"Yet terrorism is flourishing -- not just in Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Kenya and Indonesia but in Afghanistan, where the Taliban were supposedly defeated, and in Iraq, where, prior to the war, there was no sponsored international terrorism at all."

What a liberal biased view.

Al-queida attacked targets of US interest in the Muslim world before the war and there is no reason to blaim these actions on the war rather than Al-queida's previously announced intentions to attck US targets. The point of both wars was and is to weaken their ability to carry through attacks. The large number of arrests and captures indicates we have foiled many attacks since 911.

Saudi Arabia has just now gotten tough on terrorists as a result of attacks at home. The outlook is now better on Saudi cooperation not worse.

The Taliban was defeated and is not in control of Afghanistan. They never stopped causing trouble. Resurgence? Is this objectively measured or simply press commentary of the same quality as our Iraq occupation is a total failure and Iraqi's want us out now? If we have cornered them as our plan would dictate we would expect a rise in encounters. Is the rise spread throughout the country or in an isolated region?

Terror attacks in Iraq? Come on did Al-queida attack Taliban controlled territory? Off course an American presence inside Iraq would encourage attacks where none were before.

The point about terrorists being parasites rather than governments is correct.

By the definition announced earlier (by Robert I believe) of change versus tradition I am a liberal. That definition does not fit the type of mentality that opposes Bush primarily because he is a conservative or chooses to look at events only through an angle that gives the worst reflection on Bush.

Regards,
Mark