Unfortunately, George W. Bush is losing the war on terrorism.

[destruction]

Friday, July 8th, 2005

THE WAR ON TERROR: PROGRESS?

Four years ago this September, the world changed. George W. Bush, the 43rd President of the United States, rose from the rubble of tragedy to boldly lead a war on all those who hated freedom. We were going to smoke them out of their caves.

We invaded Afghanistan, toppled their brutal dictators and set up a provisional government that became an elected government that will celebrate its democracy this fall at the polls.

The war there, however, is not over and was never won. The Taliban launched a spring offensive, heroin sales are booming, non-aligned war lords rule much of the outlying country, and the citizens stuck in between are feeling uneasy.

The #1 Evildoer hasn't been found--nevermind the leader of the Taliban who also vanished. Now Pakistan says Osama might be in Afghanistan. Afghanistan says he might be in Pakistan but wherever he is, he's not in Afghanistan.

Finding this guy is enough to make anyone's head spin and so we gave up and went to Iraq.

In the name of weapons of mass destruction and terrorism we toppled a brutal dictator and fulfilled the President's promise to use American power for nation-building.

More than two years into this invasion, the Iraqi people have voted for a leader, the government is drafting a plan to draft a constitution, the people often have no power, and the anti-invasion insurgency is always about to end.

Here is a look at Iraq by the numbers:

Number of U.S. troops in Iraq -- 135,000;

Number of coalition troops in Iraq -- 23,250;

Number of Iraqi security forces -- 168,581;

Number of insurgents & militants -- 16,000.

That's 326,831 coalition soldiers fighting 16,000 insurgents at the cost of $180,000,000,000.00.

The President assures us that entire hundreds of foreign fighters have been captured or killed:

Our military reports that we have killed or captured hundreds of foreign fighters in Iraq who have come from Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Egypt, Sudan, Yemen, Libya and others

1,751 American Military Deaths

And like Afghanistan, the innocent (and newly-freed) citizens stuck in between

feel uneasy

. At least

12,000

just feel dead (and that's

a minimum

).

In the latest justification in the ever-shifting plates of war, our President says we are taking the fight to the terrorists so that they

won't have a chance to hit us at home

like they did on 9/11.

Unfortunately, he

stopped looking

for the leader of these terrorists long ago.

Unfortunately, the real leaders of the terrorists are still safe and sound, somewhere outside Iraq--where they never were to begin with--

and they're still in charge

:

The message by Ayman al-Zawahri — his first video since February — appeared to be an attempt by Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida network to co-opt the rising wave of reform movements in the Middle East.

....

On at least seven occasions in the past six years, a statement by al-Zawahri has been followed by a significant al-Qaida attack within three weeks, an NBC News analysis of the statements show. In four cases, the attacks came within a week.

Unfortunately, the terrorists already

brought the fight home.

Unfortunately, George W. Bush is losing the war on terrorism.

THE FUTURES THIS MORNING, or MEANING WHAT YOU SAY

London bombings leave more than fifty dead as police dig in with implacable resolve.

Early reports suggested that British police had warned the Israeli embassy of possible terror attacks just prior to the blasts. But apparently no such thing happened.

The Guardian reports that British intelligence officials were ready for an attack but that without specific chatter, they had no idea an attack would coincide with the G8 meetings and had recently lowered the terror warning level. And, given the heretofore unknown-unknown nature of the only group to have claimed responsibility, it seems British intelligence might be focusing on homegrown extremists:

There have been two distinct groups of people involved in planning the attacks in the UK: British-born young men, often educated and middle class, who may have volunteered for training in Afghanistan and who are prepared to risk jail or death to carry out an attack; and foreign citizens, including a number from north Africa, who see Britain as the next most important target after the US and use false identities to avoid being traced, blending in with existing immigrant communities. Police and anti-terrorist sources believe that there are around 30 or 40 of such people who have both the capability and the will to carry out attacks like those of yesterday. Some 200 have returned from training camps in Afghanistan, Chechnya, or Bosnia, and perhaps 1,000 sympathise with the notion of a "global jihad". The British-born operatives are seen as less effective and skilled and more easily identifiable.

Figuring out who did this poses daunting possibilities. If it is the work of al Qaeda sympathizers rather than a specific al Qaeda branch, what drives people to join the fight?

US and European intelligence services are monitoring a more pronounced level of radicalization among young Muslim men in Europe, they said, particularly in the wake of the Iraq war, which has drawn in hundreds of European Muslim fighters, according to US military estimates.

....

'The central question is whether it is an Al Qaeda-directed attack or an Al Qaeda-inspired attack," said Roger Cressey, a former official in the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations. ''In many respects it will be easier if it is an Al Qaeda-directed attack with a familiar command structure. If it is an inspired attack with no operational control over it, it is much more difficult to deal with. My gut tells me it was inspired."

Whether it's 40 inspired people or 4,000, the Iraq war is driving people--in particular: young people, our future--to take up arms and to kill the innocent. Whether they follow an ideology of hate or not, it is clear that the Iraq war has made everyone--Americans, Britons, Iraqis, Spaniards, Danes, etc.-- less safe.

Of course, if you listen to someone like John Gibson at FOX News, this isn't the tale at all. His word on the London attacks is that: a) it proves that al Qaeda is weak; the war on terror is working; c) the Patriot Act should be made stronger.

Heck, maybe he's right. Maybe this War on Terror is almost over.

And if John Gibson is right, then Brian Kilmeade at FOX News is probably also right, and the London attacks are good for America:

I think that works to our advantage, in the Western world's advantage, for people to experience something like this together, just 500 miles from where the attacks have happened.

And if Brian Kilmeade is probably right, then Brit Hume at FOX News is definitely right, and your immediate reaction to terror should be: BUY!

"My first thought when I heard - just on a personal basis, when I heard there had been this attack and I saw the futures this morning, which were really in the tank, I thought, 'Hmmm, time to buy.'"

- Fox News's Brit Hume, 7/7/05

And what could be more right than seeing the futures, shrugging off the death, and making some good green dollars?