Mr. Ambassador:
Thank you for you most edifying post. However, I beg to differ with you on your first point. Sir, although mainland has not been attacked since September 11, 2001. The nations of our "coalition of the willing," have been attacked. Therefore, one should not glean a false sense of security from the terrorist ability to be patient. Attempting to endow the republican party as one that is "strong on national security," must not be done gratuitously. Sir, as you are aware, all terrorist are resolute and in particular patient. The terrorists who attacked our homeland were determined and willing to wait for more than eight years between attacks on the World Trade Towers. It is without a doubt that they would wait twice that length of time to strike again it is the very definition of terrorism " is to strike at an unexpected time and location, to find a weakness and exploit it.
It is unfortunate that the republican party has used fear and bigotry to convey a false sense of security to Americans. Many opportunities for Americans to reach out to the Muslim world are being eroded by the latest round of public race baiting and bigotry that the republican party and Sen. Clinton's campaign. The vitriolic comments from both sides have been a great disservice to our nation. There are those in the Muslim world who have become disenchanted with the tone and tenor of the rhetoric from this years' presidential canidates and the bombastic comments from republican talk radio further diminishes our creditability. Moreover, the republican party fails to understand that Muslims are people of all races and nationalities yet they have based our national defense and national safety around a detrimental policy that stereotypes by race and national origin. So, please, Mr. ambassador do not perpetuate a false paradigm that because we have not been attacked that we are inherently safer. It is a dichotomy that enables politicians to play upon fears of the populace. One may never be strong when imbued in fear. Our citizens and our leaders are never at their best when reacting while from a state of fear and panic.
Al Qaeda, Clinton, Obama and McCain
The long distance barbs and ad wars among Clinton, Obama and McCain over which candidate possesses the greatest experience on national security among the three portends a much nastier confrontation in the months ahead given the vexing foreign policy challenges the next president will inherit.
Take, for instance, the recent McCain-Obama brickbats over Al Qaeda in Iraq.
Just a bit of history here.
Hatched after our invasion of Iraq, Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia is, according to U.S. counterterrorism officials both in and out of Iraq, a shadow of its once fearsome self. It has shrunk into a much smaller Sunni extremist group, which was once led by Abu Musab Al Zarkawi, the so-called Prince of Al Qaeda, who swore allegiance to Osama Bin Laden, and met a timely death a year ago.
When justice came to Zarqarwi in the black of night, Al Qaeda lost its most bloodthirsty commander there, and it has never recovered from the blow. It is largely a spent force, even though suicide bombings are continuing in Iraq, and the city of Mosul remains ground zero in a bloody mop up operation by the combined forces of U.S. and Iraq.
McCain would like us to believe that the Al Qaeda in Iraq is the same Al Qaeda under Zarqarwi. But it is not, and Gen. Petreaeus has made it clear that Al Qaeda is largely a spent force.
Yet the debate over whether Al Qaeda is or is not in Iraq misses the broader point of what Republicans will charge a U.S. withdrawal under a Democratic president may portend for Iraq and the broader war against Al Qaeda.
Republican operatives are planning to "swiftboat" the Democratic nominee on Iraq and Al Qaeda. Mitt Romney gave us a taste during this appearance at the CPAC Summit, when he derided Democrats as a party willing to surrender to terror (using that as an alibi to justify his withdrawal).
Whether Clinton or Obama emerge as the frontrunner after tomorrow night's 4 state "son of super Tuesday' contests, Democrats must play offense on Al Qaeda in Iraq, Iraq itself, and the broader war against Al Qaeda. For in the struggle to defeat Al Qaeda, Sen. McCain and the Republican Party have largely served up a spent ammo bag.
Their record can be summed up as follows:
1. No attack on the homeland since 2001.
2. The surge in Iraq has dramatically quelled violence.
3. We have killed and captured a card stack of key Al Qaeda operatives.
If this is the best that McCain and the GOP will muster, Democrats have much to run on.
Why?
Bin Laden and his chief deputy are still at large, Afghanistan resembles Iraq of 2003, and according to the CIA, Al Qaeda has reconstituted itself, becoming a more lethal force than at anytime since 9/11 and the number of Al Qaeda-inspired terrorists have dramatically increased throughout the Muslim world.
So when it comes to Democrats taking the offensive, here are some words of advice when the argument resumes after tomorrow:
1. Concede the point on no attack on the homeland, but give credit where it is most due: to our first responders, a more diligent public, and the James Bond-like talent of the British counter-intelligence services that have broken up a number of home grown plots against the U.S.
2. McCain has tied his fortunes to the success of the military surge. But today's visit of Iran's president Ahmadenijad to Baghdad should be a wake up call to Americans that when our presence in Iraq dissipates, the surge will never stop Sunnis and Iran-backed Shiites from settling their scores after we eventually leave, with a Shiite-dominated government increasingly aligned with Iran and not the U.S. or our interests in the Middle East.
3. Afghanistan/Pakistan ("AfPak" for short), is where the ultimate fight against Al Qaeda must be waged, and as long as the surge continues, along with unyielding McCain determination to keep 140K troops in Iraq, there will never be enough troops to undo the damage to the AfPak campaign that the Bush/McCain surge in Iraq has cost us there. And Al Qaeda will continue to do precisely what the CIA has warned it is already doing.
Republicans, including McCain, are ideologically straight-jacketed from implementing a new, more effective approach against Al Qaeda. Nothing in McCain's speeches suggests that he will take his foot off the military pedal (which so far has not worked) and begin using a better "mil-dip" mix of fuel against Al Qaeda.
Democrats bring to the struggle against Al Qaeda a reinvigorated and imaginative determination to marshal both military and diplomatic forces and skills that the Bush/McCain policies have failed to deploy. McCain occasionally talks about it, but he then inflames the broader Muslim world every time he utters his repeated Guiliani-like sobriquet "Islamo-facists."
Take, for example, Pakistan. A new Democratic administration, freed from the failed Bush policies there, will forge an alliance with the newly elected government that despite its hesitation to use military force against Al Qaeda, will be more receptive once the hated U.S. supported Musharraf is gone. Already Bush/McCain are being discredited by the Pakistan's newly victorious leaders for propping up Musharraf despite an unpopularity that rivals that of Bush.
Moreover, throughout the Middle East, there is a palpable desire by Arab leaders to engage more productively with a new Democratic administration to forge common policies and goals against Al Qaeda and Islamic extremists who lurk in their midst. They view McCain as another militarist who will alienate more than embrace potential allies in the broader struggle.
When the GOP's "swiftboating" machine switches into higher gear, as it surely will after tomorrow, no time should be wasted putting a Democratic torpedo right up their exhaust pipe.
The Dems have compelling, logical, and damning arguments to take the offensive against McCain and to stay on the offensive. The 2004 campaign should be grounds alone for my fellow Dems to arm the tubes.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Talking about al Qaeda as "the enemy" in Iraq obscures the question of who is the real enemy fighting us and killing our troops there. Only 5-10% of those killings are attributed to al Qaeda in Iraq. The rest are by sectarian insurgents who have nothing to do with al Qaeda. Only a minuscule percenage of Iraqis want our military to stay in their country.. The great majority of Iraqis (except the Kurds) want us out of there, and even support the killing of our troops. So Tim Russert's "hard questions" in Cleveland about al Qaeda in Iraq, like George Bush's SOTU speech, successfully mislead people to think of "the enemy" there as al Qaeda.
In fact we are an occupying army detested by the local populace. The entire debate on what to do would change dramatically if that fact were to become widely known, so it is important for those who want us to stay to obscure it. Which they are doing very successfully, as evidenced by this very blog post.
You are absolutely correct and I hope the Democrats read this blog very carefully. National security is supposed to be the domain of the Republicans. However, the Dems have an excellent case to make in November if only they would make it. I sincerely hope the Democratic nomination is locked up today (for anyone with a pulse at this point) so the Dems can stop infighting and focus on the general election.
Ask the Saintly Big "O" there is nothing to fear from Islamic Radicals.
Like if someone breaks into you house, NO Problem, just run up to your bedroom put your head under your pillow, don't see any bad guys now. . . . WOW! . . now was that not easy.
The author is correct in that bin Laden's current and ongoing freedom is a nail in the Repug national security coffin. Note how GWB has changed on the subject:
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01
And then...
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02
And then...
"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)
NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THE MAN WHO PERPETRATED THE BIGGEST SINGLE CRIMINAL ACT AGAINST AMERICA?
This is an easy one for we Dems. Let's use the hell out of it. :)
Someone please ask Sen McCain -
Sen after the war in Iraq is won and the troops are withdrawn, should Al Qaeda have a resurgence what will you do as President?
I doubt his answer will not be that much different from Sen Obama's.
I wonder how many people who support our actions in Iraq, trust the Iraqis. Do they trust the Iraqi Police? The Iraqi military? The Iraqi politicians? The Iraqi people who fled and would not stand up and fight for their own freedom/democracy? (Yes, there were a few, but too few. News reports suggest some 7,000 people have helped us, yet two million plus Iraqis fled the country.)
How many people who support our actions in Iraq would visit an Iraqi market, not with the US Military at their side, but only the Iraqi police to protect them?
Do you trust the Iraqis to do right by our efforts and sacrifices?
While I totally agree with Amb Ginsberg's main thrust ----- that the Dems need to be very aggressive on the subject of the Middle East and national security, I question two of his conclusions with regard to, as he puts it "Their (the Republicans) record".
Not only have there been no attacks on "the homeland" since 2001, there have been no verified attempts. The bogus reports (Los Angeles tower,etc.) and Orange alerts proffered by the Bush Administration indicate that, had there been any attempts, we would have been told about them. This being said, it's difficult to understand how "the first responders" should be identified as the answer to the lack of attacks-------they have had no attempts to "respond" to. The same applies with regard to "a more diligent public".
As to the British counter-intelligence --------------the "home grown plots against the U.S." were, as I recall it , all in the early conceptual stage (that is, they weren't anywhere near to being "real") and none were ever definitively linked to international terrorism.
My point is that Amb Ginsberg, like myself, is genuinely puzzled as to why there have been no attacks and I am going to speculate that he is not really all that satisfied with the answers he proposes.
The question "Why no attacks since 2001?" is a very important one. There has been almost no discussion or even mention of it in the main stream media ---the exceptions being one Op-Ed by Charles Krauthammer in WaPo ("The Other Shoe", 02/13/04) and one by Thomas Friedman in NYT ("The Calm Before the Storm", 04/13/05). Interestingly, I don't believe there was a single published reader response to either of these pieces. Why there has been virtually no coverage of a question that cries out for air time and/or print ink is a suggestive puzzle.
"The success of the surge" is really a totally unexamined phrase. What is the success that is claimed?
The drop in American casualties? I have no way of knowing, but I can reason that this drop in casualties could be the result of US Forces keeping a lower profile which helps to effect a "time out" in the whole conflict. It is conceivable that a "keep 'em in the barracks" tactic could be used for US domestic political purposes --- i.e. to give the appearance of the "success" of the surge.
The question "Why no attacks since 2001?"
There has been no attacks because GWB has agreed somehow with the powers-that-be of al-Qaida (read: OBL) that he'll do something about the Palistinians' treatment by Israel. Or he has been paid off to leave OBL alone.
Notice the King of Saudi Arabia's reaction when he left the room in Crawford after GWB told him with evasives that the Palestinian issue could be "discussed" at a later date.
Remember OBL is a Saudi.
Osama Bin Laden is dead:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/osama_dead.html
http://www.welfarestate.com/binladen/funeral/
I saw a clip of mccain talking about Iraq. He made a comment about the troops leaving with dignity 'this' time and it struck me what Iraq means to him. It really appears to me it is about making up for Vietnam. You could tell by the way he said it that is how he feels. He doesn"t care about the consequences; all he wants is a win in his eyes.
Al qaeda hasn't hit us since 2001 for one simple reason! They don't have to! All they have to do is set back and wait for us to destroy the US from within. Between the right wing nuts who see a terrorist behind every bush and are indulging in hysteria at every turn. Between the American people who are to ignorant to pick a President who knows what the f... he is doing and is capable of actually fighting terrorism. Because the Republican's have drummed in their heads for years that no Democrat is capable of running a war and the ignorant buy it. The fear mongers who are constantly using the threat of terrorism to keep the sheepl from staying to far to the left and leaving the fold! The flow of truth that has been effectively capped due to right wing nuts running the media. The lies our own administration keeps flowing to keep this useless war going. The cost of these two wars that is destroying the US economy and keeping anything productive from happening. The problems at home that are mounting from Republican's ignoring and neglect. I firmly believe we are destroying ourselves with ignorance. I am glad I am the age I am. I am going to be dying within the next 20 years and won't see the destruction of this great nation that I love. The sad part my children, grandchildren and great grandchildren are going to have to live with the mess George W Bush's policies have created. I don't think the American people are bright enough not to elect another warmonger Republican! So we are going to be able to add McCain and another 4 to 8 years of war and inactivity to that.
To follow on my last post it would be worth praising TFHOF if they were successful in eliminating Hassan Tukri in Somalia the other day. He was a genuine bad guy.
Thank you for writing an unbiased, reasoned, responsible and excellent argument. Unlike a certain previous post by an Ambassador I won't name.
Just another spin by some official. More of the fear mongering justifying our bullying techniques
around the world. Bin Laden is the gift that keeps on giving. The man has been dead for 7 years.
Use your brains, we can find a child molester in the Far East in one day but we cannot find a 7ft
Arab on kidney dialysis? Give me a break. We are paying the Sunnis to keep peace and while they
arm themselves with more weapons and we keep blaming the Iranians who are the least
percentage of insurgents in Iraq when we should take a look at our friends, the Saudis.
Lies and more lies.
LET'S GET THIS STRAIGHT NOT ANY OF THESE CANDIDATES HAVE EVER TAKEN 'THE CALL' AT 3:00 AM. NEVER HAD TO MAKE SPLIT MINUTE DECISIONS. So they arguement is a sham!
And when they have had to make calculated decisons Mac & Hill have faile dthe Test- repeatedly. They lack insight and foresight- atttributes high on the list for a President. As for the Foreign leaders they "know' they are Foreign "leaders' we no longer wish to deal with or even know- The UAE has been screwing US for Decades, the Cinese are trying to slowly poison US. the Brits have proven their allegience to the Corps over their own citizens - as have these two Corp Operatives.
I don't want either in the WH I want both in Gitmo!
WE've been swindled and Sold Out over the last 35 yrs- Thanks Hill & Mac- and keep reminding US just exactly what has (and has not ) transpired during your activites as 'Public Servants'.
HAND ME THOSE DICE- Obama is not my first choice- but at least he offers US a choice void of the past Influences which have Plagued our Country.
If MI hands Hillary the Delegates form that Rigged Primary- I will personally wage a demand for the 'Freedoms' of may MI 'Public Servants'- Levin, Brewer, Granholm, Land... I'm not onlyu NOT going to support you next go around- I will be screaming for your Indictments and Convictions for election Fraud and ultimately TREASON!
The MI Primary was intended to remain an Ace in Her Pocket- incase WE stopped buying her BS. Have no Doubt Hilary has been Crowned by the Corp'ists (birth place big 3 and their Oil pimp Inc's and Foreigner sponsors). If they can't move the people (apply undue and fraudulent influence) then they will STEAL this Election too- they 've done it at least twice before. The MI Primary was rigged the minute the State 'Dems' Changed the Date and continued right on to the Ballots and into the 'Scam Trons' .
I would strongly support an Election Fraud investigation in my State- aimed Directly at those who have Stolen the MIchigan Democratic party!
What most people including Ambassador Ginsberg fail to appreciate is that the reason that there have been not attacks on America since 9/11 is because the El Qaeda was not as great a threat as it was made out to be. Yes it did was able to carry out the airline attacks, but there was never hundreds of thousands, or thousands, or even hundreds of sleeper cells in America. There might have been at most a couple of dozen fanatics here and that was it. Internationally they were a limited to less than a couple of thousand fanatics, who were either living or had been trained in the mountains of Afghanistan. If we had focused our efforts those fanatics after they would have been almost entirely eliminated by now.
But no Bush, Cheney and their idiot advisors had to blow the threat way out of proportion to justify a reckless desire to go to war in Iraq. Nothing could have pleased Bin Laden more. Not only by exaggerating the threat did they make El Qaeda more attractive to potential recruits, but by attacking Iraq that made it into a war against Islam and gave Bin Laden time to regroup.
Sadly we must now pay the price for this stupidity because El Qaeda instead of being eliminated is now a greater threat than it was before. In dealing with this threat we need to be a lot smarter in our tactics. First of all we can not continue to expend our resources at any where near the current level. This is now going to be a long term battle. Anyone that thinks that they can eliminate all the El Qaeda fanatics from Iraq or any where else in the short term is simply delusional. We have killed far too many brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers, sons and daughters for there not to be people who hate us enough to join El Qaeda almost everywhere. That however does not mean that we should stay in Iraq for the 100 years that McCain wants. Rather that we need to get out of Iraq as gracefully as we can while supporting Iraqi efforts to deal with remnants of El Qaeda.
More important than getting out of Iraq is expending the necessary resources to root out El Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Most of this effort should go to Afghanistan where we can not rely on the local military to deal with El Qaeda; it is simply beyond their capability. While the Canadians and the British have been fighting this battle for us we can not continue to take their support for granted if we do not provide sufficiant resources ourselves. The Canadians have already said that if they don"t get more help they will be leaving within a year. So it is absolutely critical we put the necessary resources into that fight. If we were to shift even one third of our Iraqi resources into Afghanistan we could make siginicant gains in that fight and put El Qaeda well and truely back on the defensive.
In short if we want to defeat El Qaeda we have to do so on their home territory which is Afghanistan!!!
Absolutely!
There were gnats (yes, aggravating blood thirsty evil demonic gnats) and we went after them with a sledge hammer vice a fly swatter. Pres Bush entirely 'mis-underestimated' and did not properly identify where the actual threat was coming from.
Sixteen Saudi Arabians on the orders of a Saudi Arabian living in Afghanistan - Afghanistan a country allied with Pakistan - Pakistan a country with a dictator who came into power via a coup - highjack and fly airplanes into buildings in our country. Who do we attack? Morrocco?
Pres Bush failed,, misunderstood and conflated the threat. There were those that agreed with him, and it is his and their judgement which is on trial and suspect.
With the help of US government, the Islamic extremist (or freedom fighters as they were called back then) tangled with the Russians for 10 years and eventually drove the Russians out. Do you have the stomach and the will to fight them that long?
Ambassador, that was an excellent post!! Thank you!
I am a conservative, but I'd like to consider myself open-minded. You make a strong case to end the occupation in Iraq. I've always considered the argument from the left to be political...as if the Democratic leaders most ardently calling for withdrawal were doing so more to deal a severe political blow to President Bush than to end the occupation because it was the right thing to do. I've always felt that once we invaded Iraq, we were responsible for its liberation.
But now that we've turned the corner and defeated Al Queda in Iraq, maybe it is time to go. However, I don't think we can commit troops to Pakistan until we negotiate with the newly elected government.
"Bin Laden and his chief deputy are still at large, Afghanistan resembles Iraq of 2003,"
This is a wild guess.
So my wild guess, which is equally valid, is this:
Bin Laden is dead. Otherwise, does anyone think for a second that he wouldn't have taken this opportunity to release another videotape in order to influence the American democratic process?
Please.
While there's a lot of intelligent argument on strategic points in this post, most of it is based on guesswork.
Here's another of my wild guesses.
Barack Hussein Obama will dismantle John McCain like a child's toy. In the same way that he has already dismantled Hillary Roddam Clinton. In a gentle, but altogether ruthless and systematic way, based on logic, compassion, ethics and intelligence.
So, thanks for the vaguely historical post, Mr. Ginsburg, but we really don't need it.
QED.
Wow, your arrogance truly rival that possessed by Bush and Co.
Here is a couple of points based on logic and NOT wild guesses:
1. Obama did not dismantle Hillary. He won the small, caucus states and the black vote because he is a very good speaker and he is black. She won the big states because she represent the Democratic establishment. Right now, they are about neck to neck. So your statement of "already dismantled" is pure lie.
2. Obama WILL not be able to dismantle John McCain because the die hard republicans will vote for John McCain while die hard Democrats will vote for Nader. It will be a close race if Nader does not run and it just might go McCain's way now Nader is in.
And here is a word of wisdom: To assume you possess all the gentleness, logic, compassion, ethics and intelligence is arrogance and arrogance is what got us into imperialism in the first place.
I'll resist my arrogant inclination to ridicule your very basic grip of English, but let me point out something you seem to have missed.
I personally don't claim to have even the slightest gentleness, compassion, ethics or intelligence. I was making an observation about Obama's consistently impersonal approach. Hillary makes ad hominem (look it up) attacks while Obama takes her apart on methodology.
She keeps screaming about how she's a fighter, and he won't get down in the muck and give her a fight. That's why her lead is down to dust.
And he'll do it to McCain, too.
As for me, I'm no Obama. So I'll give you a pass this time, but next time I'll school you real good, K?
Good point about Osama Bin Laden. No genuine video tapes since 2001. Rumored to have died in Dec 2001. I also agree that Barack Obama won't have any trouble beating John McCain in a general election. McCain has trouble keeping his lies straight, because his memory is lapsing.
Actually, I was wrong. Mr. Ginsberg states that "Bin Laden and his chief deputy are still at large, Afghanistan resembles Iraq of 2003." Does he mean that Osama Bin Laden was in Iraq in 2003?
If he does, then he's endorsing the Bush administration's misguided decision to invade Iraq, allegedly to pursue Al Queda operatives who were operating there.
Which, as we all know, was never the case.
But in stating I was wrong, I make Mr Ginsberg even more wrong than before.
Oooh. Touché, sir.
Who knows what he means... But it seems he's just shilling for the neocon agenda: keeping Americans frightened of Al Qaeda by exaggerating their threat, so the neocons can mortgage our country and hand over it's wealth to their backers and cronies.
The war on terror was always a sham. Libby came up with the war plan to invade Iraq in 1991 for George Bush Snr. Bush 1st rejected Libby's plan and went with Powell's modest plan. Libby and Cheney have been holding a grudge ever since and were determined to hone their plan, gain more backers along the way, and used Bush to carry out that plan after 9/11. The fact that the administration continually held meetings about invading Iraq before 9/11 ever took place, proves this to be the truth.
Sen. McCain may be wrong, but at least he makes an effort to actually understand what is going on in the world. Maybe, just maybe, if someone takes the time to speak real slowly, and in monosyllabic words, he'll start to get the picture of what is actually happening in Iraq. I sure hope so, because this mess the Republicans have got us into is hurting everyone, including the United States, real badly.
Let me get this straight. While you are acknowledging that it was the Republicans who got us into this mess, you are assuming, and apparently accepting, the premise that we are going to turn things over to McCain so that we can have W's third term. That being said, you're hoping that McCain will have some sort of epiphany about Iraq. Here's a better bet for you: the KC Royals to win the American League pennant and the World Series in '08.
BLAH BLAH BLAH They all fu#*ck** uP! Except Sen. Obama. This country is in a fu**ing mess!! No more.
Ginsberg makes a few good points most importantly, the GOP has no platform whatsoever to run on beyond that generated by smoke and mirrors, and scare scare tactics. Lack of a political platform beyond more of Bush is of course a huge problem for them. The GOP can try swiftboat tactics if they want to but this is 2008 and these won't work. I don't need to read tea leaves to see that the GOP is finished this year. They can paint Obama or Clinton whatever color they chose but they remain stuck with McCain, Bush's legacy, and eight years of failed GOP policies that have screwed this nation and its people royally. I say let them try the swiftboat techniques. The GOP will find that the world has changed between 2004 and 2008; it changed in ways the the GOP hasn't been able to fathom. In November, Republicans will lose badly, historically, and, with any luck they may ultimately self destruct.
I hope the Democrats and the DNC will read this post and thank you for it.
Thank you for letting them know about the SWIFTBOATING awaiting them.
Much has been made of the fact that the US has not been attacked in the six years since 9/11. Let us examine the BBC timeline for Al-Qaeda attacks.
Bin Laden founded it in 1988 and set up training camps in Sudan in 1991. The 1993 World Trade Center bombing is questionably the first attack, although Al Qaeda involvement is unknown. Later in 1993, the Black Hawk down incident occurred in Somalia. Al-Qaeda is said to have trained the militia. In 1996, the military housing in Saudi Arabia was attacked, and Hezbollah was blamed for this attack. In 1998, US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed. In 2000, the USS Cole was attacked in Yemen. The accused are suspected Al-Qaeda members. In 2001, 9/11 represented the first attack on US soil by Al-Qaeda. In late 2001, the Shoe Bomber pledged allegiance to Bin Laden. In 2002, a fuel tanker was blown up in Tunisia and nightclubs in Bali were bombed. In 2003, bomb attacks occurred in Saudi Arabia and Morocco, and Turkey. In 2004, Madrid trains were bombed. In 2005, London trains were attacked.
From 1998 (the African embassy bombings) to 2005, at most 12 attacks have been attributed to Al-Qaeda, an average of 1.5 a year. Three - 9/11, Madrid and Bali - have had over 200 victims. Of the 12 attacks, only 9/11, London and Madrid have been sophisticated operations. The others have been suicide truck bombings or rampaging gunmen. The London and Madrid bombings are more sophisticated than these, but only by synchronizing 4 and 10 bombs, respectively. 19 terrorists carried out the 9/11 attacks in a far more sophisticated attack. The three more sophisticated attacks are also the only attacks that occurred in Western nations.
Three attacks on Western nation targets in six years, and none in a Western country since 2005. It has not been Bush's policies that have kept us safe, but the fact that Al-Qaeda hasn't really targeted us.
I second that notion with the addendum that we ACTUALLY HAVE been attacked since 9/11. Has the whole world forgotten about the Anthrax attacks shortly after 9/11? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills every time some fool suggests that the U.S. has not had a terrorist attack since 9/11. We didn't catch who sent the letters either, just told to duct tape our windows and duck and cover.
I know I remember peeing my pants a little after those.
Byrd....the anthrax was probably some home-grown nut job (or...maybe...didn't happen at all...but added fuel to invading Iraq)... More people have been killed by drunk drivers.by loonie toons buying guns over the internet (VA TECH, Uni. of N. Il) than even died in the twin towers....oh..we have enough nuts here to worry about..
And no one talks about the young WHITE American fundamentalist with bomb making material who planned on taking care of the proteste
Posted March 3, 2008 | 06:12 PM (EST)