However, did we learn anything? Bush basically answered the following question the way he has from the beginning:
Another question came from a woman who asked why the Bush administration continues to link the September 11 terrorist attacks with the decision to invade Iraq.
His response:
"9/11 changed my look on foreign policy. I mean, it said that oceans no longer protect us; that we can't take threats for granted; that if we see a threat, we've got to deal with it."
The president said that Saddam Hussein was a threat that was "accentuated by 9/11."
"I made a tough decision," he said. "And knowing what I know today, I'd make the decision again. Removing Saddam Hussein makes this world a better place and America a safer country."
In other words, removing Saddam in a post 9/11 world, even if we didn't find WMD stockpiles, makes the world safer. I'd agree Mr. President, but that answer won't satisfy your detractors, since they usually counter by pointing out the same could be said for the crackpot right next door in Iran, the little gargoyle in North Korea and an assortment of other tinhorns. Without WMDs, what made Saddam so dangerous?
But his answer was not without interest. When asked whether he'd do it again if he had it to do over, Bush used the phrase "knowing what I know today", then said yes. Unlike the moonbat left, I don't consider this as an admission that Saddam was weapons-free. I believe the threat was there, and the truth probably lies in that warehouse full of Iraqi government documents in Qatar. And that's a question I wish someone would have asked.
No comments:
Post a Comment