[churchillbuff]

"So the leitmotif for Operation Iraqi Freedom was not WMDs, but the freedom of Iraq in the larger context of long-range security for Israel. Mr. Bush is right to change the rationale for war to isn't-the-world-a-better-place-without-Saddam? Of course it is. Was Iraq ever a threat to the U.S. homeland? Of course it wasn't. But hasn't the U.S. occupation of Iraq provided a force multiplier for al Qaeda? Of course it has. And the world is not a more peaceful place than it was before the occupation of Iraq. "

[sinkspur]

And the world is not a more peaceful place than it was before the occupation of Iraq. "

deBorgrave is showing signs of senility.

Let's see. Libya folded.

Iran is undergoing inner turmoil.

North Korea is begging for a sit down.

Pakistan is attempting to get its nuclear vagrants under control.

A letter surfaced, just this week, indicating that alQaeda is having difficulty recruiting, and that it is, basically, losing the war on terror.

What is deBorgrave smokin'?

[driftless]

A multiplier force for Al-Qaeda?? Show your evidence for that statement. But your argument is faulty in the regard you have for American security. Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you saying that we should not respond to 9/11 because we might create more Al-Qaeda recruits? If Iraq was a threat to us, we have to answer that threat. To say that we cannot or should not respond to a specific danger because more enemies might be created is troubling. That's like if when we responded to Japan's attack in 1941, and Germany had not declared war on us the next day, we should not respond to the attack because Japan's ally Germany might declare war on us. Well Germany did declare war on us without our first attacking Germany. And we licked both of them. If we are attacked, we must respond in force whether we create more terrorists or not. You don't give in to terrorism.