Going after Saddam Hussein is not a substitute for the war on terror. These are two separate, though similar campaigns.
The Hussein Campaign. Enforce the United Nations that Saddam Hussein disarm. The disarmament deadline was set in 1991, ten years before the attack on the Twin Towers. That deadline was 15 days. We are now over 4,300 days past the deadline. There was a good reason to disarm Saddam Hussein in 1991, long before we ever heard of Osama bin Laden. There is greater reason to disarm Saddam Hussein now.
The Terrorist Campaign. Seek out and destroy those who were responsible for the attacks of September 11th and all who seek to bring terror to our shores as well as those who support them.
There are, of course, connections and similarities between the two campaigns. The focus for both is on the Middle East. Saddam Hussein, the object, of course, of the Hussein Campaign, is known to offer financial and material support to the Islamic terrorists, the objects of The Terrorist Campaign. But the danger presented the our country and the peace and stability of the Middle East and the rest of Europe posed by Hussein is distinctly separate from the threat posed to Americans by Islamic terrorists. The point here is, though, that the two campaigns are separate .. and each campaign would be undertaken whether or not the other campaign existed.
Now ? if you have followed this rather simple concept thus far (which probably means you went to a private school), you will understand that a raid on a Pakistani village looking for Osama bin Laden is a part of
The Terrorist Campaign, not the Hussein Campaign. Likewise, taking out an Iraqi missile battery is a part of The Hussein Campaign, not The Terrorist Campaign.
Taking this a step further; launching an attack on Saddam under The Hussein Campaign does not constitute an admission of failure for The Terrorist Campaign and is not a substitute for actions that might be taken against Saddam.
There, got it? We have two different battle plans being worked right now, and each one pretty much stands on alone. So when you hear bonehead liberals like Bill Maher saying that Saddam shouldn?t be attacked because he had nothing to do with September 11th, try to explain this to them, would you? On second thought, never mind. The idiot wouldn?t understand the concept.
The Hussein Campaign. Enforce the United Nations that Saddam Hussein disarm. The disarmament deadline was set in 1991, ten years before the attack on the Twin Towers. That deadline was 15 days. We are now over 4,300 days past the deadline. There was a good reason to disarm Saddam Hussein in 1991, long before we ever heard of Osama bin Laden. There is greater reason to disarm Saddam Hussein now.
The Terrorist Campaign. Seek out and destroy those who were responsible for the attacks of September 11th and all who seek to bring terror to our shores as well as those who support them.
There are, of course, connections and similarities between the two campaigns. The focus for both is on the Middle East. Saddam Hussein, the object, of course, of the Hussein Campaign, is known to offer financial and material support to the Islamic terrorists, the objects of The Terrorist Campaign. But the danger presented the our country and the peace and stability of the Middle East and the rest of Europe posed by Hussein is distinctly separate from the threat posed to Americans by Islamic terrorists. The point here is, though, that the two campaigns are separate .. and each campaign would be undertaken whether or not the other campaign existed.
Now ? if you have followed this rather simple concept thus far (which probably means you went to a private school), you will understand that a raid on a Pakistani village looking for Osama bin Laden is a part of
The Terrorist Campaign, not the Hussein Campaign. Likewise, taking out an Iraqi missile battery is a part of The Hussein Campaign, not The Terrorist Campaign.
Taking this a step further; launching an attack on Saddam under The Hussein Campaign does not constitute an admission of failure for The Terrorist Campaign and is not a substitute for actions that might be taken against Saddam.
There, got it? We have two different battle plans being worked right now, and each one pretty much stands on alone. So when you hear bonehead liberals like Bill Maher saying that Saddam shouldn?t be attacked because he had nothing to do with September 11th, try to explain this to them, would you? On second thought, never mind. The idiot wouldn?t understand the concept.
