Skip to main content

The wingers, stung from the spectacular failure of their "flypaper" theory, are now desperately trying to rebut the obvious fact that Iraq has fueled terrorist attacks.

"What about 9-11?" they shriek. "That happened before Iraq!"

"What about the WTC bombing", they add. "That also happened before Iraq."

Yeah, sure. Of course those happened before Iraq. No one is claiming that terrorism was created by Iraq. We're arguing that letting Al Qaida off the hook in Afghanistan and pursuing an unecessary war in Iraq has fueled terrorism.

And by all objective measures, that's been the case.

The U.S. count of major world terrorist attacks more than tripled in 2004, a rise that may revive debate about whether the Bush administration is winning the war on terrorism, congressional aides said Tuesday.

The number of "significant" international terrorist attacks rose to about 650 last year from about 175 in 2003, according to congressional aides briefed Monday on the numbers by U.S. State Department and intelligence officials.

Triple! Wow! Except that 650 number was grossly undercounting the actual number of attacks.

The Bush administration on Tuesday released new figures for global terrorism that showed there were almost 3,200 terrorist incidents worldwide in 2004.

In April the US State Department had said there were 651 "international" terrorism incidents last year. But using a broader definition to include attacks that "deliberately hit civilians or non-combatants" the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) on Tuesday raised that number to 3,192. The incidents resulted in the deaths, injury or kidnapping of almost 28,500 people.

So if 650 was tripling the previous year's total, what does that make 3,192?

But better yet is this illustrative graph, courtesy of BTC News:

Notice when attacks where going down, and when they started going up. Since it's hard to read, the black bar, at the low point of international terrorist attacks, is the year 2000. Bush took power in2001, and the rest is history.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 01:52 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  That graph... (4.00)
    ...appears to be drastically undercounting the attacks in 2004, no? If there were at least 650 incidents in 2004, that pink bar should be twice as high as it currently is.
    •  And just so everybody is on the same page (4.00)
      BTC News claims that these numbers do NOT include attacks on soldiers in Iraq, which number about 40 per day. Bush and the right wing would have you believe that we are fighting "terrorists" in Iraq, but they don't seem to want to include these attacks on our troops as terrorist incidents.

      If they did, the number of "terrorist incidents" in 2004 would be at 17,800.  Which would really be off-the-chart.

    •  Caution: Don't Compare 3,192 to 650 (none)
      Sorry to break in, but the reason the 650 count for 2004 was revised to 3k+ is the redefinition of terrorist attacks. As Brennan (interim head of NCTC) said, you cannot compare previous years' counts with this year's. Nor can you compare the 650 count, which used the old definition of terrorist attacks, with the new 3k+ number.

      It's Bushco's implementation of an Orwellian 1984 tactic -- to control the past, focus on the present. Lie enough about what's real today and what's past will be erased from memory...

      By the way, this story - with relevant links - is in my diary post from yesterday (with a poll).

      If you have been framed, the only response is to reframe.--George Lakoff

      by bobinkc on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 03:26:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  re: That graph (none)
      You're right. I made the graph from a different data set from the one referenced in the other articles kos cites. As explained in my post at BTC News, that particular data was compiled by the RAND Corporation and is on the website of tkb.org, which is financially supported by the Department of Homeland Security. Their terrorism definition and counting methodology are different from those of the National Counterterrorism Center, which came up with the 651 number.

      Eric Brewer

    •  LONDON CALLING President Bush (none)
      Do you want your terrorists back?  We don't want them.  You created them, maybe you should come and get them.

      If the Republic survives for a thousand years this Bush presidency will be known as our DARKEST HOUR.

      by Churchill on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 04:24:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Somewhat off topic (4.00)
    but I just heard Michael Medved attacking you for you American Taliban post. When the Talk Radio wing of the GOP takes notice you know you are on the right track.
    •  Strikes a nerve (4.00)
      With everyone in the nutjob brigades.  Any time that you point out to a winger that they are more ideologically aligned with Al-Qaeda than the American Left is, they lose their shit in a hurry.
    •  He wanted me on the show (4.00)
      to "debate" this. I said no. Some other conservative talk show host also tried to get me on. It's clear the series struck a nerve.
      •  Yes indeed (none)
        The "response" I saw on Redstate was particularly lame.  It's amazing to watch the defensiveness:  "We're not at all like those people you describe... they just happen to run our party!!"

        I did wince a little bit at the one where you said liberals believe in the free exchange of ideas, thinking of some of our less productive diaries.  But of course, we can never hold a candle to the Right when it comes to shouting down unpopular ideas.

      •  If you were going to go (none)
        on any show Medved's would be the one to do. I think RabidNation did his show once.

        Medved is a hypocrite and his God has become the GOP. That is how you rattle him. I had him sputtering when I told him I lost respect when he changed his fealty from honesty and God to the defence of the GOP by lying.

      •  The American Taliban post was true though (none)
        I remember when I was growing up, my mom often expressed appreciation for Saudi Arabia. Why? Well, they chop hands off for theft. And the Bible says, "If thy hand offend you, cut it off", so it must be the right thing to do. She would also say "Better to be a country that acknowledges God then one that tries to deny him".

        She votes Republican.

        I wish I'd had a tape recorder for statements like that.

        Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal. - Martin Luther King Jr.

        by jabbausaf on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 06:00:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Graphs, facts, and data (4.00)
    The bane of Bush supporters.
    •  yeah. real data. (none)
      what a concept.  if their base was better at math, they would've been in trouble.
      •  Totally unfair comment here. (none)
        if their base was better at math, they would've been in trouble...but when your base has been homeschooled by people who barely graduated high school, you're not in too much danger that they're going to call you on your math.

        That was, as I say, totally unfair and a vicious stereotype and all of that, but I just had to say it.

        •  Math Teacher (none)
          Been struggling for years to get Boston Public to do more mental math. Kids are into it. teach all little babies to recognize how many fingers you have down, as well as up. the 7+3 relationship shows up all over in base 10.

          Does anyone remember casting out the nines?

          love life, ride bikes

          by common terry on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 02:17:01 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Funny thing (none)
            I learned about mental math when I was homeschooling my son. I also discovered why I never did well in math in school: When I was subtracting 7 from 13 and had to "borrow" the "one" (which you never pay back so what's with the borrowing?) I kept asking the teacher what happened to the other 9. I ended up feeling stupid but I was right all along because I knew it was 10 and not 1.  Oh well...

            The Christian Right is neither Witness Every Day

            by TXsharon on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 02:51:11 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  vicious stereotype (none)
          Yeah.

          Particularly considering that the available data suggests that homeschoolers, on average, are better educated.

          Which doesn't mean that you're wrong about the education of the fundie fringe Republican Talibani.

          Homeschooling is actually far more mainstream and includes many, many more moderates, liberals and outright leftists than people would guess (and has, for a long time--those loudmouths have given Christianity a bad name, and homeschooling, too).

          "Too many policemen, no liberty; Too many soldiers, no peace; Too many lawyers, no justice." Lin Yutang (1895-1976)

          by ogre on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 02:45:57 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  totally unfair comment there!! (none)
          that is a totally unfair comment.  how do you know people who teach homeschool (err, parents) barely graduated from high school?

          there.  i feel better now.

          ohhhhh. ok.  um.  i'm sawwee.

          8-!

          Senorita Laura, were you truly offended?  was it that vicious?  do we really need to speak in italics??

          you're well meaning - (& yes, i'm a jerk for being such a smart ass!) - but can we not snark here?  after all, you did stereotype homeschool teachers ,eh?  i've known some educated & smurt ones.

          have a nice day.  really.  :-)

    •  Indeed (none)
      The thing is, their attempt to defend the flypaper theory fails even if you believe that terrorism has not been fueled by the Iraq war.  The whole notion of the flypaper theory is that if we have a bunch of troops in Iraq, the terrorists will spend their resources there and be unable to strike elsewhere.  

      Whether Iraq is adding to the total influence of terrorists in the world today or not, it certainly isn't stopping them from engaging in terrorism elsewhere.  Madrid happened after Iraq.  London happened after Iraq.  They show a clear ability to find weak points, act in a coordinated manner, and effecitvely kill, injure and scare the crap out of a lot of people.  

      Having said that, discrediting the flypaper theory dosn't necessarily discredit the war in general.  However, the people who keep shifting the reason why we went there, should accept the truth that it was, at best, a screw up.  It also doesn't mean there isn't a reason to keep troops there and to try to stabilize the country (assuming that's the best way to do it).  

      So if they wanted to support this war, as it is, on legitimate grounds, there's room to do it.  Yet they dellude themselves with the flypaper theory.  

  •  I think the American Taliban Frame is the Best (none)
    Thanks for that one!  

    "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis

    by 5oclockshadow on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 01:56:11 PM PDT

  •  but, (none)
    not one attack on US Soil since 9/11.  That will be Bush's (when I say Bush I mean ...well you know the rest) talking point, we are defending our homeland.  
    Have faith....

    Blue is the most popular color

    by jalapeno on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 01:56:34 PM PDT

    •  And the sad thing is, (none)
      that will work with a lot of Americans.  "Not one attack on our soil...what does it matter that US allies are getting hammered?  They're not us, they only matter in the act of helping us."
      •  The problem with that tack (none)

        is that it REALLY works against you (Bush) the instant there is a terrorist attack on US soil again - and there WILL be. It is inevitable.

        If Bush tries that tack then he is doing nothing different than everyone playing slots in Vegas only the stakes for him are higher. He swaggers out some nonsense about "no attacks on US soil since 9/11" as a defense then he has just put his entire existence on the pure hope that nothing (NOTHING) happens here in the next few years.

        'Course, why don't GOPers talk up how there were no 9/11 attacks in the US for 200+ years before 9/11? With a LOT of Dems running the show. I'm ignoring the Oklahoma City bombing simply because it was entirely domestic, right-wing, conspiracy nut, GOP-loving crap.

        •  93 to 2001 (none)
          When I hear people say that there have been no attacks on US soil in almost 4 years, I point out that the first Al Qiada attack on US soil was in 93, and the second one was in 01.  Thus, if they think Bush is a hero for no attacks in 4 years, then they must think Clinton is wonderful for no such attacks in 8 years.  Then I remind them that these people are VERY patient.  4 years is nothing.

          As for this Bush argument backfiring, if there is an attack on American soil, people will rally around GW.  This is what we seem to do in this country.  People seem to think that world events is a reality show, and rooting for the underdog -- in the case of an attack that is what Bush would be -- is a good thing.

    •  I guess those Anthrax Attacks mean nothing (4.00)
      everyone seems to forget about them, even the gov't.

      Passionate about your local politics? SoapBlox wants to host your new group blog for free

      by pacified on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 02:02:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  good point (none)
        maybe anthrax doesnt count because it was done by the govt?

        love life, ride bikes

        by common terry on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 02:18:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I believe it was nova (none)
        that pretty clearly identified the perpetrator of the Anthrax attacks. A far right wing nut job who'd worked for the government abroad, especially the african continent if i remember. Now you think about what a us intelligence sponsored bacterial warfare specialist whos aim in life was developing bacterial weaponons was doing in africa. Might also think about how ebola "just showed up" in various places among other "mysterious diseases". Add in that the american doctors objected strongly to the transfusions that saved the people who caught ebola.

        The documentary made it pretty clear who likely did it. Remember .. the pathogens came from US labs. Once that was found out.. suddenly the media coverage disappeared.

        Remember: there's no sense in talking to them. Talk to your base first, the middle second, and the amoral and lying right never.

        by cdreid on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 02:33:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  i have said this (none)
        to people who have made this point. I mention the unsolved anthrax attack, they say nothing. They have forgotten about it.
        Lots of good info from the Federation of American Scientists here about it though:
        http://www.fas.org/bwc/news/anthraxreport.htm
      •  and the tail just 'fell off' that AA flight at JFK (none)
        right.  Nice how they got everyone to believe that one.
        •  Are you saying... (none)
          ...that the crash of AA587 was caused by something other than failure of the vertical stabilizer?

          DCr

          "Someday this war's gonna end..." -- Robert Duvall as Lt. Col. Kilgore in "Apocalypse Now."

          by DCrefugee on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 03:31:51 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes. I know an eyewitness (none)
            who saw smoke coming from the plane as it went down.  Boeing was aware of the rudder problems- and do you really think they produced such a glaring structural deficiency?
            •  Boeing didn't make that plane... (none)
              ...it was an Airbus A300.
            •  Well... (none)
              ...no shit there was something coming from it...

              Since AA587 occurred as Congress was debating the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA, which gave us the Transportation Security Administration, among other abominations) the NTSB has been all over this crash.  If it weren't for AA587, ATSA probably wouldn't have been enacted in haste and would have been modified to something more reasonable.  Instead, Congress panicked and rammed it through.

              The NTSB's full report is available at this link[PDF].

              That report specifically notes beginning on page 133 that, "...during the airplane's descent, the out-of-control motion would have disrupted the airflow into the engines and likely caused engine compressor surges. (Visible flames emanating from the engines are typical during engine compressor surges.) Therefore, the Safety Board concludes that the witnesses who reported observing the airplane on fire were most likely observing a fire from the initial release of fuel or the effects of engine compressor surges."

              On page 159, the report states, "The witnesses who reported observing the airplane on fire were most likely observing a fire from the initial release of fuel or the effects of engine compressor surges."

              The NTSB's finding of probable cause states, in part, "probable cause of this accident was the in-flight separation of the vertical stabilizer as a result of the loads beyond ultimate design that were created by the first officer's unnecessary and excessive rudder pedal inputs."

              Terrorism had nothing to do with it.  As for Boeing knowing something about a "structural deficiency," they may have <snark>.  But Boeing didn't manufacture the airplane; Airbus did.  The official record on whether Airbus "knew" anything about the vertical stabilizer being weak is muddled.  Regardless, the airplane's design and then-current training standards made it too easy for pilots to overstress the vertical stab.  That has been remedied.

              HTH...

              DCr

              "Someday this war's gonna end..." -- Robert Duvall as Lt. Col. Kilgore in "Apocalypse Now."

              by DCrefugee on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 09:10:26 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Except for this additional info from my friend: (none)
                the plane was out over the Atlantic and returning (or trying to) northward to the airport.
                She was east of the plane on Rockaway Beach and it was heading to her right (north).
                See if the NTSB report indicates that.
        •  Dude, that story always smelled 'cover-up' to me (none)
          A problem never heard of before or since, just happens to completely take out a plane in a way that otherwise would be thought of as sabotage...made my tin-foil hat hum, right from the beginning.

          "Think. It ain't illegal yet." - George Clinton

          by jbeach on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 04:56:00 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  The tail had been previously damaged (none)
          In an earlier incident. So combined with a design deficiency and the vortexes, more than possible it "just fell off".
          Don't waste your time on spurious conspiracies when there's plenty of real ones around.

          a view from abroad ....

          by icerat on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 07:13:51 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  what do you mean? (none)
      What about all those attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq?  Isn't that 'merican soil? </snark>

      The way that can be known is not the way.

      by zenbowl on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 02:02:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Wow (none)
    Where do the majority of those 3200 something terrorist attacks take place? Because I certainly haven't seen coverage of that many. Are these small scale attacks like in the streets of Iraq and elsewhere?
    •  Suicide bombers in Israel (none)
      I would assume those make up a good percentage.
      •  way down (none)
        hamas for years has been for a cease fire.

        israleis bombers keep taking out their leaders soon after any kind of official agreement is made.

        always read the end of an article

        (from a while back)

        http://www.msnbc.com/news/801833.asp?cp1=1

        Meanwhile, the Palestinian militant groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad both said Wednesday that they would consider entering a new truce with Qureia to end attacks on Israelis. Hamas, however, said it was doubtful about success.
               A unilateral cease-fire declared by armed Palestinian groups on June 29 collapsed six weeks later in a cycle of violence.

        ----

        the cycle of violence always includes assainations of hamas leaders.

        i was a human shield in 2002 in Nablus, occupied Palestine. occupation is ugly.

        http://www.dailykos.com/user/common%20terry/diary

        love life, ride bikes

        by common terry on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 02:27:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  From FT (none)
      Kos linked it in the post.

      While President George W. Bush argues that the greatest threat facing the US is terrorism, the NCTC data revealed that North America and the Caribbean suffered only 10 terrorism incidents in 2004, which included attacks by the Animal Liberation Front in the US. Iraq suffered about 875 attacks, India about 360 and Nepal about 320

      snip

       According to the NCTC figures, only 19 per cent of the terrorism incidents in 2004 were attributable to Islamic extremists. Of the remainder, 25 per cent were secular/political attacks, while the reasons 56 per cent were unknown.

      In response to questions about how to distinguish between types of attackers such as "freedom fighters" and "terrorists" Mr Brennan emphasised that some cases were less black and white than others. But he said each incident had to be considered on its merits. Insurgent attacks on Iraqi police would be categorised as terrorist incidents because they targeted "non-combatants".

    •  Also Russia, Spain, Indonesia - all over. (none)
      And now a bit closer to home.

      "Think. It ain't illegal yet." - George Clinton

      by jbeach on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 04:56:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I miss Billy Boy. (none)
    People just LOVED him all over the world.  In Ireland (where my family's from) the general population repects him as much as JFK, and clearly that's saying a lot.
  •  Why do liberals hate Britain? (none)

    It is astounding-- can't wait to listen to rightwing jock Jerry Agar on my drive home (KC Market)-- he is so far right he doesn't believe in evolution and calls people who want to increase school funding "socialists".

    It oughtta be... well... not fun... actually sickening!

    And a thought: What would the wingers be saying if Kerry were President right now?

    Bush will be impeached.

    by jgkojak on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 01:58:49 PM PDT

  •  Important message. (none)
    Keep up the good work.

    Let's amplify it.

  •  They're back !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (none)
    Iraqi and Afghanistani ATTACKS ARE INCREASING.  The current policy of combatting terrorism is ineffective.  We need a new plan, Mr. President.

    If the Republic survives for a thousand years this Bush presidency will be known as our DARKEST HOUR.

    by Churchill on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 02:00:50 PM PDT

  •  Based on the graph, get ready for the wingnuts (none)
    to blame Clinton policies for starting the increase interrorism! Especially Hillary...
  •  Terrorist Classroom (4.00)
    I wonder where the terrorists learned how to coordinate multiple IED explosions to maximize casualties?  Thanks for creating that big terrorist classroom called Baghdad, Mr. President!

    The way that can be known is not the way.

    by zenbowl on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 02:01:35 PM PDT

  •  Thanks kos (none)
    I think this tack is right on, as i pointed out earlier today.

    The time has well passed when the administration get to have everyone rally around him.

    The time has come to attack his failed policies for real.

    Let the Democratic Reformation Begin

    by Pounder on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 02:04:39 PM PDT

  •  I'm becoming perplexed about this whole situation (none)
    "Democracy" won't kill terrorism but what will?  Or at least make it rare?  I'm not comfortable with the counter invasions and an endless terror war that Bush has put forth, but I haven't seen a compelling vision counter to it.    
    •  Prosperity and education (none)
      Those who resort to terrorism usually have nothing to lose.

      I got troll rated by Bill in Portland Maine

      by Rupert on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 02:11:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Eh! (4.00)
        The Wahabi nut-jobs who did 9/11 (including bin Laden) were mostly middle and upper middle class Saudis and Egyptians. Well educated. There are some wacky beliefs being taught in schools within a kingdom that rhymes with Baubi Barabia.
        •  reasons (none)
          They are just the leaders, much as a rich, yankee who pretends to be a downhome texan leads the US.  The leaders of most cults and ideologites are basically power hungry and use the hate and discontent of the masses to stay in power.  People would not be susceptable to their charisma or follow such leaders if they were content and educated. Why do you think the wingers in power are trying to dismantle and deride our public school system?  An uneducated population is their greatest strength.  
          •  bin Laden (none)
            does not draw his power from the downtrodden. He draws his financial power from you and me every time we fill up our SUVs.

            He gathers support and protection from Afghan and Pakistani warlords through bribes and the glory that comes from plucking Uncle Sam's beard. bin Laden's war is NOT a Marxian class struggle. Rather, he and his followers are annoyed that they are no longer masters of the Universe, or even in their own tent.

            Think Dobson and Falwell on steroids.  

             

      •  stopping terrorism - Irish example (none)
        There is a Northern Irish phenomenon: Catholic housing estates with up to 80% unemployment had similar IRA sympathy rates, but when the same people get jobs and move to more stable neighborhoods, suddenly they are not nearly as concerned with the 1,000 year struggle, etc.  they are called Castle Catholics.

        Of course the peace process and power sharing flawed as it is, is necessary, as is actually having to listen to people on the other side.

    •  Military in the right places (none)
      By 10 am on 9/11, the main thing echoing in my mostly empty shell-shocked skull was a realization that we were at war, and it was time to take a military rather than law-enforcement approach to terrorism. In fact, I actually thought it was time to look at taking on terrorism as a whole, worldwide.

      In other words, I believed in the "war on terra" days before I ever heard W say anything about 9/11, and long before I heard anyone in the administration use the term.

      I still believe that. I thought Afghanistan was the right place to be. I think everything since then has been pretty much in the opposite direction of an actual Waronterra. We need to get back to the actual war on terror. We need to build, not destroy international cooperation. We need treaties. We need intelligence sharing. We need deep international ties. We need to go back to chasing the money trail. And sometimes, yes, we need to blow stuff up, even if it's not in an oil-producing nation.

      Al Qaeda is an enemy. Al Qaeda is my personal enemy. There may be others. How I would love to feel like somebody in charge was doing something, the tiniest thing, to slow my enemies in their tracks before they attack again.

      But they aren't.

    •  Part of it is (none)
      the US military isn't exactly designed for hunting down individuals or small groups of individuals.  While we try to track down those people through intelligence and covert operations, our main focus needs to be on STATE actors who sponsor terrorism, as opposed to swatting individual flies.

      This worked great in Afghanistan because no one liked the Taliban anyway.  It's a little tougher, to say the least, in places like Saudi Arabia where we have major foreign policy reasons for being on good terms with them.  But the fact is, as long as big money gets funneled to terrorist groups through the Saudi government, we're never going to wipe out terrorism.  We need to use every trick in the book to apply pressure and force them to shut that down.

    •  My Rx: We need another Carter, (none)
      not Clinton.  A President who knew how to broker a lasting peace between Egypt and Israel  could redirect  American foreign policy and moral authority to where it belongs - resolving the Palestinian issue while supporting Israel.  That would go a long way towards draining the swamp of hate over there.

      GW blew off the Mideast conflict because it was a "Clinton thing"  (he wouldn't remember Carter, because he wasn't conscious during those years) - just like he blew off terrorism warnings because that was old too.  When the history of our home-grown Caligula is written, he'll acknowledged as  Worst President Ever, which gives me some comfort.  What I think has damaged us the most is Bushco's scorched earth approach to civic discourse.  Their "F-you" attitude to just about everybody, including the half of America  that voted for the other guy, has coarsened us catastrophically at the very time that we need all our weapons of persuasion and good will in the world.

      Martin Amis titled his book about America "The Moronic Inferno,:" and in times like this I think he nailed it.

    •  Worldwide policework, rebuild Iraq, and leave it (none)
      Actually fund and work with international police, with the 8 billion Halliburton 'lost' to start with.

      While we're doing that, we spend the 15 of the 16 billion earmarked to rebuild Iraq, that hasn't even been touched yet; get the power back on.

      And stop hiring US companies that will then hire Iraqis, but cutting out the middleman and employing Iraqis directly.

      And then leave Iraq. Seems kinda clear Bushco doesn't want to go. Showing that we will go, removes the main selling point of the insurgency in general and Al Qaeda in particular.

      That's how I see it.

      "Think. It ain't illegal yet." - George Clinton

      by jbeach on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 05:01:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Fight the enemy, not neutrals (4.00)
    The problem is that the U.S. policy didn't involve taking it to the enemy, it involved taking it to neutrals.

    Its not an uncommon mistake, but the effect is predictable.  When you attack people who are neutral or even on your side instead of the real enemy, you create new enemies.  For that matter, you don't even have to attack them physically, insulting them is enough.

    Consider programs aimed at fighting inner city crime.  The most successful are those that either start from within the community or at a minimum work with the community.  The one's that fail are generally those imposed on the community by outsiders with no understanding of the community and its values.

    Bush could have formed an international coalition to target terrorists after 9/11 much the way his father formed an international coalition to fight the Gulf War.  And he would have had plenty of support.  The leaders of legitimate governments in most countries struggle with the problem of global terrorism.  Certainly they would have been willing to work as a group to limit this problem.

    More importantly, the "neighborhood" in question is the Middle East.  Many countries in the Middle East fear religious extremists and terrorists as much or more than we do because they fear they might some day be toppled by such groups.  A better leader would have fostered cooperation from these countries and used them to pressure other neighboring countries to cooperate.

    Instead, our "leader" sent us into a country, bad as it was, that was actively fighting elements of our enemy al Qaeda.  We sent a message to Arab countries that we would impose our will on them rather than working WITH them to fight a mutual enemy.

    This shows poor prioritization skills on the part of Bush.  He could have made it a priority to substantially damage al Qaeda's network before worrying about potential future problems in Iraq.  

  •  What would be even more telling (none)
    Would be if we weren't just looking at terrorist incidents, but at actual casualty figures.  My impression (based on little more than recollection of the news) is that not only are there more terrorist attacks, but that each individually is killing more and more people.

    Before 9/11 a big outrage was a bus bombing in Israel, or the USS Cole.  Now we regularly have 20-50 people dying per incident in Iraq, 45 (or however many it's at now) today in London, not to mention the spectaculars like Bali, Madrid and, yes, 9/11 itself since.

  •  instant market reaction (none)
    Is the War on Terra good for business? At the close, the DJIA was up 31.61, NASDAQ up 7.01, S&P up 2.93.

    Instanalysis courtesy of Daniel Gross at Slate says it's not so much that greed is good, rather a matter of muscle memory, i.e. traders are following the strategies that worked immediately after 9/11.

    That seems to be true of Fox "News" which is busily hyping BushCo, their favorite bubble stock. Of course that could be any day of the week on Fox. Here's hoping the Bush Bubble is finally going to pop - it's been leaking in the polls ever since oh, say, last November - and the MSM will at last cry, "Sell! Sell!"

    The sleep of reason produces monsters. Francisco Goya

    by Dire Radiant on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 02:10:36 PM PDT

  •  You are all wrong (4.00)
    This just shows that we are winning the war on terror.  Much like the increase in hostilities in Iraq proves that the insurgency is in its last throes.  Why DO you hate America??!!??
    •  Absolutely (none)
      Clearly a well organized, sophisticated post-9/11 attack in a western country that punk'ed the most expensive intelligence operations the world has ever seen proves that these are desperate acts from terrorists in their last throes.

      ...turns out there's a lot you can do with a broken back.

      Political violence is a perfectly legitimate answer to the persecution handed down by dignitaries of the state. - Riven Turnbull

      by Florida Democrat on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 02:16:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Winger "Logic" (none)
    They really are desperate, which is a favorable assessment of it, otherwise, we'd just have to call them stupid.

    Of course London was fueled by our actions in Iraq. Is there any other reason to target "coalition" countries like GB and Denmark?

    Of course no one ever argued our recent action in Iraq is "the root of all terror, time immamorial." Complete strawman.

    Could it be that they are avoiding the real clear-cut statements they themselves made which was that Invading Iraq was necessary to prevent terrorism, it was a self-defense action, they claim. "We can't wait for a mushroom cloud," they said. "This is a pre-emptive action in a post-9/11 world." Remember that?

    So logically (if we ever have to luxurie of arguing it that way), they would have to admit one of two things:

    Either

    • A) "Pre-emptive" action against "terror" does not work. OR
    • B) Iraq invasion caused more terrorism.

    Which is it wingnuts?

    Political violence is a perfectly legitimate answer to the persecution handed down by dignitaries of the state. - Riven Turnbull

    by Florida Democrat on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 02:11:37 PM PDT

  •  2 Major Points In Left Criticism Of Iraq War (none)
    1) It was a war that had a slim likelihood of bringing about a stable Iraq.
          -The American people see that now.
    2) It was a war that would make us less safe.
          -The American people are beginnig to see that.
  •  It hurts to say it (4.00)
    but we all know that terrorism will never be completely eliminated, any more than the War on Crime will get rid of all crime, or the War on Drugs will get rid of all drugs.  (Has it gotten rid of any?)

    John Kerry was exactly right during the campaign when he said that our real goal should be to get back to when terrorism was a nuisance.  They knew it was right, so they distorted his statements and tried to ridicule them.  But it was true.

    I work in downtown Manhattan and I happen to think that no amount of terrorism is acceptable, much like there's no minimum amount of rat hair I'm willing to accept in my salad.  But the fact of the matter is, religious wackos will always be out there, and you can't have armed guards protecting every subway stop and shopping mall.  Incidents will happen.  Hopefully, with competent government and good intelligence, we can stop the major attacks like 9/11.  But the idea we can simply eradicate every single person in the world who wishes us harm is insane.

    At the risk of shooting fish in a barrel, I want to quote a comment I saw today at Captain Ed's conservative blog:

    There is a way to win a religious war. A very simple way: kill everyone who is willing to fight for that religion. Use whatever weapons you need to use.

    For us, start by immediatly executing everyone in Gitmo and every Islamist we have in custody anywhere.

    If some mosque preaches "death to America" here or anywhere in the West, kill the Imam and deport everyone else back to their home country. If the mosque is in another country and we find out it is supporting terrorists, we have cruise missiles to deal with that. You are free to worship how you wish so long as that worship does not involve killing us infidels.

    Round up every illegal alien especially those from Islamic coutries and deport them. Anyone who resists...shoot them. Screw trials.

    We beat the Germans and the Japanese by hurting them worse than they hurt us.

    Immediatly use H-bombs to destroy every atomic research site in every Islamic country. In addition to ending the immediate threat, we send the message to the remaining people that their continued existance on this world depends on not pissing us off.

    Anyone here who kills some asshat that supports the terrorists doesn't get prosecuted. We round up everyone like Ward Churchill and kill them immediatly.

    If we want to survive we had better start to develope a certain visciousness towards those who would kill us real soon or else its "adios muchacho's" for the USA.

    Can you believe that?  It reads like a parody.  But there really are a significant number of people in this country that believe we can actually kill all "the terrorists" and then return to our idyllic lives.  How any thinking human being can reach such a conclusion, I have no idea.  Nor do I have any policy prescription that will get them to vote for us.  All we can do is try and do things better.

    When we realize that terrorism is not some smallpox-like disease that can be completely eradicated, we can start to think rationally about it.  I don't believe in indictments and therapy, and I would love it if we got bin Laden.  But we have to be smart, not just carry around bigger guns than everyone else.  If the terrorists kill thousands of us on 9/11, the answer is not to kill several thousands of some ill-defined enemy to feel better about ourselves.  If that's our answer, then maybe it's us who need therapy.

    If we can't get back at the guys who actually hurt us, then we need to accept it and be smarter about it.  We have to improve our intelligence and find out where they're hiding, not just lash out at whatever easy target we can find to make it look like we're doing something.  What was it Jonah Goldberg said?

    In the weeks prior to the war to liberate Afghanistan, a good friend of mine would ask me almost every day, "Why aren't we killing people yet?" And I never had a good answer for him. Because one of the most important and vital things the United States could do after 9/11 was to kill people.

    Does anyone here want to be Jonah Goldberg?  We're better than that.  We know that it helps to kill the enemy, preferably before he kills us, but it doesn't help to simply "kill people."  In fact, if we learn nothing else from the disaster of Iraq, it ought to be that killing the wrong people is completely counterproductive.  All we've done in Iraq is cause death and destruction and spur a huge recruiting drive for al-Qaeda.  We can't unring the bill, but we can try and stop the problem from becoming worse.  As another noted right-wing philosopher said:

    Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me...I won't get fooled again.
    •  9/11 and today's events (4.00)
      both happened, to some degree, because our mideast policy (both Repub and Dem) is not working: we are seen by many arabs and muslims as too oil-grabbing and too Israel-at-any-cost and too support arab and mideast despots (Saudi, Egyptian, Pakistani) while paying lipservice to democracy. Our hypocrisy shines through.

      Three ideas whose time must come, and come soon, if we are to divert apocolypse:

      a) actual renewable energy policy (no more mideast crude)

      b) actual Palestinian statehood (best chance for peace)

      c) no more military meddling in the mideast (actual withdrawl from Iraq)  

  •  The Right Wing Retort to the Graph (none)
    Of course Right Wingers will read this graph and respond "The Terrorist were just saving up there hatred of the Evil Bill Clinton until 2001, W is just inheriting this mess." or "Look at 2003 and 2004, that's when the liberals started attacking the country with there anti-war propaganda. Surely the increase is there fault."
  •  Curse You Fact Based Community (none)
    Wingers don't need no stinkin facts!

    It is a very mixed blessing to be brought back from the dead.

    by Steven D on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 02:14:56 PM PDT

  •  Fox has no shame (none)
    The following exchange between Fox News host Brian Kilmeade and Fox News business contributor and substitute host Stuart Varney occurred during breaking news coverage of the attacks on London subways and buses on the July 7 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:

        KILMEADE: And he [British Prime Minister Tony Blair] made the statement, clearly shaken, but clearly determined. This is his second address in the last hour. First to the people of London, and now at the G8 summit, where their topic Number 1 --believe it or not-- was global warming, the second was African aid. And that was the first time since 9-11 when they should know, and they do know now, that terrorism should be Number 1. But it's important for them all to be together. I think that works to our advantage, in the Western world's advantage, for people to experience something like this together, just 500 miles from where the attacks have happened.

        VARNEY: It puts the Number 1 issue right back on the front burner right at the point where all these world leaders are meeting. It takes global warming off the front burner. It takes African aid off the front burner. It sticks terrorism and the fight on the war on terror, right up front all over again.

        KILMEADE: Yeah.

    http://mediamatters.org/items/200507070005

  •  Who gains? (none)
    Who gains by such increases in terrorist activity?  
    • the terrorists, since terror is what they do;
    • the bush administration, which attributes its electoral victory to voters' insecurities;
    • big media, which have more to "report";
    • profiteers, who reap billions from the outsourcing of warfare.

    Not you.  Not me.  Not anybody we know.  Not anybody we'd ever want to know.

    When we outlaw free speech, only outlaws will speak freely. - DaveOinSF

    by Bob Love on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 02:16:33 PM PDT

    •  Zionists do......... (none)
      and of course they are thick in our govt and our 51st state of Israel.  With support for the war on a dive, a recent British plan to pull out troops, record low Bush ratings, the continued Zionist agenda of not stopping -at all costs- until the Iran, Syria, etc. are claimed, this gives plenty of reason.  Look to has something to gain....

      I still say to my grave, al Qaeda is not who we have been told they are.

  •  London terrorists' goal: provoke more violence (none)
    Absolutely.  Can't resist linking to this:

    Assuming that "Islamic terrorists" are responsible for the London bombings (and not anarchists, the IRA, etc.), the TV news commentators I've heard so far have it exactly backwards.  The reason fanatic Islamic terrorists would bomb London is not to push Britain out of Iraq (and elsewhere), but to draw it in further.  Terrorists failed to do this in Spain; perhaps they learned from this and waited until after Blair's recent election.  [more]

    http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/7/7/124941/1784

  •  The terrorists must be (none)
    in their "last throes."  </snark>
  •  One comment on BTC (none)
    about the graph just about made me wet myself laughing.

    Looking at that graph, you'd almost think something happened in 2000 that stoked up religious and nationalist extremists around the world.

    Probably just a coincidence.

    Comment by Nim -- 7/7/2005 @ 9:10 am

    Naahhhhh, couldn't be.

    Quo usque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra? -Marcus Tullius Cicero

    by justme on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 02:22:03 PM PDT

  •  hate to be a downer but... (4.00)
    Joe Wilson, in the same interview that he stated "Karl Rove should be frog-marched out of the White House.", stated when asked how far up the investigation would go, "Never bet against the house. the house will always win."

    Unfortunately, this incident in London will be re-run as may times as it takes to scare the crap out of every American and force them to creep back into tenuous, yet patriotic support of Bush.  Remember the missing explosives from the bunker in Iraq was quickly washed away from the collective media memory the minute the new Bin Laden tape was played right before the election.  For weeks the big question was "What will be the October surprise?!!" When it came in the form of a Bin Laden tape no one had the stones to call it what it was.  This is no different.  
    Things are going to have to get much worse before teh average citizen will wake up and smell the c-4 residue.  It seemed they were stirring of late but this will lull them all back to sleep.

    •  tell that to Fitzgerald (none)
      The prosecutor seems to be doing something with his time, and he's not watching the polls or the headlines.  I agree that weapons of mass distraction will now be unleashed upon us, but that's not going to stop Fitzgerald as he proceeds.  

      Also, though the wingnuts are frothing about the evildoers right now, a seismic shift has occurred in ordinary people who are starting to wonder what their $300 billion has bought them.  We can't call out the National Guard, either, if something happens at home.  And the bills will keep on coming, as bodies pile up.  In the short run, Bush probably gets a bump; but it's not going to create a wave of support for privatizing SS or making Iraq the 51st state.  

  •  Hey Rove you asshole (none)
    We don't want to give these assholes therapy. Now get off your fucking worthless asses and catch these  fuckers!
  •  What the wingers are really saying (none)
    I'm listening to CNBC.  Kudlow that asshole is saying that the attack in London PROVES we are winning the war on terror.  He says the first big attack, the WTC, took 3000 people, the next big attack, the Madrid train, took 300 people, and in this attack only 30 people killed.  He concludes from this that the next attack will kill 3 people, and the one after that will kill none.
    (No kidding, he really said this)  You can't make this shit up, truly.  He is jubilant.

    Meanwhile, it's obvious that the 'Fight em there so we don't have to fight them here' illogic didn't work for the English and it didn't work for the Spanish.  Why anyone in the US would think it would work for us, I cannot see, other than being the Prince or Princess of Denial.

    Finally, I was listening to Sam Seder on AAR on the way home--a British gentleman called in to say he and his mates believe that Bushco staged the attacks in London to gen up more enthusiasm for the War on Terra.  They find that only Bush benefits from these attacks, therefore he must have caused them.  Plus the fact that Mr. 9/11, ex Mayor Rudy Giuliani, was on the spot in London before the attack is way too suspicious.

    Sam was not buying it, but he said the fact that anyone has that severe a distrust of our leaders speaks volumes to the dire political state we are in now.

  •  The World isn't Safe with Bush in Charge (none)
    repeat
  •  The war in Afghanistan (none)
    "No one is claiming that terrorism was created by Iraq. We're arguing that letting Al Qaida off the hook in Afghanistan and pursuing an unecessary war in Iraq has fueled terrorism."

    Well,

    the war in Afghanistan against the USSR created Al Qaeda. The first war in Iraq and the blockade which followed fueled Al Qaeda. Clinton fueled Al Qaeda. Bush just lit the match.

    When you drive you fuel terrorism.

  •  how odd (none)
    How odd that it seems to me that every time bush's poll numbers go down and/or a scandel may bring bush an the repugs down there is a terrorist attack somewhere or some kind of terrorist linked Chickenlittle panic attack from the MSM to take people minds off of the scandels that are distroying america.I wonder if there is a secret red phone that goes to a cave somewhere so that Rove can pick it up an hand it to W and says "tell your family friends you need help again"  p.s. yes I believe that bush an friend let 911 happen so that they could have thier "Pearl Harbor like attack" to get the laws passed that they wanted.
  •  Any reports from freeperland? (none)
    I know there are brave souls out there who wade through the muck of freeperland to bring us back those treasured little jewels of freep.

    Is there any evidence of the "desperation" Kos is hinting at?

  •  De-fuse or escalate (none)
    If ever there was a contest or conflict in the entire history fo the world which demanded de-fusing, this is it.  Escalation, as Bush has done, in the face of this danger, is simply foolhardy...as it was for Johnson in the 60s.  WE can spend ourselves into the ground literally our entire annnual gdp on this enterprise and they can effectively counter it with a hundred or so well trained guerillas.  How absurd these people are!

    Escalation which brings us war for 40 years can never paper out economically much less culturally.  Don't just count the increased spending by world governments...count all of it by private industry for enhanced security, the lost production,  all of it.

    Bush's policies aren't just blunders, they are catastrophic errors.  

    RIP: LAND OF THE FREE

    by NorCalJim on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 02:40:12 PM PDT

  •  Terrorism CANNOT be defeated. (none)
    Terrorism CANNOT be defeated. It is the only weapon that the weak can use against the strong. As long as the strong take advantage of the weak, terrorists will fight.

    Telecommunications and travel have enabled international terrorism. There is no going back.

    The legitmate gripes of the abused must be seriously addressed. Unfortunately, today's world "leaders" insist on refusing to even discuss these issues. It is considered weak to try to see anything valid in the terrorists objectives.

    This is CLASS WAR, and the other side is winning.

    by Mr X on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 02:40:25 PM PDT

  •  Symbiosis at work (none)
    BushCo and BinLadin have smiling faces today. The strategy of escalation is a winning path for their interests. It will continue until there's exhaustion on both sides. How long will it take?
  •  No therapy for terrorists... (none)
    ...is my opinion.  Hunt them down and kill/capture them, and try them according to the existing laws of the nation victimized.  No Gitmos, but lots of Leavenworth for the terrorists.

    And I don't go around exposing the identity of CIA agents, Karl Rove.

    One other thing - do you think more competent Arabic translators might help us hunt down terrorists?  I think so.  But the Christofascists are so sensitive - they might have to work with gay people!  Clearly, the delicate sensibilities of the Christofascists take priority over public safety...

  •  How to end terrorism (none)
    Question 1: Why did the WTC bombing, and then, 9/11 happen?

    Answer 1: Because US troops were in Saudi Arabia.  It is a violation of the Koran for armed "infidels" to occupy Muslim soil.

    Question 2: So, wait, if our troops were to leave the Middle East, then the terrorism would stop?

    Answer 2: Bingo.

    Question 3: So why the hell are we over there?

    Answer 3: I think you know.  It's black and it rhymes with boil.

    Question 4: So if we developed alternative energy sources, we could leave the Middle East altogether and say the hell with them?

    Answer 4: I don't see why not.  That's the strategy we're running in Sub-Saharan Africa.

    Question 5: So why don't we do it?

    Answer 5: How did our President - and Vice President, for that matter - get their fortunes?

    Anybody who tells you the Middle East situation is complicated, as far as we're concerned, is lying.  Those people are crazy, and their religious beliefs say they have to continue to attack us as long as we're over there.  When we leave, they leave us alone.  Simple as that.

    Consider this: how would we react if, say, Osama Bin Laden came over here and set up an Islamic Theocracy to run our country?

    •  but it's not just the oil it's also Israel (none)
      we have an obligation to:

      a) stop our economic addiction to crude oil
      b) dismantle our military bases in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Iraq
      c) help create a viable Palestinian state asap, so that there might actually be peace there
      d) stop talking democracy while supporting despots like the Saudi family and Pakistani military

      But in principle I agree with you that the reason Islamis terrorists have targeted the West is more specific (and preventable) than is currently realized.

  •  More Bush*t: (none)
     "Our strategy is succeeding.We have led, many have joined, and America and the world are safer." George W. Bush 9/2/04

    I think the American people--I hope the American-I don't think, let me--I hope the American people trust me.-George W. Bush

    by kitebro on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 02:43:32 PM PDT

  •  Thank you kos (none)
    For focusing on the main page the reaction to this and how the TRUTH (Counterspin) is nessasary to get us pass this terra mindset we live in today.
  •  What is "frog march"? (none)
    I've seen the term many times in posts regarding a wish for some of the repugs, especially Karl Rove, but I really don't know exactly what it means.  I have a hard time visualizing a frog marching...

    Anybody care to elaborate?

    Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practise to deceive! Sir Walter Scott.

    by tomathawl on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 02:48:16 PM PDT

  •  interesting trend (none)
    It is interesting to see how the numbers are on a clear downward trend during the Clinton years...when all we had to worry about was an intern giving a blowjob!

    I guess we do not have to worry about that much today...

    No more gooper LITE!

    by krwada on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 02:52:51 PM PDT

  •  appeasers (none)
    If the attempt to establish a democracy in Iraq is in no way related to the War on Terror, why is Al Qaeda fighting so desparately against it's success?
    •  Mutual enemies. (none)
      Al Qaeda was OK with the first part of the war, though. Bin Laden's statement right before the invasion told any sympathetic Iraqi listeners that they were to stand aside and allow the coalition to destroy Saddam's government and that fighting "in defense of the non-Islamic banners" was wrong.

      Modern Iraq isn't a democracy because it is under military occupation and its economy is controled by foreign firms. Of course al Qaeda will hijack the Iraqis' genuine anger and concerns and use those for its own ends.

      The people who backed Saddam and helped him regain power after the 1991 war are the appeasers.

  •  Flypaper (none)
    This is the best paragraph I've ever read about the "flypaper" theory:

    As a TPM reader put it to me both hilariously and brilliantly more than a year ago, this 'fly paper' thesis is like saying we're going to build one super dirty hospital where we can fight the germs on our own terms.

    link

  •  Facts really are stupid things (none)
    when you look at the world from a Republican viewpoint.
    http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/279.html
  •  Letter to the editor: Out now! (none)
    [Here's some counterspin I just sent to my favorite newspaper:]

    As a matter of U.S. homeland security, the Bush administration owes Americans an announced schedule for U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq. Immediately.

    Let's act autonomously before bombings in our own cities (mirroring the tragic London attacks) corner us in a fool's choice between letting terrorists claim credit for our retreat, or sinking deeper into President Bush's Vietnam-style quagmire.

    By needlessly invading Iraq -- under concocted pretenses -- Bush abused the U.S. military's courage and loyalty to settle a trivial family score with Saddam Hussein. His folly's only effect on Americans' security has been to grievously harm it.

    History will judge Bush harshly for this betrayal. An honorable Congress would impeach him.

  •  Let's dig a little deeper, shall we? (none)
    Let's not forget that Osama issued his fatwa for attacks against the U.S. in 1998.  Assume (as seems quite reasonable) that it takes a couple years for a terror organization to get up and running, and the rest begins to make sense.

    Anyway, here's the list of terrorist organizations from the Dept. of State's publication "known to be responsible for the kidnapping or death of any US citizen during the preceding five years [or] known to be financed by state sponsors of terrorism about which Congress was notified during the past year in accordance with Section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act" (the report is the source of the data used in the graph), along with the year that each was founded, as best as I can reckon (the "*" means it's a Muslim group):

    17 November (1974)
    *Abu Nidal Organization (ANO) (1974)
    *Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG) (early 1990s)
    *Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade (2000)
    *Ansar al-Islam (AI) (2001)
    *Armed Islamic Group (GIA) (1992)
    *Asbat al-Ansar (early 1990s)
    Aum Shinrikyo (Aum) (1987)
    Basque Fatherland and Liberty (ETA) (1959)
    Communist Party of Philippines/New People's Army (CPP/NPA) (1969)
    Continuity Irish Republican Army (CIRA) (mid 1990s)
    *Gama'a al-Islamiyya (IG) (late 1970s)
    *HAMAS (1987)
    *Harakat ul-Mujahidin (HUM) (1993 (sort of; there's a lot of history here))
    *Hizballah (1982)
    *Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) (1998)
    *Jaish-e-Mohammed (JEM) (early 2000)
    *Jemaah Islamiya Organization (JI) (late 1990s)
    *Al-Jihad (AJ) (1970s)
    Kahane Chai (Kach) (1990?/Declared terror org. in 1994)
    Kongra-Gel (KGK) (1974)
    *Lashkar e-Tayyiba (LT) (1989)
    *Lashkar i Jhangvi (LJ) (1996)
    Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) (1976)
    *Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) (early 1990s)
    *Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK) (1960s)
    National Liberation Army (ELN) (1965)
    *Palestine Liberation Front (PLF) (late 1970s)
    *Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) (1970s)
    *Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) (1967)
    *Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC) (1968)
    *Al-Qa'ida (1988)
    Real IRA (RIRA) (late 1990s)
    Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) (1964)
    Revolutionary Nuclei (RN) (1995)
    *(sort of)Revolutionary People's Liberation Party/Front (DHKP/C) (1978)
    *Salafist Group for Call and Combat (GSPC) (1996)
    Shining Path (SL) (1960s; became terror org. in 1980s)
    *Tanzim Qa'idat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn (QJBR) (2004)
    United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC) (1997)

    By my reckoning, we've got a grand total of two (2) organizations that formed post-GWB, and one that formed post-9/11 (and that's Zarqawi's organization, which consisted of a wide array of individuals who, shall we say, had a pretty good resume in the terrorism department before that time).

    So what, pray, was going on in the 1990s, when fifteen (15) of these organizations emerged?

  •  If yer not in the coalition, TOO BAD (none)
    PETER GRAFF reports from Baghdad in the Scotsman:
    IRAQ and the United States sought to prevent an exodus of diplomats from Baghdad yesterday after an ambush prompted Pakistan to pull out its ambassador, Bahrain's envoy was shot and Egypt's was kidnapped.
    Okay, there is a problem; and our crack spinmeisters are bound to come with something far-fetched to bamboozle the debate. Sure enough here it is:
    Washington echoed the plea. "It's no secret Iraq is a dangerous place," Adam Hobson, a US embassy spokesman said. "We believe it's important for the international community to show support for the Iraqis by establishing and maintaining a diplomatic presence."
    Hmmm, that sound like begging the question; "it's important..."   ...to whom, and why, and how important, those are really the questions. But the  meisters are not finished throwing gasoline yet:

    Iraq's interior minister, Bayan Jabor, said the government had "a plan to protect diplomats after these incidents". He gave no details. He also said that some diplomats were lax over security.

    "The Egyptian ambassador went to a hot-spot alone and he bears responsibility for that," Mr Jabor said. Diplomats have said Mr Sherif was grabbed when he went out to buy a newspaper, apparently without security protection.

    Okay, well that sounds like we know who's fault this whole problem is: the ambassador's !! okay. Well, this seems like a simple problem, by that reasoning we'll just get rid of the ambassadors....oops, I mean, well, that is...oh damn it.

    The writer of the piece finally does just that little bit of analysis so sadly lacking in US media:

    Unlike embassies of Britain, the US and other countries that helped invade Iraq in 2003 - which are housed in the fortified Green Zone government compound - the missions that have been attacked rely on their own security in the city.
    Well, isn't that a cozy scene. I hope the wingnut media types visiting Baghdad this week take a hint and stay in the green zone; we wouldn't want them to witness the abduction of an ambassador...if there are any stupid enough to hang around.

    And as for those countries who are "important" but evidently "not important enough", well, you guys keep your chins up and tell your ambassadors it's their fault, and they can't leave.

  •  Bush's "Win/Win" double-think (none)

    If terrorism goes up around the world then Bush is worth supporting because he has the guts to fight this threat.

    If terrorism goes down around the world then Bush is worth supporting because he's winning the war on terrorism.

    No wonder they're "Wingnuts".

    Why do the facts, reality and objective truth hate America and the baby Jesus?

    by WinSmith on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 03:21:02 PM PDT

  •  Then there is this oddity. (none)
    The bombing of London comes a few scant days after London announced withdrawal from Iraq.  SO, WTF.  Anyone else think this is strange?

    RIP: LAND OF THE FREE

    by NorCalJim on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 03:27:09 PM PDT

  •  Be careful what you ask for. (none)
    I'm not sure I would blame Bush for all of the increase in terrorism, and if the increase was due to our attacks in Afghanistan, I can live with that as invading Afghanistan was required.

    What irks me is the increase in terrorism and threats due to our invasion in Iraq.  Bush's expansion of the war on terror to include Iraq was unnecessary and has greatly complicated the task.  The goal was to get bin Laden.  Why haven't we got him?  Why haven't we expended every penny of our being to get him?  Why does he remain free while?

  •  Turn the 'flypaper' over (none)
    And make sure this word sticks to Bush's Iraq-centered terrorism policy:

    FAILURE

    and this word sticks to the workings of the White House:

    CORRUPT

    This is a failed and corrupt Administration. Repeat.

  •  From James Taranto's alternative universe (none)
    From today's Opinion Journal, which I read so you don't have to.

    His spin on the terrorist attacks in London:

    Perhaps this will finally quiet those who keep insisting that the liberation of Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terrorism. Yeah, well, one can always hope.

    His unique slant on the demonstators at the G-8 summit in Gleneagles, Scotland:

    It seems fair to observe that there is something of an ideological convergence between the nihilists who ran riot in Scotland this week and those who committed mass murder in London this morning.

    And a big "up yours" to civil libertarians:

    National Review's Jonah Goldberg quotes a reader who points out that violence such as London saw this morning "is what the people in Gitmo would rather be doing." It shouldn't take another terrorist attack to remind us of that fact.

    In politics, sometimes the jackasses are on your side.

    by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 03:47:58 PM PDT

  •  The attacks keep us malleable (none)
    However, the increased terrorist attacks keep us, the public, too scared and malleable to question the $8 billion that has disappeared in Iraq, or some new extravagant Halliburton contract involving overcharges, or some law that violates the Bill of Rights.  
  •  Terrorist Classification (none)
    IIRC the "undercounting" had to do with an entirely new baseline that makes it hard to compare between years. The 3k number includes terrorism conducted by a nationality against that same nationality. Those attacks used to be classified as civil warfare, not as terrorism.  So Thai on Thai violence would be counted in the new classification scheme but wouldn't have in the old one. The graph you provide is accurate, however, in that it uses the same classifications for all the years and does show a trending down during Clinton and a trending up during Bush.

    Also I don't think Iraq wasn't counted initially, and no doubt deflated the number...

  •  tone it down already (4.00)
    9/11 was obviously an opening salvo - does anyone honestly think that was going to just be that?  So then how can we know if things are better or worse because of Iraq?  We can't.  You can guess, you can say it's "obvious", but that doesn't make it so - it's based on about as much logic as the flypaper theory.  Maybe you're right - maybe you're wrong - but you have no way of really telling.  So it all boils down to faith.  What do you -believe-.  And you're going to have as hard a time convincing people who believe in the flypaper theory that they're wrong, as they'll have convincing you that you are.  

    Trying to link it directly to Bush, however ("the rest is history") is logically weak.  They weren't sitting around waiting to see if he'd take power, willing to NOT attack if Gore were handed victory instead.  Just not the case, sorry.  Now, you can say that Bush's response to 9/11 has made things worse, and Gore's might not have - but in response to that, see paragraph one of this comment.  You just.  Don't.  Know.  And you don't have any proof to suggest otherwise - charts won't cut it.

    Correlation != Causation.  Etc.  Etc.

    I understand you're rallying your troops, here, I understand you're preaching to an imagined choir - but do you think that's what most of the US wants?  A mirror image of the repubs, just flipped over?  I don't think so.  And so long as you DO, you aren't going to win elections because of the logic you make.  If you win, it'll be because the GOP -lost-.  Not because of you.  But despite you.

    You can be better, and frankly the Democratic party deserves better.  Stop the goddamn cycle already.  The GOP isn't going to do it, so that leaves....who?

    •  not link but not prevention (none)

      No one's linking the attacks to Bush.  The attack, like Spain, Morocco and the rest, do prove that one of the arguments -- that invading Iraq would 'bring the fight to them' -- is yet more garbage.

      And this is a salient point.

      As to the "cycle", the Dems tried to be above the fray in 2004, with John Kerry not slamming Bush at all at the convention.  

      In return?  The repugs basically called dems traitors, spent their entire convention changing "flip flopper" and wearing purple heart bandaids.

      They play with hate in their hearts.  That's why they're winning.  The more we take the high road, the more we lose.

      Sorry bub.  It's time for us to get dirty too, before more damage is done.

      Why do the facts, reality and objective truth hate America and the baby Jesus?

      by WinSmith on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 04:14:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Wrong audience (none)
      The worst offenders are on the Right, not here. But they're not about to let you, or anyone else, tell them to "tone it down." Which they haven't.

      In politics, sometimes the jackasses are on your side.

      by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 04:17:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Did anyone find it strange... (none)
    ...that there was next to no "chatter" on this latest attack? I heard this on the Today show this morning that Homeland Security is now going back through it's intercepts of communications between al Qaeda and suspected terrorists, trying to find a clue or hint about the London attacks. It's interesting considering we got that a couple of years of false positives, in which the treat level was raised a dozen time, not including 2004, of course.

    This says one of two things

    1. The attackers are not al Qaeda. I've heard about the "al Qaida of Europe" claim, but I've also heard that it's got some problems with it's legitmacy. Unless Osama himself comes out with a new video or tape, then I'll keep a open mind.

    2. that, if it is truly al Qaeda, then the intelligence gathering network that Homeland Security has been compromised and Osama and his buddies are working around the loopholes in the system. They're playing Bush and the CIA like chumps, by feeding false data into the network through the guys being tapped and then circumventing the shadowed members. Thanks Bush.

    Amateurs talk strategery, professionals talk logistics

    by Young Freud on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 04:34:17 PM PDT

  •  Kudo's for the stats, a boo for analysis (none)
     While I totally dig the research and graph on the terrorist attacks, I don't agree with your analogy in this sentence..."letting Al Qaida off the hook in Afghanistan and pursuing an unecessary war in Iraq has fueled terrorism."

     IMHO, Al Qaeda is a job for intelligence...not the military.  Hence the unsuccessful Skull and Bones/Halliburton/Carlyle War.

    •  and to add (none)
      Until Republicans stop making the tired excuse that they can't get into the tribal areas of Pakistan, this war will last as long as the Bohemian Grove boys pockets are full...regardless of the body count.
  •  Question (none)
    I went to the website used to generate the graph and included every year of the Clinton Presidency.  I did the same graph on incidents of terrorism (domestic and international) per year and noticed a big jump between 1997 and 1998, which then declined until 2001.  Any theories about why the jump between '97 and '98?  A change in statistical method?  Policy change?  I want to understand because this is the sort of thing the wingers will point to.  Thoughts?

    When a whole nation is roaring Patriotism at the top of its voice, I am fain to explore the cleanness of its hands and the purity of its heart. - Emerson

    by foolrex on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 05:19:04 PM PDT

  •  Are we forgetting... (4.00)
    That there was a whole other war against Iraq in '91?  Let's talk about these figures again with that  in mind.
    •  Re: Are we forgetting (none)

      This is an important point that really should be widely discussed.  It
      also was one of the first things that crossed my mind when people said
      that 911 was before Iraq. Yes, 911 was before Iraq II, but Iraq I
      (in 1991) was before both 911 and the 93 case.

      The real problem is that Bush seems to want to turn the entire western
      world into Israel, where we all have to fear random indiscriminate
      bombings of innocent people. Bush thinks there is a finite number of
      terrorists and that all we need to do is round them up and we'll be
      done. In reality, a terrorist is "born" every time there is a
      retaliatory act by anyone, thus defining the escalating cycle of
      violence.

      What is even worse, the people who are most effected indirectly by the
      actions Bush I and II have taken in Iraq are probably those most
      against it, namely the people living in large cities and who are
      generally more left than right. The people living on farms would never
      be targets of terrorist attacks (apologies in advance to anyone right
      now reading this from a farm).

  •  BTC Graph (none)
    The BTC Graph should have been your headline!  Quite eye catching for charts.  Alot of information leaps out at ya!
  •  re thougtseries (none)
    Iraq is now a democracy. It's current government was voted in by 65 percent of it's citizens. If one were to take into account the number of voters who were kept from the poles by murderous threats and intimidation, that number surely goes way up; enough so , that it can be said, that the people, in a clear majority, place their hopes for the future of that country with the coalition and its goals. And not with the terrorist "insurgents".  Have the scenes in the aftermath of a suicide attack in Baghdad, where men and women are seen tearing their hair out and calling for justice for the animals that deliberately killed innocents?  And they are not reffering to Karl Rove. There are two forces battling each other for the future of Iraq. The majority risked their lives to cast their vote for democracy, and co-operation with the Coalition. Your vote for the insurgency is a vote for the Brownshirts.
      The fact that Iraq's economy is in part controlled by the occupying/liberating coalition force does not mean Iraq is not a democracy.  In that line of reasoning, neither is America a democracy, as a large part of our economy is influenced by foreign investment.(China, Japan, Saudi?)  Would you defend my right to kidnap and behead any foreigner in the U.S. simply because I lost my job as a result of a hostile foreign take-over of my company?
      The invasion of Iraq AND Afghanistan by western nations is seen by muslims as an act of war directed against the UMMAH(the "sacred" collective body of all muslims(submitters). Actually, in the eyes of jihadis, ie. Good Muslims, any dealings with THE GREAT SATAN is an act of apostasy punishable by death. Remember, Saudi Arabia is a fundamental Islamist state.  The origanl cause of Osama's grievance with the Saudi rulers was the simple fact that they invited American military forces into that country to stave off Sadam: not because the Saudi ruler were un-religious or stifling Islam.
    Al-Qaeda is the de-facto army of the UMMAH which is the greater nation encompassing all islamic lands. By your reason, the U.S. would be totally justified in nuking Mecca in response to 9-11.
    The fact is that AMERICA has been measured in it's response. Rather than striking blindly at any muslim target out of revenge, we have toppled the most evil and backward regimes the muslim world and are attempting to bring hope and order thru democracy to divided and oppresed peoples.  It is precisely this fact that proves that this is not a war of fascist Imperial aggression against the tolerant peace-loving Taliban and Baath party; rather a struggle between civilization and barbarity.
      Would you call the bombing of mosques and the random kidnapping and killing of moslems in America a natural and legitimate response to 9-11? "blowback"? Would you seek to place the deaths attributed to such acts in "context"?
    Just see where your sick illogic is taking you.

    And NO, I am not a Republican.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site