E-Mail This Article to a Friend Where’s Osama? We’ve got Saddam, but the real threat remains at large. Plus, Romney’s misguided priorities.

THE CAPTURE OF Saddam Hussein, found cowering in a dirt hole with $750,000 by his side, is undoubtedly good news for the war in Iraq. But it means little to nothing for the war on terrorism. Despite the Bush administration’s attempts to link Saddam with the attacks of September 11, there is no connection. Which is something President Bush himself finally copped to in September when he admitted, "We’ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in September the 11th."

So Saddam’s capture raises another question altogether: where’s Osama? Bush’s Iraq follies took precious resources away from the war on terrorism, whose ground zero is Afghanistan. Last month, Knight Ridder quoted former White House counterterrorism coordinator Rand Beers (who now works for Senator John Kerry’s presidential campaign) as saying that resources were pulled from Afghanistan and redeployed to Iraq in time for the invasion. Such resources included "US troops, CIA paramilitary officers, and intelligence-collection devices."

Osama bin Laden, the architect behind the September 11 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, DC, remains at large and a real threat to US and world security. Since March, when US forces invaded Iraq — ostensibly because Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction, which he was about to unleash on Los Angeles or some other densely populated US city — Iraqi forces have been linked with no terrorist attacks outside their own country. And those attacks inside Iraq have been directed at post-invasion outside entities: US and British forces, United Nations personnel, and others.

Al Qaeda, by contrast, has been linked with at least six terrorist attacks in numerous countries since March: a car bomb exploded near expatriate housing complexes in Saudi Arabia last May that killed 29 people and injured nearly 200; bombs exploded in several locations — including a luxury hotel, a nightclub, a Jewish community center, and a cemetery — throughout Casablanca, Morocco, last May, killing about 40; a car bomb in Kabul last June that blew up a bus transporting German peacekeepers, killing four and injuring 31; a bomb exploded near the Marriott Hotel in Jakarta, Indonesia, last August, killing 12 and injuring 150; a second attack on housing complexes in Saudi Arabia last month that killed 11 people and injured about 122; and bombs exploded near the British consulate and two synagogues in Istanbul this month, killing more than 60.

The terrorist group, ironically, has also been linked with an August bomb attack on US headquarters in Baghdad that killed 22. As Newsweek reported this week, bin Laden has supposedly advised Al Qaeda operatives to pick up operations in Iraq because it will be easier to kill Americans there than anywhere else in the world.

It’s clear where the real threat lies. As long as bin Laden remains at large and Al Qaeda remains in operation, no one is safe from terrorist attack.

It’s great that the murderous and evil Saddam is in US custody. But the real threat remains at large. And even once Osama has been killed or captured, terrorism, as promulgated by Islamic fundamentalists, is far from over.

SO GOVERNOR Mitt Romney wants disaster relief from the feds to help with the three snowstorms we’ve been hit with so far? The only "disaster" the Commonwealth is dealing with right now is the governor. He’s the guy who snookered voters into believing he could balance the budget with no new taxes and no cuts to essential government services.

Of course, one year later, it’s clear Romney’s promises were lies. He’s cut local aid to the Bay State’s 351 municipalities, forcing many to lay off police, fire, and school officials. He’s slashed the budgets of the Department of Public Health, the Massachusetts Cultural Council, the Department of Social Services, the Department of Mental Health, the courts, and much, much more.

Remember during the campaign when Romney claimed that, as a Republican, he would be able to get more federal money flowing into Massachusetts? In particular, he asserted that he could get $1.7 billion more in Medicaid reimbursements to help the state deal with rising health-care costs. Instead, Romney chose to limit the numbers of people eligible for such aid rather than ask the feds for assistance.

What does it say about our governor that he was so quick to ask the Bush administration for help paying for snow removal — a fairly mundane task in these parts — and refused to do the same when public safety, education, and health care were on the chopping block? It says he’s the real disaster we’re contending with now. After all, snowstorms can be taken care of with a $5 shovel and some sand. But we’re stuck with Romney at least until 2006.

What do you think? Send an e-mail to letters[a]phx.com