Iraq and 9/11
After President Bush's Tuesday night address, we had the usual suspects whining about his mentions of 9/11 and asserting "Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11!" Some were even "offended" by those mentions. I am getting really sick of this, for two reasons.
Reason the first: there were a number of ties between Iraq and al-Qaida. This is detailed rather well here. As for the report of the 9/11 Commission, it said that it couldn't prove any operational ties between the two -- i.e., while it was known that there were links between the two, they didn't have substantive evidence of Iraq playing a direct role in the 9/11 attacks, that on the USS Cole, or the embassy bombings. However, absence of evidence is not always evidence of absence, especially considering the number of links between the two.
Reason the second (which I think is more important): we are not out to avenge 9/11, we are out to prevent the next one. Various liberals wish to turn the "War on Terror" into the "Manhunt for Osama". To do this is to miss the point entirely. Catching Osama and others involved in the 9/11 plot would be terrific, but it's only a small portion of our mission. One man does not an entire terrorist organization make. If we get Osama, someone takes his place. We need to crush Islamofascist terrorism as a whole. One of the best ways to do that is to take the fight to them. Despite various liberals (Kerry, Dean, Kennedy, et cetera ad infinitum) protests that Iraq has been a "distraction" from the War on Terror, it is actually the front lines in it. We are facing al-Qaida and its sympathizers everyday in Iraq. The terrorists have themselves admitted that it's the frontline in the war, including in statements from Osama bin Laden himself. It's been said millions of times, but I'll say it again: I'd rather fight them over there than over here. Oh, and as for the allegation that the terrorists weren't there until we show up, consult the link above for a few rebukes of that theory.
Reason the first: there were a number of ties between Iraq and al-Qaida. This is detailed rather well here. As for the report of the 9/11 Commission, it said that it couldn't prove any operational ties between the two -- i.e., while it was known that there were links between the two, they didn't have substantive evidence of Iraq playing a direct role in the 9/11 attacks, that on the USS Cole, or the embassy bombings. However, absence of evidence is not always evidence of absence, especially considering the number of links between the two.
Reason the second (which I think is more important): we are not out to avenge 9/11, we are out to prevent the next one. Various liberals wish to turn the "War on Terror" into the "Manhunt for Osama". To do this is to miss the point entirely. Catching Osama and others involved in the 9/11 plot would be terrific, but it's only a small portion of our mission. One man does not an entire terrorist organization make. If we get Osama, someone takes his place. We need to crush Islamofascist terrorism as a whole. One of the best ways to do that is to take the fight to them. Despite various liberals (Kerry, Dean, Kennedy, et cetera ad infinitum) protests that Iraq has been a "distraction" from the War on Terror, it is actually the front lines in it. We are facing al-Qaida and its sympathizers everyday in Iraq. The terrorists have themselves admitted that it's the frontline in the war, including in statements from Osama bin Laden himself. It's been said millions of times, but I'll say it again: I'd rather fight them over there than over here. Oh, and as for the allegation that the terrorists weren't there until we show up, consult the link above for a few rebukes of that theory.
posted by DC | 12:53 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home