"Kurgan Gringioni" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Please supply the evidence that Saddam is tied to Al Qaeda. Saddam does
have links to other groups, but Al Qaeda is the only one
> that matters in this debate because Al Qaeda is the only group which has
attacked the US on our soil.
It seems we have a fundamental disagreement on what is required before one is declared a threat
with which the country must deal. You seem to believe that the only threats that exist with which
the country must deal spawn from those who have previously attacked us. I believe you have to
expand the vision and ask not just "what has been done" but "what could be done" and "what is the
risk to the nation." The former inquiry requires looking at past acts. The latter inquiry requires
looking at past acts, known and surmised intentions, and capabilities. Incidentally, this is not a
new conception of threats to national security. JFK said, "We no longer live in a world where only
the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nation's security." Similarly,
we no longer live in a world where only those who have attacked a nation or those with whom the
former have a clear link constitute a threat to a nation's security. That's why the WMD and the
refusal to relinquish it is important (the WMD raises the risk factor to an intolerable level,
which may not be achieved in the absence of the threat of a WMD attack). That's why the links to
terrorism, including those like Abu Ibrahim who attacked US interests are important. Making the
sorts of judgments that the latter inquiry requires is a difficult task. I know it's easier to curl
into a ball and repeat the mantra "they have not attacked us; they are not a threat" than it is to
make the difficult judgments. But this is what ensuring national security entails. Yes, there are
links to Al Qaeda, but no, they are not conclusive. Yes Saddam is active in training Islamic
terrorists to do things such as hijack
airlines(
http://query.nytimes.com/search/article-page.html?res=9B01EED81E39F 93BA35752C1A9679C8B63
-- you can also look for interviews with Sabah Khodad), but no, it's not irrefutable Al Qadea were
among those trained. That's where the disagreement lies. You would require such proof and require
it be irrefutable before action is undertaken. You have firm individual requirements that must meet
some firm threshold. I don't think that threats to national security can be evaluated by such a
check-the-box method. I think the total picture that the individual elements form is more important
and that it need not be required that each individual element reach some threshold. This is a
debate that has raged for decades, will rage for decades more, and has seen, on both sides, earnest
men passionately making earnest arguments, all of whom do so believing they are right
