if you mean radical, fundamentalist islamic terrorism, and the states that enable them (and can there be any doubt iraq was an enabler of terrorism?), then i'd agree. iraq is merely a first step. subsequent steps won't necessarily be miltary, but our success in iraq will put pressure on other autocratic regimes in the region. it's already had that effect on libya, syria is feeling the heat, as is iran (imagine iran surounded by democratic governments in afghanistan and iraq- how long do you think the mullahs could hold on?), and we can only hope SA will begin to feel the heat soon.
hmmm, ghadaffi's son gets it! via AP: http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-3900155,00.html "Instead of shouting and criticizing the American initiative, you have to bring democracy to your countries, and then there will be no need to fear America or your people," said Seif al-Islam Gadhafi. "The Arabs should either change or change will be imposed on them from outside."
Of all the major states in the mideast, pre-invasion Iraq was probably the least plausible power base for radical, fundamentalist islamic terrorism. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Yemen, Iran all far, far outrank Iraq as far as producing terrorists goes....terrorists that attacked the US. And in the short term they (and Iraq) will produce more, thanks to the invasion of Iraq...and unfortunately all it takes is one to get through.
Writing in the New York Post, the Iranian commentator Amir Taheri has this to say about the effect draining the swamp has had: http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/21654.htm -- Hamas and virtually all other Palestinian radical groups have been experiencing growing difficulties in attracting new recruits, especially for suicide operations. Hamas is also facing financial difficulties. The fall of Saddam Hussein closed what had become the single biggest source of funds for Hamas in the past five years. Several other Arab countries have been forced to close channels through which funds were collected for and directed to Hamas.
Holman Jenkins, writing in the subscription only Political Diary makes this point about clarke's book: "What you have is classic bureaucratic myopia. The invasion of Iraq was a presidential decision, made by looking at the totality of the national interest. Mr. Clarke's niche was terrorist organizations narrowly defined. And like all such "stovepipe" occupants in Washington, he spent his life trying to get others to adopt his narrow priorities rather than trying himself to see a bigger picture. Gen. Eisenhower is credited with the dictum: If a problem is insoluble, enlarge it. Mr. Clarke's book is an expression of bureaucratic rage that the Bush administration enlarged the terrorism problem beyond Mr. Clarke's bailiwick."
and on 9/15, 2001, clarke sent an email to condi, via AP: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-03-24-clarke-whitehouse_x.htm -- "When the era of national unity begins to crack in the near future, it is possible that some will start asking questions like did the White House do a good job of making sure that intelligence about terrorist threats got to the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) and other domestic law enforcement authorities." He attached an earlier memo from before Sept. 11 in which Clarke warned such agencies that "a spectacular al-Qaeda terrorist attack was coming in the near future." "Thus, the White House did insure that domestic law enforcement ._._. knew that (his office) believed that a major al-Qaeda attack was coming and it could be in the U.S.," Clarke's e-mail said.
and Rich Lowery points out that none of the points clarke made on background in 2002 appear in his book: -- In his 2002 briefing, Clarke said that the Bush administration decided in "mid-January" 2001 to continue with existing Clinton policy while deciding whether or not to pursue more aggressive ideas that had been rejected throughout the Clinton administration. Nowhere does this appear in his book. He said in 2002 that the Bush administration had decided in principle in the spring of 2001 "to increase CIA resources ._._. for covert action, five-fold, to go after al Qaeda." Nowhere is this mentioned in his book.
and from a 1999 WaPo article (link requires payment) clarke made the connection between Iraq and bin laden, a point former secretary cohen made pains to reiterate in his testimony before the commission: http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost/38284880.html?did=38284880&FMT=ABS -- Clarke did provide new information in defense of Clinton's decision to fire Tomahawk cruise missiles at the El Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan, in retaliation for bin Laden's role in the Aug. 7 embassy bombings. While U.S. intelligence officials disclosed shortly after the missile attack that they had obtained a soil sample from the El Shifa site that contained a precursor of VX nerve gas, Clarke said that the U.S. government is "sure" that Iraqi nerve gas experts actually produced a powdered VX-like substance at the plant that, when mixed with bleach and water, would have become fully active VX nerve gas. Clarke said U.S. intelligence does not know how much of the substance was produced at El Shifa or what happened to it. But he said that intelligence exists linking bin Laden to El Shifa's current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts and the National Islamic Front in Sudan.
with apologies to sam, it's Kerry v. Kerry: "It's primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation."--Massachusetts senator John Kerry on the war on terror, Jan._29 "Honestly, I don't understand if we're attacked and attacked and attacked and attacked, why we continue to send the FBI over like the Khobar Towers was a crime scene or the East African Embassy bombings was a crime scene."--9/11 commissioner and former Nebraska senator Bob Kerrey, March_24
The Bush administration is just using a tried and true Clinton strategy with regard to people who criticize them: Nuts and Sluts. If it was okay for Clinton it's okay for Bush.
What somebody ought to tell Condi Rice is that she needs to testify in front of the 9/11 committee, without being subpenoed first.
Small wheels go around in small circles. Did Kerry vote against using the military in the war in Afghanistan? I have faith that you can connect the dots.
Slightly incorrect... the "Nuts and Sluts" phrase is etymologically descended from David Brock's characterization of Anita Hill during the Clarence Thomas hearings "A little bit nutty, a little bit slutty" from his infamous book "The Real Anita Hill", which of course, he later recanted. The efforts to discredit Hill pretty much represent the mother of all smear the whistleblower campaigns. Of course, the critical difference between Clinton and Bush is that there is currently a grand jury investigation of the crimes which were committed when they leaked Valerie PLame's name. As far as I know, Clinton's PR efforts never crossed that line.
The FBI confirms who did it, finds the clues, We use the evidence to enlist all countries to our aid, and the military takes action if that's the best course. It all works out nicely together.
Not to mention that most of the criticisms of this administration has to do with the war during which, apparently, we're not supposed to criticize him. As if that makes any sense.
