Saturday, April 24, 2004

seditious libel: "But instead of targetting terror cells or the countries that host them (economically, diplomatically, militarily, or through intelligence agencies), we went after a country that might maybe in the future think about supporting terrorists a little."

Overall, Beth wrote a very strong post here, and I highly recommend that everyone, especially Bush supporters, read it with an open mind. But, I have to take exception with this point.
It's easy to say that Saddam didn't support terrorists, but it's just not true. First, you have to deal with the Ansar al-Islam camps that we rolled up in the north, then you have to address the fact that he himself was a terrorist. The meetings in Europe between Iraqi intelligence and Al Quaeda officers (including some of the men involved in 9/11) did occur, and were witnessed by western intelligence officers. Now, maybe Saddam's terrorist connections weren't targetting the US, and I'll be happy to grant that that is likely the case, but I stand firmly on the principle that this is not a global war on terrorists who pose an immediate threat -- this is a global war on terrorists, period. They all need to be destroyed, and Saddam was on that list. Maybe he isn't where I would have gone first, but he's near the top of the list, and it's a first step.

No comments: