Posted 12:31 PM by Floyd

A Chris Caldwell piece in the Weekly Standard linked to idiotarian artwork produced by TomPaine.com, a left-wing journal headed by Bill Moyers' son. This propaganda has been run as an ad in the New York Times:

Uncle oSAMa Says:
I Want YOU To Invade Iraq

Go ahead. Send me a new generation of recruits. Your bombs will fuel their hatred of America and their desire for revenge. Americans won’t be safe anywhere. Please, attack Iraq. Distract yourself from fighting Al Qaeda. Divide the international community. Go ahead. Destabilize the region. Maybe Pakistan will fall -- we want its nuclear weapons. Give Saddam a reason to strike first. He might draw Israel into a fight. Perfect! So please -- invade Iraq. Make my day.

There's quite a lot wrong with this smarmy bit of poison; it combines a repugnant "fighting back can only make things worse" defeatism with the smug belief that it's idiotic to disagree with TomPaine.com; even Osama Bin Laden knows better. To add insult to idiocy, the image of a mass murderer is employed to hector law-abiding people.

• The 9/11 hijackers had no grievances against US policy or military activity. They were from Egypt and Saudi Arabia, countries which have been allies of the US. The US gives Egypt billions of dollars a year, and has given the Saudis an immense sum of money for their oil. The US has also undertaken a military campaign against a belligerent nation which took over a small country on the Saudis' doorstep.
  
  It has been almost a year since the US smashed the Taliban's hideout in Afganistan. There have been no reports of increased Al Qaeda recruitment. Al Qaeda seems to have given up operations on US soil; they have been reduced to making attacks in the more gullible and careless Westernized Islamic republics. This strategy is self-limiting, as these countries will tighten their security and move against Islamic terrorists.
  
  If there is much less terrorism in the world after the US defeated a fundamentalist Islamic government, why would destroying a secular Islamic state cause blowback?
  
  
• A divided international community with some nations fighting Al Qaeda and its allies is preferable to a united community which does nothing.
  
  
• "Destabilizing the region" is not likely to help Al Qaeda. Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Pakistan have been covert supporters of Al Qaeda, so if those countries are overthrown, Al Qaeda is likely to lose its funding and its places to hide. Worrying about Pakistan falling is silly -- Musharraf has already survived his participation in the destruction of Afghanistan.
  
  
• Whether Iraq is aiding Al Qaeda or not, what do you think Osama Bin Laden prefers: A belligerent, anti-US Arab nation, or another overwhelming US victory and occupation?
  
  
• Saddam does not need to be given "a reason to strike first." He is a murderous dictator, so gnawed with pride and powerlust that he claims that no single Iraqi voted against his rule in the latest "election." He has launched aggressive wars against two of his neighbors.
  
  
• I get the impression that TomPaine.com does not really care what Osama Bin Laden does or does not want; his face is being used as a bogey to smear people who favor war against Iraq.
  
  
• I could note that highlighting the SAM in Osama comes from the same urge that drives heavy metal bands to adorn their names with umlauts, but that would be snarky.
  
  
• Tom Paine was a radical, a revolutionary, and a crusader against tyranny. If he were alive and saw how these appeasers abuse his name, he would vomit them out of his mouth.