John Kerry was ridiculed in the 2004 elections for mentioning the words “law enforcement” in discussing terrorism, but as long since been proven, he was exactly right. And, as the endless wars that were undertaken instead have proven, they have have had no effect whatsoever on the safety of the American citizens or the threat of future terrorism. Is it any surprise that al-Qaeda has rebuilt its strength and is at pre-9/11 levels? All that war and nothing to show for it.
Indeed, recent foiled attacks (in other countries) have come with what common sense will allow as good intelligence, diligence, and law enforcement. As I stated yesterday, bombing Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, or any other country that Mr. Bush sees fit to deplete our military with, will and has gotten us exactly nowhere. It is a failed exercise in military masturbation that, unfortunately, has no climax. And, as a liberal American, I prefer to ejaculate.
The Tribune’s Steve Chapman writes today of terrorism:
It’s more like organized crime — an ongoing problem demanding unceasing vigilance, a malady that can be contained but never eliminated. By framing the fight as a global war, we have helped Osama bin Laden and hurt ourselves. Had we treated him and his confederates as the moral equivalent of international drug lords or sex traffickers, the organization might not have the romantic image it has acquired. By exaggerating the potential impact, we also magnified the disruptive effect of any plots, which is just what the terrorists seek.
Why is it that other countries who suffer attacks, perhaps not on the scale of 9/11, but serious nonetheless, do not fall into this trap that we as Americans did? (And when I say “we” I mean “them,” as in the hysteric and gullible idiots who bowed down before Bush and the government and said “whatever you need to do, do it!”) London and Scotland gritted their teeth and remained stoic in the face of recent terror, and the world kept turning without panic and without grand and stupid gestures. Is it just that they don’t have Mr. Bush as their leader and we do?
We do further harm to ourselves by accepting government actions we would never tolerate except in the context of war . . . Crime is a serious national problem that used to be even worse. At the height of the mayhem back in 1991, more than 24,000 Americans were murdered annually — a Sept. 11, 2001, attack every six weeks. Yet even when the toll was at its worst, we insisted that police respect the constitutional rights of suspected criminals. We maintained the limits on the power of the president and other law enforcement officials to investigate and imprison people. For the most part, we kept our perspective.
After the World Trade Center came down, by contrast, we let ourselves be convinced that many restrictions were an unaffordable luxury. Any concern for civil liberties was met with the retort: “We’re at war.” And in war, anything goes.
Who would have ever thought that war wasn’t the answer? Come on, who would have imagined such a thing? Not the scared Americans that got us in this mess. Well, it’s time for men with blue balls to step aside and let the virile ones back in power. Call me anytime, I’m game.
UPDATE: Just to clarify, “virile ones” is meant to imply a male trait, but of course I would welcome a female leader just as strongly, and especially one who was in favor of ejaculation, or smart and intelligent foreign policy, or climaxing. As some already know about me, I prefer women to men in most cases. As it happens, I prefer a certain male over a certain female at this point in time to be the next president. But that could change, as the seasons turn and the summer fades, and our collective balls slowly turn from blue to purple to a comfortable shade of calm pink.