Why Isn’t Bush Connecting Iraq And The War On Terrorism?

A lot of people have been puzzled about why Bush hasn’t spent more time tying together Iraq and terrorism. There are certainly plenty of ways Bush could do that if he were so inclined. After all, Iraq has long since been considered to be a ” state sponsor of terrorism” by the State Department, they also sheltered notorious terrorist Abu Nidal until his mysterious death, Saddam’s mistress claimed he met with Bin Laden in 1996, Iraq trained terrorists at the Salman Pak training camp, etc, etc.

So why isn’t Bush pushing this angle? First off, he doesn’t have push it because Iraq is violating UN resolutions from the Gulf War and is pursuing nukes. So Bush can (and has) made a very strong case for hitting Iraq while keeping the “terrorist talk” in the background.

Why is that important? Because if Bush started pushing the fact that Iraq is a pro-terrorist regime as his main reason for hitting Iraq that would lead to a lot of questions that wouldn’t be “helpful” right now as Donald Rumsfeld would say. For example, if we’re really hitting Iraq because they’re part of the “global terrorist network”, wouldn’t it make just as much sense (if not more) to hit Iran and Syria for exactly that same reason? It would actually and isn’t it funny that Syria and Iran both border Iraq? Why if we took Iraq, we wouldn’t have to worry about having bases to hit either of those nations…or if it was necessary, even Saudi Arabia would we? In fact, we could drive tanks right up to their borders or easily make “preemptive” strikes from right next door without having to ask anyone for permission. Funny how it all works out like that isn’t it?

Now, do we really want Europe, the UN, and the dictators and Islamo-fascists in the Middle-East starting to think along these lines BEFORE we’re in Iraq?

Share this!

Enjoy reading? Share it with your friends!

Send this to a friend