Flypaper
Interesting article by E.J. Dionne, Jr of the Washington Post Writers Group on Bush's speech at the FBI on Monday. I think it demonstrates clearly the complete lack of intellectual foundation for the war on terror, and may even suggest that Bush thinks a UK life is worth less than a US life.
At least we're not facing them at home
Bizarrely, Bush trots out flypaper theory after London bombings
WASHINGTON -- "We're fighting the enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan and across the world so we do not have to face them here at home."
That's what President Bush said in his speech Monday at the FBI Academy in Quantico, Va. After the terrorist attacks on Britain, our very closest ally in the war on terror, it is an astonishing thing to say. "It's a very insensitive statement with regard to the British," said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich. "Tony Blair must absolutely have blanched when he heard that."
What does Bush's statement mean? Appearing on "Fox News Sunday," Fran Townsend, the president's homeland security adviser, said that the war in Iraq attracts terrorists "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."
Huh? If British troops fighting in Iraq did not stop the terrorists from striking London, what is the logic for believing that American troops fighting in Iraq will stop terrorists from striking our country again? Intelligence reports -- and Townsend's own words -- suggest that Iraq has become a terrorist breeding ground since the American invasion. How, exactly, has that made us safer?
It is time for a policy on terror that is based on more than ideology and the rote incantations the president has been offering now for four years. The horror in London should force intelligent politicians to ask fundamental questions: What will it take to achieve success in Iraq? And how should our homeland security policy be adjusted to make the United States safer?
As it happens, some politicians are doing just that. On Monday, Levin, the ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, issued a report on his visit to Iraq last week. It is refreshingly balanced and free of ideology. The good news, Levin said, is that there is "a high level of optimism" among Iraqis that they will meet the August 15 deadline for writing a draft constitution. The bad news is that the "insurgency is not weakening and that the flow of foreign jihadists into Iraq has increased."
What's needed, he says, is a clear American signal to the Iraqis that they must meet the deadline on the constitution. We also need a "road map for Iraqis taking ownership of the risks and responsibility for their own security and survival."
"If there is any prospect of defeating the insurgency," Levin argues, "we need to make clear to the Iraqis that if they are unable to reach agreement on the constitution, we will reconsider our presence in Iraq and that all options will be on the table, including withdrawal."
continues
At least we're not facing them at home
Bizarrely, Bush trots out flypaper theory after London bombings
WASHINGTON -- "We're fighting the enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan and across the world so we do not have to face them here at home."
That's what President Bush said in his speech Monday at the FBI Academy in Quantico, Va. After the terrorist attacks on Britain, our very closest ally in the war on terror, it is an astonishing thing to say. "It's a very insensitive statement with regard to the British," said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich. "Tony Blair must absolutely have blanched when he heard that."
What does Bush's statement mean? Appearing on "Fox News Sunday," Fran Townsend, the president's homeland security adviser, said that the war in Iraq attracts terrorists "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."
Huh? If British troops fighting in Iraq did not stop the terrorists from striking London, what is the logic for believing that American troops fighting in Iraq will stop terrorists from striking our country again? Intelligence reports -- and Townsend's own words -- suggest that Iraq has become a terrorist breeding ground since the American invasion. How, exactly, has that made us safer?
It is time for a policy on terror that is based on more than ideology and the rote incantations the president has been offering now for four years. The horror in London should force intelligent politicians to ask fundamental questions: What will it take to achieve success in Iraq? And how should our homeland security policy be adjusted to make the United States safer?
As it happens, some politicians are doing just that. On Monday, Levin, the ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, issued a report on his visit to Iraq last week. It is refreshingly balanced and free of ideology. The good news, Levin said, is that there is "a high level of optimism" among Iraqis that they will meet the August 15 deadline for writing a draft constitution. The bad news is that the "insurgency is not weakening and that the flow of foreign jihadists into Iraq has increased."
What's needed, he says, is a clear American signal to the Iraqis that they must meet the deadline on the constitution. We also need a "road map for Iraqis taking ownership of the risks and responsibility for their own security and survival."
"If there is any prospect of defeating the insurgency," Levin argues, "we need to make clear to the Iraqis that if they are unable to reach agreement on the constitution, we will reconsider our presence in Iraq and that all options will be on the table, including withdrawal."
continues
posted by phylos @ 18:04
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home