That depends on if you want to
fight terrorism or
ignore it. Despite no clear memo from
Saddam congratulating bin Laden on 9/11, Iraq
WAS a state sponsor of terrorism. They funded suicide bombers
in Israel, which was (and is) a major barrier to that Palestinian State so many liberals claim they want. And what about that
large cache of weapons that was intercepted on its way to the Palestinian Authority? Yep, that had Saddam’s fingerprints
all over it. Let’s not forget their plot (actually it was three plots) to assassinate George H.W. Bush in
1993. Additionally, Iraq provided safe harbor for known terrorists such as Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, and quite possibly the infamous
Sheik Yerbouti. True, a lot of dumb Americans thought that Bush told them Saddam was involved in 9/11, but that’s not
Bush’s fault. He never claimed that Iraq was involved. Nor did he say that Iraq was an "imminent’ threat. He said
we needed to oust Saddam BEFORE he became an imminent threat.
But here’s where Bush’s plan to invade Iraq showed balls. Bush’s hope was that overthrowing a state sponsor
of terrorism and replacing it with a democracy would create a ripple effect throughout the Arab world. Ultimately, if that
plan fails, then Bush is guilty of one thing – being too optimistic. So far, his plan has not only proven to the
Arab world that they shouldn’t fuck with the United States, but it has had several side benefits. One of those benefits
has been Lybia giving up its own WMD program. Their program was far more advanced than anyone (including Hans Blix) knew.
Ghadaffi would NEVER have given up his WMD if we hadn’t gone to war with Iraq. Anyone who says otherwise is a lying
sack of merde. Additionally, right after the war, Iran and North Korea showed great interest in talking about what to do with
their own illegal weapons programs.
It was only after the Marxist-Islamist alliance reared its ugly head that both countries went back to their "screw you"
stance on weapons. Why? Simple. Back in October, it looked like Howard Dean was going to waltz into the Democrat nomination.
Kim Dung Il and the Mullahs in Iran thought it likely that Dean would be the next president. They figured that if they could
hold out for another year, they would have it made. They know that Dean is an active member in good standing with the Marxist-Islamist
alliance. As such, he wouldn’t DARE try to disarm them. After all, it was Jimmy Carter and Madeline Albright who caved
in to North Korea’s demands for "energy assistance" (which resulted in them having nuclear weapons which are now
pointed at us and Japan). So the overall positive effect of winning the war in Iraq has been diminished a bit, thanks
to the appeasers. But was it worth it? Not only was it worth it, it was essential.
Howard Dean and the other members of "the alliance" can gloat and laugh all they want about the bombs in Spain being Bush’s
fault. Real Americans know better. Yes, Americans (and our allies) will be killed by terrorists. That’s inevitable.
That was going to happen regardless of any war in Iraq. Bush is doing what he can to reduce those numbers
the only way he can – by destroying the bloodthirsty Islamists before they can destroy us.
