Response


"I'm sure the 100 people dead in London would argue that this theory isn't quite as fabulous as you seem to think it is."

It is absurd to think that Al Queda's attack on London is a "response" to Iraq. Al Queda declared war on America and our allies in 1996, a long time before Iraq.

UPDATE: Someone on the Huffington Post agrees with me - how's that for street cred with the left.

The preachers will express condolences for the victims and condemnations of the criminals. Then they'll add, "But Britain should have never invited this kind of response by joining America in the invasion of Iraq."

The trouble with this line of reasoning is that terrorists have never needed an Iraq debacle to justify their violent jihads. What exactly was the Iraq of 1993, when Islamic radicals tried to blow up the World Trade Center? Or of 2000, when the USS Cole was attacked? Hell, that assault took place after U.S. military intervention saved thousands of Muslims in Bosnia.

If staying out of Iraq protected anyone from terrorism, then why did "insurgents" last year kidnap two journalists from France -- the most anti-war, anti-Bush nation in the West? Even overt solidarity with the people of Iraq, demonstrated by CARE's top relief worker in the area, Margaret Hassan, didn't shield her from assassination.