The conviction with which Blair and Bush make this argument is the stuff of nightmares. What I still can’t work out is whether they’re being knowingly disingenuous in an attempt to hide a politically embarrassing truth or genuine believers in this logic defying dogma. At times, it seems to be a strange mixture of both.

Either way, it’s not good. For whatever reason, our leaders refuse to accept the crucial importance of the recruitment process and behave as if they are facing a finite, well defined enemy. It seems to have led to a belief that no action they take could ever make the situation worse. Not good at all.

I wonder if Terry (or Blair) could accept even theoretically that the actions of the U.S. and U.K. governments could make the situation worse?

Hypothetical extrapolation:

“Terry (or Blair), Mr Bush has invaded Pakistan, Turkey, almost every other Muslim country (not Saudi Arabia strangely) and France. He’s said he won’t rest until every Muslim is dead, and now the Middle East is in flames and…”

“And I suppose you leftists think that this escalation was his fault. Well let me remind you pinkos that they hated us first. They started this…”

Sadly, that’s probably just what Terry (or Blair) would say.

I am not convinced that these two belong together. Nasrallah’s support base and program has a definite natinalistic base, and, by all accounts, he is into efficient reconstruction. Osama can’t be accused of building anything, and seems to be aiming for a global jihad.

Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say he he offers to turn you from one to the other?