AP uncritically reported McCain claim that terrorists "will follow us home" from Iraq -- experts disagree
An April 26 Associated Press article uncritically reported Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) assertion that if the United States withdraws its troops from Iraq, "terrorists 'will follow us home.' " Experts, however, reportedly disagree with that assertion: According to an April 6 McClatchy Newspapers article, "Military and diplomatic analysts" say that a similar claim repeatedly made by President Bush -- that "this is a war in which, if we were to leave before the job is done, the enemy would follow us here" -- "exaggerate[s] the threat that the enemy forces in Iraq pose to the U.S. mainland."
McCain made his assertion in discussing the then-upcoming Senate vote on the Iraq war supplemental funding bill while campaigning in South Carolina. The AP reported that McCain said, "If we leave Iraq there will be chaos, there will be genocide, and they will follow us home."
According to the McClatchy article, "U.S. military, intelligence and diplomatic experts in Bush's own government say the violence in Iraq is primarily a struggle for power between Shiite and Sunni Muslim Iraqis seeking to dominate their society, not a crusade by radical Sunni jihadists bent on carrying the battle to the United States." The article reported that, according to a February 2007 Defense Intelligence Agency report, "Attacks by terrorist groups account for only a fraction of insurgent violence." The article also reported that "[w]hile acknowledging that terrorists could commit a catastrophic act on U.S. soil at any time -- whether U.S. forces are in Iraq or not -- the likelihood that enemy combatants from Iraq might follow departing U.S. forces back to the United States is remote at best, experts say."
Moreover, the McClatchy article reported, the Iraq war itself may be inspiring more Muslims to turn against the United States. " 'The war in Iraq isn't preventing terrorist attacks on America,' said one U.S. intelligence official, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity because he's contradicting the president and other top officials. 'If anything, that -- along with the way we've been treating terrorist suspects - may be inspiring more Muslims to think of us as the enemy.'"
From the April 26 Associated Press report:
Republican presidential contender John McCain predicated [sic] Thursday as the Senate prepared to vote on a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq that terrorists "will follow us home."
McCain, who was campaigning in this early voting state and didn't plan to vote on the bill containing the withdrawal timetable, said the consequences of withdrawal would be severe.
"If we leave Iraq there will be chaos, there will be genocide, and they will follow us home," the Arizona senator said, calling the war against al-Qaeda "a struggle between good and evil."
On Wednesday, the House brushed aside a veto threat and passed legislation that would order President Bush to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq by Oct. 1.
Read this article:
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2007/04/25/2007-04-25_put_bushs_puppy_dog_terror_theory_to_sle.html
Clarke calls it the "Puppy Dog Theory", and does a really good job of demolishing it.
I always think that same thing when I hear these clowns talk about terrorists following us home.
Next they'll be telling us the dog ate those emails.
Heeeere terry! C'mon terry, come to daddy! Here puppy! Good boy, terry!
9/11
9/11 what?
4/27
The saudis who murdered 3,000 Americans on September 11, 2001...
Where were they "following us home" from?
This is just the latest of the insane fall-out from failing to get JUSTICE for the attacks of September 11, 2001... for allowing that murderous saudi 'royal family' to go unpunished (to go unquestioned!).
And so instead of JUSTICE for 9/11, the American People were misled by the Bush administration and their supporters into an invasion of Iraq (what does Iraq have to do with anything?)...
And those same American People who were so criminally misled, they are now threatened by the same Bush administration and their supporters, threatened that Iraqis will "follow us home"...
Again, where were those saudis who murdered 3,000 Americans on September 11, 2001, where were they "following us home" from?
This is what happens, when JUSTICE is thwarted... confusion and misdirected grief and anger are what happens, when JUSTICE is thwarted.
And 9/11 has WHAT to do with the Iraqis? Oh thats right NOTHING. In fact didnt we LEAVE the attack on those who made that hole to fight a more profit friendly war in Iraq? ITs the mindless propaganda parrot defense. This comes from page one of the PP how to guide. To all rational discussion about the War in Iraq respond. 9/11 SKWWWAAAAAKKKK, 9/11 Skwaaak 9/11
They didn't have to means to fly to America and attack BEFORE the war and they damn well don't have the ability NOW.
9/11 is an old Bush, Cheney excuse. Ask the Republicans, Bill, Sean or Rush for the new talking points. They are in case you missed the recent ones: We are bringing them democracy, They Iraqi's have elected a democratic government, We will stand down when the Iraqi's stand up. You'll have to ask for the rest, I got tired.
For the hundredth time, will some NeoClown apologist please explain how this theory works? If the turrists have the ability and the wherewithall to attack us here, why are they wasting their time attacking armed troops in Iraq?
That's always a good question to pose if you're in need of a little peace and quiet.
McCain
Old psychopath warmonger. When will the media step up and espose his lies ?
The day they stop receiving a third of their advertising income from Dem and Repub campaigning ads.
No one is gonna follow us home.
Why would they bother? Chances are their comrades are already here.
Gee just think how secure our borders might have been if we'd spent the $ billions $ wasted in Iraq on Homeland Security.
This if we fight them over there we won't have to fight them here is such B.S.
Until and unless a nation is discovered to be the sponsor of any 'terror attack', then our defense against such attacks is purely domestic... otherwise, in the absense of identifying a nation as sponsoring an attack, what nation is it you'd go to 'war' with, or invade and occupy?
None, until and unless any nation is discovered as being the sponsor of an attack.
The same is true of all nations that face this threat: The U.K., Spain, Germany, France, and Israel too... until and unless etc., their defense against this kind of threat is purely domestic.
What could be more obvious, and simple to understand.
Now, should any foreign nation be identified, as having sponsored a 'terror attack', well then comes the time for 'war' and invasion and occupation... then the time is right, and that response is JUSTICE.
What about the attacks of September 11, 2001... did Iraq have anything to do with that?
Has any foreign nation ever been identified, as sponsoring the attacks of September 11, 2001?
I am a little confused by all these "uncritical" accusations this website levels against certain news outlets because they don't dissect and opine on what they are reporting? It is their job to be "uncritical", isn't it?
Now I understand I will get hit with the "it's their job not to report lies and all that", and I get it........but this is a candidate expressing his opinion, I also disagree with it, but it is strictly an opinion.
It is incumbent upon the readers of this article to decide for themselves whether they agree or disagree, they are certainly capable and responsible for their own points of view. We don't need "big brother" being "critical" of every opinion, in a news article......this is not an editorial.
Personally I'm just sick of the media never calling these guys on their BS.
I understand, but if you carry this particular instance out.........what if the reporter asked McCain to prove his assertion, or back it up in some way? - McCain would say it's what he believes, his opinion. Nobody really knows for sure, either way. So there is no proof...it's BS to those who don't share his opinion, and perfectly logical to those that do.
That's the difference in challenging someone on a hypothetical, which this is.
So you are positing some sort of universe in which all opinions are created equal? You can't really believe that, can you? There are military, political, espionage and terrorism experts whose opinions certainly carry a lot more weight in this matter than McCain's and that is exactly what the media should have pointed out. It's not their job to interject with their own opinion but they certainly and probably should point out when opinions with a lot more weight indicate something contrary.
Ok, you find a military, political, espionage and terrorism expert who disagrees with McCain, and he will find one that agrees with him.......and then it's your turn again, and then his turn, and so on.
Nobody knows for sure, no expert, nobody.
As far as opinions being in your words "universal", please show me where I said that?
The readers of this article will make up their own minds on McCain's opinion. I am sorry if that scares or worries you.
"Nobody really knows for sure, either way. "
Sure looks like the words of someone who believes that all opinions are somehow equal to me. Some guesses are better than others and have a lot more methodology, investigation and education behind them.
If McCain can find qualified experts who back up the "follow us home" theory I would be very surprised.
As for being scared of people making up their own minds? No I'm not. But it does bother me that people are not given enough information to make informed decisions. The last decade of election coverage has shown that the media is far more interested in the trivial, superficial and controversial than it is in the substantial and until that changes we will not get the best out of our system.
What? We are talking about this particular opinion, not every single one. Where on earth would cause you to think I was saying that every opinion has equal weight. I said, nobody knows for sure about this because it has not happened, and may never happen......we are still in Iraq and McCain's opinion is just that, his opinion. It cannot be proven either way, unless you can predict the future and what would happen.
You have your opinion that it would not happen the way McCain described it.......I agree with you. McCain has his. None of us knows for certain, do we?
No, it isn't the press's job to analyze McCain's statement, but they ought to balance it with another statement to the effect that it's a load of nonsense, given the fact that credible statements to that effect are not terribly hard to locate.
When a public figure makes a statement that is verifiably false, on the other hand--such as when Bush claimed as part of his justification for invading Iraq that Saddam refused to let the UN weapons inspectors in (and, to boot, called anyone claiming anything else a "historical revisionist") it should definitely not be reported uncritically. The fact should be reported along with the fiction--always (I just gave a Republican example due to my bias).
How is McCain's opinion verifiably false? Since he is speaking about an event that has not happened - a hypothetical.
It defies common sense and logic. It's like when Cheney says that voting for a Democrat increases our chance of getting hit again, or if you swallow a watermelon seed, a vine will grow out of your navel.
Your assessment of it does not verifiably prove it false. It cannot be proven either way, it is strictly an opinion.
True, I can't prove that Klingons won't land and take over the government, either.
It would seem, based on the bellicosity and intolerance of dissent, of this Administration, that that has already happened.
Sorry Conleytgwinn.
Usually I'm in agreement with you, but in this case, I've got to differ.
This administration could not have been taken over by Klingons. I don't want to be thought of as some Star Trek geek, but one thing that I do remember is that to a Klingon, nothing is more important than HONOR.
There is no honor among these weasels.
I have to agree with that assesment. No honor. No Klingons.
I always had trouble with Klingons: all that word-service to "honor" - same as Bungle and the Repugnants - but recall all the resort to basest treachery - including outright lies - that seemed to propel always the murderous thieves among them to leadership. Hmmmm . . .
On consideration, it appears to me that we have established that Klingons ARE here, and the Repugnants are them!
if you swallow a watermelon seed, a vine will grow out of your navel....by nerzog
Hey wait a minute, that's not true? :-O
I remember my Grandparents telling that one to us as kids. For the longest time I just avoided watermelons I was sooooo scared I'd swallow a seed by mistake.
Ok sorry for the interruption.
Everyone back on topic!
If that myth is true, then one wonders where the seedless watermelon comes from? Hmmm?
Apparantly NOT navels
I guess it depends on what you think the function of a free press is, and I realize that not everyone agrees on this. It sounds like what you are advocating is the press in the role of stenographer, simply reporting what someone says. I agree that is part of it. However, I think the press has at least some obligation to find out what is true, not just what someone says. This is known as investigative reporting.
You may be right; perhaps in covering a political campaign, the stenographer role is called for. You must admit, however, we've had precious little of the investigative reporting lately. It's almost as if it went out of style after Watergate. I wouldn't mind the objective stenography so much if they'd give us a little factual scrutiny once in a while.
Actually, most Dem candidates would probably agree with me, that accurate stenography would represent a major improvement over the current practice of inserting lies as necessary to buttress arguments unaccompanied by sufficient numbers of lies, or inadequately aimed lies. Sheer stenography would help there, as well as with the current practice of editing sound bites and video clips to misrepresent what was said, and the addition of invidious descriptors at crucial points in even those edited bits.
As all the other justifications (also refered to as lies) for the invasion, conquer and ongoing occupation of Iraq are shown to be false, this one is still plausible to many, many people. Primarily, because you can't disprove it, and the emperical evidence seems to support it. There have not been any attacks like 9-11 since the invasion. But there have been major attacks in Iraq. So to the simple minded who prefer to see the world in black and white, ipso facto, by occupying Iraq, major jihadist attaks in the US have been prevented. Personally, I think, post 9-11, the FBI, ATF,CIA and other intelligence/law enforcement agencies were so embarrassed that they have all stepped up (finally) and are comparing notes, sharing leads and in general doing a much better job of infiltrating terrorist groups. As they say in Nevada, what happens in Iraq stays in Iraq. There just is no way a terrorist cel of middle eastern looking people are going to get the community support to pull off the kinds of operations that are terrorizing Iraq, here in the US. Can't happen. Not to say it's impossible for another major attack to happen, but we need not fear a wave of jihadist/martyr operations here, there just are not enough places to put together the support needed. Try this experiment, dress up like a middle eastener, rent a tanker truck, then go to the fertilizer dealer and see if you can buy ANY fertilizer to put in the tanker. See where I'm going? What is fairly easy to do in Iraq takes way more planning, sneaking around and logistics here in the US. I'm sure there is a fertilizer dealer somewhere in the US who hates the US enough to provide the fertilizer for a truck bomb, but not many, if any. We are at the same level of risk from terrorism with or without an occupation of Iraq.
Exactly. The problem is that the Bush toadies can't justify continuing their criminal enterprise using logic, so they have to scare the gullible in order to maintain support, at least until they figure out how to steal the oil and make it look legitimate.
ACCORDING TO TENET THEY ARE ALREADY HERE...Media Matters exsperts should go look at the still hole in the ground in NY. Experts? Please
If they're already here, then there's no reason for us to stay in Iraq, is there?
I love such precision as you provide in your refutation! Elegant!
maybe they're going to fly over here in those little planes that bush said saddam was going to use to spray us with chemical weapons. this follow us home stuff is nonsense. and there will be chaos when we leave but there is chaos now.
About 40 years into the future Bush will be seen as a true visionary or a total "wacco" president. If radical Islam continues to proliferate as it has in Asia and now in Europe, Bush will be given accolades. If radical Islam self extinguishes Bush will be written about as a total goat. My friends in Europe say Western Europe has lost the silent war against radical Islam and has been overrun with radicals from Islamic states that feed of the generous social systems in order to spread their radical ideology. Only time will tell.... In the meantime I would like to encourage reading a book by Bruce Bawer "While Europe Slept"
Your prediction would look a lot better were Bungle doing anything relating to "radical Islam", other than using the phrase as an excuse for various swashbuckling undertakings. Iraq WAS sectarian. If one perceives "radical Islam" as a threat, why invade Iraq? Why NOT continue the pursuit of Osama Bin Laden? Why not enlist Sen. Kerry, with a great history in cutting the financial legs from beneath terrorism, as an asset in doing that, too?
We could be doing the very things that would, were "radical Islam" to present a threat, both enhance our ability to combat that threat, and simultaneously present (dear leader?) Bungle as the visionary you believe he might be. We are not doing those things, because Bungle cannot think, does not know, willfully avoids knowing. Instead, we are destroying our military (have you checked recruiting figures lately?), bankrupting our nation, (records for deficits & debt, running as far as we can see), shredding our Constitution (Habeus and due process, and posse comitatus and the Insurrection Act, and so many others), denying treaties to which our nation is signatory, blackening the very soul of our nation with indefinite detentions without charge, torture, abductions in foreign nations, renditions to States we have ourselves declared despotic and terrorist - this is just the angry burst of reasons Bungle should be exiled someplace hot and hostile.
For Bungle, the chances of being considered even a merely bad President are exactly zero. He is the odds-on favorite to rate as the worst "leader" of any people at any time in the history of the planet. And his own actions contribute to the high probability that the history of mankind on the planet is quite short, and getting shorter.
Like I said either a visionary or a "wacco".
Now I would like write a little about what is happening in Europe.
Denmark 5% of population is Muslim... 40% of welfare outlay are received by Muslims (statistics for other Western European counties are comparable). Scandinavian countries radical leaders are preaching that Muslim law gives them the right to abuse the infidels' system as much as possible, in Kheir Sajer's words, to"cheat and lie to the countries that harbor them". They are told to view the the benefits they receive as jizya--the tributes that the infidels natives of Muslim-occupied countries are obliged to pay to Muslims in order to preserve their lives. For some of these immigrants sky is the limit!! Integration into culture and community is strictly forbidden thus the great separation between people. Amsterdam is now more then half non-Dutch. Three out of five Turkish and Moroccan immigrants in the Netherlands are unemployed. Sweden's largest non-Western groups are Iraqis and Iranians;Norway's are Pakistanis;Denmark's are Turks;Belgium like Netherlands are Moroccans and Turks;Britain's are Indians and Pakistanis; France and Italy are from North Africa; Spain's are from Morocco:Germany's are from Turkey; Switzerland and Austria are from the Balkans.
Western freedoms, individually, sexual equality or protection of minority rights are under attack by Islam. The traditional division of the world into the Dar al-Islam (the house of Islam) and the Dar al-Harb (non-Muslim house of War), so called because Muslims living in it are commanded to help bring it under Islamic rule through jihad. Is Europe a lab/incubator of things to come in the United States?? I don't know but by all means I sure as hell don't want to find out when it's too late. We turn on our local TV station or CNN and see very little of the rest of the world. Was the war in Iraq justified?? probably not.... today it has morphed into something different with a extremist ideology. I don't want to sit on my happy ass here in the USA like we did prior to WWII and ignore what was happening till the bombing of Pearl Harbor. As far as I'm concerned the bombing occurred in New York city 6 years ago and I'm standing along the watchtower ready and vigilant to defend my Western culture and its freedoms till death.
Immigrants often come from parts of the world where there is political instability like the Irish to America during the Potato famine. They are then often demonized like the Irish were during that time. Demogogues emerge in that population propeled by the demonization and privation. Given a war between radical Islam and Western civilization Bush will NEVER be seen as a visionary for deciding to fight that war by invading the most SECULAR Islamic country in the entire region. IF the point was to war against radical Islam then doing that was insanity.
You must have read someone else's post, and replied to mine in error?
There is no "either / or": Bungle has clinched the title "worst so-called leader in the world's history", with thousands of games yet to be played. Why? Well, because illuminating as your posting is, as to what your fears may be, his policy and his actions are directed so as to inflame, rather than alleviate, the very condition you fear.
Not only Osama, but also Omar, were within reach in Muslim Afghanistan, the home of Al Queda and the Taliban; yet Bungle chose to look away, and to this day, looks away as the Taliban regains and strengthens control. Yet again, how did once-secular Iraq, now potentially another Shiite theocracy due solely to Bungle's ill-considered invasion, become party to your little "Crusade"? It didn't, until Bungle destroyed it.
Whether your fears of "radical Islam" are grounded or not, if it should turn out that "radical Islam" is a problem, BUNGLE created the problem!
actually, the netherlands, one of the most liberal of european countries, has recently started insisting that immigrants to that country view films and answer questions about whether they are going to be tolerant of dutch culture. which i have no problem with.
Respect and tolerance and Dutch culture went out the window when Theo van Gogh (Dutch filmmaker and newspaper columnist)was murdered in Nov 2004. Crime committed by a Dutch- Moroccan who did not agree with Theo's writings. So meanwhile on this side of the pond if I disagree with Michaels Moore's film message does that allow me to commit murder? In my culture definitely NOT apparently in Islamic culture it is encouraged. Iraq is a quagmire.... under Saddam rule religion and extremists were kept in check. Equally true in Chechnya when it was under IRON FISTED COMMUNISM. Not saying that either one of these situations I agree with.... but all aside it brought about some level of stability as bad as that may sound.
i'm well aware of van gogh's murder, which was one of the things that brought about the policy of informing immigrants that they have to fit in and not the other way around. i also specifically stated that i had no problem with that. i also have no problem saying that there is too much intolerance in the islamic world, and a lot of it is based solely on their religion. i would not want to live under any system that forces people to pray and treats women like property.
How Does This Go: If Our Troops Are Over There, They Can Attack Us Here Because Our Army Is Bogged Down Over There
Maybe it's: fight them over there so they will not attack us here. Which one is it? Which one sounds more plausible? Which one makes more sense? Which one would you chose?
Of all the ill sounding logic associated with Bush's stratagems, this has got to be the most backwards and make no sense at all. If I wanted or thought I could get away with attacking America, I would want to do it while their military was away. I sure would not wait for them to come home. I say this with a disclaimer: I am just commenting on Bush's policies; I am in no way a terrorist.
If our Generals advised Bush to guard the United States from attack from Iraq, there is no wonder we have yet to stop the violence in Iraq. Maybe McCain advised him. McCain believes in war as a tool so badly he is willing to make his presidential campaign second to going to war. That is a fact not a unsupported claim. I believe he made this claim on the first John Steward show after he made the stupid "you can walk to the market in Iraq anytime" statement.
McCain must have some "pull" because as of 4/27/02, Michael Ware made some what of a contraction to his claims Americans are setting ducks in Iraq. In an interview on CNN, Ware and Kyra Phillips were singing "the troops in no way should move out of Iraq" song. I thought, after viewing the video in which Ware made the retractions, you could cut the tension with a knife. I believe someone from the censor department in CNN put the "say this or lose your job" on Ware and Phillips. In any event, he's saying something more supportive to McCain's believe we should not pull out of Iraq.
Just because someone working for Bush may have an idea what has to happen in Iraq does not mean that is their primary objective for being there. I have so many concerns for what Blackwater and Haliburton is up to. Haliburton moved to another country, and Blackwater has 134,000 men in their army. The both have made a lot of money in this war. Can we prosecute Haliburton if they have cheated America out of billions of dollars? Is Haliburton positioning themselves to rob Iraq of their oil wealth? They have a army at their disposal.
Is it by design I feel like Bush has us on a roller coaster? It is hard to keep up with the many questionable "things" associated with this administration. Diversion tactics could involve keeping the public outraged with something different once a week, so they cannot focus on one thing long enough to be effective. You go Bush.
JosephThis is easy. The McClatchy piece contradicts other pieces of information and simply does not pass the test of common sense, therefore it cannot be accurate.
(1) "Foreign-born jihadists are present in Iraq, but they're believed to number only between 4 percent and 10 percent of the estimated 30,000 insurgent fighters - 1,200 to 3,000 terrorists - according to the Defense Intelligence Agency and a recent study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a center-right research center"
Is directly contradicted by this: "enough of your blood, bragging that it now has 12,000 fighters in the war-torn country"
(2) This statement is non-quatitative and misleading: "Attacks by terrorist groups account for only a fraction of insurgent violence, said a February DIA report"
A fraction. This could be any number from 1/100 to 99/100 and still be true.
(3) This gem: "There’s a grain of truth in Bush saying it’s better to fight them there rather than here, but it’s also overstated,” Lewis said. “It’s not like there’s going to be gun battles in the United States"
This speaker is a disingenuous fool. Of course there will be no gun battles in the streets if these terrorists attack. Their preferred weapon is the suicide bomb. But there will be one or more suicide attacks using bombs or WMD.
(4) the words of aother catastrophic fool: "There are very few foreign fighters who are going to be leaving the area because they don’t have the skills or languages that would give them access to the United States,” said Benjamin,"
It only took 19 of these characters to bring down the WTC and kill 3,000. What will two dozen more do for an encore?
(5) This man ignores history: "“The danger is not that they’ll follow us home,” Carafano said. “The problems will come to our doorstep, not the terrorists.” "
No, they will blow up and murder our people in foreign countries like East Africa, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen as they did before Iraq, but not since. If AQ did not come to America, then who carried out 9-11? Benjamin is smply wrong on both counts.
(6) Is this another Mary McCarthy? "one U.S. intelligence official, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity because he's contradicting the president "
(7) This is wonderful: "Carafano and Lewis believe that a U.S. troop pullout would embolden Islamic jihadists"
How much bolder does AQ need to get before these experts will acredit them as a bonafide threat? They already attack US Waships, Washington DC, New York City, US Embassies, US Diplomats and US Citizens overseas. They even behead American Citizens on video tape and distribute this. If they get bolder, what does that mean they will do?
I sincerely hope McClatchy printed this drivel on TP. At least then it will be of some practical use to someone.
And the US has been directly and indirectly killing moslems since the 1970s. Can't have a brutal evil empire without expecting resistance. Didn't you watch Star Wars?
So who do we believe our OWN intelligence or al Queda self serving bragging? None of this is relevant. Nothing is stopping AQ from bringing terrorism here NOW, regardless of whether we are in Iraq or not. Iraq was NOT in cahoots with al Queda that is the take of ALL of our intelligence. Therefore YOUR talk about al Queda really has nothing to do with IRAQ. The 2002 NIE listed 60 countries al Queda was active in and Iraq was NOT ON THAT LIST. IF it was about fighting Islamic fundamentalist extremists invading the most SECULAR Islamic country in the region was pure insanity. We are inflaming and destabalizing the entire region which is already fragile. STAYING there is an ongoing recruitment poster for AQ. Its time to come home. We are doing no good there. We didnt have any moral justification for invading in the first place.
<>You are exactly right. NL207 is floating logical fallacies. I defy any NeoClown to give a logical reason why our staying in Iraq makes an attack on the United States any less likely. IT DOES NOT. In fact, invading Middle Eastern Countries, an activity coyly referred to by the Troglodytes as "Going on the offense" is going to make terrorist retaliation MORE likely. Newsflash for the Bush toadies: There is not a finite number of Terrorists in the world. Unlike Germany in WWII, they will not run out of soldiers.
<>These people think they're living in a John Wayne movie.
<>