[9:19 PM] “Mr. bin Laden has eluded a worldwide manhunt for more than a year,” so write Raymond Bonner and David Johnston in the NYT. Worldwide manhunt? On September 10, Bin Laden was suspected to be in Afghanistan. Fleeing after U.S. military action in Afghanistan in the wake of 9/11, Bin Laden is suspected to be…gasp, next door in Pakistan or still in Afghanistan. Worldwide manhunt? This isn’t a dig at the Times.
With the arrest of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, some have suggested that this demonstrates that those who say a war with Iraq won’t distract the U.S. from the “War on Terrorism,” which of course is linked to Iraq anyway, right? I’ve posed the question before and I’ll ask it again. If a war happens in Iraq, people will die—Iraqi military, Iraqi civilians, and coalition soldiers. If the Baghdad street fight that some predict actually happens, many will die ugly, painful deaths. President Bush deems this acceptable and the price of our safety and security. The question: so why not 150,000 troops in Afghanistan to hunt down Bin Laden and “bring him to justice,” as the president promised. Bloody, messy, uncertain—absolutely. But that’s what the president has found a necessary evil of dealing with Saddam Hussein, and he had nothing to do with the attacks of September 11th. Isn’t that then acceptable for the persons responsible for that Tuesday morning massacre?
#
posted 9:19 PM
With the arrest of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, some have suggested that this demonstrates that those who say a war with Iraq won’t distract the U.S. from the “War on Terrorism,” which of course is linked to Iraq anyway, right? I’ve posed the question before and I’ll ask it again. If a war happens in Iraq, people will die—Iraqi military, Iraqi civilians, and coalition soldiers. If the Baghdad street fight that some predict actually happens, many will die ugly, painful deaths. President Bush deems this acceptable and the price of our safety and security. The question: so why not 150,000 troops in Afghanistan to hunt down Bin Laden and “bring him to justice,” as the president promised. Bloody, messy, uncertain—absolutely. But that’s what the president has found a necessary evil of dealing with Saddam Hussein, and he had nothing to do with the attacks of September 11th. Isn’t that then acceptable for the persons responsible for that Tuesday morning massacre?
<< Home