The money shot, as Hollywood would call it: do those of us on the Left, whatever that is these days, need to reconsider our position on Iraq? Is it possible that Bush and Blair have been, in some way, right about their 'war on terror'? As you survey this morning's papers, and if you are being honest with yourself, you have to at least reflect on that question. I know that I have.First: The term "money shot" tends to be of an, ahem, San Fernando Valley term. Hollywood has precious few of those.
Second: good grief, why? Although I agree that this is not likely to be directly due to Iraq, a country only has so many resources, especially intelligence resources, and Iraq has sapped those away. Considering the structure of Al Qaeda nowadays, this was very likely to have been the work of one or a few relatively loosely connected cells (if it was the work of an Al Qaeda related group at all), which reinforces the idea that the way to deal with terrorism isn't state-on-state military action but policing and intelligence work.
And I'm not even going to get into the whole "Bush as Al Qaeda's recruitment gift from Allah" problem.
If we get news that these bombers were, say, Syrian agents than things might be different. In the meantime, however, this doesn't invalidate the critique of the right's methods, it reinforces it.