Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: lorne who wrote (8138)	3/18/2004 7:42:35 AM
From: ChinuSFO	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 81568

Stumbles at the top put the war on terror at risk By Peter Hartcher March 19, 2004 John Howard should note how much al-Qaeda has profited from ham-fisted US strategy. If we are in a war on terrorism, who is winning? The terrorists can claim some serious successes since September 11, 2001. Spain was the 10th country struck since the attack on the US, demonstrating the potency and reach of their hatred. But the terrorists have been damaged, too. The authorities killed al-Qaeda's top man in Saudi Arabia this week, for instance. Measuring overall progress in the worldwide twilight struggle is difficult. Three new, authoritative and important assessments of the state of the global counter-terrorism campaign have emerged from the US in the past few days. First, an authority on the subject, Tony Cordesman, of the non-partisan Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington DC, made the case that "from al-Qaeda's perspective, they can make a claim that they are in fact winning, not losing the war on terrorism". How so? "The victory we have won in Afghanistan is tenuous at best - it is more Kabulstan than Afghanistan. The fighting goes on. The US is tied down there. The problems of Central Asia continue ... From al-Qaeda's viewpoint Iraq is, by any standard, not an American victory yet ... "Al-Qaeda has so far done more to dominate the Arab media than the US. The US effort to win the information battle and hearts and minds has been sufficiently inept ... And from al-Qaeda's viewpoint, does having the US tie down most of the forces that it can actively deploy in Iraq and Afghanistan demonstrate that the US can win asymmetric wars? Well, not yet." Overall, Cordesman does not think al-Qaeda and co are winning. His point is that the terrorists can tell a plausible story that they are at least holding their own. And a plausible story is central to the momentum of any movement. Second is the testimony to Congress nine days ago by the CIA chief, George Tenet. His main finding was that the al-Qaeda leadership structure had been "seriously damaged" but that the group had adjusted and was operating through loosely affiliated cells which remained committed and capable: "Even catastrophic attacks on the scale of 11 September remain within al-Qaeda's reach. "The steady spread of Osama bin Laden's anti-US sentiment through the wider Sunni extremist movement and through the broad dissemination of al-Qaeda's destructive expertise ensures that a serious threat will remain for the foreseeable future - with or without al-Qaeda in the picture." There is a whirlwind of speculation that US and Pakistani forces are closing in on bin Laden. The enemy is no longer just al-Qaeda but a hydra-headed global movement. Third, the most credible and consistent measure of global public opinion is the work of the Washington-based Pew Research Centre. It co-ordinated a 44-nation survey last May that found that the invasion of Iraq had "widened the rift between Americans and Western Europeans, further inflamed the Muslim world, softened support for the war on terrorism, and significantly weakened global public support for the pillars of the post-World War II era - the UN and the North Atlantic alliance." And while the US lost support, trust and credibility, who gained? Pew found: "Support for the US-led war on terrorism also has fallen in most Muslim publics. Equally significant, solid majorities in the Palestinian Authority, Indonesia and Jordan - and nearly half of those in Morocco and Pakistan - say they have at least some confidence in bin Laden to 'do the right thing'." This week Pew produced an update, albeit surveying only nine countries: four Muslim-majority states, three Western European powers, Russia and the US. Its summary: "A year after the war in Iraq, discontent with America and its policies has intensified rather than diminished." In every country but the US, most people had less confidence in the trustworthiness of the US. And in every country but the US most said the Iraq invasion had set the war on terrorism back. The invasion of Iraq was never a serious part of the US counter-terrorism campaign. We know from three published sources from within the Bush Administration that George Bush was committed to the invasion to remove Saddam Hussein long before September 11. The attacks on Washington and New York were not the reason for the attack on Iraq, only a political marketing opportunity. Although it is still very early in the long twilight struggle against terrorism, it seems more likely that the invasion of Iraq was a major distraction and diversion from the serious work of counter-terrorism. As Jim Steinberg, the former US deputy national security adviser and now head of security studies at the nonpartisan Brookings Institution in Washington, put it this week: "All the intelligence assets and operating capability dealing with Iraq could have been used against terrorism. On some level it must take away attention and resources from al-Qaeda. And to the extent that it has made the publics in other countries sceptical of the US, it has diminished their willingness to co-operate with us. That hasn't damaged co-operation on terrorism in the short term, but the question is whether it inflicts damage in the longer term." The efforts to counter the newly energised global terrorism movement have just begun, and much remains to be done. Iraq was a diversion, at best. And it may have aggravated the problem. In Australia, the Howard Government seems intent on demonstrating that it is so deeply invested in the Iraq distraction that it is having trouble concentrating on the real work of counter-terrorism. The primary evidence is the brutalisation of the Federal Police Commissioner, Mick Keelty, by John Howard, his staff and his ministers this week. His crime: making a commonsense but politically inconvenient observation that the risks of terrorism in Australia had been raised by the decision to take part in the invasion of Iraq. The heads of the nation's security agencies need to be free to speak frankly to the public about terrorism and how to defeat it. Howard and his ministers are showing that they're not interested in that idea. Tenet said that one of the reasons for al-Qaeda's resilience was that "this is a learning organisation". Could the same be said of the Howard ministry? This story was found at: smh.com.au

To: lorne who wrote (8138)	3/18/2004 7:47:52 AM
From: lorne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

The reign in Spain falls mainly on the lame March 17, 2004 After a terrorist attack by al-Qaida that left hundreds of their fellow countrymen dead, Spanish voters immediately voted to give the terrorists what they want – a socialist government that opposes America's war on terrorism. Al-Qaida has changed a government. Until the bombings last week, the center-right Popular Party of outgoing Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar had been sailing to victory. But then the al-Qaida bombs went off and Spaniards turned out in droves to vote against the government that had been a staunch Bush ally in the war on terrorism. (I guess it's OK for a Spanish socialist to "politicize" a terrorist attack just to get elected.) In a videotaped message, the al-Qaida "military commander" for Europe claimed credit for the bombings, saying that the terrorist attack was meant to punish Spain for supporting the war in Iraq. The message came as a total shock to liberals who have been furiously insisting that Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with al-Qaida. Apparently al-Qaida didn't think so. After the Madrid bombings, it looks like liberals and terrorists will have to powwow on whether there was an Iraq /al-Qaida link. Two hundred dead Spaniards say there was. The New York Times called the Spanish election "an exercise in healthy democracy." And an ATM withdrawal with a gun to your head is a "routine banking transaction." Instead of vowing to fight the people who killed their fellow citizens, the Spanish decided to vote with al-Qaida on the war. A murdering terrorist organization said, "Jump!" and an entire country answered, "How high?" One Spaniard who decided to switch his vote in reaction to the bombings told the Times: "Maybe the Socialists will get our troops out of Iraq and al-Qaida will forget about Spain so we will be less frightened." That's the fighting spirit! If the violent Basque separatist group only killed more people, Spain would surely give them what they want, too. After his stunning upset victory, Socialist Party leader Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero vowed to withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq if the United States does not turn over Iraq to the United Nations. He also vowed that all of Spain's remaining trains will run on time. Zapatero said the war with Iraq had "only caused violence" and "there were no reasons for it." One reason for the war, which would seem to be a sufficient reason for a more manly country, is that the people who just slaughtered 200 Spaniards didn't like it. But, like the Democrats, the Spanish hate George Bush more than they hate the terrorists. Zapatero said the war in Iraq was based on "lies" and called on President Bush and Tony Blair to "do some reflection and self-criticism." So don't think of the Spanish election as a setback for freedom – think of it as a preview of life under President John Kerry! What kind of lunatic would blame Bush for 200 Spaniards killed by al-Qaida bombs? Oh wait – Howard Dean just did. Summarizing the views of socialists everywhere, Dean said: "The president was the one who dragged our troops to Iraq, which apparently has been a factor in the death of 200 Spaniards over the weekend." Yes, with 1,700 dead or injured Spaniards, George Bush certainly has some explaining to do. What have the terrorists ever done besides kill and maim thousands of innocent civilians? Bush isn't fully funding "No Child Left Behind," for God's sake! Before he was put into office because he supported policies favored by al-Qaida terrorists, appeasement candidate Zapatero said: "I want Kerry to win." Kerry is also supported by North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il, who broadcasts Kerry speeches over Radio Pyongyang with favorable commentary. So now Kerry really does have two foreign leaders on record supporting him: a Socialist terrorist-appeaser and a Marxist mass murderer who dresses like Bea Arthur. Zapatero predicted that his own victory would help the anti-war party "in the duel between Bush and Kerry." Would you mind repeating that, sir? I was distracted by that large white flag you're waving. However Spain's election affects Americans, we can be sure that Spain's surrender to terrorism hasn't been lost on the terrorists. It's difficult to imagine the American people responding to a new terrorist attack by deciding to placate the terrorists, as the Spanish did. A mollusk wouldn't react that way to an attack. Only a liberal could be so perverse. No matter how many of our European allies may surrender to the terrorists, America will never be alone. This is a country founded in a covenant with God by people who had to flee Europe to do it. Sailing to the New World in 1630 on the ship Arabella, the Puritans' leader and governor, John Winthrop, said Americans were entering into a covenant with God to create a "city upon a hill." We would be judged by all the world if we ever broke that covenant. But if we walked with God, "We shall find that the God of Israel is among us, when 10 of us shall be able to resist a thousand of our enemies." He has intervened in our affairs before, such as in 1776, 1861 and 1980. With the Spanish election, we are witnessing a capitulation to savagery that makes full-scale war inevitable. The Democratic candidate wants to represent godless Europeans. The Republican candidate wants to represent Americans. As Winthrop said: "The eyes of all people are upon us." worldnetdaily.com