Comments on: WAR ON TERROR: PROGRESS REPORT http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/war_on_terror_progress_report/ Online Journal of Politics and Foreign Affairs Wed, 25 Nov 2009 12:12:43 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Ryan http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/war_on_terror_progress_report/comment-page-1/#comment-5602 Ryan Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000 /?p=3152#comment-5602 Did nobody tell this guy we are supposed to be liberating this country and giving it back to its people, rather than 'securing' Iraq as an ally? A democratic Iraq may bode well for democracy in the rest of the region, but it's going to take a lot of US arm-twisting to turn Iraqi opinion against the rest of the arab world. The real test of this war and of USD intentions will come if and when the Iraqis democratically elect someone with an anti-US agenda. Did nobody tell this guy we are supposed to be liberating this country and giving it back to its people, rather than 'securing' Iraq as an ally?
A democratic Iraq may bode well for democracy in the rest of the region, but it's going to take a lot of US arm-twisting to turn Iraqi opinion against the rest of the arab world.
The real test of this war and of USD intentions will come if and when the Iraqis democratically elect someone with an anti-US agenda.

]]> By: Kevin Drum http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/war_on_terror_progress_report/comment-page-1/#comment-5603 Kevin Drum Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000 /?p=3152#comment-5603 Um, there were no significant (successful) attacks by foreign terrorists on our soil in the entire decade before 9/11, either. What's more, just as before 9/11, there have been plenty of al-Qaeda attacks in other countries since 9/11. In other words, there's been virtually no change at all. Horowitz is being absurd. If a terrorist attack occurred tomorrow, would he change his mind about the success of Bush's terrorist policy? James, you can't really have taken this seriously, can you? Um, there were no significant (successful) attacks by foreign terrorists on our soil in the entire decade before 9/11, either. What's more, just as before 9/11, there have been plenty of al-Qaeda attacks in other countries since 9/11. In other words, there's been virtually no change at all.

Horowitz is being absurd. If a terrorist attack occurred tomorrow, would he change his mind about the success of Bush's terrorist policy?

James, you can't really have taken this seriously, can you?

]]> By: James Joyner http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/war_on_terror_progress_report/comment-page-1/#comment-5604 James Joyner Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000 /?p=3152#comment-5604 Kevin, Maybe the post wasn't that clear; I think Horowitz radically overstates and oversimplifies things. The first WTC attack was perpetrated by foreign terrorists, and there were certainly a lot of attacks on U.S. assets by al Qaeda during the preceding decade. Clearly, the destruction of the Taliban regime and its support for al Qaeda has had some effect, although the Iraq invasion has also created some attacks on targets there. Kevin,

Maybe the post wasn't that clear; I think Horowitz radically overstates and oversimplifies things.

The first WTC attack was perpetrated by foreign terrorists, and there were certainly a lot of attacks on U.S. assets by al Qaeda during the preceding decade.

Clearly, the destruction of the Taliban regime and its support for al Qaeda has had some effect, although the Iraq invasion has also created some attacks on targets there.

]]> By: Matthew http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/war_on_terror_progress_report/comment-page-1/#comment-5605 Matthew Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000 /?p=3152#comment-5605 David Horowitz tends to get a little carried away when making his points. He may be a conservative now, but he's still prone to the kind of emotionalism that mars the work of his former fellow travelers like Bob Scheer, though not nearly as much. I think Horowitz's claim that Dems are objectively pro-terrorist is a mirror of the Deanite mantra that Bush has made us less safe now than when he became president. They're absurd claims, but that's what you get when you're dealing from a purely partisan deck. If you set aside the vitriol of the column, his "not another attack" premise is a good one, and something Bush can take some credit for, even if it's a somewhat hollow boast, much like Clinton's oft-repeated "there's not one Russian missile pointed at the US" line. But if Bush wants to use a line like that, he'd do well to thank the men and women of the armed forces for that accomplishment and steer well clear of taking credit personally. --- David Horowitz tends to get a little carried away when making his points. He may be a conservative now, but he's still prone to the kind of emotionalism that mars the work of his former fellow travelers like Bob Scheer, though not nearly as much. I think Horowitz's claim that Dems are objectively pro-terrorist is a mirror of the Deanite mantra that Bush has made us less safe now than when he became president. They're absurd claims, but that's what you get when you're dealing from a purely partisan deck.

If you set aside the vitriol of the column, his "not another attack" premise is a good one, and something Bush can take some credit for, even if it's a somewhat hollow boast, much like Clinton's oft-repeated "there's not one Russian missile pointed at the US" line. But if Bush wants to use a line like that, he'd do well to thank the men and women of the armed forces for that accomplishment and steer well clear of taking credit personally.

---

]]>