Blowback…told you so

Iraq War Swells Al Qaeda’s Ranks, Report Says

Can’t say I’m surprised…in fact, I and many other critics of the war on Iraq used just this very scenario as an argument against intervention. I suspected that those who supported the march to war understood that this was an inevitable effect of invading an Arab nation. The question remains: did those same war-advocates believe the supposed “gains” from invading Iraq outweigh these and other costs? Or, perhaps their reason was blinded by a desire for revenge. I admit, I may be presenting a false dichotomy, but it still seems reasonable to me.

The report cited above claims that their was a “plus” to the invasion of Iraq:

    “On the plus side, war in Iraq has denied al Qaeda a potential supplier of weapons of mass destruction and discouraged state sponsors of terrorism from continuing to support it,” the report said.

Um, what WMD? In fact, as Paul Sperry reported, the Bush administration was told by its intelligence services that an invasion of Iraq would be one of the only ways that bin Laden et al could receive such weapons. Sperry quotes the report:

    “Saddam, if sufficiently desperate, might decide that only an organization such as al-Qaida could perpetrate the type of terrorist attack that he would hope to conduct.”

    Sufficiently desperate? If he “feared an attack that threatened the survival of the regime,” the report explained.

    “In such circumstances,” it added, “he might decide that the extreme step of assisting the Islamist terrorists in conducting a CBW [chemical and biological weapons] attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him.”
    In other words, only if Saddam were provoked by U.S. attack would he even consider taking the “extreme step” of reaching out to al-Qaida, an organization with which he had no natural or preexisting relationship. He wasn’t about to strike the U.S. or share his alleged weapons with al-Qaida – unless the U.S. struck him first and threatened the collapse of his regime.

qed

Shameless Product Placement

Attention, bloggers: We love to be linked! Give us a permanent link on your site, and I’ll put you on the Honor Roll, which currently includes the antiheroic Joanne McNeil, the collegial University blog, the erudite Liberty & Power, the dyspeptic Libertarian Jackass, the francophone Melodius Thunk, the controversial Polemics, the irregular Micah Holmquist, the apocalyptic Bill Connolly, the self-effacing Franklin Harris, and the observant Marcus Tullius Cicero.

Good old cross-promotion– this is how the wildly overrated Instapundit has gotten nine zillion permanent links, right?

If I missed anyone, let me know.

Republicans Who Smoke Pot, or Democrats Who Grasp Economics?

The choice is ours. Julian Sanchez makes a decent case for libertarians to support Howard Dean, despite all the cruel things we’ve said about the old boy over here. The strategic point seems to be that libertarians increase their significance by becoming swing voters; the tactical reassurance is that Dean could not be much worse than Bush and would likely be much better. Why? As I put it in a Backtalk response to a fuming Deanie:

[H]e’s an interventionist through and through, all right, but if you put a knife to my throat and forced me to choose between Dean and Bush, or Dean and Lieberman, I’d pull the Dean lever and hope that congressional Republicans would oppose his every move. Feel free to quote me on that in your campaign literature.