Untrue.We attacked Iraq because Bush said they had WMD that were poised to strike us.

Ummm.. noo... Actually, both are true. And both are good reasons, along with the reasons I stated. Why is it that the left, who usually likes to be considered so broad-minded, has such problems with dealing with multiple reasons in this case?

We attacked Iraq because he violated the U>N> resolutions relentlessly

Untrue. We attacked Iraq because Bush said they had WMD that were poised to strike us.

and Saddam and his sons were crazy a-sholes

If we are going to attack people for that, we better reinstate the draft and start making more tanks, cause we will be very busy.

So naturally, we had to attack a secular Arab state to deal with it...

We attacked Iraq because he violated the U>N> resolutions relentlessly, sorta like the way you repeat donking points, and Saddam and his sons were crazy a-sholes, he had a chance to avoid it he chose to take his medicine.

What in the great green hell dude, did Saddam owe you money or something?

The militant islamist threat as a whole has been building for some time

So naturally, we had to attack a secular Arab state to deal with it...

Steve

Let me be clear here... although this is nothing I've not said before, here or at my place. Standing by itself, Iraq certainly was not a logical follow-on, despite the linkages between Iraq and terrorism in general, and that because of those, here was quite enough reason to invade Iraq on it's own merit. Most presidents would ahve done what's always been done befre; treat it as an individual incident, and let it pass. Again.

But given the wider conditions I mention, inclduing Iraq, it's my feeling that invading iraq WAS the corect response. I'm still convinced of that.

I'm not sure I understand. Can you amplify?

To do so, I would point to Lockerbie, to Beruit, to The 'Palastinians', to the first WTC attack and so on, as a few examples.

I'm looking, you see, at Militant Islam as a whole. The militant islamist threat as a whole has been building for some time, and has never really been correctly addressed, which in turn each attack each afront, each move Militant Islam made was increasingly bold.

Along comes 9/11, and Bush not only looks at the current situation, but looks back over time and correctly concludes that a response to this threat is overdue, and acts on that conclusion. That American soil was attacked for the first time is an important trigger, certainly, but I suggest even absent this, either Bush or those who come after him would be eventually forced to respond with... well, with force.

Dave;

I think that Dr. Cole means something different by “Al Qaeda” than either you or the experts quoted in USA Today do. I believe he means just the specific guys who've been identified as being part of the 9/11 plot. Not the affiliated organizations. Not the franchisees. Just the core group.

Well, that's exactly the attitude I'm respondng to in my answer to Sam, Dave. They've managed to get stonger by playing that little shell game with shaowy orgs and groups. Nobody gets the blame from the internationalists because the groups that claim responsibility for such attacks as we're discussing tend to be rather undefined from the perspecrtive of, say, the UN, simly beacuse they're more or less unalligned with one nation state or another. The UN has an unfortunaate history of being unable to deal with such groups because of that lack of official linkage. Which, I figure, is exactly the reason behind that setup, you see.

I think that Dr. Cole means something different by “Al Qaeda” than either you or the experts quoted in USA Today do. I believe he means just the specific guys who've been identified as being part of the 9/11 plot. Not the affiliated organizations. Not the franchisees. Just the core group.

Yes the true believers of Islam will always be around practicing their religion.

Al-Qaeda is as strong as it was prior to 9/11, if not stronger

But is this anything more then a liberal talking point used to attack Bush with?

It was however the trigger that forced us to respond to a situation getting increasingly out of control.

I'm not sure I understand. Can you amplify?

Dr. Cole's position is clearly what it has been for some time: that the attack was just the work of a handful of guys. I've always suspected that he was reasoning from consequences. In order for a purely law enforcement model to be in any way successful against terrorism that's what you've got to believe.

Color me unimpressed... a situation not unusual with Cole.

Now, I’m not going to defend the war in Iraq as a logical follow-on to 9/11,

Of itself, no. It was however the trigger that forced us to respond to a situation getting increasingly out of control.