And as to that 6th point;
John Kerry need not apply.

Mr. Bithead,

While I have critiqued the President on his WoT performance Bithead, the criticisms have been on the merits of his actions. I firmly believe that President Bush could even now at this late date choose to do the right thing on Terrorism instead of playing a shell game, and if he did all other issues aside I would vote for him in November. This is despite believing that Bush is a disconnected leader, fiscally irresponsible, and a catspaw for far right religious and extremist business interests.

If he did the right thing on terrorism, I would pull the lever for him - and the GOP. But they're not getting it right.

Contrast this with your immediate and senseless denial of Kerry on absolutist terms. I don't particularly cotton to Kerry too much, but if he'll clean up this mess I'll vote for him instead.

***
In the aftermath of 911, while I was fairly sure it was Alqueda I was generally disturbed by the lack of dissent and the paucity of evidence presented regarding the responsibility of Alqueda. No one ever bothered questioning it. I did sincerely think on the evidence that this was correct, but I was disturbed at how people accepted it without question.

Now I am highly disturbed that given the relatively large amount of evidence pointing toward Alqueda that for political reasons this is being pushed toward ETA. Note too that while most Western intelligence analysts think that this is Alqueda's work, the Bush Administration isn't saying anything about it. This is because it would be politically more convenient if it was blamed on ETA instead.

Frankly, I think it is Alqueda's fault with some local collusion -including parts of the ETA network- and that it strengthen's Aznar's choice to support Bush in my eyes at least. However, this is not the way it's being spun over there ... and by silence over here. It's clear that Alqueda's participation has been completely politicized, hyped when convenient and downplayed when expedient. If we were to apply the same standards now as after 911, Alqueda would have already been burning in effigy soon to be followed by military invasion. However, that would be inconvenient for the political powers that be.

This is partly why I sneer at the sentiment that somehow that the present alignment of political interests is "tough on terror". They're all too willing to invoke the boogie man when it suits them, but they won't do what it takes to go after them and they're all too willing to cloak their own interests in the WoT and finally they're all too eager to overlook real threats / risks of terrorism when it no longer suits them.

This whole thing is being gamed. It's despicable, utterly despicable. Three thousand Americans died in the burning and collapsing World Trade Towers. The voices of the dead in Turkey and the slain in Madrid cry out for justice. They and their memory deserve better than this, and all the rest of us do too.

Um, as much as the State Dept has been derided by (neo)conservatives, doesn't it seem a little late to "go from an episodic and underfunded foreign policy instrument to a major tool of national power?" I mean I'm all for it, but at this stage in the game I fear it would seem rather disingenuous.

Also btw, "political leaders must engage the public" seems like a 'duh' point, but as Fareed Zakaria has pointed out on numerous occasions, the administration has largely failed in this regard.

"The president will have to begin a process of rallying the American people around a new and uncertain struggle. He needs to speak often and eloquently." - NW 9/13/01

"President Bush should make a speech explaining to the American people why it is crucial that we succeed in Iraq, what the stakes are and why the costs are justified." - NW 9/1/03

"...the American people have never had the conversation they deserve about America's role in this new world." - NW 2/23/04

Even David "national greatness" Brooks has bemoaned that the president has not asked the American people to sacrifice some time/effort/money for the war effort to engender a 'we're-all-in-it-together' feeling of purpose, contrast with an underwhelming 'go-about-your-business/we-need-you-to-shop' message.

As a consequence, much of the average Joe/Jane public I daresay is relatively disengaged and uninformed. People like Steven den Beste have been heroic at parsing the underlying reasons for war (and the futility of engaging in 'police actions'), yet why should he even have to? I think if the gov't were more forthcoming, they would find more than enough support. But as can be seen the high-handed approach is proving increasingly divisive, which I believe is ultimately unsustainable.

“Also btw, "political leaders must engage the public" seems like a 'duh' point, but as Fareed Zakaria has pointed out on numerous occasions, the administration has largely failed in this regard.”

Failed in this regard? Fareed Zakaria is conveniently overlooking the vile liberal media that ceaselessly is out to destroy this administration in any way possible. Both Tony Blair and George W. Bush have to deal with the jackals of the liberal establishment, some of them who are afraid of what we will learn about them eventually in Iraq. I am now convinced that ideology is not the sole driving force in the campaign to unseat the current president. No, it is often crass self preservation. They are justifiably worried about being arrested for treason. How large of percentage of liberal journalists and think tank establishment figures am I talking about? I suspect only a very small handful in the United States---but many more in Europe and the rest of the world. Saddam Hussein once had billions of dollars at his disposal---and did not hesitate to bribe and blackmail people to do his bidding.

Second, one must be wary of confusing al-Qaeda with its many affiliates and of confusing these violent radical groups with the broader political Islamist movement.

Why should I care about any distinctions between AQ and its affiliates? They should all be exterminated. Do we base our policy on organized crime on the distinction between the Gambinos and the Corleones? This comment strikes me as a faux sophisticated stab at nuance that is pretty meaningless.

At the moment, I don't much care if the "broader Islamist movement" catches some collateral damage from the war on their terrorist supporters. The broader Islamist movement has ranged from supportive to silent, for the most part, and has done diddly all that I can see to repudiate, track down, and exterminate their terrorist supporters. When they join our team, for real, in this war, I will start to care, but not before.

Hey Bithead,

["It is a response to your cooperation with the criminals Bush and his allies," said the speaker, according to a Spanish-language translation issued by Acebes' ministry.]

Al Gore knows Arabic? He really is a lot smarter than the President...

The confrontation between Al Qaeda and Spain was inevitable regardless of Spain's support for the U.S. on Iraq. Spain was a hive of activity for Al Qaeda prior to 9/11 and Spain has cracked down hard on them including elements involved in logistical planning and support of the 9/11 attack. I posted several links with details in this update including references regarding cooperation between ETA and Al Qaeda as far back as 2001.

It's sad that the Spanish people have expressed their desire to sit uninvolved on the sidelines while the rest of the world must deal with terrorism. Their vote in response to terrorism was exactly in the direction the terrorists wanted. The Spanish people have inadvertently voted to validate the process of using terrorism to sway elections; they can only expect more for themselves and for the rest of the world.

Oldman;
As usual your argument doesn't quite mesh.

There IS no contrast.
I've never claimed Bush has things aboslutely right. Merely that Kerry has it absoulutely wrong.

Al Gore knows Arabic?

Of course!
He INVENTED it.

Al Gore knows Arabic?

Of course!
He INVENTED it.

I have no great insight into why the Spanish voted as they did. They are a small nation, unused to the glare of the world's spotlight. Aznar was personally brave but never quite pulled his people along--can anyone really be surprised?

And while I agree that this increases the chance of pre-election violence elsewhere, including here, I wonder what al Qaeda could possibly hope to achieve thereby. Any incident would virtually assure a Bush reelection. Hardly their preferred outcome. And even if, somehow, Kerry still won, he would enter office under popular mandate to blast SOMEONE quickly. Given the nihilistic tendencies of AQ, this is not impossible to imagine. It just makes it all the more difficult to predict any future activities--and punditry abhors a vacuum.

"Hardly their preferred outcome."

that's not true, AQ *wants* bush elected, you said it yourself, "Given the nihilistic tendencies of AQ," just as the IRA never dreamed of getting rid of ian paisley.

"AQ *wants* bush elected"

You are right, Ian! AQ's justification for continuing to inflame hatrid is much greater with Bush reelected. They also know that with re-election, his arrogance will increase exponentially, further polarizing world opinion against the US, while bolstering his inspiration for imposing his viewpoints on our society.

Kerry may want it both ways, but I'm more afraid of how Bush wants us to have it his way.

...he suggested that Al Qaeda was willing to fund regional and/or national terrorist groups with material support and training as a way of advancing its "brand" as it were.

My goodness, now we are accusing Al Qaeda of outsourcing! Is there no limit to their depravity?

Damn you, Maquire - that's even more pithy than mine...

Y'know when I heard about the Spanish election, I admit I was shocked.

I thought that we'd see a rallying around the current Spanish leadership, just as we saw the Americans rally around the president. The fact that the Socialists have come into power, and have stated they are pulling out of Iraq is just fascinating and terrifiying on a number of levels.

Say what you will about the success of failure of the Bush Administrations efforts to curb terrorism. However, let's ask the question: are the Bush Administation's actions costing us allies?

The vote in Spain was about the Spanish people being manipulated and dragged into a conflict they believed they had no role in. In particular, they turned around and against the expection of analysts everywhere, voted for a party that made as campaign promise a removal of Spanish troops from Iraq. Why after the terrorist attack did many voters decide to switch their votes? It wasn't an overwhelmning victory by the Socialists, in fact, they don't even have a majority and will go into coalition with other parties. Still why did the expected "easy win" of the Convervates result in a defeat?

It could be the efforts by the Conservatives to blame the even on ETA had an effect; or maybe the blatant use of the event to promote the Convervative cause. Maybe.

I think this was the second clear referendum on the nature of the US's relations with Europe. The first was the German election. This bodes very ill for the next few years of the WOT.

Carolina

Say what you will about the success of failure of the Bush Administrations efforts to curb terrorism. However, let's ask the question: are the Bush Administation's actions costing us allies?

More properly, if our defending ourselves, and ending a government the likes of Saddam's, cause us to lose said allies, do we really WANT them as allies?

Spain wusses out: So be it. Let the world see how well their appeasement works for them and the rest of Europe. I think I know how this is gonna progress but, let's face it, many on the left don't.

All those opposed to an agressive all inclusive war against these vermin will get to see a test case. When truth is on your side you don't fear reality.

As for me--All those who want to die for Allah, step the f@#k on up. Come to us,we will assist you.

Dear Bithead,

As usual you are locked into one parameter thinking. *I* was the one drawing the comparison between my evaulation of Bush and your evaluation of Kerry. That you made a judgement of a person in absolute terms without any comparative analysis as you admit is the exact point of what is so utterly wrong regarding your reasoning. You look at one thing in isolation and make a decision without any consideration of its relations to anything else. This form of thinking is of course quite prevalent among neoconservatives, as well as the attendent mess that occurs from ill-considered "unintended" consequences.

And you're not making single param judgements as egards President Bush?

Comon, Oldman... You've got more in there somewhere. I notice also, that you've skated past the question, I asked:

"More properly, if our defending ourselves, and ending a government the likes of Saddam's, cause us to lose said allies, do we really WANT them as allies?"