Tuesday, August 15, 2006
Even George Will has buyer's remorse
I didn't see it, but I'm told that on ABC's Sunday pundit show, This Week, George Will said that "John Kerry had a point" when he said during the 2004 campaign that defeating terrorism was more a matter for intelligence and law enforcement than military action.
Not only did Will say it on This Week, he reiterated it in his column in the Washington Post:
Thanks, George.
I have one small request though, to you (George), your pundit pals, and the rest of the American electorate; For the next US Presidential election (maybe even the mid-terms - but I don't want to be too demanding here), could you please try paying attention to facts and rationality before the election?
Not only did Will say it on This Week, he reiterated it in his column in the Washington Post:
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. The official told The Weekly Standard:
"The idea that the jihadists would all be peaceful, warm, lovable, God-fearing people if it weren't for U.S. policies strikes me as not a valid idea. [Democrats] do not have the understanding or the commitment to take on these forces. It's like John Kerry. The law enforcement approach doesn't work."
This farrago of caricature and non sequitur makes the administration seem eager to repel all but the delusional. But perhaps such rhetoric reflects the intellectual contortions required to sustain the illusion that the war in Iraq is central to the war on terrorism, and that the war, unlike "the law enforcement approach," does "work."
Thanks, George.
I have one small request though, to you (George), your pundit pals, and the rest of the American electorate; For the next US Presidential election (maybe even the mid-terms - but I don't want to be too demanding here), could you please try paying attention to facts and rationality before the election?