Also, Elrod is correct. The military failure in Iraq has been a distraction from the fight against terrorists, not a necessary part of it. I know conservatives often seem to think this is some kind of posturing on the part of liberals, but the fact is that Iraq had little to do with terrorism as a functional, authoritarian society. It was a war of choice, and a roll of the dice, and Bush lost the gamble. Rage if you like, but history’s verdict is clear.

Ordinarily I’d be happy about the prospect of a Democratic House, but frankly, there’s no cleaning up this mess that the GOP has made. I’d happily give the GOP control of Congress for 20 more years if it would undo the awful mistakes they’ve made.

Critics reversed the emphasis. They said that military force was necessary at times – like in Afghanistan or any other case where a state sponsor openly supports a terrorist act. But that the war on terror was PRIMARILY the work of law enforcement and surveillance work. I think the critics have been completely vindicated. The war in Iraq has done nothing to mitigate the threat of jihadist terrorism. It has done nothing to “change the culture of the Middle East” so that moderation will look more appealing to any potential terrorist. In fact, quite the opposite. After Iran and Syria, it was Iraq’s new leadership that came to Hezbollah’s defense first. And let’s not think about all the future terrorist veterans of the Iraq war who will, like their Afghan anti-Soviet forefathers, use terror across the West. All the great moderate secularists who were supposed to lead the new democratic revival in the Middle East have abandoned Iraq. Go read Zeyad’s blog about the exodus of middle class secularists to Jordan. Iraq is no place for a non-extremist these days who doesn’t keep his mouth shut.

Meanwhile, it was police and surveillance work that stopped this plot. It could have stopped 9/11 too. And it could stop any future plots. Launching wars that are meant to transform the Middle East have had the opposite effect.

Christ Oliver, you could feed Barbaro and Smarty Jones for a year with all the straw you’re throwing out.

The Republican rationale for 3+ years now has been that somehow invading Iraq stops the terrorists from plotting against us. I didn’t come up with you guy’s nonsensical talking points, I just point out where they run aground into reality.

The parenthetical proves the lie nicely, doesn’t it.

No one on the left ever said that the government should not eavesdrop on people, whether they are Americans or not. People who care about the Constitution simply argued that the government FOLLOW THE LAW when doing so. Do you have a problem with that?

Yesterday’s “serious,” set in stone rhetoric is so much “whatever” today. Hilarious.

Jay, we were told that fighting a war in Iraq would make us safer here at home. When Kerry suggested during the campaign that what would really make us safer was more and better law enforcement he was lambasted as being “unserious about the war on terror.”

Now, however, it’s plainly obvious that the law enforcement approach yields results while the war approach has yielded nothing but chaos and uncertainty.

No one, Jay, ever said that the war in Iraq would impede law enforcement efforts. The argument was and still is that the war in Iraq would drain resources from the reconstruction of Afghanistan and that it would end up provoking more terrorist activity. Both of those thing have come to pass while every single rational put forward by the pro-war side has proved wildly off the mark.

Wait… what did WE do, exactly? This seems like the British actually got their shit together- and I say more power to them.

That’s pretty much it, actually, but I didn’t want to mention it. This is our thing, just like last July.

Also please note that Oliver just defended the concept of surveillance in general, not its employent by the present administration.

And nothing is wrong with doing surveillance of people, who argued against that?

(Absent a warrant) you did. I’d link to it, but I don’t know how to reference your pre-reboot posts.

What the hell does that have to do with anything? That’s completely irrelevant.

As someone said above, this looks more like the British have their stuff together while we’re busy playing with the Sunni and Shia in Iraq.

Oh I get it. So when a terrorist plot is foiled in GB, we had no part in working with them in order to prevent something like this from happening. But when somebody bombs a nightclub in Bali, it’s our fault.

And nothing is wrong with doing surveillance of people, who argued against that?

SPYING ON AMERICANS!!!

Right… so I must have just imagined the “fighting them there, so we don’t have to fight them here” mantra thats been repeated like crazy by the right.

As someone said above, this looks more like the British have their stuff together while we’re busy playing with the Sunni and Shia in Iraq.

Marty- I think the term “illegal war” is used in Iraq because we didn’t follow the chain of command ie. Congress has to actually agree to declare war. Instead, they just gave Bush the power to do what was deemed nessesary. Like in Vietnam, the Gulf of Tonkin resolution was a broad exercise of power, but was not a declaration of war.

“Peter Clarke, head of the Metropolitan Police antiterrorist branch, said surveillance had been carried out for months before police arrested 21 people overnight. “We have been looking at meetings, movements, travel, spending and the aspirations of a large group of people,” Mr. Clarke told reporters. “As is so often the case in these investigations, the alleged plot has global dimensions.”