Quote:
|
ALthough Saddam Hussein did have some loose ties with Al-Qaeda, we know that he considered Muslim fundamentailists as a threat to his stability.
|
More of a threat than the United States? Clearly not, in hindsight.
As you said, he had ties with Al Qaeda. Now that those ties are proven, they become "loose ties" as the liberals keep running the goal-posts down the field.
Quote:
|
Saying that Saddam would undoubtedly be involved the "next 9-11" smacks of wishful thinking and is not based on any fact that I am aware of.
|
Would you rather wait for the mushroom cloud so we have something to point at? Either way, you'd have blamed Bush, if not for doing too much, for doing too little. As I said, the benefits of preemption aren't something you can't point at, because you're preventing something terrible, not responding to it.
As for WMDs, here's what we've found so far:
Biologics:
Brucella
Congo-Crimean hemorrhagic fever
Chemical:
Ricin
Sarin
Aflatoxin
Not to mention plans for nuclear weapons, attempts at buying nuclear materials, long-range missiles in violation of UN sanctions that clearly weren't working to begin with, except to line the pockets of corrupt Russian and French politicians.
Now if Saddam wasn't a threat, and had no intention of developing WMDs, why do you think he endured twelve years of harmful economic sanctions while sneaking around with all of the above?