God’s Message to Ken Ham »« Coach Dave Got Fired. Again.

Kinchlow Thinks Iraq Involved in 9/11

When I was growing up as a Christian in the early 1980s, we used to watch the 700 Club every day. The co-host at the time was Ben Kinchlow, who remains a prominent figure in the Christian right. In this interview with David Pakman, he claims that Iraq was involved in 9/11. He can’t point to any actual evidence of that, only vague stuff about research that showed it. And then he just babbles like an idiot. Facts simply don’t matter to them.

Comments

  1. Chiroptera says

    …only vague stuff about research that showed it.

    Well, it wouldn’t take much “research” to show it — just a bunch of old newspaper clippings from before the invasion. If I recall correctly, the mainstream media was pretty much repeating the Administration lies about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction and Al Qaeda and invasion by tripods from Mars.

  2. Michael Heath says

    This meme was one of the questions a U. of Maryland study used to understand the degree to which some people were misinformed. People who watched Fox News were particularly susceptible.

    It was especially useful to the Bush Administration’s 2001-2003 attempts to divert our attention away from al Qaeda and Afghanistan and instead onto their preferred target, Iraq.

  3. dingojack says

    Chiroptera – wait now. I spent all that time trying to build a brave new world (with just a handful of men) – FOR NOTHING?!? Shit!
    ;) Dingo

  4. ianeymeaney says

    “And then he just babbles like an idiot. Facts simply don’t matter to them.”
    Wait, are we talking about Ham or Hovind or Robertson or King or…
    The most embarrassing thing about the 700 Club is that I’m related to Robertson on my mother’s side. I’m going to drown my sorrows in massive amounts of alcohol now ;)

  5. StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return! says

    Reminds me of the excellent carton where a group are pulling up exhumed skeletons from mass graves in huge piles and saying :

    “Nope, no reason to topple Saddam Hussein here.”

    Saddam Hussein was a pyschopathic, mass murdering dictator thug.

    Saddam Hussein deserves the blame for the war at least as much as G. W. Bush if not more.

    Why the fuck are so many on the political left so willing to ignore this basic reality again?

  6. StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return! says

    The Coalition of the Willing toppled Saddam Hussein – who bluffed that he had WMDs when he didn’t and missed his opportunity to avoid the war and go peacefully into exile – and liberated the Iraqui people.

    The Iraqui people responded by .. looting, rioting and descending into intra-Islamic sectarian civil war.

    Tell me again whose fault this is?

    Don’t at least a few of you think the Iraqui people need to be held responsible for their own poor choices here?

    Or will you always blame the Western side regardless of the facts?

    The Iraquis chose .. poorly.

  7. dingojack says

    Boy Stevo – is that wilful ignorance or simply a product of the lack of educational opportunities?
    Dingo

  8. eidolon says

    StevoR @5

    If the US were to wage war on every mass murdering despot, we would be in Africa, Central and South America, the Middle East, and the Far East. Further, I am not sure you can support your claim that Saddam was a psychopath and to claim that he was equally the blame for the war as was Bush seems to a rather selective claim. By setting criteria for “non-war” by the Bush administration that were clearly not going to be acceptable, Bush set the scene for his desired war based on lies and fabrications.

  9. caseloweraz says

    Here are the five most recent recent NYT headlines about Iraq:

    Aug. 21: “Car bombings kill at least 10 people and wound dozens in three southern cities in Iraq.”

    Aug. 20: “United Nations refugee agency says at least 29,000 Syrians have flooded into northern Iraq over course of four days, calling it one of the largest cross-border migrations since the Syrian conflict began in 2011.”

    Aug. 16: “American officials report that Syrian conflict has provided a sanctuary for leaders of Al Qaeda’s Iraq affiliate who are orchestrating attacks in Baghdad and other cities…”

    Aug. 13: “Three explosions, including suicide bombing in a cafe, kill at least 26 people in central and western Iraq.”

    Aug. 9: “Gunmen storm home of policeman in Iraq, killing 13 people, including officer and his entire family; nearby car bomb explodes killing eight bystanders.”

    Considering the level of violence, the availability of utilities like water and power, the treatment of women, is Iraq better off today because we took out Saddam Hussein?

    Then there’s the geopolitical stability of the region, which has decreased.

    You’re right: Saddam Hussein was a thuggish murderer and tyrant. Much the same could be said about the House of Saud. Should we take them out with troops and cruise missiles too?

  10. Al Dente says

    StevoR @5

    As an evil dictator Saddam Hussein didn’t hold a candle to the Kims of North Korea. So why aren’t you advocating invading there?

  11. Michael Heath says

    StevoR writes @ 5:

    Why the fuck are so many on the political left so willing to ignore this basic reality again?

    Well, how the fuck you do remain so cowardly in terms of your failure to cite the bad behavior you claim was demonstrated? Perhaps because it exists only in your own imagination where we easily validate is true in this thread given that neither the blogger or comments prior to your post @ 5 either claimed Saddam Hussein wasn’t evil or didn’t act in a way that didn’t justify valid arguments for his removal.

    Instead the actual topic is how some on the right falsely tied to Hussein to 9/11 to create a false pretext for war. Your red herring might work in forums with numbskulls, but evidently not so well here.

  12. says

    Geezus. Apparently one cannot be critical of lies and ignorance because it means you love dictators. Or does StevoR believe that Saddam had a hand in the events of 9/11?

  13. Pierce R. Butler says

    StevoR @ # 5: Saddam Hussein deserves the blame for the war at least as much as G. W. Bush if not more.

    Yeah, if only he’d handed over all the rights to Iraqi oil and turned over his government to an incompetent Henry Kissinger flunky the first time a Bush asked him politely…

  14. colnago80 says

    Re SteveoR

    I think that the issue is not whether Saddam was a bad actor. The issue is whether he had some involvement in the 9/11 attacks. It is my information that there is not a jot or a tittle of evidence that he was. Al Qaeda was headquartered in Afghanistan and that’s where the effort should have gone.

    As a matter of fact, the entire Iraq operation was an exercise in stupidity. If the effort that went into Iraq had, instead, been directed at Afghanistan, the Taliban would have been totally defeated long ago and the US would be long out of there. Instead, the Taliban was given a breather and allowed to recover from the initial shock.

  15. exdrone says

    SteveR,
    For me, it has to do with the reasons used by a nation to go to war. It’s fine to go to war for all the reasons you listed if those are the reasons advocated by the government to commit blood and treasure. Unfortunately, the Bush administration chose to fabricate other reasons related to 9/11, al Qaeda and WMD. You cannot risk the lives of soldiers and civilians for lies, regardless of the possible subsequent benefits.

  16. dogmeat says

    Why the fuck are so many on the political left so willing to ignore this basic reality again?

    Perhaps because yours is a very dishonest question?

    First, as has been established by many who regularly read and comment here, no one was suggesting that Hussein wasn’t an evil bastard. This isn’t about whether or not Hussein should have been removed from power; instead it is about lying and manipulating all facets of our society to get a war of choice. They lied to Congress, they lied to the media, and they directly lied to the people. These were some of the same people who had supported Hussein previously, who had argued against removing him from power in ’91, and who had attacked Clinton mercilessly for “wagging the tail” every time he used force to enforce the no-fly zones, etc. No one is saying, or even suggesting that Hussein wasn’t an evil, rat-fuck bastard, they are instead talking about the lies that led to massive instability in Iraq, tens of thousands of deaths, and trillions of dollars spent on a war of choice.

    Second, you bring up mass graves that the vast majority of the victims were shown to be from prior to 1991, many from back when we were actually materially supporting that same Hussein regime. That simple fact, that you fail to mention, makes the hypocrisy and dishonesty of the Bush administration even greater and draws further questions regarding your motives and the legitimacy of your argument.

    Finally, Hussein would have been allowed to leave and go into exile? Really? You honestly believe that?

  17. colnago80 says

    Re dogmeat @ #19

    Is there any doubt that the Assads, pere and fils in Syria are as bad or worse then Saddam. Assad pere was responsible for ordering the massacre in Hama in 1982 (dubbed Hama Rules by New York Times columnist Tom Friedman). So far Assad fils has exceeded his fathers atrocities, including the latest chemical weapons attack on a civilian population last week. There doesn’t seem to be much desire to cancel Assad fils’ ticket in Washington or elsewhere. In fact, the Assad kleptocracy has been tacitly supported by the US and Israel for some 40 years because he laid low on the Golan Highths.

  18. dogmeat says

    colnago80@ 20

    I’m not certain what your question has to do with my comment. The situation in Syria is, and has been, unfortunate. I don’t see the Obama administration going in on the ground, perhaps drone strikes, but after Iraq and Afghanistan, I don’t see a ground offensive in our near future. The possible exception might be if a Republican enters office in ’17, then all bets are off with Iran.

    As for Syria itself, I would like to see a true multinational effort, preferably UN, but with Russia’s attitudes and actions, I don’t foresee that happening either.

  19. Nick Gotts says

    Don’t at least a few of you think the Iraqui people need to be held responsible for their own poor choices here? StevoR

    Why the Iraqui people should be held responsible for what some Iraqis have done, let alone for what they certainly didn’t do (9/11) I’ve no idea. But then, I’ve no idea who the Iraqui people are.

    So far Assad fils has exceeded his fathers atrocities, including the latest chemical weapons attack on a civilian population last week. – genocidal scumbag

    It’s always amusing, in a ghastly way, when this shameless advocate of genocide starts tut-tutting about atrocities. As for the recent horrific events in the suburbs of Damascus, maybe it would be wise to wait for what evidence can be gathered, to be gathered. Vile as Assad’s regime is, it is not yet clear that they are responsible for the mass exposure to a toxic agent that seems to have occurred, nor what that agent was. Here are two experts on chemical weapons, quoted by the BBC:

    “At the moment, I am not totally convinced because the people that are helping them are without any protective clothing and without any respirators,” said Paula Vanninen, director of Verifin, the Finnish Institute for Verification of the Chemical Weapons Convention.

    “In a real case, they would also be contaminated and would also be having symptoms.”

    Dr Zanders had doubts about claims that a nerve agent was used.

    “I have not seen anybody applying nerve agent antidotes,” he wrote in a blog post. “Nor do medical staff and other people appear to suffer from secondary exposure while carrying or treating victims.”

  20. colnago80 says

    Re dogmeat @ #21

    The situation in Syria is, and has been, unfortunate.

    My, my, unfortunate. Let’s see, over 100,000 killed so far, refugee numbers approaching 2 million. That’s a little more serious then unfortunate.

    Re Nick Gotts @ #22

    Here’s an article on a family in Israel that had 21 (updated) members of their extended family killed by the alleged gas attack in the suburb of Damascus. From the photograph, there do not appear to be any wounds on the victims, which would seem to support the allegation of chemical weapons being used. Here’s an opportunity to pressure the Government of Israel to accept the remains for burial and for autopsies to be performed.

    http://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-arab-family-loses-18-in-damascus-attack/

  21. colnago80 says

    Re #23

    Of course, even if the Government of Israel agreed to accept the remains, I would be willing to bet that Assad would find some excuse to prevent the transfer. No way in the world he would chance an autopsy which might support the allegations.

  22. dogmeat says

    The situation in Syria is, and has been, unfortunate.

    My, my, unfortunate. Let’s see, over 100,000 killed so far, refugee numbers approaching 2 million. That’s a little more serious then unfortunate.

    I’m not certain why you feel the need to attack me or my comments, especially since your comments amount to nothing more than snarky bitchiness. I agree that the regime in Syria should be forced to step down, I agree that the evidence that they are involved in atrocities is extensive, but what does this line of reasoning have to do with whether or not the Bush administration lied to get into a war in Iraq that had nothing to do with Hussein as an evil murderer, etc.?

  23. colnago80 says

    Re dogmeat

    Let’s make it clear here. Iraq was attacked because of its oil reserves, not because of the beastliness of Saddam. The Assads are just as beastly as Saddam, if not even more so, but we haven’t attacked Syria yet. The difference, Syria doesn’t have much in the way of oil reserves, in addition to not causing trouble in the Golan Highths. If the US does attack Syria, it will be an air attack only, probably by cruise missiles and not designed for regime change, mainly because the US and Israel aren’t sure they want regime change.

Leave a Reply