Consider what a smart person once said: "Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

Unless we have constant visual reminders of threats, we cannot really substantiate the verbal fear mongering. Hence the long lines at boarder crossings, and airports, and passports, and boarder fences. And now, for your visual comfort, armed guards and random searches at railroads!

Unless there is continued cries of eminent threat, one cannot claim that we have successfully prevented them…

Hence McCain’s statements, perfect logic to its extreme. I stand here to protect you, and I am not afraid, and I have information you do not have, and the approach we (I and Bush) have chosen succeeded…

Will it work this time around?

You're sort of suggesting the GOP isn't interested in nation-building. But they are, as long as it's some nation other than the USA.

And there's actually some very solid logic behind this. Huge contracts to build/rebuild a nation are much easier to steal from when it's all taking place on the other side of the planet, and behind the fog of war. These contracts (to build all sorts of new infrastructure, to replace what we blew up) are infinitely more profitable, as a result of being carried out there, instead of here.

Americans don't even know how many of us have died, so they surely don't know how much of our money is being stolen. And of course it's actually our kids' money, since it's all being done on a Chinese credit card.

A bit off-topic, but I think you see the connection.

BTW - Bush did the same thing for Ahmadinejad that OBL did for Bush, except that OBL did it on purpose. The moderate candidate was on schedule to win in Iran until Bush called the election a joke and insulted Ahmadinejad. That got people pissed off and they turned out in droves and voted for the idiot.

... to some guy commenting on a blog. Right, I should listen to him, rather than to a well-known journalist who's interviewed CIA sources who are experts in studying al Qaeda.

But as Glasnost indicates, something's "making absolutely no logical sense" may tell us more about your own "logic" than about the matter at hand.

AQ likes to kill Americans. It's the key to their organizational survival. Since we invaded Iraq, that takes a heck of a lot less planning. Just because you've read the odd bit of psy-op cleared foot soldier memos having a bad day doesn't mean the kingfish isn't glad to have us there. AQ is bigger and badder in Iraq than before we got there, and no one denies it. Our arrival is a lucky strategic break, even if no fun for the bottom of the ladder.

If we weren't in Iraq, we'd probably have Bin Laden's head on the White House lawn, what with the massive amount of additional resources we'd have to throw at the problem.

OBL doesn't want someone in the White House who seems like a reasonable guy to Muslims - it makes their recruitment efforts harder. He wants tough guy who serves as an effective focus of hatred. Kind of like how Israel has a harder time blasting the PA to bits with Machmoud Abbas in there than they did with Arafat. Think with your brain, not with your stomach.

Of course AQ wants to keep getting their asses kicked in Iraq. Why would they want to have an American president that promises to lose? I mean, come on, no need to think for yourself. Don't waste time with what the U.S. military in Iraq thinks. Don't pay attention to the Iraqis. The apparent desperation in AQ correspondence means nothing. Just believe whatever a Washington based Ivy League journalist tells you to believe. Just because it makes absolutely no logical sense ... oh look at that pretty shiny thing.

I think McCain is either blatantly fearmongering, overcome by his own self-importance, or both.

Regards, C

Inside of CIA, of course, the analysis moved on a different track. They had spent years ... parsing each expressed word of the al Qaeda leader and his deputy Zawahiri. What they'd learned over nearly a decade is that bin Laden speaks only for strategic reasons -- and those reasons are debated with often startling depth inside the organization's leadership....

But an ocean of hard truths before them -- such as what did it say about U.S. policies that bin Laden would want Bush reelected -- remained untouched.

I'm sure that OBL considers President McCain the next best thing.

Between the Americo Apologist ACLU, the US House of Representatives, the NYT, the 'free' press overt efforts to push the economy into recession before the 2008 election, and the obvious efforts of any number of Islamo Fascist groups to bring an end to the USA I grew up in and fought for.

Why am I surprised???

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/19/hastert.remark/index.html

However, political analysts

http://www.ijtihad.org/alqaeda.htm

and career diplomats

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/21/politics.alqaida

seemed to think (in 2004) that Al Qaeda prefered Bush in the White House because he would continue the conflict in Iraq.

Poke around a bit yourself.

http://www.google.com/search?q=bush%20kerry%202004%20al%20qaeda