What the Heck was I Thinking!?

Obama’s foreign policy naivete regarding al Qaida and Iraq is a very worrying condition, if it’s true.

He claimed that al Qaida wouldn’t have been in Iraq if the US hadn’t “invaded” that country.

If that were true, it still would require a US presence going forward, even under Obama’s self-contradictory plans for Iraq. He would ’send troops back’ if al Qaida establishes a base.

But the claim that al Qaida wasn’t in Iraq before the US military presence is not only not true, but easily refuted just from the US open press: (from the IBD editorial today)

Back in 1999, ABC News reported that Saddam had offered bin Laden asylum, citing their “long relationship” and a December 1998 meeting in Afghanistan between Osama and Iraqi intelligence chief Faruq Hijazi. And so on, and so on.

In 1998, the Clinton Justice Department alleged in an indictment against bin Laden that “al-Qaida reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al-Qaida would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al-Qaida would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq.”

As the Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes has reported, reams of captured documents show that elite Iraqi military units trained some 8,000 al-Qaida terrorists. They belonged to groups such as Algeria’s GSPC, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Ansar al Islam and the Sudanese Liberation Army, at camps in Samarra, in Ramadi and at Salman Pak, where a Boeing 707 fuselage was used for terrorist training.

Now, either Obama is willfully naive - ignoring any information about Iraq, or he is demagoging.

Maybe it’s like his NAFTA position - for public voter consumption, but not what he will actually do once he gets in office.

Either way, he’s dangerous for foreign policy.

IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor’s Business Daily — Barack, Hussein And Al-Qaida

David Ignatius writes a column for “On The Left,” a feature of the Investors’ Business Daily editorial page.

Today, he wants to make sure we understand that terrorists are really no longer any danger, but the danger they pose is because of what we’ve done in Iraq.

It’s the third wave of terrorism that is growing, but what is it? By Sageman’s account, it’s a leaderless hodgepodge of thousands of what he calls “terrorist wannabes.”

Unlike the first two waves, who were well-educated and intensely religious, the new jihadists are a weird species of the Internet culture. Outraged by video images of Americans killing Muslims in Iraq, they gather in password-protected chat rooms and dare each other to take action. Like young people across time and religious boundaries, they are bored and looking for action.

The first wave have been largely killed off in the war in Afghanistan - you know, the good war. At least, now it’s a good war in comparison to Iraq. Iraq is a bad war. There weren’t any terrorists there before we came. It was a safe place for everyone before we got there and started killing all those Iraqis. That’s why they want us to leave right away.

The second wave was the trainees who came to Afghanistan (still part of the good war). Many of them have been killed off, so that’s good.

The third wave is just a yowling mob of untrained people. Not really terrorists, just terrorist wannabes according to Mr. Ignatius’ expert, Mr. Sageman. Mr. Sageman is a CIA covert operative - but a good one, since he doesn’t like the war in Iraq.

We’re to blame for their continued existence and the threat they might pose to the U.S. If we would just leave Iraq, they would soon get bored with jihad and fade away.

“Since 2003, the war in Iraq has without question fueled the process of radicalization worldwide, including the U.S. The data are crystal clear,” he writes. We have taken a fire that would otherwise burn itself out and poured gasoline on it.

The third wave of terrorism is inherently self-limiting, Sageman continues. As soon as the amorphous groups gather and train, they make themselves vulnerable to arrest.

“As the threat from al-Qaida is self-limiting, so is its appeal, and global Islamist terrorism will probably disappear for internal reasons — if the United States has the sense to allow it to continue on its course and fade away.”

We tried that - it was the mark of the 1990s. Leave the movement alone and only go after the criminals who commit, you know, crimes.  Everything else will just wilt away from lack of motivation.

It didn’t work then. Why should we try it again.

IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor’s Business Daily — Has Terrorism Been Oversold As U.S. Threat?

The Discerning Texan comes up with a very nice turn of phrase:

Every day, the scientific news is more and more starkly the polar opposite of every single hysterical lie that has come out of Al Gore’s egomaniacal mouth.

No! It’s the “polar opposite” part of global warming, not the other ones about “hysterical lies” or “egomaniacal mouth.”

The solution to medical costs for Americans won’t be found in the government’s tent.

From the Investors’ Business Daily editorial:

Socialized Medicine: Quebec’s former health minister is tacitly admitting that the system he helped create is not sustainable. It has, as Claude Castonguay has succinctly noted, reached “a crisis point.”

Actually, when 40% of the province’s $60 billion budget is spent on health care, or when public health care costs in Canada are growing at twice the rate of the economy as a whole, we’d say the crisis point was reached long ago.

It sounds like the ‘cure’ is worse than the ‘disease.’

IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor’s Business Daily — Promise Of Choice

Paul Greenberg wrote an acidly sarcastic post mortem of Imad Mughniyeh in the Washington Times on February 23rd.

The lede sets the tone:

In another case of gross disregard for due process, a senior leader of Hezbollah was blown apart on a Damascus street last week without even a by-your-leave, let alone being read his Miranda rights.

What a well-placed jab at the liberals’ emphasis on the line that ‘terrorists are people too.’

Terrorists’ rights - - The Washington Times, America’s Newspaper

Don Surber compares and constrasts the messages from the candidates:

McCains message is one of self-reliance and coming together as a nation to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity a phrase I read somewhere.

The Democratic message is simpler: The government is the solution to everything except our national security.

Whew! That’s bass ackwards!

Don Surber » Blog Archive » Estrich on 2008

Don Surber quotes Bill Keller, editor of the Fishwrap of Record, as saying he was a little surprised at the reaction to their sliming of John McCain:

Keller: “I was surprised by how lopsided the opinion was against our decision.”

I thought he was joking when he said that. But, he continued:

And, frankly, I was a little surprised by how few readers saw what was, to us, the larger point of the story. Perhaps here, at the outset of this conversation, is a good point to state as clearly as possible our purpose in publishing, Keller wrote.

That guy’s such a kidder…

Don Surber » Blog Archive » NYT spin

Megan McArdle is guest blogging at Instapundit on the NYT sliming of John McCain.

Fox News has these details, and is making it sound like this is not a big deal, because the senator did not press for an outcome, but only a speedy resolution. But regulatory uncertainty is very costly for firms; just getting your case jumped to the head of the line could be a pretty valuable special favor. It doesn’t cost the rest of us much, of course–unless we happen to work for the company whose case was delayed while everyone dropped everything to deal with the senator’s request. (emphasis added)

Jumped to the head of the line!? Did Megan miss the part about the delay of decision well beyond the already glacial 400 days average? This decision had been delayed for 800 days, twice the average. Asking for a decision here is no more “jumping to the head of the line” than asking Congress to vote on judges nominated several years ago.

If it had been under the 400 day average, that would have counted as a “valuable special favor.” In this case it sounds more like putting the company out of its misery.

Instapundit points to Ace of Spades, who complains of having been one up-ed by Allahpundit at Hot Air on the demise of Hillary’s chances.

The idea of Hillary destroying the Democratic Party to get the nomination? Out the window. She would have done that if it were close, if it were not so clear she will never be President, but it’s not going to be close and that is now clear even to her.

Ace has the picture.

Ace of Spades HQ

as Obama’s Obamamentum picks up speed.

(Hey! Did I just create a term there? Sigh. No, there are 7 hits on Google already.)

From Wizbang Blog:

Just as God issued his Ten Commandments, the new savior of our souls, the Obamamessiah, has issued his first commandment through his wife, Michelle.

The Obamamessiah wants YOU to go to work! (Wizbang)