Dan, you know and I know there is a large number of liberals who think the War on Terror is nothing more thank a "made up war" to make Bush look good. The Clinton Administration (along with Bush I and Reagan) both fought terrorism like you would any criminal case. There would be an indictment, a trail, etc, etc, etc.
But then you see what's happened in Russia, in the US, in Spain, etc; and you start to realize this is a war. This isn't some group of people wanting to flaunt the law in order to make money or gain power. They want to kill all of us. The radical Muslims want us all dead.
What book? I'm reading Walter Isaacson's bio of Ben Franklin right now. At least, I ought to be instead of surfing the web. :)
Last I checked, Russia was not treating the problem as a law enforcement one. They seemed to be fairly agressive with the use of their military. And the lesson to be learned is that you can't beat terrorists with agression. You may mitigate the problem, but they operate on a level that is far superior to conventional militaries. They need only to succeed once every 100 times to accomplish their goals. You can't protect against that.
As much as you may wish to belittle the Left's position on this misnomer of a War, the path we've been following has not been sucessful. It would seem Bush's strategy is the one we ought to be ridiculing.
The real position of the Left is that this requires a wholistic approach, with a focus on intelligence and yes, police action, with stratigic use of the military where it can be helpful (when things/people need blowed up). It requires a good relationship with allies, whose law enforcemtn infrastructure we will depend on.
I don't know of anyone who has said this is merely a problem which Courts alone would be sufficeint to deal with. I think maybe you are parroting a talking point by the Right which is lacking in merit, as most of the Right's talking points are. But maybe I'm wrong. So who said Terrorism is something that Courts alone can fight?
Comments
Who says it should be limited to the Courts? Or is this another of your famous straw man arguments?
Posted by: Dan Isaacs | September 5, 2004 9:24 PM
Dan, you know and I know there is a large number of liberals who think the War on Terror is nothing more thank a "made up war" to make Bush look good. The Clinton Administration (along with Bush I and Reagan) both fought terrorism like you would any criminal case. There would be an indictment, a trail, etc, etc, etc.
But then you see what's happened in Russia, in the US, in Spain, etc; and you start to realize this is a war. This isn't some group of people wanting to flaunt the law in order to make money or gain power. They want to kill all of us. The radical Muslims want us all dead.
BTW, have you ever read the book yet? ;-)
Posted by: Brian | September 5, 2004 11:25 PM
What book? I'm reading Walter Isaacson's bio of Ben Franklin right now. At least, I ought to be instead of surfing the web. :)
Last I checked, Russia was not treating the problem as a law enforcement one. They seemed to be fairly agressive with the use of their military. And the lesson to be learned is that you can't beat terrorists with agression. You may mitigate the problem, but they operate on a level that is far superior to conventional militaries. They need only to succeed once every 100 times to accomplish their goals. You can't protect against that.
As much as you may wish to belittle the Left's position on this misnomer of a War, the path we've been following has not been sucessful. It would seem Bush's strategy is the one we ought to be ridiculing.
The real position of the Left is that this requires a wholistic approach, with a focus on intelligence and yes, police action, with stratigic use of the military where it can be helpful (when things/people need blowed up). It requires a good relationship with allies, whose law enforcemtn infrastructure we will depend on.
I don't know of anyone who has said this is merely a problem which Courts alone would be sufficeint to deal with. I think maybe you are parroting a talking point by the Right which is lacking in merit, as most of the Right's talking points are. But maybe I'm wrong. So who said Terrorism is something that Courts alone can fight?
Posted by: Dan Isaacs | September 6, 2004 12:30 PM