New York Times writes: “We discussed the situation on the ground in three fronts of the global war on terror: in Lebanon and Iraq and Afghanistan,” [President Bush] said. Mr. Bush has often described the American-led campaign in Iraq as part of a wider battle against terrorism, and his inclusion of the Lebanon fighting in a bigger struggle was probably not accidental...

Not accidental - that's right. Bush's rhetoric is aimed at conveniently lumping all the troubles in the Middle East in a big lump of fear-inspiring "terrorism" - notably, global terrorism - and starting and supporting multiple wars in the name of defeating it.

But, are Hizbollah and Al Qaeda really the same people? Do they really share the same agenda? Time has it spot on with its recent article, "Why the Middle East Crisis Isn't Really About Terrorism".

It boils down to this: Local conflict versus Global terrorism. Hamas and Hizbollah aim to defend against or wipe out Israel, and their reach and ambition are not the same as Al Qaeda's destroy-the-West-for-a-new-Islamic-world-order global view. Sure, Hamas and Hizbollah may have been irritated with the US, but they would have never targeted US. Unfortunately, now that the US (and the UK) have implicitly supported Israel, the US has made some new enemies and intensified its hatred from others (Hizbollah and unfortunately, the people of Lebanon, and of course, Syria and Iran).

Bush, while you're at it, you might as well bring in Sri Lanka's Tamil Tigers, Myanmar's God's Army and Canada's Freedomites. What? Nothing to do with oil? You're right on.

(picture source)