Where did Zakaria say Bush is winning in Iraq? Your head is broken, Paul.
Many people believe that Bin Laden is dead and that his recent audio tapes have been fakes.
The truth either way is that the Bush regime exagerated the threat from Bin Laden to create a new bogeyman. This frightened the public who gave the green light for stupid policy like the Homeland Security Agency, the Patriot Act and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Bin Laden has never been the massive threat that he was made out to be, and now people are ignoring terror attacks because terrorism (in other parts of the world) have become a part of everyday life (as they were before 911). The impact that Zakaria references has more to do with Bush overplaying his hand than any real loss of cohesion for Islamic terror organizations. Islamic terrorists were never cohesive in the first place.
Nadir: I concede your point about Bush overplaying Al Qaida, and completely share your opposition to the unfortunately named Homeland Security and Patriot Acts. But Zakaria asserts that Al Qaida has actual less capacity than it did before (a success for Bush), and that the various anti-democratic (ie, tyrant) terrorist groups (baathists, qaidists, shiists) are losing interest and appeal (another success for Bush).
The third success for Bush as that the self-proclaimed enemy -- al qaida -- has indeed failed to keep disrupting captialist markets around the world... for whatever reason. If these markets were constantly fluxing and people were yanking their wealth out of the markets in responses to the tyrant attrocities, you would be adding that to the stack of Bush defeats. Thus I insist that you apply the opposite label to the opposite result.
2 comments:
Where did Zakaria say Bush is winning in Iraq? Your head is broken, Paul.
Many people believe that Bin Laden is dead and that his recent audio tapes have been fakes.
The truth either way is that the Bush regime exagerated the threat from Bin Laden to create a new bogeyman. This frightened the public who gave the green light for stupid policy like the Homeland Security Agency, the Patriot Act and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Bin Laden has never been the massive threat that he was made out to be, and now people are ignoring terror attacks because terrorism (in other parts of the world) have become a part of everyday life (as they were before 911). The impact that Zakaria references has more to do with Bush overplaying his hand than any real loss of cohesion for Islamic terror organizations. Islamic terrorists were never cohesive in the first place.
Nadir: I concede your point about Bush overplaying Al Qaida, and completely share your opposition to the unfortunately named Homeland Security and Patriot Acts. But Zakaria asserts that Al Qaida has actual less capacity than it did before (a success for Bush), and that the various anti-democratic (ie, tyrant) terrorist groups (baathists, qaidists, shiists) are losing interest and appeal (another success for Bush).
The third success for Bush as that the self-proclaimed enemy -- al qaida -- has indeed failed to keep disrupting captialist markets around the world... for whatever reason. If these markets were constantly fluxing and people were yanking their wealth out of the markets in responses to the tyrant attrocities, you would be adding that to the stack of Bush defeats. Thus I insist that you apply the opposite label to the opposite result.
Post a Comment