All the encouragement they need

I was thinking about this last night while listening to Boehner spew platitudes about how the majority of Americans share preznit's goal of "victory in Iraq (whatever that means)" and that everybody knows that if we leave Iraq before "victory in Iraq is achieved" that we'll be encouraging the terraists to attack "the homeland."

This little exchange reminded me of that this morning.

MATTHEWS: Why does he still suggest—as our country western music did for all those years—that the people who attacked us on 9/11 -- you know, bin Laden‘s crowd, al Qaeda, which we know exactly who the people were who attacked us, none of them were Iraqi—why the president continue to insists, again in the “Wall Street Journal” today we‘re fighting the same terrorists we fought on 9/11, who killed us on 9/11? Why does he keep doing that?

BLANKLEY: Look, I mean, what he said in the “Wall Street Journal” today, I think the language was careful. He is not saying the same individuals.

MATTHEWS: He is implying it‘s the same enemy.

BLANKLEY: The same radical Islam, but there were different radical Islamists who attacked us then and who were fighting there. But it‘s all part—as he‘s describing it. And I generally agree...

MATTHEWS: We got the radical Islamists on our side. We got Muqtada al Sadr as part of our hanging party. Why do you say we are fighting the guy? He‘s in the room, practically, with the hanging.

BLANKLEY: Look. You understand what the—you‘re being literal about it. The president is talking about the general threat from radical Islam around the world. And, as a lot of experts have pointed out, including critics of the war, if we skedaddle out of Iraq, that will encourage other radical Islamists to attack us.

Odd, wasn't our failure to prevent the successful destruction of the World Trade Center buildings one and two and 3,000 people in them all the encouragement potential terrorists would need? And, if that isn't enough, wouldn't this just egg them on?