Right, Deacon. Saying that going after Iraq is bad for the war on terror is incomprehensible, like saying that going after cancer is bad for the war on disease. Beyond the obvious–Iraq is one of several sources of terrorism–lies another dark reality. Since the fall of the Soviet empire, terrorists have had no protector powerful enough to give them a safe haven. However, should Saddam Hussein stay in power and obtain nuclear weapons, he would be able not only to “harbor” terrorists as the Taliban did; his nuclear deterrent would allow him to actually protect them from retaliation, as the Taliban could not. Avoiding this situation is essential to ultimate victory in the war.
-
-
Most Read on Power Line
Donate to PL
-
Our Favorites
- American Greatness
- American Mind
- American Story
- American Thinker
- Aspen beat
- Babylon Bee
- Belmont Club
- Churchill Project
- Claremont Institute
- Daily Torch
- Federalist
- Gatestone Institute
- Hollywood in Toto
- Hoover Institution
- Hot Air
- Hugh Hewitt
- InstaPundit
- Jewish World Review
- Law & Liberty
- Legal Insurrection
- Liberty Daily
- Lileks
- Lucianne
- Michael Ramirez Cartoons
- Michelle Malkin
- Pipeline
- RealClearPolitics
- Ricochet
- Steyn Online
- Tim Blair
Media
Subscribe to Power Line by Email
Temporarily disabled
Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.