The consequences to the national security of the United States (which is what I, and the various other people you attack, are concerned with) whether he produces them himself, obtains them from others, or conjures up a genie to create them out of nothing. This is relevant only insofar as it affects the stategies to be used to choke off his potential supply.
If anything, making the point that al-Qaeda is dependent upon external support is to echo the original argument for the Second Gulf War. Having described al-Qaeda as only an arm of a greater enemy, you leave yourself with only the recourse of questioning the inferred fact situation behind the decision (i.e. was Iraq, in fact, a current or likely future source of such support?.
I did not describe al-Qaeda as only an arm of a greater enemy. Nor do I want those of you who seem to be seeking a religious war, to convert the real enemy into only an arm of a greater enemy. The present policy, which threatens the stability of the Near East--such as it is--by half-baked proposals, is helping that real enemy recruit.
If you are really concerned with our National Security, and not just out to wage war on Islam, you are proceeding in the worst possible way to secure it. The arrogance the Government is displaying is offending much of the earth--not just the Islamic part.
Secondly, I have not criticized the Bush decision to invade Iraq. My essay on the present fallacies, Iraq, makes it clear that I believe that the President is entitled to the benefit of the doubt on that.
William Flax