In today’s White House press briefing, spokeswoman Dana Perino tried to justify President Bush’s escalation in Iraq by stating, “The terrorists that are seeking a safe haven in Iraq, if we were to leave, would find one, just like they had one in Afghanistan.” When reporter Helen Thomas asked how she knows that statement is true, Perino replied, “Well, based on experience from September 11th, that’s how we know it.”
Ms. Perino was probably not saying that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. What I believe she means is that allowing a post-Saddam Iraq to become a haven for Al Qaeda-like terrorists, as Afghanistan was before 9/11, would pose a significant danger to the U.S. and the West.
OK...to the best of our knowledge that is WRONG. A new survey of military and diplomatic analysts concludes that “the likelihood that enemy combatants from Iraq might follow departing U.S. forces back to the United States is remote at best.”
But let's assume it is in the US interest to fight terrorism in Iraq and I believe it is as there were no terrorists to speak of before the US got there. It's sort of our responsibility to help.
The problem is that the US staying in Iraq is what is breeding more new terrorists by the day. Heck according to al Qaeda messing with Iraq in Gulf War I was a primary reason they gave for attacking on 9/11. So what Bush is doing is ass backwards as always.
Hillary Clinton's statements that as president she would keep **some** troops in Iraq to battle Al Qaeda if needed makes MUCH more sense. Removing most or all of the US troops would remove the reason the terrorists are in Iraq. There are very few terrorists in Iraq and most of the violence is due to civil war insurgents but if Iraq requested our help to limit the terrorism I see no reason not to grant them a reasonable level of assistance...but most of the US troops should be redeployed. It's hurting having US troops in Iraq, more than it is helping. If 9/11 taught us anything...it's that.
