"Objectively" Pro-Islamic Fundamentalist Foreign Policy
Remember when conservatives used to say that opposing Bush meant one was "objectively" pro-terrorist?
Well, the evidence is in and, instead, it is the Cheney-Rove (Bush) administration that has been objectively pro-terrorist--and pro-Iranian Islamic fundamentalist in matters of foreign policy:
An article by Peter W. Galbraith in the NY Review of Books describes how the new Iraq is cozying up to the hardliners in Iran.
This article from the Christian Science Monitor describes two new reports (one from Saudi Arabia and one Israeli) which conclude that the Cheney-Rove (Bush) invasion of Iraq has made the world more safe for Islamic terrorists and less safe for the rest of us.
From a few paragraphs within the Christian Science Monitor article:
"The Globe also reports that American intelligence officials and terrorism experts have a very similar picture of these fighters: that prior to the Iraq war, they were not extremists who wanted to attack the US in an Al Qaeda-like manner, but "are part of a new generation of terrorists responding to calls to defend their fellow Muslims from 'crusaders and 'infidels.' "
"'The president is right that Iraq is a main front in the war on terrorism, but this is a front we created,' said Peter Bergen, a terrorism specialist at the nonpartisan New America Foundation, a Washington think tank.
"Columnist Terry Neal of The Washington Post, talked to Stephen Flynn, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and a former US Coast Guard commander, whose recent book, as well as his articles in the Council's journal Foreign Affairs, argue that Iraq is a "phony war" based on Mr. Bush assertions' that we have to fight the terrorists there rather than here.
"Mr. Flynn believes that by diverting so many resources to the war in Iraq, we've not only helped to create more terrorists, but that "America remains astonishingly vulnerable to attacks from Al Qaeda, which has morphed under Bush's watch, from an organization to a worldwide movement ..." He says the recent attacks in London show how patient Al Qaeda has become, using the three cell approach: The first cell is the leadership cell, the second cell is the reconnaissance team, and the third is the 'action' team."
Yet, those of us who opposed the Iraq War II and who demand that our troops be removed from that benighted nation are constantly placed on the defensive, even through the words chosen to describe us (I do not consider myself or various generals such as Brent Scowcroft to be "anti-war," for example, as we all supported the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 to root out the Al Queda forces). Cheney-Rove (Bush) are incompetent and worse, are liars in fighting the terrorists and still, they were given the benefit of the doubt by too many Americans due to a hangover of Republican rhetoric from the past 40 years. Many of us opposed the war in Iraq because we wanted America to keep focused on Al Queda. And these articles prove our point in very profound ways.
UPDATE: Even worse than we thought: See here and here. Thanks to Billmon via Atrios.