So the libs are making a big deal out of this news.  Apparently the Pentagon has announced that there were no “direct” connections between Saddam and al Qaeda before the invasion of Iraq.

Naturally, the defeatists are triumphant.  I’ve got two reactions:

First, no “direct” connections is a term that’s hard to define.  What if Saddam had some in-direct connections with al Qaeda (and I think it’s undeniable that he did)?  Is that any less of a justification for war than direct connections?  If Saddam were funneling money to al Qaeda fighters through some other terror group or something is that not still material support for international terrorism?

Second, let’s not forget that Islamic terrorism doesn’t begin and end with al Qaeda.  Despite rhetoric from Democrats who are wholly unserious about waging the war on terror (to the point where they’re even disappearing the term from official government business like Stalin disappeared his communist comrades when they strayed from the party line), Osama bin Laden is not the only terrorist in the world who poses a threat to our country.  Saddam was, without a doubt, funding international terrorism.  His open and well-documented support of suicide bombers in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is proof enough of that.

Third, the left is crowing about there not being any al Qaeda in Iraq until after we invaded.  My response to that is, “So what?” More al Qaeda in Iraq means less al Qaeda attacking America.  Which was part of the plan along.

The decision to invade Iraq was a good one, entirely justified by the intelligence on hand and the cruelty and threat of Saddam’s regime.  That the libs can’t seem to grasp this makes me wonder if there if liberalism isn’t caused by some gene deficiency that hinders the ability to think critically.