Basso; An interesting article and I generally agree with its main point that the terminology is problematic and that this would be better termed as a "War on Islamic Extremism" than "War on Terror" From there though the writer falls into the same problem that the Admin is having over justifying going to Iraq because its all just based on speculation trying to connect a few facts in a very selective way. Following Mr. McCarthy's reasoning the US government and many in this present Admin. are just as suspect since they've previously met with and supported both Saddam and the Bin Ladin family in Arabia but also the precursor organizations to Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. If one where to get into rampant speculation one could dredge up the "Bush knew" conspiracy on 9/11 or the "Cheney knew" on the Saddam's invasion of Kuwait by pointing out while ideologically opposed 9/11 and Gulf War both gave huge political dividends for both Bush admins, although only temporary for Bush 41, and ties to the Bin Ladin family and the reconstruction of Iraq huge payoffs for Cheney's former company who he still gets money from Halliburton and to the Carlyle group which the elder Bush is involved. But again that's just rampant speculation but if ones only facts were who met with who how often without considering other information such a conclusion could easily be drawn. Just like just consider that there were meetings between Saddam's regime and Al Qaeda without considering other information, like that their rhetoric and Saddam's history of suppressing extremist Islamic groups means that they probably hate each other almost as much as they hate us, a conclusion could be drawn that Saddam was in cahoots with Al Qaeda.
