Times Most Influential People

[richlevy]

It looks like Bush and Kerry both made the list for Time's 100 most influential people.

The full article does not make right or wrong judgements, and also lists Bin Laden. Below are selected pieces.

NEW YORK (Reuters) - TIME Magazine on Sunday published its list of the 100 "World's Most Influential People," including President Bush (news - web sites), who it called "a radical gambler."

Saying the Republican president will be judged by the Iraq (news - web sites) war, columnist Andrew Sullivan wrote: "We do know that this unassuming man became a radical gambler with his fate and with humanity's."

Democratic challenger John Kerry (news - web sites), who also made the list, was called "a solemn unifier for the Democrats" by Joe Klein, who wrote a best-seller about the Clintons.

Both ex-President Bill Clinton (news - web sites) and Sen. Hillary Clinton (news - web sites) made the grade as "the brightest stars in the Democratic gallery."

Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden and his ally, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, were also listed.

Richard Clarke, the former head of U.S. counterterrorism, said of bin Laden: "In death he will become a martyr and further inspiration to radical Islamists -- until someone offers an effective ideological or religious counterweight."

TIME listed Clarke's ex-boss, Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites), saying: "She can have her pick of Cabinet posts in a second Bush term" -- especially if the secretary of state or defense were to leave.

Neither of those top officials were listed.

So Rumsfeld and Powell were both left out in the cold. Unfortunately, Rice probably did not argue for the invasion of Iraq, which would mean she was not that influential.

It is true that history will record the war on terror and the war in Iraq, probably correctly as separate events, and that these peoples names will be mentioned. As the invasion by a superpower of an independent nation, it will be an anomaly in the 21st century, something we thought we had outgrown.

Because of 9/11, the world stood by and watched as the US did something no other country on the UN security council could get away with in recent history - invade another country halfway across the world.

The US involvement in Iraq is different from Russia/Chenya and China/Tibet for one reason, distance. Iraq was never part of the US and never shared a border. Noone could possibly imagine that Iraq would ever be able to invade the US.

The Iraq war is a throwback to the French in Algeria, a time when a nation could attempt to conquer another with impunity.

I cannot wait until 10 years from now when all of the books and memoirs have been published and we find out even more answers than have leaked so far.

We are making history, God help us.

[Undertoad]

Noone one could possibly imagine that Iraq would ever be able to invade the US.

Yeah, where are the weapons of mass destruction in the hands of al Qa'ida from unknown sources that could be used to attack US interests?

In Jordan, coming from Syria.

[tw]

Originally posted by Undertoad
Yeah, where are the weapons of mass destruction in the hands of al Qa'ida from unknown sources that could be used to attack US interests?

coming from Syria

And where were the resources from used by the IRA to bomb London? From the USA. And so again you keep putting up these straw men? UT. If you claim that Assad is promoting terorism, then put up facts that say same. Otherwise ... and again and again ... you keep putting up these straw men accusations.

How do we know The Cellar is not a source of Tamil Tiger terrorism? Using this strawman reasoning, then even the Cellar could be indicted?

[Undertoad]

Rich said "Noone one could possibly imagine that Iraq would ever be able to invade the US."

Can YOU think of a way? I KNOW you CAN.

Those guys in Jordan can, and were even planning to include the US embassy in their target list.

As far as Assad, read the entire fucking article.

King Abdullah said that trucks containing 17.5 tons of explosives had come from Syria, though he took pains not to implicate Syrian President Bashir Assad in the al-Qaida plot, saying, "I'm completely confident that Bashir did not know about it."

Originally posted by tw
And where were the resources from used by the IRA to bomb London? From the USA. And so again you keep putting up these straw men? UT. If you claim that Assad is promoting terorism, then put up facts that say same. Otherwise ... and again and again ... you keep putting up these straw men accusations.

How do we know The Cellar is not a source of Tamil Tiger terrorism? Using this strawman reasoning, then even the Cellar could be indicted?

I refer all interested parties to the following, MODERN JIHAD: TRACING THE ECONOMICS OF TERRORISM http://www.modernjihad.com/index_home.html

Fascinating reading.

[xoxoxoBruce]

See...It's WalMart's fault, damnit.
Good find Marichiko, interesting read.

A quote from that same link that I find profoundly disturbing is this:

[quote]
Indeed, one of the key techniques of terrorism investigators, as with drug agents, is to follow the money. In the case of terrorism, it very often leads back to some innocent-looking sources, such as Islamic charities in the U.S. and Europe. In a new book titled "Modern Jihad," economist Loretta Napoleoni comes up with the startling conclusion that "the New Economy of Terror is a fast-growing international economic system, with a turnover of about $1.5 trillion, twice the GDP of the United Kingdom." The so-called "narco- terrorists" in places like Colombia have a huge turnover. The cash-generating activities of terrorist groups include extortion, kidnapping, smuggling and a range of other criminal activities.

Ms. Napoleoni concludes that the best way to fight terror is to "identify its channels of interaction with the economies of the West and progressively sever them -- close its avenues into the free market and the world of capitalism."

Many of these people live in utter poverty. When the local terrorist recruiter comes to town and offers not only paradise in the life to come, but a means of supporting one's family in this life, the combination is practically irresistable.