A Brit named Gwynne Dyer writes about the Right "Hijacking History", and is extremely misguided:

Two years ago we were being told that 9/11 had changed everything, but that was media hype. In reality, 9/11 changed nothing except Americans' mistaken belief that they were invulnerable to foreign threats, and normally the terrorist threat would have faded into the background in a year or so, to be replaced in the headlines by some trendy new problem. But a hijack has occurred, and the course of history really may have changed. That would be bad.

The war on terror is a huge distraction from the real priorities that face the world. The human population has tripled in the last 60 years. Even if it never doubles again, that puts enormous pressure on resources and the environment. The pressure is mounting even faster because many of those who have been poor (including most Asians) are rapidly industrializing and raising their consumption levels.

Uh, Gwynne, the war on terror is the real priority. I'm sorry that it's distracting resources and time away from the environment. It's too bad that 19 islamofascists decided to attack America and interupt you plans for the world. I for one would not have forgotten the 9/11 attacks in a year.

Until recently, things were looking hopeful, because the biggest obstacles to global action on these issues had been removed one after another. The Cold War ended, and the great powers began to cooperate. Democracy spread around the world by nonviolent means, and, with the help of globalized mass media, something that you could call world public opinion began to emerge. Complex multilateral deals were made on difficult issues such as trade and climate change.

During the '90s, the way the world worked was changing fast enough that we seemed to have a chance of making it through the first half of the 21st century without a big smash and a massive dieback of the human population. Bad things happened in small, out-of-the way places like Bosnia and Rwanda, but the broad trend was reassuring. It still is, but broad trends have been dislocated by relatively local events in the past.

Things were going just swimmingly, right Gwynne? How about Saddam committing atrocities against his own people. Or the Taliban instituting sharia law and setting back human rights 2,000 years. How about Kim Jung Il using food to control his people while spreading arms around the planet. It was not just Bosnia and Rwanda.

Things would certainly be different now if al-Qaeda hijackers had been caught before they carried out 9/11, or if George W. Bush had not been awarded victory by the U.S. Supreme Court after the 2000 election. What we are living with now is a runaway fluke.

A small band of Islamist fanatics is trying to provoke a global confrontation between the West and Islam as a way of levering themselves into power in Muslim countries, and a U.S. administration dominated by neoconservative ideologues is using this threat to justify their project for global American hegemony through military power. Neither is likely to succeed, but between them they could wreck both the institutions and the spirit of multilateral cooperation that were going to ease our way through the real crises that are forthcoming.

Bush was selected, not elected, blah, blah,blah...Get over it. The US and the world are much safer because Bush won the 2000 election. If Al Gore had won, we would have been encouraged to forget 9/11 and would have assumed the role of victim. Americans don't like feeling like victims. Lefties are doing their damnest to turn the word "Neocon" into a dirty word. As for wrecking the spirit of multilateral cooperation, I have seven words for you: Australia, Poland, Italy, Britain, Japan, Bulgaria, Spain, and others. How many other countries went into the Ivory Coast with France? The US didn't wreck world cooperation, M. Chirac and Herr Schroeder did.

By this time next year, we will know whether the Bush administration's adventure in Iraq has succeeded or failed, and whether Bush has been reelected or defeated. Without the neocons in Washington to inflate their importance, the Islamist terrorists would dwindle to a minor policy problem, and normal service would be resumed on the important global issues.

Decisive years are generally something you would prefer to avoid, but this is going to be one

Again with the Neocon reference. The Bush administration may, in fact, lose. Bush and the neocons may go away, but I can guarantee that islamicfascism won't. As for the decisive year coming, Gwynne, real adults don't avoid decisive things. They deal with them head-on.