Most of these, I only do because no-one else is.
“Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers” — Karl Rove.
Okay, the “offer therapy” thing is totally stupid, and no sane conservative genuinely believes it, I hope.
Understanding your attacker…is elementary strategy, according to THE ART OF WAR. Dismiss it, and you’ll lose. You NEED to understand your enemy to how he/she/it functions, so that you can counterattack.
So the big thing I want to respond to here is the part about preparing indictments.
It’s been a standard conservative attack line — liberals think terrorism is a law enforcement issue, but we know it’s war. This very argument was used against Kerry by Bush.
So let’s just assume that the proper response to an act of terrorism is war. Now let’s take an infamous terrorist whom we actually caught, Tim McVeigh.
McVeigh was a part of the Michigan Militia, a far-right, anti-government group of folks with guns. By the “terrorism = war” logic, we should have sent in the National Guard to take them out, not because they actually committed a crime, but because they foster the mindset that led to the crime.
There’s a problem: We tried that exact thing at Waco and Ruby Ridge. Anyone happy with the way those things turned out? I don’t know anyone on the left OR right who is. Had a Republican been president for those, I suspect there’d be more apologists.
Look, Israel’s response to terrorism has been war for many years. Does it help them? If they would focus on arresting specific terror leaders rather than using missile attacks and mass-bulldozing of houses, I’d wager they’d have more international sympathy.
Terrorism is a violation of law. And if you’ll remember, Bush’s little Iraq adventure was framed as a response to Saddam breaking international law.
Perhaps if we did handle it with indictments and law enforcement we would be better off.
I know the main counter-argument already — we let the World Trade Center get bombed once, and because we didn’t declare war then, we got 9-11.
However, another major reason we got 9-11 is because we didn’t track down people with expired visas. LAW ENFORCEMENT ISSUE!
Additionally, war with Iraq and Afghanistan would not have stopped 9-11. War with Saudi Arabia and Egypt, maybe, but no-one’s suggesting that even now.
Supporting a law-enforcement based solution just means going after the actual individuals involved, rather than attacking the entire country. If the country pulls a Taliban and refuses to give up a guilty party after we’ve offered proof, then you have your case for war, and I do think Afghanistan was justifiable from a realpolitik sense.
Unfortunately, Bush didn’t even bother making a good case against Saddam, even though one possibly could have been made.
But the bottom line is that I am not ashamed of favoring law enforcement over war. Nor should anyone else be.
Not much to say but the republicans are starting to get more defensive about the war, which is a sign of guilt.
Technically, ruby ridge et al were domestic, so probably not under the rubric. Also, law enforcement gets into arrests and trials and whatnot, instead of a good ass-kicking! REMEMBER 9-11, COMMIE!!!
It ain’t called “The War on INTERNATIONAL Terror”
of course, that may be because GWB can’t promounce “international”
Hah, good point. Stupid overly-broad name.
…Commie.
By the way, that sure was weird o’ Rove, wasn’t it? Maybe the stress is getting to him…
Dubya Bush was on TV yesterday…damn, sorry, I missed that…next time, I will put my Life on hold just to hear him beg, cry and lie again.
Interesting points. Unfortunately McVeigh, Waco and Ruby Ridge don’t really correlate to Al Qaida and international terrorist organizations. We do prosecute terrorist caught in the US and we always will; going after foreign terror networks is another matter. (which is not to say the Iraq adventure was a good idea). As far as Israel is concerned, your comparison is faulty; they arrest and prosecute terrorists all the time, but that’s not always possible and it doesn’t exactly make for sexy news stories. Overall they successfully prevent most (90% or more) of attempted terror acts. Not bad, considering.
Rove’s point was that many so-called Liberals view terror from a “what did WE do to piss off these good people?” and this outlook is as goofy as the worst Right-winger ravings. This is the time for pragmatism not dogma.
Don’t you think, though, that it might be worth knowing what, from the terrorists’ perspective, we did do to piss them off? You don’t have to AGREE with their perspective, but that kind of insight into the enemy is useful if you’re serious about combatting them. “They hate our freedom” isn’t really a good analysis.
As for many so-called liberals calling the terrorists “good people,” name one. Ward Churchill doesn’t count.