|
Talking points:
Since Bush announced "mission accomplished" (May 1, 2003) in the "central front in the war on terrorism" (Iraq), al Qaida has staged several attacks on western targets in Turkey, Spain and Saudi Arabia. Al Qaida allies, such as Zarqawi, have more power in Iraq as a result of the invasion than they did before.
Of course, the reality is that Iraq is not a central front in the war on terror. This is because while Saddam had no ties to al Qaida nor any weapons of mass destruction to give them. Bush and his neoconservative aides either knew or had reason to know this, but disregarded the relevant intelligence and even manipulated intelligence in an effort to make the case for war against Iraq appear much stronger than it actually was. They had long before decided to invade Iraq, regardless of facts, and were simply attempting to make a false case for war. Meanwhile, as Bush and his aides prepared to invade Iraq, they took resources away from Afghanistan, a more realistic place to designate a front in the war on terror; al Qaida took advantage of the release of pressure and regrouped.
Given this, the world is not safer from terrorists as a result of the US invasion of Iraq. On the contrary, it is a blunder of immense proportions that allowed al Qaida to regain strength lost following the action in Afghanistan in the wake of the September 11 attacks. The attacks in Turkey, Spain and Saudi Arabia are the consequence of Mr. Bush's blunder.
Let us hope there is no attack by al Qaida against Americans on American soil, but if there is, it along with the other events mentioned would only underscore the folly of Mr. Bush's approach to the war on terrorism. The very fact that we are even talking about it at this point shows that invading Iraq failed to make the world safe from terrorists. That suggests that we might be better off were we to choose a leader with better judgment, like Senator Kerry.
|