never carried out.
They will sometimes take the PNAC (Project for a New American Century) document out of context to "prove" the government pulled off a "New Pearl Harbor." You even have liberal philosophy/theology professors writing books claiming that 9/11 was some kind of new Pearl Harbor. Yet when you investigate the facts, stripped of the speculative rhetoric, you find all kinds of flaws with these theories, both logical and evidential.
We have abundant evidence, some of which was used in the Moussoui trial, to prove that Islamic terrorists were behind 9/11. To deny this evidence is akin to denying the earth's rounded shape.
Despite the fact that a Federal judge appointed by Clinton ruled in 2003 that Iraq and Al-Qaeda were linked in 911 terrorism, we still have people blindly willing to believe and perpetuate the myth that:
"Using 9/11 as a pretext, the U.S. government launched into a unilaterally grounded war in Iraq, even though none of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi and the despotic Saddam Hussein had no ties to Al Qaeda." (words of Ralph Gordon taken from CityFlight article "Lessons Still Unlearned" Sept. 2006).
Interesting words. But very deceptive if taken at face value. Three points of fact should be mentioned here.
First, we went to Afganistan FIRST, not Iraq. Second, it doesn't matter if none of the hijackers were from Iraq. What matters is what organization they were working with, not where they were from. They were Al-Qaeda operatives. That is what matters.
Mohammed Atta, who piloted flight 11 into WTC 1, was Egyptian. Should we attack Egypt? Ziad Jarrah, who piloted flight 93, was from Lebanon. Should we attack Lebanon also? Remember the American who was fighting with the Iraqis that was captured? Should we attack ourselves now based on that logic because he was originally from America? Nonsense.
Third, and finally, we have more than enough evidence from http://husseinandterror.com/ and the aforementioned Federal court case to prove enough of a "tie" between Saddam and Al-Qaeda for any rational person to be able to admit existed.
The last myth that needs to be debunked is this idea that Bush lied about WMD to get us into Iraq. The problem is, people forget that it was Saddam's repeated misdeeds with UN inspectors and violating UN resolutions that got him and his country in hot war water. If people want to believe that Bush lied, then perhaps you can tell us why Clinton said this in 1998:
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons-of-mass-destruction program."
So if Bush lied, so did Clinton, and so did the intelligence agencies of Britain, China, Germany, Russia, and Israel. But to think that all these other nations also lied doesn't seem reasonable. What seems more likely is that while Bush was busy waiting on the UN, Saddam was busy moving things prior to our troops getting there.
I remember all too well when Bush Jr. was running for office in his first term. People were spreading the Internet rumor that he was shutting down all the traditionally black colleges in Texas. Yet when I began to contact the schools listed, I found NONE of them were closing in any way. Someone simply lied to try to keep the man from getting into office.
The Bible tells us to "test" all things and to hold fast to what is good and true (1 Thess. 5:21; 1 John 4:1; Proverbs 14:15). Too many people are out there blindly accepting what they are told but not testing and critically thinking about what they are being told. Let us not be so foolish in these affairs.