I copied this article from another site and posted here for the edification of those who continue to bleat the liberal mantra that Saddam did not attack the US, so why are we taking action against him ... I have no illusion that this will alter the thinking of the liberals among us, however much I might wish it could.
I cannot help but wonder whether those who are so unwilling to take the action against Saddam that is so clearly warranted would have also followed that same thought pattern and opposed the entry of the US in WWII on the grounds of "But why Germany and Italy? ... they didn't bomb Pearl Harbor"
No need for action has been more clear in my entire life ... few cases in history have been as compelling as this is now ... is there NOTHING that would motivate those who are so reluctant now? Would ANY cause be sufficient to spur them to action ??? Sadly, the answer is ... seemingly not ...
here's my post:
The real pea is under Dems' heads
http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com | Last week's capture of al-Qaida bigwig Khalid
Shaikh Mohammed suggests that the Democrats may have been overhasty in claiming
the war with Iraq was distracting President Bush from the task of pursuing the "real
terrorists." Mohammed is described as the CEO of al-Qaida, with Osama bin Laden as
chairman of the board. Mohammed was the mastermind of the Sept. 11 terrorist
attacks, the bombings of American embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, and the attack
on the USS Cole.
If impeached former president Bill Clinton had ever caught a fish as big as Mohammed,
he would still go down in history as America's worst president, but at least he would
have a single foreign policy accomplishment. Last September, Clinton was among those
braying that it was insanity to go to war with Iraq rather than concentrating on
al-Qaida: "Saddam Hussein didn't kill 3,100 people on Sept. 11; Osama bin Laden did."
The Democrats love this argument. Their infantile obsession with Osama bin Laden to
the exclusion of all other Arab terrorists allows them sound like hawks while opposing
all anti-terrorism initiatives. They angrily denounce war with Iraq as an unnecessary
distraction from their single-minded focus on capturing Osama bin Laden.
In the week before Mohammed's capture, they were all reading from the same hymnal.
Bernie Sanders, socialist congressman from Vermont said: "The man who killed 3,000
innocent Americans, his name is not Saddam Hussein. His name is Osama bin Laden."
Rep. Dennis Kucinich, Democratic presidential candidate and strange-looking little man,
said: "Iraq was not responsible for the attack on the World Trade Center or the
Pentagon."
Also days before the Bush administration captured a major al-Qaida leader, an article
in The New York Times referred to "the Bush administration's inability to achieve one of
the main goals of its anti-terror effort, the capture of al-Qaida's leaders." Norman
Mailer said the Bush administration turned to Iraq when -- I quote -- "the campaign in
Afghanistan failed." He must still be reading The New York Times from October 2001,
when the Times was predicting America's defeat in Afghanistan. Unable to capture the
top al-Qaida leaders, Mailer said, Bush "decided the real pea was under another shell.
Not al-Qaida, but Iraq."
Whoops. It turns out that, unlike the Democrats, a Republican administration can
walk and chew gum at the same time.
After an arrest like that, Clinton would have held 17 press conferences to praise
himself and attack Republicans. Bush has held no press conferences on the capture of
this major al-Qaida leader. And yet the Times has repeatedly characterized the
administration's bland, straightforward statements about the arrest as "triumphal."
"Triumphal" is apparently New York Times code for: "Bush was right and we were
wrong."
Not only has the Bush administration figured out how the world's only superpower can
fight more than 12 guys at once, but the Democrats' premise is absurd: Terrorism
would not instantly vanish if Osama bin Laden were eliminated. Mohammed's career in
terrorism is a good example of the far-flung networking among Arab terrorists.
According to The New York Times, Mohammed was a free-lance terrorist until around
1998 when, down on his luck, he joined up with al-Qaida. Since Sept. 11, he has
helped al-Qaida reinvent itself by "solidifying alliances with other terror groups and
permitting midlevel agents to plan and execute attacks."
This leads to a perilous question: What excuse will Democrats use to oppose the war
on terrorism after Osama bin Laden is captured? We may soon find out. This week,
Time magazine is reporting that for the first time since the bombardment of Osama's
cave in December 2001, U.S. officials have been able to determine that Osama bin
Laden is alive. Mohammed is considered a key to bringing bin Laden to justice.
Human rights groups have responded to the capture of this major al-Qaida figure with
the plea: DON'T HURT HIM! They are hysterical at the possibility that the government is
torturing Mohammed for information. There are dark rumors that terrorists are being
stripped, humiliated, strapped down and subjected to total sleep deprivation with
lights and noise. Then it turned out the hapless victims of such brutal tactics weren't
terrorists, but airline passengers since Sept. 11.
No one even knows where Mohammed is being held, much less how he is being
treated. It's a tricky business interrogating terrorists. When questioning people who
live in caves, government officials have to go pretty far just to deprive them of the
comforts of home.
Soon liberals will be asking why we're even questioning Mohammed. As Bill Clinton
would say: Khalid Shaikh Mohammed didn't kill 3,100 people on Sept. 11; Osama bin
Laden did.
(The author of this article, JWR contributor Ann Coulter is the author of Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right).
