BLOGTOPIA

Glenn Greenwald has required reading for anyone wishing to talk about fighting terrorism(as we all know terror is a tactic so no war is possible on that.) :

Glenn: During the 2004 campaign, Democrats argued that the key to preventing terrorism lay not in invading and occupying countries which have not attacked us, but instead, in improving our intelligence-gathering capabilities, strengthening law enforcement cooperation with other countries, increasing counter-terrorism resources, and solidifying border security -- ideas which were, first, wildly distorted, then caricatured, and then scornfully laughed away by the Bush campaign and the tough-guy media pundits: "Oh, how funny - weak little John Kerry wants to treat terrorism like a law enforcement problem! He wants to serve subpoenas on Osama bin Laden! He wants to protect against Al Qaeda attacks with police methods! He wants to surrender to the terrorists and give them therapy! That is so so funny."In his new column today, George Will makes a critical (if not obvious) point about all of that: namely, despite the fact that Bush followers spent the week crowing about the U.K. terror plot as though it validates their views of the world, it actually does the opposite. We can't rid the world of Islamic extremism (a belief system) or terrorism by bombing it away. Will thus points out that the way in which the plot was thwarted demonstrates the foolishness of warmongering as a solution to terrorism, and the correctness of the anti-terrorist approach advocated by Democrats:

................ F-16s are not useful tools against terrorism that issues from places such as Hamburg (where Mohamed Atta lived before dying in the North Tower of the World Trade Center) and High Wycombe, England.Cooperation between Pakistani and British law enforcement (the British draw upon useful experience combating IRA terrorism) has validated John Kerry's belief (as paraphrased by the New York Times Magazine of Oct. 10, 2004) that "many of the interdiction tactics that cripple drug lords, including governments working jointly to share intelligence, patrol borders and force banks to identify suspicious customers, can also be some of the most useful tools in the war on terror." In a candidates' debate in South Carolina (Jan. 29, 2004), Kerry said that although the war on terror will be "occasionally military," it is "primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world."Immediately after the London plot was disrupted, a "senior administration official," insisting on anonymity for his or her splenetic words, denied the obvious, that Kerry had a point.

......Glenn: The more military force that was used, the worse the problems became. The belief that attacks on militants would turn the population against those militants and in favor of the invading force turned out to be completely false. Indeed, the opposite was true: the invasion and military attacks did more to enhance the prestige and popularity of the extremist group than anything the group itself could have done. It resulted in vastly increased radicalism and resentment. .....
There is, at long last, a growing recognition that waging more wars does not make us stronger or more secure. It does exactly the opposite. Those who want to pursue our failed policy in Iraq indefinitely or who want to attack more countries -- in the process alienating the whole world even more and exacerbating the Islamic radicalism which even the President says is what causes terrorism -- are not people who are "strong on security." They are gradually, though inexorably, destroying our security through a mindless militarism which becomes more reckless and crazed the more it fails. And this bloodthirsty militarism becomes more desperate as the sense of weakness and humiliation felt by its proponents -- including those in the White House -- intensifies........perhaps we can soon reach the point where national journalists will understand that there is nothing "strong" about wanting more and more wars, and nothing "weak" about opposing warmongering and advocating more substantive, rational and responsible methods for combating terrorism.Anyone rational can see that our invasion of Iraq did not make us "safer." Nor will attacking Syria and/or Iran or fueling more proxy wars in the Middle East make us any "safer." Quite plainly, those measures have had, and will continue to have, the opposite effect. And all the while, we neglect the genuinely effective methods for protecting against terrorism because those methods are boring and unappealing and unexciting to the increasingly crazed warriors looking for militaristic glory and slaughter for its own sake. Untold benefits will accrue if journalists can finally understand that whatever adjectives accurately describe such individuals -- especially those in the Bush administration and their Congressional loyalists -- "strong" is not one of them.

Ron: I have high lighted the pertinent points here. Please read the entire piece for the full picture.

The idea that using a proven failed policy is “strong on terrorism” is propaganda at its most blatant. We are living in an age of fear mongering never seen in most of our lifetimes save Joe McCarthy. Mindless unthinking fear. Honestly, deep down in your heart do you feel safer than you felt 4 or 5 years ago. I certainly don't. I feel less safe everyday. So why is it that the failures are considered as strong on terror? Many more things than mentioned in this article can be done. From a full blown alternative energy and conservation push to securing our borders, chemical plans and ports to providing a path for our great minds and companies to improve terrorism fighting technology. There is so much we can do but we are stuck in the stone age of the fight against terrorism. Many seem to think the proper way is to be gripped with fear and kill as fast as possible. It is politically incorrect to think otherwise. Maybe someday they will get past their “pre 9/11” thinking on how to win a giant struggle.


Newshounds watches Fox so I don't have to. Thank goodness.

Sean Hannity, ever bloodthirsty for other people to fight and die, was a vision of peevish disgruntlement last night on Hannity & Colmes (8/14/06) during a discussion about the Israeli/Lebanese cease fire. Complaining about the “phony agreement that’s not going to last,” Hannity argued that Israel had the ability to “obliterate” Hezbollah. “One nuke and it was all over,” he said. Later, he insisted he hadn’t meant that Israel should actually do that. In the interim, FOX News military analyst Bill Cowan called Israel "appeasers" for agreeing to the ceasefire.

Ron: If it is not a rational answer to the problems being discussed why even bring it up? Sean is my award winner among some seriously stiff opposition as the worst debater on the radical right. The man spews nonsense at an astonishing rate. Team him with his Fox comrades Bill O Reilly and the talentless Brian guy in the morning and you have cornered the market on the thoughtless, phony Christian, patriot, family man genre.


TMP Cafe:
A new poll from Pew -- taken mostly after news broke of the foiled terror plot -- shows that there are more Americans who worry that a GOP-controlled Congress will result in more militarism abroad than there are Americans who worry that a Dem takeover would weaken the fight against terror. And get this: What percentage do you suppose said that "terrorism" is the issue they want candidates to discuss most? Answer: Two percent. Here's what the poll found:]

There is no evidence that terrorism is weighing heavily on voters. Just 2% cite that as the issue they most want to hear candidates discuss, far fewer than the number mentioning education, gas prices, or health care. And while roughly a third of Americans (35%) say they are very concerned that, if Democrats gain control of Congress, they will weaken terrorist defenses, even more (46%) express great concern that Republicans will involve the U.S. in too many overseas military missions if the GOP keeps its congressional majorities.

Ron: I am sure the American people in both parties are concerned about terrorism. I think it has been so politicized that people have already made up their minds and want to hear about the other issues. Also we are hearing no new ideas on how to fight terror. Please see the first post in this piece for more on that. I also feel many are getting “terror fatigue”. I know I certainly am.


Tristero at Digbys Hullaballo has the quote of the day. George Bush on the wiretap ruling:
I would say that those who herald this decision simply do not understand the nature of the world in which we live.

Tristero: Let's not forget that this expert on the true nature of the world once asked the president of Brazil whether he, too, had black people in his country. Which wouldn't be endearingly human in a "hey, I'm a just folks all American ignoramus" kind of a way even if his administration, and he himself, hadn't been entirely wrong about the danger from Bin Laden, the presence of WMD in Iraq, and the cakewalk of Iraq. And Katrina. And so on, so on, so on. This isn't funny, ladies and gentlemen and you, too, Republicans. It truly is hard to believe someone so ignorant and/or cynical commands the the most powerful military the world has ever seen. And he will accept no restraints whatsoever on his desire to do whatever he wishes.

Ron: What bothers me is BUSHS' lack of understanding of the nature of the country in which he lives. No one is saying “hang up on AL Queda”. No one is saying don't wiretap. No one is saying don't ask for new powers. Lord knows with the so called Patriot Act he has done that. I am of the opinion that he has acquired far more power than a President or government from any party deserves. All that is being said is follow the law and uphold and defend the Constitution as you took an oath to do. We know from the 90s that the Republicans are sticklers on rule of law and that no one, even the President, is excepted. That is what they said in the 90s. They have no core.