I’m trying to figure this out. Now, we’re still ass-deep in the Iraq War, and Bush is still hopscotching around trying to defend his statements concerning Iraq/Al Qaeda connections, but obviously said such things as:

BUSH: [Saddam] was a threat because he provided safe-haven for a terrorist like Zarqawi… [6/17/04]

BUSH: [Saddam] is a man who harbored terrorists - Abu Abbas, Abu Nidal, Zarqawi. [9/23/04]

BUSH: [Zarqawi’s] a man who was wounded in Afghanistan, received aid in Baghdad, ordered the killing of a U.S. citizen, USAID employee, was harbored in Iraq. [3/6/03]

Obviously a HUGE reason for going into Iraq, and one that Cheney et al are still squawking about is that Iraq harbored al Qaeda and other terrorists. So, obviously, if a country has terrorists in it, we are going to go in, dammit. Right? Well, not quite…

“First of all, Pakistan is a sovereign nation,” Bush said. “In order for us to send thousands of troops into a sovereign nation, we’ve got to be invited by the government of Pakistan.”

Okay, so if Iraq is harboring terrorists, that means we have to invade (apparently, after all Cheney said he wouldn’t change anything even if he’d known then that there were no WMDs). Now, if another Islamic regime is harboring terrorists, like Pakistan, we have to ask permission. Does ANYONE still believe the War in Iraq had anything to do with terrorism??

[tags]terrorism, iraq, pakistan, bin laden, al qaeda, bush[/tags]