Mr. Bush, if we attacked the the U.K., it would become a "central front...

[Brotherjohn]

...in the war on terror". (or Sweden, or Nigeria, or the Seychelles…)

You know things are really getting desperate when he's quoting his mortal enemy to justify his policy.

Bush quoted Osama Bin Laden last night as a way of backing up his assertion that Iraq is an integral part of the War on Terror:
"Some wonder whether Iraq is a central front in the war on terror. Among the terrorists, there is no debate.
Here are the words of Osama bin Laden: 'This third world war is raging' in Iraq. 'The whole world is watching this war.' He says it will end in 'victory and glory or misery and humiliation.'"

But the fact that it's part of the War on Terror is irrelevant. Iraq is only a "central front" in the War on Terror because Mr. Bush chose to make it so. In doing this, we attracted terrorists there and we have made countless new ones out of Iraqis.

If we invaded our main ally, the United Kingdom, even that country would become a "central front in the war on terror".

The real question, of course, is whether or not it's a beneficial part of the War on Terror. Mr. Bush's next words show how little he understands the question (much less the answer):
"The terrorists know that the outcome will leave them emboldened or defeated."

What Mr. Bush just doesn't "get" is that the whole process, the very fact that we went in, leaves the terrorists "emboldened". We have given them the most fertile recruiting and training grounds they could have hoped for. If he want's evidence of this, here merely needs to listen to what the terrorists who recently kidnapped a couple of French journalists had to say:
"The cell leader trained with terror leader Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan and told them the insurgents supported a Bush presidency because they believed it meant that 'there will be confrontation, occupation and radicalization of the Iraqi people.'"
(http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1119925651865)

Really, this is Terrorism 101 (now we see the drawback of naming a Cold War expert as your National Security Adviser). Terrorists thrive on this kind of "intervention" by western nations.

If only Mr. Bush had even bothered to listen to himself. He appeared to understand the roots of anti-American sentiment when he was first running for president in 2000:
"It really depends upon how our nation conducts itself in foreign policy. If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us." (http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2000b.html)

Congratulations, Mr. Bush. They resent us.

Finally, Mr. Bush attempted to justify the war with the old canard:
"There is only one course of action against them — to defeat them abroad before they attack us at home."

Well, there are so many flaws with that reasoning, it's hard to know where to begin.

But for starters, how do you know who is going to attack us? Apparently, that's been a pretty hard nut for us to crack in the not-too-distant past. Have you recently obtained a time machine, Mr. Bush, or developed extra sensory perception? No?

So I guess the only way to "defeat them abroad before they attack us at home" is to attack and subjugate an entire nation... one which, I might add, may have actually had less to do with the attack on us than any other Middle Eastern nation. Pay no attention to the seething masses of angered Iraqis who've lost wives, children... babies... in the name of your attempt at "stabilizing the Mid East". It's not like we've ever experienced blowback from well-intentioned interference in a South Asian country before is it? None of our loyal, flower-petal-throwing, subjects is likely to follow in Osama's footsteps, are they? And if they do, well, they can't get out of Iraq, right? I mean, we control the airports, we control the Syrian border... we DO control the Syrian border, don't we?

So Mr. Bush's speech last night served mostly just to show how he's living in a fantasy world. Perhaps the most obvious aspect of this was evidenced by this quote, one which cuts to the core of the biggest problem with his policy, the problem which will likely come back to harm us the most:
"Our mission in Iraq is clear... We are removing a source of violence and instability..."

Um, Mr. Bush... I think you meant to say "creating".