"So, last week we have what appears to be a rather elaborate but low tech terrorist plot unravelled that shows that terrorists are still operating out of Pakistan. Pakistan is also ramping up its nuclear operations with the knowledge of the administration, which kept that knowledge from the US congress until a couple of weeks ago.
Why is this not considered a problem by anyone in Washington? Do they honestly believe that this combination of al Qaeda, nuclear weapons and a tenuous military dictatorship whose intelligence services are sympathetic to bin Laden is not worth worrying about ---- while we obsess over Iraq and Iran?
Apparently. It's one of those issues that has confounded me from the beginning. Al Qaeda style Islamic fundamentalist terrorism is a real threat. Their methods are designed for maximum effect and are almost guaranteed, if successful, to create a disproportionate and inchoate response. And yet the country that is the hive of such terrorism (with a government police force that is reputed to be sympathetic to it) is considered to be an ally on the par of Great Britain --- which is a target just like the US. It makes no sense and it's one of the primary reasons that we can be sure that the neocons are no more serious about terrorism than they have ever been.
Repeat after me --- these people do not really care about terrorism. They never have... They are completely rigid in their thinking, refusing to consider new evidence, even decades after they've been proven wrong.
And not only do they not see terrorism as a real threat, their own obsessions with toppling middle eastern states virtually guarantees that terrorism will continue to rise. Their unearned reputation for competence in this area is another case of Republican upisdownism in full effect."
Since Friday afternoon the second Lebanon war is taking on a similar character: the decision to move on to the Litani River is motivated by a hidden agenda but is being justified through practical needs.
The suspicion that the broadening of the military deployment is driven by hidden motives is reinforced further not only by Olmert's refusal to allow Tzipi Livni to participate in the deliberations of the Security Council, but also when answers are sought over what the military operation actually means. The impression is that the prime minister, who updated some of his ministers on Friday night, did not offer a uniform explanation.
Notwithstanding, it raises concerns about the wisdom of the country's leadership: does the cost in human life claimed in this operation justify the expected result? Will the chances of deriving from this war a substantive change in the Israel-Lebanon relations increase as a result of the takeover of a few more square kilometers of territory? Will the vulnerability of the IDF forces to the lethal strikes of Hezbollah fighters not increase as a result of broadening its deployment? Will Israel's image in the world improve in view of images of continued fighting, despite the UN resolution? Will this action not strengthen Hezbollah's motivation to intensify its responses and establish its image as the group standing before the Israeli war machine?