Exactly how much safer are we?

So we fight terrorists in Iraq so we don't have to fight them here?*

Tell me: What good does President Bush's philosophy do when it allows everyone else to suffer? Today's horrible, horrible attacks in London are another painful reminder that the "flypaper" policy favored by the Bush administration has no real hope of working, no real hope of ending the "war on terror." What we've done is blow a hole in the prison wall to go in and fight the prisoners. But what do we do about the criminals who got away?

Are we going to get serious about actually fighting terror – not worrying about stepping on any toes in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc. – or are we going to keep pummeling Iraq and taking heavy losses and convincing ourselves that:

1. We're really defeating al Qaeda;
2. We're any safer than we were before September 11; or
3. We're fighting them there so they won't attack us here?

Of course, as the scope of today's tragedy unfolds, we must take time to heal and take stock of what has happened. But to not think of the political ramifications of this event, the policies that have preceded it and our leaders' reactions in its aftermath is to not think critically.

I'm sorry, but that terrorists are "evil doers" who "hate freedom" just won't cut it any longer. So far, we've shown a spectacular lack of knowledge and insight about our attackers. Say I'm offering therapy and understanding all you want, but what law enforcement official would ever tell you that a criminal mustn't be reasoned with, his motives left unexamined? Look at what President Bush said after the attacks:

The contrast between what we've seen on the TV screens here, what's taken place in London, what's taken place here is incredibly vivid to me.

On the one hand, we got people here who are working to alleviate poverty and to help rid the world of the pandemic of AIDS and that are working on ways to have a clean environment. And on the other hand, you've got people killing innocent people. And the contrast couldn't be clearer between the intentions and the hearts of those of us who care deeply about human rights and human liberty, and those who kill, those who've got such evil in their heart that they will take the lives of innocent folks.

The war on terror goes on. I was most impressed by the resolve of all the leaders in the room. Their resolve is as strong as my resolve. And that is, we will not yield to these people, will not yield to the terrorists.

We will find them. We will bring them to justice. And at the same time we will spread an ideology of hope and compassion that will overwhelm their ideology of hate.

We pay people to be "profilers," to examine the criminal mind and motive. Why can't people like President Bush recognize this? Why have they made everything appear to be black and white, right and wrong, good and evil? It's just not that simple. What happened today and what has happened in the past is reprehensible. It's disgusting. But it didn't happen in a vacuum. It happened for a reason, and that reason was not just to do evil or to destroy freedom. Attackers have cited our military actions and our policies, so why can't we at least recognize this? Terrorists often act out of their belief that they possess the ultimate truth; why must our leaders act the same way?

And sadly, the terrorists are winning. We are scared. This is very frightening stuff. No one wants to worry that the next ride to work may be his or her last. More than once on my way to work today my thoughts turned from London to the United States, as I heard of security measures being taken in Washington and elsewhere. The terrorists' most powerful weapon isn't suicide bombings or large-scale attacks, it's fear. But what's worse than succumbing to this fear is letting our leaders take advantage of this irrationality. Letting them do so takes us beyond the attacks and affects the rest of our lives. And they know that. That's how our civil liberties slowly disappear, our rights vanish. Fear allows us to cede these hard-earned rights to those who would prey on our insecurities.

I've read a lot today about not politicizing these horrible attacks, but what are we supposed to say when we listen to things like this exchange between hosts Brian Kilmeade and Stuart Varney during today's episode of "Fox & Friends"?

KILMEADE: And he [British Prime Minister Tony Blair] made the statement, clearly shaken, but clearly determined. This is his second address in the last hour. First to the people of London, and now at the G8 summit, where their topic Number 1 – believe it or not – was global warming, the second was African aid. And that was the first time since 9-11 when they should know, and they do know now, that terrorism should be Number 1. But it's important for them all to be together. I think that works to our advantage, in the Western world's advantage, for people to experience something like this together, just 500 miles from where the attacks have happened.

VARNEY: It puts the Number 1 issue right back on the front burner right at the point where all these world leaders are meeting. It takes global warming off the front burner. It takes African aid off the front burner. It sticks terrorism and the fight on the war on terror, right up front all over again.

KILMEADE: Yeah.

Nice. And we get accused of trying to politicize things like today's attacks? To say nothing of John Gibson, check out what Brit Hume said today:

HUME: Well, maybe. The other thing is, of course, people have – you know, the market was down. It was down yesterday, and you know, you may have had some bargain-hunting going on. I mean, my first thought when I heard – just on a personal basis, when I heard there had been this attack and I saw the futures this morning, which were really in the tank, I thought, "Hmmm, time to buy." Others may have thought that as well. But you never know about the markets. But obviously, if the markets had behaved badly, that would obviously add to people's sense of alarm about it. But there has been a lot of reassurance coming, particularly in the way that – partly in the way the Brits handled all this, but also in the way that officials here handled it. There seems to be no great fear that something like that is going to happen here, although there's no indication that we here had any advance warning.

London gets attacked, dozens die and all Hume can think about is his fucking portfolio? What's more, we should examine again Bush's last few lines from Scotland:

The war on terror goes on. I was most impressed by the resolve of all the leaders in the room. Their resolve is as strong as my resolve. And that is, we will not yield to these people, will not yield to the terrorists.

We will find them. We will bring them to justice. And at the same time we will spread an ideology of hope and compassion that will overwhelm their ideology of hate.

In one sentence – "Their resolve is as strong as my resolve." – Bush immediately linked today's attacks to his administration's actions in Iraq. But what he fails to realize - to the world's detriment – is that by frittering away time, money and resources fighting ghosts in Iraq, Bush isn't defeating terror, he's enabling it. Of course, no one will ever be able to stop terrorism altogether. If someone is motivated enough to want to kill themselves as well as others, I'm afraid there's only so much that can be done. Trouble is, we're not doing those things. We're only paying lip service to homeland security. Our coasts, ports and power plants are completely vulnerable. And where, should terrorists strike, is our National Guard? Iraq.

"We will find them. We will bring them to justice." Right. Because we've done such a bang-up job on that already. And when are we going to start spreading "an ideology of hope and compassion" in places like Iraq? I hope "hope and compassion" don't require electricity or clean water, because Iraqis would be shit out of luck if they did. And I think I have a different definition of spreading hope and compassion than President Bush does. Mine includes actually giving a shit about combating poverty and hopelessness, two of the leading causes of turning to terrorism. His seemingly includes taking his eyes off the ball in Afghanistan, launching a premeditated, pre-emptive war in Iraq and torture at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay.

So when we watch the news tonight, let's really take stock of the terrible events transpiring in London. But let's also really take stock in what, exactly, our leaders have done – and not done – to help prevent attacks like these from happening in the future. History, not hollow rhetoric, will show whether they actually worked to combat the root causes of terrorism, as well as its end stages. It seems, sadly, that we won't have to wait as long to see if President Bush's containment policy worked or not.

* And isn't that sort of policy an excuse for using American troops as, more or less, bait?

Comments

[W.D.Russell]

>>>So we fight terrorists in Iraq so we don't have to fight them here?<<<<
I am 58 and sometimes age has its advantages.
I have heard these lies before.
If we withdraw from VietNam we will be fighting the VC in the streets of San Diego and LA.
Well, it did not happen then either.