The Burden of Proof should be on the Critics
Soon after 9/11, the conventional wisdom was that we would be attacked again and soon and often. After our invasion of Iraq, the critics said that we were only angering the islamic world and that the war in Iraq would not prevent attacks - it would increase them. Bush argued that it was better to fight the terrorists with our tanks and guns in Iraq rather than here in our streets. The critics said that there was no proof that Iraq was linked to the war on terror and there was no proof that a war in Iraq would reduce terrorist atacks.
The media has diverted the attention of the American people regarding the war in Iraq from the larger picture. They are focused on the success of the democracy project there and not the war on terror and the safety of the American people.
So lets step back......Time has marched on and the critics should be called to account. It has been FIVE years since we have been attacked on American soil. Despite warnings and threats.... still no attack. Not even a bus bomb. What about the millions who hate us, what about the millions of more terrorists waiting to strike. Even if they were to strike tomorrow.
The question needs to be asked again. Has the Iraq war made us safer? I say it has. It has because we have liquidated thousands of terrorists in Iraq, many of them trained in Bin Ladin's training camps. These terrorists would be here but for our war in Iraq. Bush was right. It is better to fight the terrorists over there than over here.
The critics argue otherwise, but now the burden of proof is on them. The results are in, and the results are FIVE years without an attack. I ask the critics to prove that the war in Iraq has not added to this FIVE years of peace.
And if they still remain critics, ask them if it is worth it to withdraw from Iraq and take the risk of another 9/11. Something among Bush's terror policies are working... it could be the patriot act, the aggressive profiling, the war in afghanistan and/or the war in Iraq. Should we take the chance of changing our tune when we have had so much success with the current tune?
The media has diverted the attention of the American people regarding the war in Iraq from the larger picture. They are focused on the success of the democracy project there and not the war on terror and the safety of the American people.
So lets step back......Time has marched on and the critics should be called to account. It has been FIVE years since we have been attacked on American soil. Despite warnings and threats.... still no attack. Not even a bus bomb. What about the millions who hate us, what about the millions of more terrorists waiting to strike. Even if they were to strike tomorrow.
The question needs to be asked again. Has the Iraq war made us safer? I say it has. It has because we have liquidated thousands of terrorists in Iraq, many of them trained in Bin Ladin's training camps. These terrorists would be here but for our war in Iraq. Bush was right. It is better to fight the terrorists over there than over here.
The critics argue otherwise, but now the burden of proof is on them. The results are in, and the results are FIVE years without an attack. I ask the critics to prove that the war in Iraq has not added to this FIVE years of peace.
And if they still remain critics, ask them if it is worth it to withdraw from Iraq and take the risk of another 9/11. Something among Bush's terror policies are working... it could be the patriot act, the aggressive profiling, the war in afghanistan and/or the war in Iraq. Should we take the chance of changing our tune when we have had so much success with the current tune?
posted by Sloanasaurus | 1/08/2007 12:51:00 PM
chirp, chirp, chirp.
Growl, growl, growl
Woof, woo -- I mean, I never asserted being in Iraq was going to bring on domestic terror attacks. I just don't think it's in our interest to be there.
That's answering a question that wasn't asked Scribbler. The question asked was (essentially) "If Bush's strategy is such a complete failure, why is it we haven't been attacked in five years?"
S'aurus asked, "Has the Iraq war made us safer?"
If all snids are quids, are all quids snids? Or are all blids snids, for that matter.
There's no doubt we've averted some potential domestic attacks, but not because of the police action in Iraq. And not necessarily by illegal wiretaps. We're safer because we're alert, because we won't accept flying Imams with seat belt extenders. And some of the domestic policies.
The fact is Scribbler - you don't really know. No one knows exactly what is working and what contributes nothing because Al Qaeda has not sat down to write their memoirs yet on how their attacks have been thwarted.
It is a perfectly reasonable and logical argument to conclude that because we have killed thousands of terrorists in Iraq, the manpower of Al Qeada has been drastically reduced, which has limited their ability to attack us over here. But we don't have an example of say young Omar, who desires to become a martyr and is summoned to Pakistan by Bin Ladin for a mission to America. Omar turns down the mission because he can be in Iraq killing Americans in 3 hours, while going to America may take years.
Why attack them in their home country when you can lure them to come to Iraq where they have no friends, no family members to look out for them, they don't know the terrain... they only have their fellow jihadists from other countries to die with them.
Hmmm. If we're luring them all into Iraq, where did those guys who were going to bomb the London-to-US flight last year come from? It would be too easy if all the terrorists would simply flock to Iraq. Then we could just nuke the place and be done with it.
Post a Comment