"Five months after we liberated Iraq, a collection of killers is desperately trying to undermine Iraq's progress and throw the country into chaos. … Some of the attackers are foreign terrorists, who have come to Iraq to pursue their war on America and other free nations. … The terrorists have a strategic goal. They want us to leave Iraq before our work is done. They want to shake the will of the civilized world. In the past, the terrorists have cited the examples of Beirut and Somalia, claiming that if you inflict harm on Americans, we will run from a challenge. In this, they are mistaken. ... We will do what is necessary, we will spend what is necessary, to achieve this essential victory in the war on terror.
Second, Bush argued that ousting Arab tyrants is inherently necessary to the war on terror:
The Middle East will either become a place of progress and peace, or it will be an exporter of violence and terror that takes more lives in America and in other free nations. The triumph of democracy and tolerance in Iraq, in Afghanistan and beyond would be a grave setback for international terrorism. The terrorists thrive on the support of tyrants and the resentments of oppressed peoples. When tyrants fall and resentment gives way to hope, men and women in every culture reject the ideologies of terror and turn to the pursuits of peace.
Think for a minute about what these two arguments entail. The first justifies any war in which, as a result of our actions, terrorists attack our troops. Imagine an invasion of Cuba, whose dictator has long rankled Bush and would be easier to topple than Saddam was. No doubt al-Qaida and other terrorist groups would send agents to try to kill the occupying troops. Bush could then defend the occupation as part of the "war on terror.""
Huh? I'm not seeing YOUR argument here. Are you suggesting that Afghanistan was better under the Taliban? What about human rights, esp those of women in that regime? Any changes now, ya think? What about the Iraqi people. All was hunky dorey under the benevolent Saddam's rule? Ah, don't dare try to combine/compare the two! They were totally, completely separate sovereign regimes! Forget the fact that bin Laden and Saddam were both inhuman dictators who had no regard for human life, who hated America with a blinding passion, whose tactics and ethnocentrism was similar to Hitler's.
Nope, don't compromise the health and welfare of our troops to end the despotic, highly threatening reign of two of the world's most heinous leaders. Geeze, as much as liberals try to appear "concerned" with human rights, they sure take an isolationist view when it comes to major threats to the world.
The second argument is equally fraught with implications. Yes, tyranny breeds terrorism. But if the "war on terror" requires us to overthrow tyrants just because they're tyrants, we'll be at war for the rest of your life. These two guys WERE incredibly influencial in terrorist activities. What, exactly do you object to in getting them out?