| Page 4 of 5 < > |
Bush's Osama Problem
Opinion Watch
|
Discussion Policy
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
|
The New York Times editorial board writes: "It had to happen. President Bush's bungling of the war in Iraq has been the talk of the summer. On Capitol Hill, some of the more reliable Republicans are writing proposals to force Mr. Bush to change course. A showdown vote is looming in the Senate.
"Enter, stage right, the fear of terrorism. . . .
"The message, as always: Be very afraid. And don't question the president."
But the Times argues: "If the report is given an honest reading, it is a powerful rebuke to Mr. Bush's approach to the war on terror. It vindicates those who say that the Iraq war is a distraction from the real fight against terrorism -- a fight that is not going at all well."
Fred Kaplan writes for Slate: "One major reason for al-Qaida's resurgence, according to the report, is its 'association with' al-Qaida in Iraq. (Note, by the way, that these two organizations are said to be 'associated' or 'affiliated' with each other; contrary to what Bush has said in recent speeches, they are not the same entity.) This affiliation 'helps al-Qaida to energize the broader Sunni extremist community, raise resources, and to recruit and indoctrinate operatives, including for Homeland attacks.' . . .
"Many times, President Bush has said that we're fighting the terrorists in Iraq so we don't have to fight them here. It is an absurd argument in many ways. But the NIE reveals that the opposite is the case -- that because we're fighting them in Iraq, we are more likely to face them here."
Josh Marshall blogs: "The simple fact is that the full picture is now clear. The White House was repeatedly warned in advance that attacking Iraq would strengthen al Qaeda. We did and it did. That's where we are now. The White House has no excuse and no answer."
Maureen Dowd writes in her New York Times opinion column (subscription required): "Oh, as it turns out, they're not on the run.
"And, oh yeah, they can fight us here even if we fight them there.
"And oh, one more thing, after spending hundreds of billions and losing all those lives in Iraq and Afghanistan, we're more vulnerable to terrorists than ever.
"And, um, you know that Dead-or-Alive stuff? We may be the ones who end up dead.
"Squirming White House officials had to confront the fact yesterday that everything President Bush has been spouting the last six years about Al Qaeda being on the run, disrupted and weakened was just guff."



