http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=27424&mode=nested&order=0

Wednesday, August 23

Who are the terrorists?

By Bob Burnett


President Bush's Monday press conference made two things clear:

He's not about to withdraw troops from Iraq.

And, he's locked into a definition of "terrorist" that's so general
that it's meaningless and, therefore, dangerous.

It's time to reconsider:

Who are the terrorists:

Why are we fighting them?

How can we defeat them?

Bush began his "war on terror" with a deliberately vague definition of
America's new enemy: a "terrorist" was any group the Administration
attached that label to.

On 9/20/01 the President said, "Our war on terror begins with al
Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every
terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated."

Bush's "war" initially centered on Al Qaeda.

The U.S. and its allies invaded Afghanistan.

In the September issue of The Atlantic Monthly James Fallows
persuasively argues that Al Qaeda has, for the most part, been
defeated.

He suggests that it's time to declare "victory" in the war on terror,
because the U.S. has diminished the effectiveness of Al Qaeda:

"Their command structure is gone, their Afghan sanctuary is gone,
their financial and communications networks have been hit hard."

He notes there has been "a shift from a coherent Al-Qaeda Central to a
global proliferation of 'self-starter' terrorist groups."

Rather than stay focused on Al Qaeda, and their malignant offspring,
Bush expanded the scope of his "war."

In the 2002 State-of-the-Union address, he denounced Iraq and Syria as
state "sponsors" of terrorism.

Implied there could be terrorist states.

Subsequently, the Administration convinced Congress and much of the
American public that his war on terror necessitated an invasion of
Iraq.

Bush conflated Al-Qaeda-trained Iraq-based terrorists, such as Abu
Musab al-Zarqawi, members of Iraq's Baath party, any Iraqi who
resisted the occupation, "insurgents", and, ultimately, Sunni Muslims.

Bush confused those who fight the U.S. because we are occupying their
country--"resistance" fighters--with those who are operatives of Al
Qaeda and have pledged to destroy America.

In his press conference, Bush referred to them all as "terrorists who
are trying to stop the advance of democracy."

Anyone who opposes the occupation is a "terrorist."

______________________________________________

Makes sense, eh?

Harry

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=27424&mode=nested&order=0

Wednesday, August 23

Who are the terrorists?

By Bob Burnett


President Bush's Monday press conference made two things clear:

He's not about to withdraw troops from Iraq.

And, he's locked into a definition of "terrorist" that's so general
that it's meaningless and, therefore, dangerous.

It's time to reconsider:

Who are the terrorists:

Why are we fighting them?

How can we defeat them?

Bush began his "war on terror" with a deliberately vague definition of
America's new enemy: a "terrorist" was any group the Administration
attached that label to.

On 9/20/01 the President said, "Our war on terror begins with al
Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every
terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated."

Bush's "war" initially centered on Al Qaeda.

The U.S. and its allies invaded Afghanistan.

In the September issue of The Atlantic Monthly James Fallows
persuasively argues that Al Qaeda has, for the most part, been
defeated.

He suggests that it's time to declare "victory" in the war on terror,
because the U.S. has diminished the effectiveness of Al Qaeda:

"Their command structure is gone, their Afghan sanctuary is gone,
their financial and communications networks have been hit hard."

He notes there has been "a shift from a coherent Al-Qaeda Central to a
global proliferation of 'self-starter' terrorist groups."

Rather than stay focused on Al Qaeda, and their malignant offspring,
Bush expanded the scope of his "war."

In the 2002 State-of-the-Union address, he denounced Iraq and Syria as
state "sponsors" of terrorism.

Implied there could be terrorist states.

Subsequently, the Administration convinced Congress and much of the
American public that his war on terror necessitated an invasion of
Iraq.

Bush conflated Al-Qaeda-trained Iraq-based terrorists, such as Abu
Musab al-Zarqawi, members of Iraq's Baath party, any Iraqi who
resisted the occupation, "insurgents", and, ultimately, Sunni Muslims.

Bush confused those who fight the U.S. because we are occupying their
country--"resistance" fighters--with those who are operatives of Al
Qaeda and have pledged to destroy America.

In his press conference, Bush referred to them all as "terrorists who
are trying to stop the advance of democracy."

Anyone who opposes the occupation is a "terrorist."

______________________________________________

Makes sense, eh?

Harry