Doug Ross @ Journal

"None of this would be happening if Bush had not invaded Iraq"

The Anchoress methodically answers the revisionists who claim that the Administration's policies in Iraq have resulted in more terrorism. Ignore, for a moment, their unstated claim that things would be better with Saddam Hussein in power (he of the Salman Pak terrorist training camp, $25K checks to suicide bombers, and a hotel for world-class terrorists). Also ignore the fact that the "fighting [blank] causes more [blank]" concept doesn't work for any scourge throughout history, whether we're discussing Nazism, Communism, Pol Pot, the Mongol Hordes, etc.

Instead, consider what I call the cold metrics of reality:

Because before we went into Iraq, there were no terrorist attacks anywhere... World Trade Center 1993 Khobar Towers 1996 Nairobi 1998 East Timor 1999 USS COLE 2000 Gee whiz…looks to me like in the 1990’s we were seeing an attack (on specifically American holdings, interests or vessels) almost every 18 months, or so! Then… New York City 9/11/01 New York City 9/11/01 Washington, DC 9/11/01 Bali 2002 But - Let’s not forget the 1985 hijacking of the Achille Lauro, during which Abu Abbas murdered wheelchair-bound Leon Klinghoffer - before taking refuge in Iraq. Let’s not forget the 1983 Bombing of American troops, in their barracks, in Beirut. Let’s not forget the taking of American hostages, in 1979, held for 444 days. Let’s not forget the Munich Massacre of 1972. Let’s not forget The Bojinka Operation of 1995. Did President Bush’s "moronic policies" do all of that stuff? Oh, wait... we’re not seeing attacks every 18 months, anymore - are we? In fact... it looks like President Bush’s terrible policies helped foil this latest attempt, despite the best efforts by the NY Times and others to cripple necessary programs. The [latest] plot was foiled because a large number of people were under surveillance concerning their spending, travel and communications. Which leads us to wonder if Scotland Yard would have succeeded if the ACLU or the New York Times had first learned the details of such surveillance programs. In short, Democrats who claim to want "focus" on the war on terror have wanted it fought without the intelligence, interrogation and detention tools necessary to win it. And if they cite "cooperation" with our allies as some kind of magical answer, they should be reminded that the British and other European legal systems generally permit far more intrusive surveillance and detention policies than the Bush Administration has ever contemplated... I keep remembering Harry Reid crowing, "we killed the Patriot Act..."

The Anchoress: "None of this would be happening if Bush had not invaded Iraq"