So, the depth of Bush's failure in containing terrorism gets worse. I have been reporting how on every front Islamic fundamentalists, often linked to al-Qaeda, are expanding and thriving while Bush diddles in Iraq.

We were attacked by al-Qaeda on 9/11. Bush's first actions were taken against al-Qaeda, primarily in Afghanistan. This was reasonable. Everyone, even Lybia, agreed we were justified.

Then Bush left the war against al-Qaeda unfinished and invaded Iraq. Why? We know the WMD excuse was a bald faced lie. We also know, as many of us knew at the time, that there never was a connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda and, in fact, Hussein, as a secular leader, was keeping fundamentalism at bay in Iraq. Doesn't change the fact that he was a violent dictator, but when it comes to fighting al-Qaeda, the people who attacked us, invading Iraq was counter productive. And I said so at the time.

Now Iraq is opened up to al-Qaeda thanks to the fact we removed the secular power...and put nothing effective in return. Islamic fundamentalism is on the rise in a place it never had been before.

As I have been covering almost constantly, Islamic fundamentalism, often linked to al-Qaeda, is on the rise throughout the Muslim world. I have discussed its rise in Pakistan and Afghanistan thanks to Bush's failure to finish the job there before invading Iraq. I have discussed the victory of what I call the Somali Taliban. Somalia is now a battle ground with warlords fighting Islamists with Ethiopia intervening, which has threatened to bring Eritrea into the fray on the side of the Islamists. The Somali civil war is something Bush did nothing to prevent and it threatens to create a regional war with al-Qaeda linked Islamists gaining ground. I have covered the rise to power of fundamentalists in Bahrain, formerly a bastion of moderate Islam. In Bangladesh, foremerly one of the more democratic Muslim states, corruption and the rise of a previously absent fundamentalist terrorist group has led to the military to take control and declare democracy a failed experiment. So Bangladesh, like Pakistan and now Iraq, becomes yet another battle ground between military strongmen and fundamentalist Islam with democracy the loser. And just yesterday I discussed a wave of bombings in Morocco, usually a fairly quiet Middle Eastern nation.

Today it is Algeria. From BBC:

At least 17 people have been killed after at least two blasts rocked Algeria's capital - one exploding near the prime minister's office.

Nine people died and at least 32 were injured in a car bombing outside the government buildings.

Another explosion hit a police station in the east, near the airport, killing eight people and wounding at least 50...

Violent attacks have been increasing in Algeria since the main Islamist rebel group, the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat (GSPC), changed its name to the al-Qaeda Organisation in the Islamic Maghreb in January.

By ANY measure, Bush's foreign policy is a failure. The terrorist network that attacked us is stronger and more active than ever. We are bogged down in Iraq, a nation that we have now opened up to the very terrorists who attacked us. We are now threatening Iran, a nation whose hatred for al-Qaeda rivals our own and who could have been an ally in the war against terrorism.

I have been saying for years that Bush's policies and, in fact, the Republican approach to the Middle East in general, are simply destabilizing the area more and more. We alternately support military dictators (e.g. Saddam Hussein, who we, with Rumsfeld as the point man, supported whole heartedly for years) and Islamic fundamentalists (e.g. the Taliban and al-Qaeda precursors who we actually armed in the first place) while neglecting real opportunities (e.g. the Republican refusal to support Clinton's attempts to stabilize Somalia and Clinton's attempts to nail Osama bin Laden). Then we are surprised when we find ourselves caught in the middle of a civil war where all sides hate us and target us. Sunni vs. Shi'a violence has skyrocketed, yet both sides are attacking Americans. Throughout the world terrorist attacks have increased and Islamists have gained ground.

Now the Oxford Research Group, one of the top think tanks in the UK, has concluded exactly what I have been saying for years: Bush and Blair's foreign policy has HELPED terrorists, not hurt them.

Also from BBC:

The British and US policy towards Iraq has "spawned new terror in the region", a think tank report has said.

The countries had tried to "keep the lid on" problems by military force and had failed to address the root causes, the Oxford Research Group warned.

It said Iran, Syria and North Korea had become "emboldened", while the Taleban was on the rise in Afghanistan...

"Treating Iraq as part of the war on terror... created a combat training zone for jihadists," it says.

Lead study author Chris Abbott said: "There is a clear and present danger - an increasingly marginalised majority living in an environmentally constrained world, where military force is more likely to be used to control the consequences of these dangerous divisions.

"Add to this the disastrous effects of climate change, and we are looking at a highly unstable global system by the middle years of the century unless urgent action is taken now."

Hate to say I told you so...but I have been telling you so since Bush first refused to deal with global warming and first threatened invasion of Iraq. We need a complete turnaround in foreign policy, and so far not one of the Republican candidates have offered anything but either watered down or, in McCain's case, escalated Bush policies. The question is which of the Democrats are offering us the best alternative to the tragically failed Bush policies?

To date Hillary Clinton's positions seem closest to Bush's, Richardson's seems most reasonable and show the most foreign policy experience, as you'd expect, and Obama and Edwards fall in between. They all offer genuine alternatives to Bush's failures, but to date Richardson's approach seems the best and perhaps Edward's second. I hope that Hillary's stands will become more distinct from Bush's as the depths of Bush's failure sinks in.