Mickey

The administration, as part of its Tax Relief and Jobs Growth bill passed in 2003 provided companies with an interesting incentive to buy new equipment in the form of accelerated depreciation. The kicker was that the equipment had to be purchased in a 20 month window between May of 2003 and January of 2005. Under the provision they coud write off over 1/2 the cost of the equipment in the first year. In theory, it encourages comapanies to invest in more equipment and gives a job boost to the manufacturers and installers of the equipment. Moreover, the equipment has to be run by someone so there are more jobs. Those jobs would be created in time for the President's re-election bid so that is also a nice benefit. All in all a win-win situation. Problem was that the equipment now-a-days is mostly made abroad and once installed, is meant to pay for itself in reduced labor costs which means fewer workers. The companies still bought the equipment to take advantage of the brief window of opportunity in the code. That left them less money to use to hire additional workers. The end result is that job growth might have been more robust without the bill. This might explain why the administration predicted growth of 300,000 jobs this go-round and only got 144,000. I'm not sure if its true and even if it is, I don't want to beat on the Bushies over it, it was a sound idea, at least based on priciples of 10 years ago anyway. It just didn't work because things have changed and I'm sure a lot of democrats did not object to the idea thinking it meant more manufacturing jobs. They were wrong as well. I do think it is an interesting example of how legislation can boomerang on you. Here is a better explanation of the episode: Depreciation and Boomerangs

Speaking of Russian history, I think it is pretty crazy for any group to think terrorism is going to work against them. Look at the millions they lost in the war. Russians can take the worst beating that can be given and still survive. Napoleon and Hitler could attest to that.

I know there are lots of bad people in the world. I watched the RNC last week (just kidding, I didn't watch). I was just wondering why Russia would want to put troops into Iraq as part of a strategy of invasion or the threat of one against Syria and Iran unless it felt it was somehow threatened by those countries.

That is why I asked you questions, you see, I already know what I think those answers are, I wanted to know what you thought. Here are my answers if that is what you need: Do you think the regime installed in Afghanistan will last any longer than our willingness and ability to keep them in power by force? No, I don't think it will last any longer than our ability to keep them in power by force. Do you think it wise to have installed a minority tribe in Afghanistan as against the Pashtuns, the majority tribe, the guys who sent the Soviets packing? I think it was a bad idea to align ourselves with a minority tribe. However, its water under the dam. I don't think any government besides one dominated by Pashtuns can hold its ground in Afghanistan. Do you think the Taliban have been eradicated? No, I think at worst they have retreated out of the cities and into their natural home, the mountains. I think they will eventually take down the government we installed. I think we have concentrated too much on taking cities and not enough on killing the enemy where ever he is. Do you think AQ has been crippled or are they as dangerous, if not more so, than they were before 9/11? I think they are more dangerous. They have shown you can do a lot of damage to the US and live to tell the tale. They are heroes to many, many Muslims. They were damaged, no doubt, by our efforts in Afghanistan and elsewhere but they regenerate and replace people easily. Is UBL more admired than despised by Muslims in the Arab world? I think more admired than despised by a long shot. I don't here criticism of this from either party. Where are the Muslims marching in the street to protest the twisting of their faith of peace into one of death by jihadists? Do you think there are more or less jihadists in the world since 9/11? The invasion of Afghanistan? The invasion of Iraq? To all three questions: more and I will add: that is not good. Do you think that we are going to eventually be dealing with the same level of frequent attacks as the Russians and Israelis are now? If not, why? I fear we are. I don't think we are ready. So far, except for military families, the biggest sacrifices we have been asked to accept in this war are longer lines in airports and larger tax cuts. Kerry promises that somehow all this will be relieved by allies joining in to share the load. I don't know, maybe he can convince Spain to send back those 100 or so troops. Whoopeee.

Actually, I do have some ideas and I was hoping you did as well which is why I asked. That would have been an interesting discussion to have. Clearly, I'll have to have it with someone else. I have tried numerous times to take this out of the prism of Bush vs. Kerry and/or Republican vs. Democrat but I guess in an election season, that just isn't going to happen.

We can only deal with what we know. If we have to have perfect knoweldge upon which to draw a conclusion then we can never draw any conclusions and all data is useless. Success against terrorism isn't going to be measured by comparing how many died to how many could have died. If you are fighting a fatal disease that could have killed 2 million but "only" killed 1 million, it wouldn't be much of a success. The President says we are "safer." I don't know of any way I can examine that assertion without looking at terrorist attacks, actual attacks over the last 4 years and I see no basis for dismissing them simply because there are other factors involved that are not known. If that were true, I could assert that "for all we know" 9/11 was a successful defense against terrorism because it is possible they had plans to attack 15 other buildings but were thwarted by our security safeguards and we just never found that out. The facts were not drawn from the news. They were from a book written by a CIA officer in the agency for 22 years and still working there. He headed the bin Laden unit from 1996-1999. It is his list. It can be easily verified and in fact, I don't think it is in dispute that these attacks happened. I pointed out that he has a list of wins for the good guys as well. His ultimate position on how this war should be fought would likely curdle the spine of the average democrat. It is not a partisan issue. I actually hoped the list would spark debate on how best to fight terrorism but apparently the very thought that there is the tiniest bit wrong about how we have fought this war and that it might reflect negatively on Bush in the slightest way was just too much.

I take no position on the unknown. If you want to imagine that we have won great but secret victories and at the same time believe that we have suffered no equally secret defeats, fine. What I listed are known facts provided in a book written by a 22 year CIA officer who is a republican and who was in charge of the bin Laden unit from 1996-1999. He still is with the agency. He would have far more access to all the secrets there are to know than you or I and he wrote a book subtitled "Why the west is losing the war on terrorism". What does he know right? Given your own partisanship, I can understand why you naturally assume that everyone else must be a raving partisan as well. That becomes easier, especially in this case, if you ignore all the posts I put up saying that the author of this book would not think much of Kerry or the democrats and in fact, advocates a harsher approach than we are currently pursuing. Of course, if you didn't ignore those comments you wouldn't be able to dismiss the facts you don't like by simply attacking my politics. Let me try and say this as clearly as I can one more time in what I am sure is a futile attempt to get through your "bush good, kerry bad" bubble: The list of terrorist actions since 9/11 is not being offered as an indictment of George Bush but as an indication that we may very well not be winning the war on terrorism. Gore would likely, with the exception of the Iraq war, have also invaded Afghanistan. I see no reason to even speculate that he would have done any better. Further, I have little reason to think that Kerry would also be anymore successful at fighting terrorists than Bush has been. Now, can we put the partisanship aside and discuss how to most effectively fight terrorism?

That is an interesting conclusion to draw from a list of facts covering terrorist attacks since we declared war on terrorism. Which of those facts is partisan and therefore worthy of being dismissed? That list comes from a book written by a 22 year CIA officer who headed the bin laden unit from 1996 to 1999 and who still works for the agency and who is actually a republican. Is there some item on that list that is not accurate? Have you not read the several posts in this thread where I point out that this has nothing to do with the Bush-Kerry debate? The author's ideas as to how we should be fighting this war would actually be far more repugnant to democrats than republicans. I don't think Kerry has any more of a clue on how to fight this war than the current administration. Apparently you can't digest anything without first straining it through your partisan filters and then regurgitating a partisan response. For once though, just for a change, why not try and just look at the facts rather than grope for the first plausible argument to justify ignoring the ones you don't like. The response you applaud relies on nothing but speculation, ie, the idea that "probably" plots that have been frustrated are classified. That is nothing but a guess but since it supports your partisan position you applaud it. If anyone else posted that kind of guess you would have been all over it. Even if it's true, what reasonable inference can be drawn? Don't you think there are some losses in this war that are also classified? The facts show that AQ and Islamist terrorists are killing lots of people in lots of places depite claims that AQ has been crippled or the Taliban eradicated. Some of their defeats are certainly unknown and so are some of their victories. We can debate the unknown and pretend it supports either position or we can look at the facts, the things we do know. That is what I presented, actual attacks. Your response: Gee, maybe there are great but secret victories and Mickey is a democrat. How fascinating. Do you think the regime installed in Afghanistan will last any longer than our willingness and ability to keep them in power by force? Do you think it wise to have installed a minority tribe in Afghanistan as against the Pashtuns, the majority tribe, the guys who sent the Soviets packing? Do you think the Taliban have been eradicated? Do you think AQ has been crippled or are they as dangerous, if not more so, than they were before 9/11? Is UBL more admired than despised by Muslims in the Arab world? Do you think there are more or less jihadists in the world since 9/11? The invasion of Afghanistan? The invasion of Iraq? Do you think that we are going to eventually be dealing with the same level of frequent attacks as the Russians and Israelis are now? If not, why? These are the kinds of questions that list poses and they are not democratic or republican questions. This kind of horror is going on in many places. I have no delusions that we are immune from having to live through the same thing that Russians and Israelis are dealing with every day. That list shows not just that the bad guys are still capable of killing thousands. It shows what we are in for.

Have Syria or Iran been at all tied to Chechen insurgents/terrorists?

Those are huge ifs, especially in Afghanistan. We are allied with a minority and not with the Pashtuns. That is the same mistake that we made when the Soviets left and eventually Kabul fell. Rather than side with the Islamist Pashtun fighters we supported and who beat the Soviets, we sided with minority tribes whose leaders sat out the war in exile because they weren't fundamentalists like the mujahideen. The question is whether such a regime, made up of Tamliks and Uzbeks, will have a prayer of lasting beyond our ability or willingness to keep them in power by force? I'm thinking not. Only the Pashtuns can govern that country and anyone else will eventually meet with a dedicated effort on behalf of nearly the entire population to oust them from power. I'd love to see a free and democratic Afghanistan but is that anything more than a delusional fantasy? Are we justified in thinking they hate us any less than they hated the Soviets? Are we comfortable pinning any part of our national survival on winning a guerilla war in Afghanistan? Maybe we should just kill every terrorist we can find there and then just leave them to a civil war.

Actually it is the tax money collected there that keeps the lazy and sparsely populated midwestern states afloat. California and NY routinely get reamed in terms of how much of their taxes get spent in their states. They are tax creditors while states like Kansas and Wyoming are tax debtors. But that is okay. Welfare that helps people in cities is creeping socialism while welfare that helps farmers and rural folk is the American way.

So the Russians would want to go to Iraq as a prelude to an invasion of Iran or Syria???

The author is still working for the CIA. You are simply assuming that he no longer works there. The CIA vetted his book before publication. He is not a disgruntled former official. He is still working on this. As for his view being "incomplete", that is again an assumption. Besides, none of us have a complete view, all we can do is review what we have and go from there. What are you suggesting? Should we ignore what we do know because we don't know everything? Should there be a moratorium on discussing this issue because our information is less than absolute? Read my posts in this thread and you will see that I don't credit Kerry with any better of an idea than Bush as to how to fight this war. What scares me is that neither seems to realize what we are up against. Bush is obsessed with the idea that the only dangerous terrorists are those that are supported by rogue states when it seems clear that stateless terrorists are just as able to cause mass casualties. A complete unwillingness to discuss what isn't going right with this war for fear that it might possibly reflect, even the tiniest bit, negatively on Bush is not, imho, in the best interests of America.

Osaama means "One of the Names of the Lion" and Usaama means "Description of a Lion" (Muslim Names). There are numerous spellings. "Usamah" is probably the one I ran across the most. I believe his title is "Sheikh". In the book, which I don't have handy, this assertion (that Usamah was becoming the most popular boys name in Isalm) is footnoted. I'll try and get it for you later.

And what are the strategic advantages of Russians in Iraq versus the drawbacks in being associated with the US invasion of Iraq?

I see, so you are assuming that we have had huge wins that we just don't know about for one reason or another? "Probably because..." Wouldn't the simple answer be because there just haven't been that many? I am not proposing or advocating whatever you think is a "compassionate war on terror", quite the contrary in fact. What I am leading up to is that maybe we aren't being hard enough. The administration claims we are "safer" due to its efforts, by what measure? Seems to me to be a pretty amorphous assertion. One pragmatic, practical way of looking at that is examining all the terrorist attacks that have happened since we declared war on terrorism. These attacks happen so frequently that I think the impact gets diluted. Just another media report on another suicide car bomber. One after the other, they just blend into the chatter. Every so often an attack is devastating enough that it catches our attention but a lot of them get very little notice. You've heard of them. Great. They are not discussed much here. I thought putting them all together in one place to see the larger picture would be helpful. Sure, the Madrid attack was big news here but the primary angle that was discussed heavily was whether it was good, bad or indifferent that Spain was going to pull out of Iraq. The real story was that AQ was alive and well and able to kill in mass numbers despite all of our efforts to the contrary. I didn't hear that issue discussed much here on the board. I do remember a lot of "the Spanish are pussies if they pull out" stuff. A fascinating discussion I tried to stay away from. I am sure there have been a few wins we haven't heard of and a few losses we haven't heard of as well. I don't see any point in debating what neither of us know. All we can work with are the facts we do have and the reasonable inferences that can be derived from those facts. What I posted is a list of facts. I'll leave the "proably because" stuff to you.

"Anonymous" wrote two books, this is the second and it picks up where the first ("Through our enemies' eyes") left off. The writer has been working on these issues for the CIA since way before 9/11. In fact, the first book was submitted to the publisher 3 months before the 9/11 attacks. In any event, 9/11 is, however, when we declared a war on terrorism. I see nothing wrong with looking at what has happened since. In fact, not looking comprehensively at terrorist attacks since we have been so focused on the struggle or to just dismiss them would be kind of idiotic from an intelligence perspective. The author, I am pretty sure, would have nothing good to say about John Kerry and how he would conduct this struggle. This is not an issue of who should be in the WH for the next four years. If at all possible, lets stay away from the "Bush good, Kerry bad" stuff for once.

He does offer alternatives but I haven't been through them all yet. Basically though, his approach is much tougher, much more violent than what we have been doing. Because I started this thread I think some of you guys are assuming this is an attack on the administration or an argument on behalf of Kerry. It isn't. I'm pretty sure this author would have nothing good to say about Kerry and how he would likely fight this war.

I don't care what you call success in this struggle, whether you call it "winning" or "containment". Are we winning? Are we containing? We see terrorist strikes from LAX to Chechnya, from Kabul to Riyadh. Is this an acceptable level of containment? This isn't a political debate, it is a debate on tactics.

Where's the list of "stats" for the other side ? 20319[/snapback] I'd post his list of wins but it is comparatively short and unlike these inicidents, the positives have been well covered in the press and trumpeted by the administration. Mostly they consist of nabbing some higher ups in AQ and driving the Taliban from the cities in Afghanistan. The author sees these as temporary wins as the Taliban is up and running again and AQ easily replaces the leaders they lose.

Do you believe that the ordinary Chechens don't support these killings? Probably the same as the ordinary muslims who do not support Osama bin Laden. That does leave a mystery though as to why Osama has supposedly become the most popular name for baby boys in that part of the world.

About as likely as American Soldiers in Chechnya. They are all for the war on terrorism, they just don't see the war in Iraq as having anything to do with that. A point the rest of the world seems to agree with, the notable exceptions being the Republican Party and Tony Blair.

Tom, aren't there Russians in Chechnya? I thought there was no real line with Russians on one side and all the bad guys on the other but instead an ethnically mixed population. The Chechen's want independence and the ethnic Russians in Chechen want to keep being Russians. No?

The problem is that the Chechen guerillas are not willing to congregate in large numbers and then send an invitation to the Russian military to terminate them all at once. Instead, they live among ethnic Russians so that if you just decide to create a big wet spot you end up killing as many of your own people as you do that of the enemy. The Russians would love to do something big but the enemy is just not going to give them the opportunity.

The following list is taken from “Imperial Hubris” by Anonymous, the same person who wrote “Through Our Enemies’ Eyes” and who has since been identified as CIA Senior Analyst Michael Scheuer. He lists terrorist victories since 9/11. I have reproduced them more or less here although I have removed most references to what are essentially political victories. One item of note is the murder of 2 US citizens at LAX in July of 2001. I believe I have heard a number of people claim there has been no terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11. I also had no idea until I saw it in black and white just how bad things have been for the Russians. That is interesting in that they were as against the Iraq war as France was. Also, the French have been hit a few times and maybe that should be remembered the next time someone on the board, for like the zillionth tiresome time, comes up with what he thinks is a new and clever insult to them. The author’s point is that we are essentially losing the so called war on terrorism. I haven’t finished the book yet but from what I can see he is advocating a much harsher approach than what we are doing now. He sees our efforts in Afghanistan as largely a failure that will eventually become a disaster and the same with Iraq. In any event, with terrorist inflicted casualties around 1,368 dead and 3,971 injured which only covers up to March of this year, he may have a point that we are not winning this war. 12/1/01-12/15: OBL and most of AQ’s fighters escape into Pakistan when the Northern Alliance fails to engage them in the Tora Bora Mountains. 1/23/02: Daniel Pearl is abducted and eventually killed. 2/27-3/2: Rioting Muslims in India burn passenger train killing 58 Hindus who, in response go on a rampage killing more than 2,000 muslims. OBL uses incident as proof the West doesn’t care about Muslims. 3/3-3/18: US offensive at Shahi Kowt, Afghanistan fails and AQ fighters escape to Pakistan. US claims 700-1,000 killed but subsequently, only 24 or so bodies of the enemy are found. 3/17: Protestant International Church in Islamabad, Pakistan is attacked, 5 dead and 46 wounded. 4/5: 4,000 men protest in Riyadh against Saudi gov’t support for US. 4/11: A synagogue in Tunisia is hit with a truck bomb, 21 dead. 4/17: Chechen guerillas kill 6 soldiers in a village near Grozny. 4/18: Chechen guerillas use a land mine to kill 17 soldiers in Grozny. 5/8: A car bomb is used in Karachi against a minibus carrying French naval technicians, 13 dead (including 11 Frenchmen), 24 are wounded. 6/17: A car bomb in Karachi is used outside the US Consulate, 11 dead and 42 wounded. 7/4: Two US citizens are killed at LAX airport at the El Al counter, the killer is taken out by El Al security. Why do I keep hearing that there has been no terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11? 7/13: Manshera, Pakistan: a grenade is thrown at an archaeological site: 12 wounded. 8/5: Christian school for the children of foreign aid workers is raided in Islamabad, 6 staff killed. 8/10: Taxila, Pakistan: Christian church is bombed: 5 dead, 25 wounded. 10/6: Suicide bomber sails an explosives filled boat into a French Tanker, the Limburg, in the Gulf of Aden. One crew member is killed, 90,000 gallons of crude spill and $45 Million in damages to the tanker. 10/2: 1 Marine killed and 1 wounded on Faylaka Island in Kuwait, the assailants are also killed. 10/12: Jemaah Islamiya (JI), an Idonesian group allied with AQ, uses a suicide bomb at a nightclub in Bali, 200 dead, many are Australians. 10/23-10/26: Chechen terrorists seize a theatre in Moscow. 129 innocent people died and all the terrorists were killed (over 40 of them). 10/28: Laurence Foley, US Embassy employee is murdered in Amman, Jordan by a Libyan and a Jordanian with ties to Musab al-Zarqawi, allies of AQ and Ansar al-Islam. 11/20: American Nurse is killed at a Christian church in Sidon, Lebanon (Bonnie Weatherall), she had been accused of trying to convert Muslims to Christianity. 11/20-11/23: Muslim rioting in Nigeria over the Miss World pageant being held there results in 220 dead, 1,500 wounded. 11/21: Kuwaiti policeman wounds two US soldiers he had pulled over, he runs to Saudi Arabia who returns him. 11/28: Suicide car bomb attack against Israeli owned hotel in Mombassa, Kenya and a SAM is fired at a Boeng 757 that was also Israeli owned. 15 dead at hotel, 40 wounded. The missile missed but there were 261 Israeli’s aboard. 12/27: Yemen’s Socialist Party chief who favored a secularist government is assassinated by Islamist looking for Paradise. 12/27: Suicide car bomb attack by Chechen terrorists in Grozny against party headquarters of Russian backed regime, 60 dead and 100+ wounded. 12/30: Jiblah Hospital in Yemen is attacked. 3 dead and 1 wounded. Hospital run for 30 years by Southern Baptist, attack is allegedly in retaliation for their attempts to convert Muslims. 2003: 1/21: 1 US civilian contractor killed, 1 wounded when ambushed in their car in Kuwait. Attacker flees to Saudia Arabia where he is captured and returned. Claims to have done it as a gift to OBL. 2/17: Dr. Hamid bin-Abd-al-Rhaman al-Wardi, a US educated deputy governor of a province in Saudi Arabia is assassinated. 2/20: British Aerospace employee Robert Dent is assassinated in his car at a red light in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 2/21: Cyanide containing envelopes sent to US embassy in New Zealand. 2/28: Pakistani police guarding US Consulate in Karachi are attacked, 2 dead and 5 wounded. 3/18: Four Hunt Oil employees are attacked in Yemen. 3 killed and 1 wounded. 3/20: US invades Iraq. OBL reportedly is ecstatic because the “…enemy is now spread out, close at hand and easy to target.” 3/25: Two Saudi security officers attacked in al-Jawf province. 1 dead, 1 wounded. 4/11: 10, TEN!!! AQ fighters suspected of involvement in the Cole attack escape a Yemeni “high security” prison. 5/1-6/1: Chechen insurgents go on the offensive and attack Russian forces across the board. 32 killed, 8 wounded. During the attack the Russians defused 120 or so explosive devices. 5/12: Suicide truck bomb attacks Chechen government buildings in Znamenskoye. 59 dead, 197 wounded. 5/16: Five teams of Islamist terrorists attack in various places in Casablanca. Most are suicide bombers. Group received $50,000 from AQ. 46 dead, 100 wounded. 6/5: Female Chechen suicide bomber hits a bus in Mozdok, Russia. 20 dead, 15 wounded. 6/7: A taxi in Kabul blows up killing 4 German Stabilization and Assistance Force troops. 29 wounded. 7/5: Two female Chechen suicide bombers hit an airfield in Moscow. 16 dead, 20 wounded. 8/1: Suicide truck bomb at a Military Hospital in Mozdok. 50 dead, 64 wounded. 8/5: Suicide bomber attacks the Marriott hotel in Jakarta. Fortunately the bomber detonated the device early. “Only” 10 dead and 152 wounded. 8/7: The Joradanian embassy in Iraq in Baghdad is attacked with a car bomb. The perimeter wall keeps attack from being worse than it was. As it is, 19 killed and 65 wounded. 8/20: Suicide truck bomb Rosened into UN HQ in Baghdad at the Canal Hotel. The UN Special Rep. to Iraq, Sergio Vieira de Mello is killed. All told, 23 dead and over 100 wounded. AQ claims responsibility. 8/25: Two taxis packed with explosive known as RDX explode in India in two different places with 15 minutes of eachother. 53 dead, 190 wounded. The 4 men arrested in the attacks are members of a terrorist Muslim group allied with AQ. Sept-Oct: Egypt releases 113 Islamists from prison and Yemen releases 1,000. Supposedly they had “repented”. They are suspected to be headed for Iraq. Action is eerily similar to when Arab governments released Islamists from jail on condition that they would go to Afghanistan to fight against the Soviet occupation. 9/11: Islamist terrorist group in Algeria which had long concentrated just on attacks against their own government announces allegiance to OBL and Mullah Omar (Taliban leader) and concentration of efforts in the future against US interests. 9/11-9/13: Two Jews murdered in Morocco, attacks linked to Salafia Jihadia group. 10/26-10/27: Rocket attack against Al-Rashid hotel in Baghdad on 10/26 kills 1 US soldier and wounds 17. On the 27th, Red Cross and 4 Baghdad police stations are hit by car bombs all within 45 minutes. A fifth station was saved when suicide car bomber is shot. 35 dead, 224 wounded. 11/12: Italian Military Police HQ in Nasiriya, Iraq is hit with a truck bomb. 29 dead, over 100 wounded. 11/15: Two Synagogues are attacked by car bombers in Istanbul, Turkey. 23 dead, 303 wounded. 11/20: British Consulate and HSBC Bank in Istanbul hit by car bombers. 27 dead and 450 wounded. 11/30: 7 Spanish intel officers killed near Baghdad and 2 Japanese diplomats are killed in Tikrit. 12/5: Female Chechen suicide bomber hits commuter train in Stavropol. 42 dead and 100 wounded. 12/14: Pro-west Pakistani President Musharraf survives assassination attempt when a land mine is detonated on his travel route. 12/25: Musharraf survives a second attempt when his convoy his hit by two suicide car bombers. 2004: 1/27-28: Suicide car bombs on successive days in Kabul, Afghanistan 2 dead and 7 wounded. 2/1: Two suicide bombers blow themselves up in the HQs of the two main Kurdish political parties at Irbil, Iraq. 110 dead, 250 wounded. 2/6: Chechen suicide bomber on a Moscow subway. 39 dead, 134 wounded. 3/11: AQ detonates 10 bombs simultaneously in Madrid on four commuter trains. 191 dead, 1,200 wounded. A few days later the Spanish government is voted out and Spain withdraws from Iraq. 3/15: 4 Southern Baptist Missionaries are killed in Mosul, Iraq. 3/28-3/31: Over three days multiple bombs are detonated in the Uzbekistan capital of Tashkent. 14 dead and 35 wounded. The depressing total is 295 killed and 200 wounded between 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq not including actions by Chechen terrorists/insurgents or general mayhem in India. Since then, there have been 603 killed and 3,133 wounded. The total since 9/11 is 898 dead and 3,333 wounded. Adding in the 470 dead and 638 wounded in Russia/Chechnya, not including the most recent horrific attack, and you end up with 1,368 dead and 3,971 injured. Also consider that 1,113 Islamists were released or escaped from prison, there were two attempts on the life of our most critically important ally in the area (Musharraf) along with 2,278 dead and 1,500 wounded in India. Don’t forget the cyanide and the 261 Israeli souls who narrowly escaped that missile fired at the 757. If that isn’t an ominous development, I don’t know what is. Missiles being fired at passenger jets is not, as far as I know, a threat against which we currently have a defense. If the war in Iraq was to help us win the war on terrorism, why have casualties (not including India and Chechnya) gone from 495 before the invasion to 3,736 since the war started? The idea that we have AQ or terrorists in general on the run is mistaken.