What are they drinking at the New York Times?

[libertango]

Mr. Brooks:

Saying that the result of the Spanish elections is a victory for al Qaeda only works if a) one hates democracy, and b) one thinks there is any linkage between Iraq and al Qaeda.

Surely the fact that the Spanish attacks happened after one year of the US occupying Iraq shows there is no such linkage.

You ask where was the State Department. I ask, where was the Bush Administration at all, and our counter-terrorism forces specifically? At least the Spanish realize that it is terrorism that is the enemy, and not counting coup against family enemies of the Administration in Iraq.

Tell me how ceasing to be distracted by Iraq to focus on combating al Qaeda is a "victory" for al Qaeda.

Sincerely,

etc.

Comments

[jerrykaufman.livejournal.com]

Perhaps I'm making a false assumption. I assumed that the general purpose of Al Qaeda attacks on Americans and Europeans was to convince them to leave Islamic countries in general and Afganistan and Iraq in particular.

Whan you say they want escalation, do you mean that Al Qaeda wants more American and European troops in Iraq and Afganistan? If this is what you mean, and if you are right, then I have much to learn about the situation.

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

I think they want more troops in Iraq, because that is more likely to provoke moderate Muslems to support their "holy war." I think the U.S. played right into their hands in the aftermath of 9/11: restricting freedoms domestically, invading two countries, and generally behaving in the way they predicted all along.

B