So...if there isn't another terrorist attack before 11/2, that will prove Bush has made us safer and we should vote for him.

But....wait! If there IS another terrorist attack, that will prove al-Quada is trying to influence the elections, a la Spain, and therefore we have to vote for Bush.

The "Accountability Free" political platform. I love it! We have indeed turned a corner.

That would seem to be an extrapolation - the point is that on an objective basis the government has done enough things right to prevent another attack up to this point. The political angles are another matter.

The only terrorism prevention I know of was carried out by airline flightcrew and passengers.

Of course, there may be several attempted attacks I don't know about. But that's why I intend to vote for a less secretive government - so I can stay better informed about these things.

I doubt the intelligence community would function with any less secrecy, nor should they, under a different administration.

maybe they've been using those shortwave number stations too much.

or not enough.

I don't think it's even remotely correct that "the government has done enough things right to prevent another attack up to this point."

95-98% of cargo coming into ports is still not inspected, chemical plants are still unsecured, first-responder funding is still a trickle, police and firefighters have been pulled out and shipped to Iraq reducing local protection ("Reserve Call-Up Drains Nation's First Responders" Fox News), police and fire-fighters are getting laid off because of the economy ...

This administration stirred up the hornets' nest then cut holes in what protective netting they had.

"police and fire-fighters are getting laid"

Reason enough for me to vote for Bush!

yes, pamper those first responders

Bush resisted the creation of this commission from the get-go, and his embrace of the commission's most important recommendation is limited to creating a national intelligence "coordinator" with no budgetary or hiring powers. That, on top of the news that we are currently in a heightened state of terror alert based on intelligence that predates 9/11 itself, gives me little reason to credit Bush with anything other than manipulating the threat of terror for his own political gain.

I'm with you, SKI :-)

The terrorists are emboldened when they see weakness.

The massacre of Marines in Lebanon and the disaster in Somalia both led to American retreats. This encouraged the bastards.

If the US boots our a War President for a Peace Candidate, and we quickly pull out of Iraq before the country is fully stabilized, they will smell weakness. We will have gone from a proactive approach to a hunker-down mentality.

If this occurs, we will all be in more danger, not less.

Right, RJ.

That's why terrorists are congregating in Iraq.

We absolutely need competence in the Commander-in-Chief, and the current one is a flop.

Results count, and Bush has failed.

Lemme get this straight...

Kerry will pull out troops from Iraq, and the terrorists will LEAVE?

You're funny...

The greatest blow to al-Qaida has come from the removal of its haven in Afghanistan and the disruption of the permissive environment it enjoyed in numerous countries in Europe and Asia.

To me, this is proof that Iraq isn't about the war on terror. There's no mention of Iraq. And Iraq is our greatest cost, our greatest price.

As for the lack of permissive environment in Europe and Asia for al Queda now, my opinion is that one of Bush's weakest spots, is foreign policy.

So crackdowns in places like Egypt, Indonesia, etc. is due to an eagerness to be perceived as not condoning terrorism, and less due to a desire of these countries to see Bush 'the winner' in a war. Has any nation 'cozied' up to Bush in foreign policy ever? Just Tony Blair. And look at him now.

I feel far more comfortable with Kerry being the one to develop long term solutions with foreign countries than Bush.

If other nations aren't behind Bush, but are just wanting to jump on the bandwagon of 'good vs. terror', then they aren't allies I want covering my back. For they are only there as long as public opinion is. THEIR public opinion, as we have seen numerous examples of, in the last half year or so with several countries pulling out of Iraq.

There are foreign fighters in Iraq, they are there for a few reasons;
to stiffen local insurgents, to carry out some of the more extreme attacks i.e. carbombings, especially those against primarily Iraqi targets, as opposed to US personnel and facilities,
and to gain combat experience for many of their fighters.

Iraq is not the keystone in the war on terror, but it is a facet of it, as is Afghanistan. The next major conflict in this war will be something else again. Personally, I think we are seeing an upsurge in terror because outside the US because the Al-Qaeda supported terrorists feel they have to strike and get what they can now, to gain what they can before Iraq and Afghanistan are more stable.

BCB, Iraq is part of the greater war on terror and is a cornerstone of changing the face of the Middle East.

I agree that military action alone is insufficient, and that diplomacy and "carrots" are as important to the effort as the "stick." Bush seems to have grasped this, though, and has been making much more conciliatory noises toward allies and the UN; and he followed through in meeting the turnover deadline, which was much more important diplomatically and symbolically than strategically. This is a good sign.

I agree with RJ in #11, though, that we must remain proactive and must remain aggressive in combatting Islamist terror, and press the much borader fight against radical Islamic fundamentalism in general.

I am much more confident that Bush sees the importance of remaining proactive than does Kerry.

More related thoughts are here.

The "it's foreign fighters in Iraq" pitch is largely neocon spin. Certainly there are some, but the majority of the insurgents are home-grown Iraqis. For instance, for perspective:

Iraq said Wednesday it was holding 29 foreign fighters in the maximum-security portion of Abu Ghraib prison, a much smaller figure than the thousands of local insurgents behind bars. [Associated Press 7/8/04]

The invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with the defeat of terrorism but was a cornerstone of the neoconservative plan for remaking the Middle East.

Denying that it was imperialistic, they were certain that they could plant democracy and have it flower throughout the region. By using guns.

Those aren't biased or partisan statements. You can find the same claims in similar words written by the neocons themselves, in numerous editorials they ran in publications like the Wall Street Journal OpEd pages and Reverend Moon's Washington Times, and on countless Web sites like the The American Enterprise Institute; The Manhattan Institute; Empower America; The Weekly Standard; Commentary; National Review; and many, many more (here's a list of dozens of them).

Bush has shown his incompetence to lead by following their policies rather than addressing the war on terrorism. Today Iraq is indeed part of that war, but it didn't have to be. The unilateralist invasion of Iraq has not only enraged terrorists it has driven formerly less-extreme Islamists into their arms and increased the threat from radical Islamists worldwide.

Bush is an abject failure at safeguarding our security so far, and there is no indication whatsoever that he would be any more competent in the future.

Hal, you are exactly right in #18: Iraq is exactly the "cornerstone of the ... plan for remaking the Middle East." I would disagree only in interpretation: his grasp of the fundamental importance of this is Bush's greatest strength. I don't care if it's called "imperialism" (it isn't, we don't want to own the Middle East or even necessarily benefit from it economically), but whatever you call it, the Islamic Middle East has to be shoved into the 21st century, or at least the 20th. This change requires a diplomatic, political, cultural, marketing, AND military component. Iraq was the best place to start the process in earnest. It's that simple.

Eric: ...the Islamic Middle East has to be shoved into the 21st century, or at least the 20th. This change requires a diplomatic, political, cultural, marketing, AND military component.

I'm curious how you would rate Bush's efforts at the first four components. Politically and culturally, I'm not sure he's even shoving the United States toward the 21st century.

not nearly as well as the military component, but I see hope that the importance of the other components is being recognized. I have a lot of problems with Bush's domestic agenda. Ideally, I would like to see a social liberal, economic moderate, and war on terror zealot in the White House.

Just to clarify, it's the neoconservatives - not me - who believe that about Iraq.

The neocons set out on their path of world dominance (not imperialism, they say) at least as early as 1992 when Paul Wolfowitz and Scooter Libby, then working for then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney in George ("the Lower Father") Bush's administration (they and other neocons are all part of this administration) came up with a secret defense policy:

"(excerpt:) In the Middle East and Southwest Asia, our overall objective is to remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve U.S. and Western access to the region’s oil. " [U. S. Strategy Plan 1992]

BCB, Iraq is part of the greater war on terror and is a cornerstone of changing the face of the Middle East.

I understand the reasoning behind invading Iraq. I just don't agree with it as presented. Personally, I think changing the face of the Middle East is a pretty tall order, and IF successful, would dramatically swing the war on terror in our favor. But the case presented for Iraq (WMD/imminent threat) turned out to be false, so I see a lot of resources spent on what is actually a smaller part of the greater war on terror than we were lead to believe.

One of the primary reasons why I believe Bush will ultimately fail is the concept of trying to democratize an entire hemisphere. If that were successful, all we will have are a bunch of nations over there who are constantly in their own turmoil (Israel/Palestine, current situations in Afghan, Iraq, etc.). So the terrorists become their countries own problem rather than ours over here, but terrorism doesn't cease, car bombs, gunfire, etc just goes on. Even countries already established over there, and who are our allies like Saudi Arabia still have terrorists training in their midst. I don't see how replacing a theological law of the land over there with a constitution will change things. I don't believe it will.

Seems very self-serving by a group of neo-cons, who over the course of their careers helped fund and create many of these terrorist groups. Seems ethically and morally wrong. We won't step in, any further in the war, unless our oil supply or our homeland are directly threatened.

I don't think Bush is solving the problem, winning the long-term war or the short-term war, he's just winning a few battles here and there, but that's all he really needs to do before elections anyway. (But you know, I also believe that Osama has most likely, already been caught. This won't be revealed until late Sept./October for reelection reasons. And I also believe this latest terror alert has been to get people to quit talking about the DNC and Kerry).

One thing to remember is that, as the original post says:


"Successive blows to al-Qaida's central leadership have transformed the organization into a loose collection of regional networks that operate more autonomously."

The threat has spread to a wider area. Even catching Osama won't mean anything (except in November, in the U. S.).

Our leader has shown a complete lack of understanding of the nature threat so there is very little likelihood that he can deal with it any better than he has so far.

Invading countries isn't going to do squat to improve our safety because the threat is not countries but individuals interspersed throughout populations around the world - America, Indonesia, the Philippines, you name it.

At best, with international cooperation, we may be able to keep a relative lid on it and look forward to a future - hundreds and hundreds of years - like that of England (IRA bombs), Spain (Basque bombs) and France (recent bombings by Kurds - yes, Kurds).

The unilateralist invasion of Iraq simply made things worse for us.

Invading countries isn't going to do squat to improve our safety because the threat is not countries but individuals interspersed throughout populations around the world - America, Indonesia, the Philippines, you name it.

I agree with everything you've posted on this blog 100% Hal. I don't see how forcing an entire hemisphere who doesn't want American commercialistic society, to have it anyway, is a viable solution. Makes no sense. Terrorism thrives in democracies too. The only difference is that it is going to thrive in a lot of democracies that hate the U.S.

I'm not sure how I could look at this from any less of a partisan perspective: I am an independent. I have never voted for a Republican for president. I always vote for the person, not the party. What else is there?

What isn't clear yet, and perhaps will never be acknowledged by those who despise the current administration, is that the reordering of the Middle East has begun - great progress has been made. Iraq will be a better place BOTH for its own people and for the world. It will be a model for the region and inexorably will influence the behavior and policies of every other nation in the region. The process must be continued with vigor, and I hope that vigor can take the form of nonmilitary actions. I hope that we invaded Iraq so we won't have to invade anywhere else, but most of all I hope we remain proactive in whatever form.

you think this will happen if if/when a theocracy takes over?

i think the future of iraq is very unclear.

I don't see a theocracy at all, I'm sure there will be more Islamic influence than we would find ideal, but I see Iraq ending up as something akin to Turkey.

I always vote for the person, not the party. What else is there?

Issues.

the question was partisanship

I'm not sure how I could look at this from any less of a partisan perspective: I am an independent. I have never voted for a Republican for president. I always vote for the person, not the party. What else is there?

I didn't think you were just towing the Republican line. From what I've read of your perspective though, I think you've already made your mind up on who to vote for, and I think that the war on terror is the number one factor. Not sure if that's right or not, but that's the impression I get from reading you.

What isn't clear yet, and perhaps will never be acknowledged by those who despise the current administration, is that the reordering of the Middle East has begun - great progress has been made.

Yeah, and like Iran is showing us, progress doesn't always come at the end of an American tank cannon.

Iraq will be a better place BOTH for its own people and for the world.

This isn't being questioned. Of course it will be. But terrorists will still be there. Hell, Ridge admits they are most likely living in America and furthering their goals here.
So yes, Iraq will be a better place, but I don't see what that has to do with terrorism. I don't see why this time will be different than all the rest of the nation building we've done.

The process must be continued with vigor, and I hope that vigor can take the form of nonmilitary actions. I hope that we invaded Iraq so we won't have to invade anywhere else, but most of all I hope we remain proactive in whatever form.

Both sides, and even the independent middle of the spectrum would agree with that.

yes, as of now the war on terror is of primary concern to me, and I am leaning toward Bush. I was impressed by Kerry at the DNC and won't leave the country if he wins - on an item by item basis I agree with him more often than Bush - but I don't have the sense that he sees fighting terror as his mission as does Bush, deranged cowboy or not.

I don't think Bush and Co. care that much about terrorism. It's secondary to their other concerns, like Iraq and supporting Israel and Saudi Arabia, and funding missle defense and other nonsense. Terrorism is just a smokescreen. Their minds are elsewhere.

I have been trying desperately to hone in on what is the most immediate threat to Americans RIGHT NOW, at this moment, or at least in the very near future and it has left me with a number of questions and very little answers.

I know that Eric feels that Bush is on the right track because of his laser like vision and commitment to ridding the world of terrorists - unfortunately I don't think the RIGHT steps are being taken to smooth a path for a peaceful world when we as a nation are in constant attack mode.

As it stands, our military is stretched too thin, its personnel too worn out and we are quickly running the risk of demoralizing those overseas, their families and loved ones, not to mention the nation in general.

Protecting our way of life and our people is immensely important, but perhaps the time has come to regroup, reflect and reevaluate our efforts and extend an olive branch to the world at large.

We know that the roots of terrorism are steeped in poverty, ignorance and hatred. How is bombing the living fuck out of everyone going to rid us of this evil?

Sure we need to find those committing and planning acts of terrorism, but the best way to infiltrate these highly secretive and dangerous groups is by winning the trust and affections of those who are closest to the source and isolating them in their own world and culture.

I want to live in a terror free world and I appreciate what Bush has done up to this point (except for the American and civilian deaths - collateral damage I guess) but when a leader (and in this case his cabinet) becomes drunk with power, then someone else needs to be the designated driver.

Dawn, you echo my concerns for this country.