By the way, you also mention that bringing the fight to Iraq prevents terrorists from blowing up unarmed civilians, but I bet the tens (perhaps hundreds) of thousands of Iraqi civilians killed since the US invaded would beg to differ. Well, they would if they were still alive. A mere technicality, I realize….

I suppose your response is you meant civilians of the UNITED STATES, but I bet those dead Iraqi’s (and their surviving friends and family members) do not draw such distinctions.

Which leads to another point: Sure was brilliant invading a country that has yet to be proved to have any connections to bin Ladin, al qaida or any direct (hell, even indirect) threat to the United States. That sure threw al qaida a curve ball. I am sure they are wondering about a US strategy that will piss off the entire Arab world. It certainly solves any need to look for new recruits.

Maybe that’s Bush’s strategy: Get so many people beating a path to Bin Ladin’s door to join him that we find out where he is!!

I would also remind you of another point: The Mujahadeen was supported and financed by the US when it suited our “interests.” I realize empires have “interests” and not “allies,” but we should be more careful nonetheless in choosing our interests. Bush I ought to have reminded Bush II about a guy named Noriega, but I digress.

Bush I also knew that invading Iraq was hopeless and gave up that effort within 72 hours in 1991. As the Powell Doctrine pointed out: Don’t go in without a plan to get out.

That still leaves me wondering: What is the definition of victory in Iraq? When do the troops come home? Your answers would appear to be, respectively, “Invading Iraq = Victory” and “Pretty much never.”