What would happen if Al-Qaeda were allowed to take over a weak, war torn country that America had left undefended? That's really the question we need to ask ourselves as we listen to the President and the wannabes on the other side lay out their respective cases for what to do now.
The President made a strong case in his televised address tonight for continuing the campaign to root out the terrorist in Iraq. He started with the strongest argument in his arsenal: Al-qaeda is at war against our ally, yes our ally Iraq.
This is the same Al-Qaeda that attacked us many times and the same terrorist group that hit us on 9/11/2001 Not only is that a very strong argument to continue the campaign, it is an honest claim of success so far in that country.
This President, with scant little help from Democrats, has turned a nation once ruled by a mortal enemy of America into our ally in a region of the world where we have too few allies.
Now our ally needs our (continued ) help. Some Democrats will make weak, worn out and illogical arguments against standing with America's newest ally, Iraq. We have heard their talking points ad-nausem "Al-Qaeda wasn't in Iraq before we got there". Not completely true but, totally meaningless.
When we fight a stateless, ideologiclly based movement we fight them based on where they are, not when they got there. Even if we accept the blame America firsters claim that we caused Al-qaeda to come to Iraq, we should then understand the best place to ambush the bastards is in the country where are troops are waiting for them. Get it?
Now, let's return to the question I asked at the beginning of this post: What would happen if we allowed Al-Qaeda to take over a weak, war torn country that we had left un-defended? Look at the picture at the top of this post. Do you remember that day. That is what happened when we allowed Al-Qaeda to take over the weak, war torn country of Afghanistan. That's why we fight.