You misstate the facts -- all parties agree that the invasion of Afghanistan was called for, all Dems without exception.
Criminalizing bin Laden is another matter, which would follow a successful military campaign, which, btw, has failed in its declared goal of capturing or killing OBL or SH -- as Clark says they have taken over states instead, a crucial distinction and fatal mistake. Tens of thousands of deaths have occured as a result. Whether these could have been avoided in going after OBL we don't know, but we may still have the opportunity to find out.
Here's the difference -- instead of completing of the job in Afghanistan, the top CENTCOM was already planning to divert resources to the invasion in Iraq, when the declared responsibility for CIC was to track and capture OBL. I don't know Clark's other positions, but his statement tonight was correct: the effort should have been made to track down terrorists into Pakistan or anywhere the trail led, not to invade PNAC-designated states like Iraq.
Osama's fondest wish is for the US to invade Arab countries. The neocon plan is the best Islamist recruiting policy imaginable, if extreme unilateralist policies as exemplified by Rumsfeld's "Old Europe" jibe accompany preemptive military invasions.
Osama gains nothing by peace. Unfortunately, likewise neither do the neocon strategists, as set forth in their description of "what is needed is another Pearl Harbor". IOW, it takes extreme terrorism to galvanize Americans to be manipulated into supporting a war they would not support otherwise.
That makes the interests of Osama, the neocons and collaborators, especially Israel, coincide. |
