If Thomas Jocelyn's reporting at WeeklyStandard.com is correct, then we have what may be the start of a pattern of conduct that I'd be ready to call casus belli. We have reports of Iranian-manufactured IEDs in Iraq, as well as Iranian support of al-Qaeda. It seems bin Laden had a lot of friends who figured he would be a nice cut-out to attack the United States of America.
This dovetails nicely into the announced candidacy of James Webb for the United States Senate. Webb seems to have a lot of criticism of the administration's policies. But where, pray tell, are his alternatives? How would he propose that the United States handle a regime that was trying to acquire chemical and biological weapons, sent an intelligence officer with an al-Qaeda operative to launch a chemical mortar attack on American and British targets, and also brought an al-Qaeda envoy (representing Osama bin Laden) to Baghdad to discuss "the future of our relationship with him"? What would it take for Webb to finally decide to do something about state sponsors of terrorism, New York vanishing in a mushroom cloud? These evil regimes need to be taken out - and something will have to replace them. Why not democracy? Why not our ideology?
Suffice it to say, I think Webb needs to explain exactly what he would have done instead, and to explain why he thinks leaving Saddam Hussein in power was an acceptable alternative. Will he answer the questions, or will he retreat behind the cries of "swift-boating"that Democrats seem to prefer when they try to cut off debate?
Webb owes the people of Virginia answers.
Cross-posted at NoEndButVictory.com.