Scott McClellan had this to say
yesterday:
Now, Iraq is the central front now in the war on terrorism. The terrorists have made that very clear. They realize the stakes are very high there.
Although he was challenged about several of his statements yesterday about terrorism and Iraq, he wasn't asked to clarify this, which ought to be done.
I would think that in war, it takes both sides to commit resources to a certain arena in order for it to be declared as a "Central Front". In addition, for terrorists to determine that Iraq was the Central Front in this "war", they would have to decide that their greatest reward would come from that front.
Does anyone really believe that's the case? So many neocons are bitter that the attack in Spain lead to a change in government, and the argument that the "terrorists won".
So wouldn't that make Madrid the central front, at least for last week?
The fear is legitimate that the front will be Athens, or New York City, or London, or Rome, sometime in the near future. We don't know where attacks may occur, or how they may occur, or when they may occur.
If we don't know that, how could we possibly say we know where the Central Front is? Isn't it logical to think that a "shadowy organization" such as AQ would not have a Central Front?
The press has to question this Administration about their constant declaration that Iraq is the "front" of the War on Terror. Spaniards didn't believe it. What is the Administration's proof?