If stories like this WaPo mash note…
Soon after the November election, al-Qaeda’s No. 2 leader took stock of America’s new president-elect and dismissed him with an insulting epithet. “A house Negro,” Ayman al-Zawahiri said…The torrent of hateful words is part of what terrorism experts now believe is a deliberate, even desperate, propaganda campaign against a president who appears to have gotten under al-Qaeda’s skin. The departure of George W. Bush deprived al-Qaeda of a polarizing American leader who reliably drove recruits and donations to the terrorist group.
…are true, then stories like this…
The Taliban have conducted a wave of targeted assassinations against tribal leaders and politicians in Swat. Local, provincial and federal politicians have fled their homes after the Taliban conducted attacks against their homes and murdered their families. Most recently, the leader of a tribal group opposed to the Taliban was murdered and his body was descecrated as a warning to others.
Pakistani forces have been fighting forces aligned with Fazlullah, a radical cleric of the outlawed Tehrik-e-Nifaz-e-Shariat-e-Mohammadi (TNSM – the Movement for the Implementation of Mohammad’s Sharia Law) for almost two years.
…should be disappearing from the face of the earth presently.
If Bush “radicalized” Moslems and “caused them to flock to Al Quaeda”, then Obama – the anti-Bush – must perforce reverse the trend.
Right?
The departure of George W. Bush deprived al-Qaeda of a polarizing American leader who reliably drove recruits and donations to the terrorist group.
Yet the 9/11 highjackers were recruited during the Clinton era . . .
I’m still waiting for the self righteous collectivist kooks to march on the White House to protest the 16 civilians in Pakistan that Obama murdered last week…
Terry, I think you make a good point when you note that the 9/11 hijackers were recruited during the Clinton era, and in deed there had been a previous attempt on the World Trade Center, and lets not forget the attempt back in 1993 either. I have no idea which administration was in power when those terrorists were recruited.
Would the 9/11 group have acted, had there been a different president? No one can know the answer to that, but I would bet the answer is yes.
That does not effectively alter the fact that Bush seems to have ramped up the activity, and in deed he appears to have himself regretted some of his more provocative language in that context. Which I understand as an acknowledgment that there was an increase in response to his rhetoric and actions.
Different groups have indicated a response to Obama ranging from skepticism that any change will be forthcoming, to a willingness to wait and see if Obama is any different from “W”. That suggests that there is not a consistent response to the new Prez so far, but maybe a small pause in at least some of the activity. I take that as an improvement, for as long – or short – a time as it lasts.
Addendum – I prompted my memory: the 1993 terrorists were recruited and trained in 1991, during a period when G.H.W. Bush was president, and was running for election.
The instigators and planners of the ’93 attack were involved in the planning and in part, the execution of the 9/11 attack. So to whom should one properly attribute 9/11 as provocation?
So, if the reasoning is that Clinton is responsible for the 9/11 attack, then the senior Pres. Bush would be responsible for the one in 1993 by the same reasoning?
He seems to have done a pretty good job running Republicans out of Washington. Why wouldn’t he do as well with less wealthy subversives?
Dog Gone, I meant that the 9/11 attackers were recruited before G.W. Bush was elected. That point seemed lost on Warrick.
Did Mitch finally ban Peev again?
Nah.
He’s obviously recruiting a new batch of expert neighbors.