It appears that Mr. Lileks has not actually checked with our enemies concerning their electoral preferences.

These guys are operating on their own timetable and are probably satisfied for now with the response they have provoked.

SemiPundit:
You said that our enemies "are probably satisfied for now with the response they have provoked."

This is not a "gotcha" question, but could we have a source/link to something substantiating that observation?

Bernard Lewis, probably the pre-eminent scholar on Islam and the Arab world, has argued that the terrorists actually thought that following 9/11 that the U.S. would retreat from the Middle East. We would remove our troops stationed in the region, pull back our forces in the Persian Gulf, withdraw our support for the various M.E. regimes and cut off our support for Israel. In other words, surrender.

They are astonished, Lewis argues, with our response, for they instead expected us to retreat as we did after Beirut and Mogadishu.

It's also been revealed that Saddam Hussein did not think that we would actually attack him with such force. Instead he too believed that we would lob a few missiles or bomb a few sites. Hussein, like bin Laden, believed that we were too cowardly and weak to stand up to their aggression.

Unfortunately for them, and fortunately for us, Mr. Bush didn't follow their plans.

SMG

I didn't know our enemies were satisfied with getting their asses kicked.

I must admit that I have not had an opportunity to personally query Mr. bin Laden and his cohorts. I, too, was merely speculating.

I can't imagine that bin Laden, having had such close ties to the President and his family and their associates, would think that there would be no retaliation.

These people have intimately known each other for years, have had extensive business dealings, and have interacted socially all around the globe. It has been suggested by some that this whole thing is a sort of Hatfield and McCoy feud, or even something out of the Mafia playbook.

Can you seriously tell me that these people believed the U.S. would abandon its foreign interests and slink back into a corner to lick its wounds? It was widely known that organizations like the Project for a New American Century were incessantly urging our government to strike, given the slightest rationalization for such an action.

If the intention was to force surrender, then why did they wait until a weak-kneed and cowardly (not my words) president had left office and been replaced with one who "loves the smell of napalm in the morning"? Mr. bin Laden must be a poor chess player, ideed.

Beirut and Mogadishu did not involve attacks on U.S. soil.

As for Saddam, he is reviled in the region for having foolishly kicked open the door, allowing the U.S. to establish a military and economic presence in the region for, perhaps, many years to come.

I will state what I believe, as I have said before: this is a business deal (and a flawed one, at that), driven by sociopolitical idealists, layered on top of a bold move to lock in the future security of Israel.

"It has been suggested by some that this whole thing is a sort of Hatfield and McCoy feud, or even something out of the Mafia playbook."

It has been suggested by some that you are a traitor, a fascist, and an antisemite.

Does that make it true? Does that make it worth repeating? Does it make an argument proceeding from that premise any less dishonest and despicable?

Mr. Crawford,

Note that I stated what I believe. It doesn't necessarily make me right.

It doesn't take much effort to appreciate the role of commercial interests relative to military action, both in America's history and in the histories of other nations as well. Our own civil war was ignited by the issue of ownership of human beings for the use of their unpaid labor.

Do a little research on the role of the United Fruit Company in the violent conflict in Central America during the middle of the 20th century, then get back to me. Also, don't forget the Roman Empire.

Imagine the impact of not defending Kuwait in the first Persian Gulf war.

Anyone who thinks that business interests have not influenced the present conflict, after all we know now, must surely be deceiving himself.

I'll have to take issue with you on the matter of being a fascist, since I can't seem to reconcile the concept with my hope for taking health care for all Americans out of the luxury column, as well as the hope that a country as advance as ours cannot posssibly justify not educating every one of its citizens to the maximum extent possible.

Traitor? To what? I just want to see my country saved from its own arrogance.

I welcome the opportunity to answer your charge of being anti-semitic. I disagree. It seems that political correctness is not the exclusive domain of the liberals. Many people today are extremely hesitant to criticize anything relating to Israel or to Jewish interests in general. It has become almost a knee-jerk reaction to any comment that questions Israel's tactics in defending itself. I simply believe that the bar has been set, and is kept, much too low for the trigger point of offensive speech. Have you noticed that we can say, with impunity, anything we want about Muslims?

We need to set our sights instead on creating an internatonal level playing field for the conflicted parties and get down to seriously dealing with the seminal problems fueling the social and religious conflicts.

Hey, I didn't say *I* thought any of that about you; I was just using your little rhetorical flourish to make a point:

Saying "some have said" or "it has been suggested" is a slimy way of making an accusation without putting yourself in a position to defend the accusation. It's a classically dishonest tactic. That's why I followed it with:

Does that make it true? Does that make it worth repeating? Does it make an argument proceeding from that premise any less dishonest and despicable?

Got the point? Or was it too subtle?

BTW -- your point about "saying anything about Muslims" is pathetically false. You can't even report what Muslims themselves say and do without being accused of being racist.

SemiPundit:
Osama bin Laden declared open war on America - and all Americans - in 1997. When, of course, Bill Clinton was president. But it didn't matter to him who the president is or was. His war is against infidels - those who oppose his radical brand of Islam. Jew, Christian, Muslim, Buddhists, animists, anyone who does not follow his interpretations of the Koran is an enemy. He made the strategic decision in 1997 to directly attack us here instead of attacking us abroad. Why he picked that time and date is anyone's guess.

He has issued hundreds of speeches through videotapes and printed material. To my knowledge, no terrorist expert or Islamic scholar has EVER noticed a single reference to any type of "feud" between the Bush family and the bin Laden family. None. Zero. Nada.

This is Michael Moore cloud-cuckoo land territory you're entering. Not a good idea.

You argued above that "bin Laden, having had such close ties to the President and his family and their associates, would think that there would be no retaliation."

What "close ties" did Osama bin Laden have with President Bush? Or his family? Or "their associates?"

And you add that these "people have intimately known each other for years, have had extensive business dealings, and have interacted socially all around the globe. It has been suggested by some that this whole thing is a sort of Hatfield and McCoy feud, or even something out of the Mafia playbook."

What are Earth (or Mars) or you talking about? "Suggested by some"? Moore? Chomsky? George Galloway?

Yes, I am aware of the business exchanges between some in the Bush family and some in the bin Laden family. It's probably impossible to do any sort of business in Saudi Arabia without having contact with the bin Laden father. But there's no evidence in anything that bin Laden has said that indicates anything of a "intimate relationship" between himself and George Bush. This is fantasy.

You ask: "Can you seriously tell me that these people believed the U.S. would abandon its foreign interests and slink back into a corner to lick its wounds?"

Yes, that's what Bernad Lewis is saying that the terrorists believed would happen. That is why terrorists committ terrorism - to cause fear and force the victims to surrender out of fear of further actions. As you know, the plans for 9/11 were set into place years in advance. To repeat: Bin Laden didn't care whether Clinton or Bush was president. From his warped view, we're corrupt and weak and unwilling to stand up and endure the sacrifices needed to defeat our enemies.

"It was widely known that organizations like the Project for a New American Century were incessantly urging our government to strike, given the slightest rationalization for such an action."

Widely known where? Please, this is Michael Moore again. Did you even know about the Project for a New American Century (see, you can't even get the name right) before three years ago? Do you even know what it was back then? A bunch of foreign policy experts sitting around talking about the future of U.S. international relations. Where the threat would be, what we should do to counteract them, et cetera.

I'll cut it right here. Sorry, you're talking absolute nonsense here. It's bee "suggested by some" that you don't know what the heck you're talking about.

Cheers,

Steve

SteveMG,

You are correct, so I should apologize. It is "the New American Century", not "a New American Century", although I think the latter sounds better.