Saddam Hussein didn’t attack London

Early indications are that an al Qaeda group is claiming responsibility for the horrific London bombings. Whoever turns out to be the culprit, I’m willing to bet that it isn’t Saddam Hussein. He’s in jail. Osama bin Laden isn’t.

And therein lies the criticism that should be directed today, tomorrow, and the next days at President George W. Bush and his neo-con groupthinkers, whose obsession with overthrowing Saddam Hussein has diverted invaluable resources from pursuing Bin Laden and al Qaeda.

Al Qaeda attacked the United States on 9/11. Al Qaeda almost certainly attacked London on 7/7. It’s been proven that Iraq had nothing to do with the first attack, and I’m confident that the same will be the case with the second attack.

Just imagine:

What if Bush had spent 200 billion dollars over the past few years on destroying the al Qaeda network, rather than the Baathists in Iraq?

What if 150,000 American troops had been pursuing Bin Laden and his cohorts, rather than trying to pacify the Iraqi insurgency?

What if the United States had brought the world together to fight Islamic terrorism, rather than fostering international divisiveness through its invasion of Iraq?

What if? That’s the question in my mind today. I don’t hold Bush responsible for the London attacks, but I do hold him accountable for not doing all that he could to prevent them.

Comments

[Nick Robbinson]

Excuse me....Mr Bush killed 30,000 innocent people when he declared war on a country for no apparent reason. So the terrorists got back with a few small bombs.....looks like they have a few more bombings to do before they can catch up with the world's greatest terrorist of all time....Mr Bush himself.