Donald Sensing thinks that there’s only one issue in this election.

Despite how pathetic the Republicans are on most other issues*, I agree.

On terrorism, novelist Roger L. Simon quoted Leon Trotsky:

Saddam says that’s how we’ll leave Iraq. Under which US party’s rule is that more likely?

Saddam says that’s how we’ll leave Iraq. Under which US party’s rule is that more likely?

Saddam says that’s how we’ll leave Iraq. Under which US party’s rule is that more likely?

Arthur Herman discusses the military option.

…or abandon the Iraqis. John Podhoretz says that Ralph Peters is wrong to throw in the towel.

…or abandon the Iraqis. John Podhoretz says that Ralph Peters is wrong to throw in the towel.

…or abandon the Iraqis. John Podhoretz says that Ralph Peters is wrong to throw in the towel.

From a comment in this post:

AQ thrives on war and chaos.

(Implying that we’ve actually empowered Al Qaeda by removing Saddam, and that all the other problems in the world as well are, as usual, Amerikkka’s fault).

This is a fascinating statement. The last time that I recall Al Qaeda “thriving” was in Afghanistan, under the Taliban. Then, they had training camps, were training people by the hundreds, and were able to plan and execute things like 9/11.

I don’t think that they’re thriving in Iraq today, unless by “thriving,” you mean losing hundreds of Hirabis monthly. Much is made of the loss of American troops, and the deaths of civilians, but there’s much less reporting of the deaths of the Al Qaeda types, or it’s mixed in with the “civilian” deaths. Their current losses aren’t sustainable, and I think that they’ve ramped up the action only in hopes of influencing the US election. The only place they’re winning, really, is in the western media (just as was the case for the North Vietnamese in Tet).

The fact that they’re capable of causing chaos (unfortunately, it’s much easier to cause chaos than otherwise–entropy’s a bitch) doesn’t mean that they “thrive” on it. Believe me, they’d much prefer a stable government that they controlled. They certainly don’t have that now in Iraq. In fact, the majority Shia government is starting to hunt them down and make their lives thoroughly miserable.

Is this a disaster for Iraq? Perhaps.

Is it a disaster for the US? Only if we’re unwilling to accept any casualties whatsoever–by any previous standards of war, they remain low.

Is it a victory for Al Qaeda?

Only if we elect the Dems, and pull out.

Iraq had a nuclear weapons program, and was only a year away from a bomb. Less than a week before the election, the New York Times says so.

[Update about noon EST]

I thought that the tongue in cheek was obvious, but I guess not. The point of the post was that the Times was reporting it the way they did, when they did.