Not entirely correct...

Submitted by j greer (United States), Oct 16, 2007 at 10:29

I am a supporter of Daniel Pipes. I respect his willingness to recognize the real threat of islamic terrorism. In fact, I have contributed to the MEF and have participated in email campaigns.

However, Daniel Pipes article Pre-empt Terrorists or Not infuriated me with the following statement:

"Nine months later, preemption justified the invasion of Iraq before Iraqis had attacked the United States, to the fury of many."

... I am ashamed Daniel Pipes, whom I respect in many ways, has stooped to the level of defending this administration's lies about the presence of WMDs or Iraq's threat of attack.

I supported the war in Iraq. But it was a very difficult decision for me, one I made after considerable research, thought, and analysis. It was the testimony of Colin Powell in the UN that convinced me Saddam was in league with terrorists and had WMDs. Since then, it has come to light that this was a lie.

The good people of America, the world, and I were all tricked and I'm angry about that. ...

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".