> http://thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20011112&s=alterman
>
>Excerpt:
>
>"The news of the covert program has provoked considerable confusion among
>those who seek to blame the United States for the September 11 massacre.
>Proponents of an overly schematic "blowback" scenario, including at least
>one vocal supporter of the Soviet "rape" of Afghanistan, have seized
>Brzezinski's comments to claim that Osama bin Laden is merely one of
>America's "chickens coming home to roost." This is both simplistic and
>obscene. Blowback exists in absolutely every aspect of life, because nothing
>comes without unintended consequences. Does it make sense to blame the
>destruction of the World Trade Center on a $500 million nonlethal aid
>program that took place more than twenty years ago? We cannot even know for
>certain why the Soviets decided on their invasion."
>
>Even though I think the all involved would've been better off if the Soviets
>were able to maintain their stranglehold on Afghanistan, I find much to
>agree with in the preceding paragraph.
I'm not surprised. Reducing it to a $500m nonlethal aid program misses the political point - Zbiggy & Co. wanted to draw the Soviets in. It's also silly to say that all life involves blowback; of course it does, but in this case, our boys funded and trained some wretched creeps. Between them and the Russkis, who on this list would choose them?
Doug