lefty brain power measured in milli-amps

  1. 4,788 Posts.
    The war on terror has nothing to do with Iraq.

    by John Hawkins


    This is another historical rewrite. The reality is that the pro-war movement in this country since 9/11 has plainly spoken of dealing with Saddam Hussein as part of the war on terrorism almost from the very beginning. Here's George Bush in a speech given on 9/20/2001:


    "Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes visible on TV and covert operations secret even in success.

    We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place until there is no refuge or no rest.

    And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.

    From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."


    Iraq certainly was a state that harbored and supported terrorists and the approach Bush discussed, the Bush Doctrine, was adopted and talked about often in relation to Iraq during the lead up to the war. As proof, look to a column called "Answering 50 Frequently Asked Questions About The War On Terrorism" that I wrote back on March 13, 2003:


    "Why are we going to invade Iraq? Nine days after 9/11, George Bush said,

    "(W)e will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.

    That definition fits Iraq and since they happened to be the easiest nation to make a case against at the UN and in the court of World Opinion, they were our next logical target after Afghanistan -- although they're not our last target."

    The war on terrorism cannot be won as long as there are terrorist supporting states out there. So one way or the other, we need to get those rogue regimes out of the business of supporting terrorist groups of international reach. Saddam led one of those regimes and now, happily, he's gone -- perhaps before the US was hit with an Iraqi based terrorist attack:


    "I can confirm that after the events of September 11, 2001, and up to the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services and Russian intelligence several times received ... information that official organs of Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist acts on the territory of the United States and beyond its borders, at U.S. military and civilian locations." -- Russian President Vladimir Putin as quoted by CNN on June 18, 2004

    Even John Kerry, the flip-flopping Democratic candidate for President last year, seemed to at least agree that the fate of Iraq was crucial to the war on terror:


    "Iraq may not be the war on terror itself, but it is critical to the outcome of the war on terror, and therefore any advance in Iraq is an advance forward in that and I disagree with the Governor [Howard Dean]." -- John Kerry, 12/15/03


    Kerry even pointed out that he thought Saddam might give WMDs to terrorists:


    "I would disagree with John McCain that it’s the actual weapons of mass destruction he may use against us, it’s what he may do in another invasion of Kuwait or in a miscalculation about the Kurds or a miscalculation about Iran or particularly Israel. Those are the things that - that I think present the greatest danger. He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat." -- John Kerry, "Face The Nation", 9/15/02

    Now if even John Kerry of all people is willing to admit that Iraq is "critical to the outcome of the war on terror" and that Saddam was the kind of guy who might use terrorist groups to attack the US, we should be able to at least agree at this point that it's not the least bit disingenuous to suggest that Iraq is an important part of the war on terrorism.
 
arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch. arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch.