Playing Politics With Terror

Last summer the Bush Administration received intelligence indicating that Al Qaeda operatives were plotting a "big bomb" attack aimed at Britain. How did US authorities respond? By raising the threat level for New York and New Jersey to Code Orange three days after the conclusion of the Democratic Convention.

"Little, if any, evidence has turned up suggesting that the plotters had taken any steps to attack US financial targets as Bush Administration officials had initially suggested," Newsweek wrote in November, debunking the Administration's elevated alert. "The new view is that there was indeed an active Al Qaeda plot underway earlier this year--one that involved coded communications between high-level operatives in Pakistan and a British cell headed by a longtime associate of September 11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed."

Four of the suspects who died in the London bombings are now believed to be Britons of Pakistani origin, who spent six months last year in Afghanistan and Pakistan. By going public with the domestic terror alert last July, Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge likely subverted the ongoing joint intelligence investigation between Pakistan and Great Britain. The Newsweek article, coupled with the London bombings, suggest that Ridge & co were more concerned with playing politics against John Kerry than protecting US and British citizens.

"I want to be clear," White House Homeland Security Adviser Fran Townsend recently told Fox News. "We had no specific, credible intelligence of an imminent attack in London." Maybe so, but the last time it did, the Bush Administration cynically tried to raise voter anxiety about their political opponents instead.

With Kerry out of the picture, the White House insists that we're killing the terrorists in Iraq so that we don't have to kill them here. No matter that most experts have concluded that the London terrorists "viewed their assault as revenge for Britain's part in the Iraq war," the Christian Science Monitor reported this week. "America and its allies are now facing a multifront war: In Iraq, which is turning out a new generation of Arab jihadis," and "in Europe, where Muslim admirers of Al Qaeda are embracing the cause because of anger over the Iraq war."

Amazingly, the Administration isn't doing anything to stem this accelerating security disaster. The war, Townsend says, "attracts them to Iraq where we have a fighting military and a coalition that can take them on and not have the sort of civilian casualties that you saw in London."

How much more carnage will it take for this homeland security lie to be deposed?

Comments (72)

1. The two most important reasons for the Iraq war:

   The "I'm George W. Bush, and I didn't get bin Laden" 2004 campaign commercial didn't go over well with test audiences.

   "He tried to kill my dad"

   Posted by nathanhale at 07/14/2005 @ 11:36am

2. How about this one, "I just like the fact that we are killing Muslims with bombs attached to thier belts and a Koran in thier hand."

   and I haven't heard since perhaps yesterday, the "It's all about the oil, to continue to fuel saburbuns and hummers driven by the gun toting Bible thumping Christians, like OKSPORTSGUY"

   todd

   Todd

   Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/14/2005 @ 11:56am

3. "My dad", at the time, was our president. To libs this doesn't matter, although it made the 20-something writs for regime change when congress authorized Saddam's removal.

   I suspect many libs wish for the death of our current president. Witness all the books and plays which "jokingly" reference killing Bush Jr. Sad.

   Posted by Beausoleil at 07/14/2005 @ 12:12pm

4. Todd,

   How bout this one from the "terrorists"? "We just like the fact that we are killing the soldiers & citizens who obey the orders of the government in control of the world's largest nuclear arsenal, the world's largest military, the world's largest stockpile of wmd's, the world's largest weapons export to third world dictators who will eventually support us (so we stay away from them) & essentially the same administration that supported Saddam (just play a bit of musical chairs & swap a couple of guys & you have the Reagan adiminstration)with bibles in their hands".

   Gimme a break.

   Posted by thejman at 07/14/2005 @ 12:22pm

5. "How bout this one from the "terrorists"? "

   Exactly, you end up proving my point. Knowing that they want to kill us, makes me even much more supportive of Bush and our military, to kill them before they kill us.

   Thank you for the encouragement.

   Todd

   Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/14/2005 @ 12:27pm

6. The results of the investigation of the London Underground and bus bombings proves both sides were wrong in one way or another. The president's "flypaper theory" goes out the window. And the left's argument is wrong - this time- that Bush's war in Iraq directly caused this. As it happened this time, the very disturbing conclusion that the bombings were done by suicide bombers from home. These bombings resemble what goes on in Israel - kids convinced that they have no hope but to kill themselves and as many others as possible. The middle class status of the bombers resembles some of the 9/11/01 prepetrators. Poverty is not in their backgrounds although it may be in their parents' backgrounds. At some point they became radicalized. The bombings bear some resemblance to Columbine as well. Young middle-class nihilists with access to high explosives or weapons. The know-how is easily found. There could be an Iraq war connection if the explosives can be traced to al Qaa Qaa, the depot that was insuficiently guarded after the invasion started. If it wasn't the source this time, I daresay we'll experience its effects sometime in the future. Truth is, there's a lot of stuff to blow up and a lot of stuff to blow it up with. Al Qaeda could have trained and supplied the kids with the explosives. On the other hand, if they used industrial explosives, they could have been obtained from the mines in the area. No easy answers for how to prevent this.

   Posted by proudlib at 07/14/2005 @ 12:28pm

7. "And the left's argument is wrong - this time- that Bush's war in Iraq directly caused this. As it happened this time, the very disturbing conclusion that the bombings were done by suicide bombers from home."

   Great point Proudlib. This then supports the need for the continuing of the Patriot act, and the strengthening of it in terms of the government's ability to look at what things people are buying, such as components to make bombs.

   And on to the diversity thing…

   London has a proud history of being very tolerant to all types of peoples, religions etc. Radical Muslim clerics have been preaching, "Hate the West, and all the it stands for" for YEARS, with no sanctioning or watching from their government.

   If the U.S. government was able to get better info and intelligence, perhaps they could have stopped Tim McViegh before the bombing of the federal building, likewise if the Brits slapped down Muslim clerics preaching "kill the infidels", perhaps they would have kept those from carrying out the attacks in London as they did.

   Todd

   Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/14/2005 @ 12:39pm

8. -- I suspect many libs wish for the death of our current president. Witness all the books and plays which "jokingly" reference killing Bush Jr. Sad. --

   What's really sad: Bushies willingly ignoring that their president lied about an illegal, unnecessary war, purporting to support the troops yet, golly gee, not caring that Bush & Co. lied them into a war that's getting them maimed and killed by the thousands.

   And I don't wish something so drastic a fate on Bush: just impeachment for lying about a war.

   Posted by Kevin Collins at 07/14/2005 @ 12:46pm

9. Proudlib: great comment!

   The Iraq war may have been a motivating influence for some British citizens to become suicide bombers. This fact doesn't justify their actions by any means, but understanding the motivation for the attacks is the key for preventing them in the future. How do we secure our reputation as defenders of freedom and destroyers of oppression? A good first step would be more direct intervention in preventing genocide in Darfur. These kinds of humanitarian efforts give the lie to the terrorists' claim that America is the "Great Satan". However, because our armed forces are tied down in Iraq with no hope of withdrawal for another 12 years (according to Rumsfeld), it will be much more difficult for the US to play an active role in preventing genocide. While I don't advocate a unilateral withdrawal from Iraq, I think we could do a lot for the reputation of this great country if we gave back our tax cuts and funded humanitarian efforts in the Sudan. George Bush doesn't seem to be playing an active role in motivating action in Darfur, and he could easily focus more international pressure on ending that conflict.

   Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/14/2005 @ 1:00pm

10. I won't speak for the left but there were some assumptions made early on, just as there were assumptions made after the OK bombing. I neglected to bring that event into comparison with the London bombings. It may be the closest comparison of all. Guy(s) with a grudge and access to explosives. I expected that my comments would be used to provide justification for extending the reach of the Patriot Act. It's tempting for some to use the grass-roots nature of the London bombings to put the most intrusive parts of the Patriot Act in play. London has more CCTV than every other city. We have gotten used to that kind of surveillance and more than once, the cameras can help solve a crime. The Patriot Act in mission-creep mode can turn us into a police state without preventing random terrorism. Wednesday's Nightline had a story about Lodi Calif. There is a sizable Arab and Pakistani population there. The FBI is all over the town and everybody knows it. The kids play hide and seek with the surveillance vehicles. Not one terrorist has been arrested there. The older men interviewed said they love their country, vote republican, want to fit in. Their kids are not radicals. Because of the heavy-handed nature of the g-men, they have less respect for their government than their fathers do. This is how it starts. The next shot of adrenalin comes from someone who convinces them that there's a simple answer that is spelled out in a holy book that is selectively read. Be it Bible or Quran read selectively, killing can be justified. The president talks about "winning the war on terror" with his terrible swift sword, but to get to the "clean skin" level of terrorists would require the most draconian methods. The subsequent alienation caused by these methods would produce more terrorists who would still be one step ahead of police. Where the President's War on Terror rings hollow is in the insufficient way some of our most vulnerable infrastructure - power plants, electricity grid, ports, railyards, chemical plants- is protected, while vast sums of Homeland Security money are spent to protect areas under very little threat.

    Posted by proudlib at 07/14/2005 @ 1:25pm

11. I think that before we start cheering for the reinforcement of the Patriot Act based on the London bombings, we should first listen to the paraphrased (I'm sorry) words of that noted sage, founding father and first Philadelphian Benjamin Franklin:

    Those who trade liberty for security deserve neither.

    A good point, no?

    Posted by edwriter at 07/14/2005 @ 1:39pm

12. Townsend's statement is shocking.

    The war... "attracts them to Iraq where we have a fighting military and a coalition that can take them on and not have the sort of civilian casualties that you saw in London."

    The Times just had a report showing that 800 Iraqi civilians and police are dying every month. That's the equivalent of one London bombing every other day. Insurgents have killed 12,000 Iraqis since the occupation began. That's 4 times 9/11. Townsend shows that to this administration, these civilians don't count. Why, because we're liberating them?

    Times Article, 7/14/05 [nytimes.com]

    Posted by blucheez at 07/14/2005 @ 1:47pm

13. I think one thing that the London bombings show is that, in spite of whatever scraps of intelligence we are able to stumble upon, we have virtually no idea when, where, or, more importantly, why these attacks take place. Attacked before Iraq. Attacked after Iraq. What is most important is to have an administration that makes it clear to the rest of the world that we are not just beacons of some abstraction as "freedom," but they we are committed to enforcing human rights and ending suffering to the best of our abilities. This will not end terrorism any more than our military and intelligence agencies will. But it will make it increasingly hard to recruit for a war against the West if the West is undeniably good.

    Wishful thinking, I know. But that's what these forums are for it seems.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 07/14/2005 @ 1:49pm

14. "Todd, you may not be able to understand my line of thinking but where in the Bible does it say to go kill your enemies"

    It doesn't, on the contrary, the bible calls us to Love your enemy as you do your neighbor.

    However perhaps that's where the disconnect between those who follow Christ and God's word and those that don't. I think that people who don't follow Christ get confused and don' t understand that just because one follows him, does not make one perfect. We are humans. As a matter of fact that is why God sent his son, to save us, because as fallible humans, prone to sins of the flesh that can and will cause our demise, such as alcoholizm, drug addiction, wars, etc. The only way to save us from oursevles was through the sacrifice of his son.

    And I fully admit, I am not perfect, I am not Christ, I am a sinner, a human. I am fallable, and as God's word says, I am only saved by my belief in Jesus as my Lord and savior. If it were up to me and my human works to get to heaven, I would have already been condemned to hell.

    I would like to think that I have the strength to love my enemies, alas, at this point in my life, I don't.

    However at the same time, his word also says in Ecclesiastes 3:8 "There is a time for all things, a time to reap, a time to sew, a time to love, a time to hate, a time for peace and a time for war"

    As far as I'm concerned, this is the time for war.

    Ok.. well there's the biblical interpretation class 101 for the day, hope that answers your question.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/14/2005 @ 2:11pm

15. Frank: Do you really think we can "eliminate the root" if we intervene in Pakistan and increase efforts in Afghanistan? This idea is not so easily destroyed, and free minds all around the world are able to contract this virus. Behrens has the right idea: make our motive more clear to the world. Intervene where nobody can claim we are doing wrong, the Sudan.

    Don't get into this Bible bull conversation: nobody can win with their interpretation of a flexible text. I believe that it would be foolish to discard the option of military action through pacifism, but war should be a "last resort", and it clearly wasn't a last resort in Iraq. When a government is killing thousands of innocents and will not respond to diplomacy, war may be appropriate. Not in Iraq. I know Sadaam was an evil dictator, but there are bigger and badder enemies who present a more potent threat (i.e. Saudi Arabia, North Korea) and who we cannot defend ourselves against because of the Iraq war. If we withdraw now from Iraq, it may become another North Korea or a constant civil war.

    Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/14/2005 @ 2:15pm

16. Radical Islam's base is in the minds of individuals, not in the country where those individuals lie. This "attack the base" idea would mean continuing our efforts in Iraq now while simultaneously attacking Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, while increasing troop levels in Afghanistan. SOunds implausible?

    Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/14/2005 @ 2:33pm

17. "Thanks."

    You're welcome.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/14/2005 @ 2:36pm

18. I just followed the link to the sad NYTimes story about Iraqi civilian deaths. Has there ever been a war in which, we attack one group, which then turns its attention to a completely innocent one? This isn't like us attacking the Germans because they slaughtered Jews and were hellbent on taking over Europe. The slaughter of Iraqi civilians is because of our actions--whether it is the "freedom" enjoyed by people in Iraq due to the capture of Saddam or just vengeance against the invasion of the infidels. The question is: how are Iraqi civilians perceiving this violence? Are they blaming the people who are fanatic enough to kill themselves or are they blaming us? It they're blaming us, then this situation can never be resolved with us in the fray. Likewise in other situations like Afghanistan, handing soccer balls and candy to children is nice. But real humanitarian efforts (beyond Brown and Root and Halliburton) under the protection of our military would do so much more.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 07/14/2005 @ 2:53pm

19. I'm not a Bible scholar but I found parts in Leviticus about putting disobedient children, adulterers, and blaspemers to death. There are also parts about loving your neighbor, not putting stumbling blocks in the path of the blind, paying the help, not cheating customers. It's in the way that you choose it. Ecclesiastes could be interpreted as moral relativism: "A time to kill, a time to heal" Which is it? It's both. Re: Patriot Act. I wouldn't condemn the whole thing. But when the FBI can't search more than 1 keyword at a time on their computer system and the last upgrade turned out to be unsatisfactory, I don't trust the FBI to not just go for the low-hanging fruit and investigate the wrong person, as many prosecutors and police investigations have done in general crime cases. Warrantless sneak-and-peek searches are troublesome.

    Posted by proudlib at 07/14/2005 @ 2:55pm

20. Frank,

    You asked: "Todd, That's the best you can do huh?"

    I explained it, yes that's the best, and more importantly only thing I can do. What is your point? Are you thinking that a literal bible interpretation means that those who believe in the bible are not human and fallible?

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/14/2005 @ 3:15pm

21. Posted by Liberal Ego at 07/14/2005 @ 4:27pm

22. "Maybe they should get together and get us out of it. Killing in the name of anyone's God has no place in the 21st century."

    There again, we agree on something!!

    Now go tell that to the damn terrorists, THEY are the ones yelling "jihad" and "kill the infidels", and "Allah is great" as they behead American contractors like Nick Berg and George Armstrong, THEY are the ones, blowing themselves up in Israel, New York, and now London.

    THEY are the ones you need to be delivering that message to, not me. I have never advocated killing other innocent civilians. I only advocate killing terrorists that intend to kill innocent civilians, there is a HUGE difference. Perhaps you don't see the difference and can't justify the killing of one group of individuals based on their intentions, but for those that support the war, this difference is very apparent and relevant.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/14/2005 @ 4:30pm

23. Whoops, my bad.

    Frank, you're right about Jesus. Theologians, at least true theologians who are knowledge seekers not agenda pushers, however do not even try to use the bible to justify war.

    Most of the Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christians actually wouldn't even be classified as Christians by theologians. For example, most memebers of the Baptist denomination are not regarded as Christian, nor are Mormons. (If you want specifics on that, I can provide)

    The fundemental message of Jesus was love. Love in spite of everything else. And yeah, that means terrorists too...its hard to be a Christian!

    Anyone who interprets all Jesus' teachings as some form of concrete directives, has a gross misunderstanding of Jesus. Jesus' teaching were incredibly introspective, and most of the resolutions came from his students, NOT Jesus himself. Jesus would ask questions of his students designed to help THEM find the answer, opposed to his telling them, Socratic.

    Those that solely rely on the old testament for their bible references are also misunderstanding the bible. Firstly the old testament is highly allagorical. Secondly when put into the historical and theological context its kind of silly for them to parse the bible for references to support their causes. The bible is a compilation, in fact the protestant bible is not the same as the Catholic bible! What was cannonized by the Catholics was then edited and revised by the protestants, eliminating the entire apocrapha. The bible's current form has taken root over centuries. It has been edited, rewritten, and shifted around by early church librarians and scholars to create the best possible book in THEIR eyes. That was for a different time, and a different place. Thats not to say that the time and place of many of the allagories are not applicable to modern life, but in many cases stories and illustrations included or excluded were based on the times of the early church.

    Just a little tidbit of info for all those bible beaters....beat your bible a little softer!

    Posted by Liberal Ego at 07/14/2005 @ 4:42pm

24. They, they, they, they. Todd... did you ever think of at least trying to take the first step? Try set the good example that the most powerful free nation in the world ought to set?

    Posted by thejman at 07/14/2005 @ 4:50pm

25. Some fundamentalists insist that the Bible be swallowed whoole. To question the origins of the earth according to the Bible, to say that humans came from apes, not Adam, is to question the whole thing. Pull that thread and the whole thing unravels. The bumper sticker says "God said it. I believe it. End of discussion." That reflects what passes for thinking in a lot of people. Ned Flanders, a real Christian in his behavior, said "I followed the Bible, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff." Of course that wacky book at the end is really scary.

    Posted by proudlib at 07/14/2005 @ 4:59pm

26. Found of Freerepublic a few days ago- "Militarize soccer fans, challenge terrorists to a soccer match !!" Drunken hooligans vs. dedicated killers. That'll work.

    Posted by proudlib at 07/14/2005 @ 4:59pm

27. Todd, the War on Terror didn't exist in Iraq until Bush got the authority from his "Higher Father" (who must have known there were no WMD, eh?) and gave orders to invade. Personally, I doubt Bush was called by God to lead this country; but saying it is so sure worked as a political strategy!

    Posted by nathanhale at 07/14/2005 @ 5:01pm

28. "Todd, I can justify killing based on defense. I'm just interested in having a President who knows where to fight the fight, Afghanistan/Pakistan. Not Iraq. That's as simple as I can state it.

    "

    I have no disagreement with you there. There are other states with more terrorists, and are ultimately more of a long term problem than Iraq.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/14/2005 @ 5:04pm

29. "They, they, they, they. Todd... did you ever think of at least trying to take the first step? Try set the good example that the most powerful free nation in the world ought to set?"

    I'm sorry, dumb, non-elite conservative here, you will have to do a little better job of explaining. What do you mean take the first step?

    Oh… wait, are you bringing up the whole "world ethics" thing? You know where people are all people, and should be treated with respect regardless of their geographical, political, and religious differences?

    Ya, I took that ethics course in College as well…. No thanks, I'll defend my family from terrorists that intend to behead more American civilians, and let the progressives worry about putting their arms around the terrorists and singing Kum Ba Ya. Read one of my earlier posts about grabing my AR-15 and shooting many times, THEN trying to find out why the terrorist FEELS he has no other recourse but to blow up my family or yours with a bomb straped to his belt afterwards.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/14/2005 @ 5:13pm

30. Frank:

    if we kill the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan, will we win the war on terror? What if we retreat from Iraq and put those troops in Pakistan? Don't you think we would be consolidating the power of radical islamic fundamentalists because we would be left with two countries without functioning governments free to unite against America?

    Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/14/2005 @ 5:23pm

31. Terrorists will only be stopped when we reexamine foriegn policy. Reexamine the way corporations are allowed to run amok and put profits above human progress, oppresion for the sake of profit. Total independence from oil.

    The terrorists can stick this out indefinately, their objective is to bleed the war machine into bankruptcy, force it to withdraw. It worked with Russia. Stop claiming that the terrorist want to destroy our freedoms and look at the real causes, then, and only then, will progress, real progress be made.

    Posted by question! at 07/14/2005 @ 5:44pm

32. Frank, I'm not sure that Todd's offering of "Kum Ba Ya" as a stab at progressives is an especially enlightened form of "communication." You're doing much better than I could at probing for rationality and meaning, but I think you're probing in a well that has run dry of logic and compassion.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 07/14/2005 @ 6:02pm

33. Zero: I'm trying not to pay too much attention to posts devoid of comment. When conservatives have something to say, I'm willing to put my two cents in, but I understand your concerns. I am no crank, and I'd like to hear if you have any ideas about how to withdraw from Iraq safely.

    Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/14/2005 @ 6:10pm

34. I am not sure it ran dry...I think its just decorative!

    Posted by Liberal Ego at 07/14/2005 @ 6:10pm

35. I think if you really truly examine the logic and basis of the conservative arguments, its not that they are illogical or irrational. The problem is that they are relatively elementary, they don't look beyond their individual experiences, or attempt to see a world through a different lense. And its (conservatism) the most simplistic, albeit sometimes pragmatic, of the two ideologies.

    That just my observation. Anyone else have a theory on how Cons come up with the stuff they do?

    Posted by Liberal Ego at 07/14/2005 @ 6:14pm

36. This was posted on Tapped , the American Prospect's blog:

    John Derbyshire gets naughty at National Review's Corner: Given that the four London suicide bombers were all raised -- in at least one case, born and raised -- in Britain, the quintessential liberal democracy; and given that the entire premise of current U.S. policy is that we can end suicide bombing and other terrorism by bringing liberal democracy to the Middle East; shouldn't we be re-thinking our policy? Bravo, Derb. That must have hurt. --Mark Leon Goldberg

    What do you think? Can we end terror by imposing democracy when it didn't work in Britain?

    Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/14/2005 @ 6:30pm

37. Thats not really intellectually an honest post. That is assuming that the system of liberal democracy is the reason, allowed, or promotes terrorism.

    There are tons of these examples throughout both British and US history. Oklahoma City, the IRA, etc. But does that mean that those incidents were fostered through democracy? Absolutely not. It doesn't show the failings of democracy, or a democrat systemt, the incidents show that a determined criminal/terrorist can cause havoc in ANY social order, democracy, communist, dictatorship, theocracy.

    Posted by Liberal Ego at 07/14/2005 @ 6:38pm

38. Rather I should say, that the post assumes that a liberal democracy can not suficiently deal with terrorism. Also equally intellectually dishonest, and the same counterpoints apply.

    Also, if that were true, we should all be running for the hills. Do you honestly believe that a democracy does not have the proper tools to deal with a terrorist threat (internal or external)?

    Posted by Liberal Ego at 07/14/2005 @ 6:43pm

39. Liberal:

    If you re-read this post, it doesn't say that liberal democracy caused terrorism; rather, it said that imposing liberal democracy did not prevent terrorism.

    My point was that some posters on this site believe that by imposing democracy on Iraq, we will be able to make radical islamic fundamentalists change their tune. They believe that by imposing democracy, we will show Radicals the light, they will embrace the West, and reject radical islam. I don't agree with their assessments, and I was wondering if they had any input on how 7/7 affected their viewpoint.

    Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/14/2005 @ 6:43pm

40. Zero, firstly, that is why I refocused my post with the follow up. Because i realized that I hadn't clearly stated what i meant. Secondly, the author IS suggesting that a liberal democracy allowed terrosism to occur, or at the very least cannot sufficiently prevent DOMESTIC terrorism, much less international terrorism.

    "Given that the four London suicide bombers were all raised -- in at least one case, born and raised -- in Britain, the quintessential liberal democracy; and given that the entire premise of current U.S. policy is that we can end suicide bombing and other terrorism by bringing liberal democracy to the Middle East"

    Specifically the author is using Brittain as the "quintessential liberal democracy" and the idea that those brought up in said system still turn to terrorism, and if that is the case, how can we assume that said system will aid us in ending the terrorism factories in the middle east by importing said system.

    Posted by Liberal Ego at 07/14/2005 @ 6:54pm

41. Lib: yeah, and he's right. Importing democracy will not end terrorism. Those that hate America will be free to embrace that viewpoint.

    Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/14/2005 @ 6:57pm

42. Newcomer to this site.

    I have been watching from the sidelines for a week or two and I am amazed by the sheer volume of information possessed by both sides. How are you able to keep up with all government, media reports? Is it part of your occupations or do you read these reports in your spare time? You see, I am the simple-minded, middle-class suburban American that several of you have referred to (somewhat condescendingly, in my opinion) in past posts. What with earning a living, raising my children to be respectable and respectful members of society, etc., I DON'T have much time to fact check the media, government, etc. (The most entertaining part of the last Pres. debates was when the media would "check the facts" afterwards) How do you do it?

    Also curious--Does anyone believe that if we simply withdrew all troops, closed all bases, etc. in the Middle East, the terrorists would then ignore us as a target, as some authors have suggested? For kicks, let's throw in retracting support of Israel, as well.

    Posted by usc1 at 07/14/2005 @ 6:58pm

43. USC: nope, but I guess I said that around 2:15

    Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/14/2005 @ 7:05pm

44. Last Mohican

    I didnt say that the policy was rightheaded, in fact I agree that it is wrong headed, please read my posts more carefully, I am fairly specific in my focus.

    I do not think ANY social system can prevent terrorism. However, it was not intellectually honest to say that the incident in England proves that the policy of exporting democracy to combat terrorism is wrongheaded. The argument made against exporting democracy is that a democracy is not a sufficient system to combat domestic terrorism, so how can it combat international terrorism. Its a flawed argument, plain and simple, thats all I said, nothing more. Please don't jump down my thoat about my request for a discussion that AT THE VERY LEAST is logical and honest.

    Also, I would like to ask what system of social order do YOU think best allows people to have their voices heard, or in other word alternative avenues of protest to terrorism? I think a liberal democracy is pretty darn good (but i dont think imposing a democracy will make fewer terrorists)

    Posted by Liberal Ego at 07/14/2005 @ 7:07pm

45. Thanks Zero,

    Thats basically all I was saying.

    Posted by Liberal Ego at 07/14/2005 @ 7:08pm

46. USC:

    About keeping up on current events...ABC news' "The Note" is a really good start! Plus the link over to other good stories. Also Howie Kurtz on Washington Post.com does a good political news round up too. Both are fairly non-partisan, and mainly cover the must know stuff.

    Posted by Liberal Ego at 07/14/2005 @ 7:12pm

47. USC1, I FIND time to do the work of being informed. A democracy requires an informed electorate. Part of the reason we're in the mess we're in in this country today is because many millions of Americans have abdicated their responsibilities in this regard. Information is available as never before - forget the stupid cable TV "news" shows. The Internet is brimming with documentable fact, and it doesn't take hours and hours a day to keep tabs on the important stuff. Assuming you have any leisure-time pursuits, in addition to your work and family responsibilities, may I suggest culling 45 minutes a couple times a week for the purpose of reading news - from credible sources, of course. Most of us here will tell you you don't need to bother with Bush Administration house organs like the Wall Street Journal, but there is a wide spectrum out there reflecting opinions on all sides. Dive in! And in the process, encourage your kids to see democracy in action, in real time. Maybe if they see YOU caring about your responsibilities as a member of a democratic society, they'll grow up assuming they too should make that a priority. Then maybe we'll never again be a nation of people who were willing to let the likes of George Bush and Dick Cheney and Karl Rove - chickenhawks all - sacrifice innocent lives abroad on the basis of full-throated, undisputable lies.

    Posted by mewsician at 07/14/2005 @ 7:20pm

48. Zero: yep, no system will end terrorism. We need to focus our efforts on ending terrorism (or decreasing the risk, whatever). The way to do that is to limit the power of the idea of an evil America. Imposing democracy in Iraq is not having that effect.

    I don't quite understand the clear distinction between international and domestic terrorism.

    Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/14/2005 @ 7:23pm

49. Nattie is exactly right. Terrorism has existed since the beginning of time and has evolved as technology has permitted. The only change in the last several years is that we got hit, and got hit hard. It is an understandable response to swat back when someone clunks on the skull, but unfortunately those who clunked us are willing to die in the ensuing battle. There's not much we can do with someone who pulls the trigger aimed at their own heads. And ultimately it doesn't matter if we're talking about Islamic fanatics, traditional revolutinaries, or homegrown anarchists. The best we can do, and this is so pollyanna-ish it sickens me to type it--is to be the most productive, beneficial country in the world. This does not mean coddling the insane and suicidal; it means doing in part what Bush and Blair have urged us to do. Get on with our lives; life is so short anyway, I can't imagine spending so much energy hating people who would never accept an empathetic gesture.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 07/14/2005 @ 7:41pm

50. Sorry about the typos. I'll preview next time.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 07/14/2005 @ 7:42pm

51. Interesting Post on Ending Terrorism from Clintonian Slate:

    In the real world, the US and our allies must make decisions. We have limited resources and cannot solve all the problems in the world by throwing cruise missiles and tank divisions at them. We must prioritize situations, approach some crises with non-military means, and others with a limited military response. In this era of cheap and widely available small arms and explosives, it may never again be possible to seize and occupy any sizeable hostile territory without pulling resources away from every other trouble spot in the world. Such a response must be reserved for an absolute necessity.

    Iraq was a Stalinist nightmare, but it was also a well-contained threat. Now, after our wild overreaction, Baathists are still killing civilians in large numbers, terrorists are killing Americans on a daily basis, and Iran and North Korea edge toward nuclear-power status without any fear of a realistic threat of force.

    Until... uber-hawks learn to balance their righteous anger with a dose of sober realism, and come to terms with the disparity between their desire for action and the limitations of all-volunteer armed forces, they will continue to lead us headfirst into easily avoidable tragedies. Let the victims at Srebrenica be our reminder of the dangers of collective inaction in the face of terrible injustice, but also of the dangers of trusting the moral judgment of militant nationalists who seek unconditional support for strong action against the threat of a Muslim insurgency.

    Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/14/2005 @ 7:45pm

52. Question!,

    You said:

    "Terrorists will only be stopped when we reexamine foriegn policy."

    I must respectfully disagree. You are choosing to not look at another method of stopping terrorists; the killing or imprisonment of them through our continued war on terror.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/14/2005 @ 8:38pm

53. Terrorists will only be stopped by killing them..hand holding & handing out indictments wont do it..Karl Rove was right about you lefties..You dont have the @#$% to fight these madmen..But somehow you sure can muster up the anger when Bush kick your weenie little asses out of power..I wonder if you all would feel the same way if one of those "insurgents" held a knife against your throats ready to slice your head off like a chicken if you still want to sing thier praises and help them out in thier jihad by acting like a bunch of TRAITORS putting down our country and our beloved troops...ala little dick durbin and his ilk...just a thought

    Posted by aludra at 07/14/2005 @ 9:56pm

54. Frank - Good question about what's happening with Downing St memo. I was wondering that same thing, seems it got overshadowed with Rove stuff--I'll check and get back to you. USC, I appreciate your honest post. To readers on the left and right: let's try to keep this board as civil as possible. Thank you.

    Posted by Ari Berman at 07/14/2005 @ 11:28pm

55. Thats rediculous, when you kill terrorists, more specifically the type of terrorists we are dealing with today, religious fanatics, you only help to aid their recruitment and increase a paranoia that goes hand in hand with fanaticism!

    Aludra...I don't see YOU having the @#$% to fight these madmen either (whatever curse word @#$% was supposed to be is beyond me). FYI Bush didn't kick anyone out of power, in America we have a uninformed electorate that does that just fine, no Bush/Rove needed! Also in America we have this nice little right to disagree with boneheaded presidents and others who may not share our views, or the benefit of logical thought. And contrary to Republican belief, disagreeing with the policy makers in the White House is not tantamount to treason, but...leaking classified information is...I wounder who that could have been? And in conclusion, your thought actually was rather unoriginal, I'm not so sure it was a thought, or a reiteration of something off the WSJ and Fox News. Before you post, and (as zero so eloquently puts it) be a crank, please please please take the time to enform yourself as to the most basic of facts, such as our Constitution.

    On the subject of how to combat terrorism, I honestly think that the best way is through money. It would take tons of man hours, money, and vigilence, but it would keep our soldiers out of harms way. Trace their finances, and shut them down. Without money and assets, they have nothing to woo people with. They can't train, buy weapons, etc. I know they are working on these issues now, but no where near hard enough. Afganistan has become the worlds biggest opium produced AGAIN...we have a huge military precence in the country, we are using firebombs ANYWAY...why can't we just firebomb the damn crops?! Why aren't we doing a better job of keeping them unfunded?! Anyone heard any answers to that?

    Posted by Liberal Ego at 07/14/2005 @ 11:39pm

56. and I know inform doesnt have an "e" in it :)

    Posted by Liberal Ego at 07/14/2005 @ 11:41pm

57. I realized I also left my thought completely unfinished about killing terrorists and didn't offer any alternative. My bad. I think through suffocation of their communication avenues, and issolation of the fanatics you will be able to shrink their numbers. I think in the end, over a period of time, their own actions will do that for us. But I think better tracing and freezing of their money sources and assets will help quicken that process.

    But don't get me wrong. I am not only refering to islamic fanatics. Our country has our share too, which need the same type of isolation! Africa has them, many of them are filling the big man possitions because of their money and the large influence that money has in Africa. North Korea is run by a fanatic. So this is not just an Islamic fight, if we truly want to combat terrorism, we have many many places to focus, even within our own backyards.

    Posted by Liberal Ego at 07/14/2005 @ 11:49pm

58. LE: thanks for the info. I'll have to check them out.

    NB and Zero: "...policies...reduce/increase the threat of terrorism against the US" I don't have the foggiest idea how our policies affect the threat of terrorism, but in my opinion, nobody else does either. I don't subscribe to the theory that killing one terrorist creates two more. But if that were true, then we would have to accept the opposing viewpoint--terrorists killing innocent Iraqis would create more pro-American/anti-terrorism sentiment. Besides, from news reports that I have read/heard, these terrorists are created long before they buckle themselves into a car(bomb), anyway. (Do terrorists wear seatbelts? HMMMM)

    I agree with NB in that we have not made it clear enough to the world about our intentions. We need to hammer home the message that we really DON'T want to be in Iraq. We are NOT an occupying force. We want to help them become a free-standing democracy, we want them to share in liberty, become a contributing player in the world, etc. But once accomplished, we want to bring our men/women home. I think the administration could do a much better job of spreading the message. But I also think this message is under mined by those who call our soldiers torturers, play up the accidental deaths of Iraqis, compare Gitmo to gulags, refer to terrorists as "insurgents", call Bush a Nazi/incompetent/fill in the blank. That, in my opinion, opens the door even more for Iraqis to see us as the bad guys.

    Posted by usc1 at 07/14/2005 @ 11:49pm

59. USC:

    I think the overall sentiment you have is the same for all Americans! I disagree with you on a couple points and tell me if you think were too far off on this.

    First I think the reasons you mentioned, and intentions you mentioned, for being in Iraq are noble and would be/should be well recieved by Iraqis and the global community. However, I think that is our press release, but I think our actions have spoked much louder. Abu Ghraib was a huge setback in the eyes of Iraqis, many of our alies, and many Americans. Unfortunately it wasn't just a few bad eggs, but reports our yesterday have shown that it was policy! We can't blame our men in women in uniform, but we can hold those that created such policies in comtempt for their decisions that were not inline with American values.

    I stronly disagree with your on the issue of accidental deaths. I dont think accidental death is acceptable at all. We often refer to that as manslaughter, and although its accidental, it still is a prosecutable offense, and a civil liability.

    Iraqis see us as the bad guys not for our politics in DC, but for our actions in Iraq. When a soldier kicks in your door at 4AM to search for weapons you dont have, you, your wife, and small children have your hands zip tied. You are less inclined to be a USA supporter. In America, if you do that without a warrant its called police misconduct. We wouldn't stand for that in America, why should they? In the US a soldier can't take over your house, and live there, in Iraq it is all to common.

    I do think there is a distinction between the insurgency and the terrorists. Most of the Generals have made very clear that they are separate groups, and that is one of the many issues making the situation more conveluted by the day.

    Terrorists do wear seatbelts, I'm not sure if its a moving violation, but the last thing you want to do is get pulled over for a busted taillight and not wearing your seatbelts when you have a date with 70 virgins!

    Posted by Liberal Ego at 07/15/2005 @ 12:06am

60. NB: I'm not sure what you mean by imposing democracy. Are you saying democracy is an imposition or that it was not our responsibility to DO the imposing?

    I'm not very happy with the idea of "reducing the risk" of terrorism, either. Sounds a little too much like Kerry's "nuisance" comment, with which I was never very comfortable. I would like to believe that we could eliminate the risk entirely (wishful thinking, I know) or at least remove our country from the "hit" list.

    I do agree that the best way to do this is to push the "America--good/terrorism--bad" angle.

    Posted by usc1 at 07/15/2005 @ 12:11am

61. LE: Unfortunately, these type of forums don't really allow complete expression. I did not mean to imply that the accidental deaths were acceptable, just a fact of war, sad one though it may be. Actually, I was referring to those who use the news of the deaths as political soundbites.

    As for the actions of soldiers, they ARE fighting a war and have to take the necessary precautions for their own safety. The precautions they take are often ones that have been learned through battlefield experience. (e.g. the soldier that shot the Iraqi in the mosque). This is why it is so vitally important that our leaders come together on spreading the message of "we're here to help" because actions as well as words can be misconstrued.

    I was in no way excusing the offenses at Abu Ghraib. I was referring to Gitmo being compared to death camps.

    With regards to "insurgents" comment: I would have been more accurate if I stated that we were calling terrorists by more innocuous names e.g. "bombers". On the insurgents topic, aren't they Iraqis that resent US presence? Again, convince them that we don't want to be there, either, and they will more easily rid themselves of our presence by helping us create a stable Iraq. Sounding like a broken record.

    Great seatbelt comment, though.

    Posted by usc1 at 07/15/2005 @ 12:47am

62. Yeah, you and I just dont agree on those things...no biggie. We see Iraq and our role domestically from two different points of view.

    But common...if I had a date with 70 virgins, you damn right I got my seat belt on, man I'd show up to that checkpoint in a tuxedo...with 70 corsages, a Dave Mathews cd, some candles, and a bottle of VSOP!

    Posted by Liberal Ego at 07/15/2005 @ 12:57am

63. bow-chica-bow-bow

    Posted by Liberal Ego at 07/15/2005 @ 12:58am

64. More power to you, but 70 virgins scares the $#!@! out of me. Just give me one good woman and a couple of funhouse mirrors and I'm set. But I digress...

    Posted by usc1 at 07/15/2005 @ 02:24am

65. The fun house mirrors that make them fat and short, or tall and skinny...or wavy all over?

    Posted by Liberal Ego at 07/15/2005 @ 10:01am

66. Does anyone buy this crap that Rove got Plame's name from Novak?

    I mean...if that were true...why all the stonewalling and attack?

    I think this is classic Rove misdirection...the confidential source on this one claims to have been in the room during Rove's testimony. I bet it WAS Rove.

    And if Fitzgerald is still investigating this, $1000 bucks says its because Rove purgured the crap out of himself! I bet you Fitzgerald has Rove on purgury, and maybe specifically for this statement that he found out from Novak! I bet the timelines don't add up, and I bet Novak pointed to the White House when he sang!

    I'll give 2-1 odds, any takers?

    Posted by Liberal Ego at 07/15/2005 @ 10:07am

67. whether or not Poppy was Pres. at the time is irrelevant. No Pres. should ever base any part of his decision to start a war based on personal reasons.

    An assassination attempt orchestrated by one head of state against another is not just a "personal" matter. It's a declaration of war. If trying to kill our president isn't an actionable terrorist act, frankly, I don't know what is.

    Again, there were 23 writs for regime change (genocide, noncooperation with UN inspectors, assassination attempts, violations of the the no-fly zone etc.) which were all approved by congress prior to the Iraq war. All were serious crimes.

    My point here is that you can disagree with the rationale of those advocating this war but you can't simply dismiss the assassination attempt on Bush Sr. as a mere "personal" matter.

    Posted by Beausoleil at 07/15/2005 @ 10:57am

68. USC:

    One of the justifications used by Neo-Cons for Iraq is the imposition of democracy. We impose democracy in order to cement the ideology of freedom in Iraq. This theory is espoused by at least one Bush-supporting poster on this site, JZIMM. I think imposition of democracy was never a substantial reason for invading Iraq, but not because I believe democracy is inferior to other forms of government. I think US imposition of democracy is easily interpreted by Muslim nations as our attempt to control politics in the region. Additionally, it decimates the capacity of US military to respond to the gravest threats post by murdering demagogues in other nations (hence my post from Slate). Furthermore, because Muslims interpret our imposition of democracy as hegemonic domination, they will be more willing to join forces with Radical Islam and become suicide bombers in America.

    Let's all hope I'm wrong.

    Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/15/2005 @ 12:40pm

69. Nattie

    You've gotta tell my why you chose Cooper's character has your handle

    Posted by Liberal Ego at 07/15/2005 @ 1:07pm

70. Posted by Liberal Ego at 07/15/2005 @ 1:07pm

71. You might think it's because I fancy myself some sort of private eye, a wandering champion, daring to "speak the truth consarnin' you or any man that lived," being an outsider working mostly alone in a corrupt and violent world, trying to hold on to a personal code of honour. Nope. It's just a nickname I got as a kid. I've read Cooper's stuff though.

    Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/15/2005 @ 1:36pm

72. Heh, just curious, thanks!

    Posted by Liberal Ego at 07/15/2005 @ 1:38pm