Al-Qaeda knew that targeting Spain would cause a pullout of Spanish troops from Iraq – and the Spanish governnment was more than happy to oblige. Al-Qaeda knows what our weaknesses are, and aren’t afraid to do what they can to exploit them.
One wonders, how much money, if any, is flowing from groups like Hamas, Hizb’Allah, and al-Qaeda to groups like ANSWER, MoveOn, or Michael Moore. After all, why bother attacking the United States to weaken it when you have a pool of "useful" idiots to do it for you? Given that the North Vietnamese and Soviets helped bankroll the anti-war movement, it wouldn’t at all surprise me to learn that the terrorists were doing the exact same thing.
UPDATE: Bat Ye’or gave an important address to the French Senate on the rise of Islamofascism in Europe and how appeasement only makes things worse. A selection:
The dhimmitude of Europe began with the subversion of its culture and its values, with the destruction of its history and its replacement by an Islamic vision of that history, supported by the romantic myth of Andalusia. Eurabia adopted the Islamic conception of history, in which Islam is defined as a liberating force, a force for peace, and the jihad is regarded a “just war.” Those who resist the jihad, like the Israelis and the Americans, are the guilty ones, rather than those who wage it. It is this policy that has inculcated in us, the Europeans, the spirit of dhimmitude that blinds us, that instills in us a hatred for our own values, and the wish to destroy our own origins and our own history. “The greatest intellectual swindle would be to allow Europe to continue to believe that it derives from a Judeo-Christian tradition. That is a complete lie,” Tariq Ramadan has stated. And thus we despise George Bush because he still believes in that tradition. What simpletons those Americans…
The spirit of dhimmitude is not merely that of submission without fighting, not even a surrender. It is also the denial of one’s own humiliation through this process of integrating values that lead to our own destruction; it is the ideological mercenaries offering themselves up for service in the jihad; it is the traditional tribute paid by their own hand, and with humiliation, by the European dhimmis, in order to obtain a false security; it is the betrayal of one’s own people. The non-Muslim protected dhimmi under Islamic rule could obtain an ephemeral and delusive security through services rendered to the Muslim oppressor, and through servility and flattery. And that is precisely the situation in Europe today.
And that is precisely the problem faced by the left. If they wish to uphold democracy, they have to acknowledge that the concept of the premacy of international law does not and should not override basic human rights. Something is not right because the UN decides it is, something is right because it acknowledges the rights of all human beings to live in freedom. The arguments against the war are arguments of process — that the invasion was wrong not because it was wrong in itself, but it was wrong because it didn’t get rubber stamped by the same bureaucrats that were making a mint off of Saddam’s tyranny.
But of course that whole argument undermines the concept of human rights. Either human rights are universal and absolute or they are not. If one accepts the two premises that Saddam Hussein was a tyrant who was oppressing and murdering his people on a nightmare scale and that the world has the moral obligation to safeguard human rights, one can’t argue against the removal of Saddam Hussein. One cannot argue that collateral damage is enough to argue against the war — beyond a doubt more people would have been killed by Saddam’s secret police and sanctions than died in the war and subsequent unrest. To make that argument is to argue that not all deaths are the same — that those killed by Saddam are of less value than those killed by the coalition.
And that is precisely what the left argues. Fahrenheit 9/11 paints Saddam’s Iraq as a kind of Arabic nirvana where there are no rape rooms, no mass graves, no secret police. Moore doesn’t deign to mention Halabja or the Anfal campaign. No word of tongues being cut out or hands chopped off. The only deaths that matter are those that have propaganda value for his anti-Bush line.
Which is why I argue that the Islamofascists have allies in the anti-war left. By diminishing the morale of our troops, by spreading lies, and by glossing over the horrors of the enemy, the left does absolutely no service to this country. Dissent is not automatically brave or wise. A Holocaust denier is a dissenter, they spread their views at great personal risk (including the risk of arrest in Europe), and they question the status quo. Would one then argue that denial of the Holocaust is a good thing? What about white supremicists? They dissent, and they do so often at great risk. (If you don’t believe me, try walking around with a sign that says "I support white people" and see what reaction you get.) Does that make them brave? Does that make them worthy of having their voice be heard at every possible opportunity?
Dissent is one thing, but irresponsible and politically charged rhetoric that deliberately undermines the morale of troops serving abroad and aids tyranny is another. Dissent is not patriotic, informed and respectful debate is. The rhetoric coming from even mainstream Democrats is often neither informed nor respectful, and serves only to propagate fear, uncertainty, and doubt – FUD that plays right into the hands of America’s enemies. Speech comes with consequences, and the left urgently needs to consider what the consequences of their demands would truly be.