ROBERT KUTTNER > A convenient threat > > By Robert Kuttner | August 12, 2006 > > > DICK CHENEY was certainly farsighted when he declared Wednesday that > Ned Lamont's victory over Joe Lieberman would comfort ``Al Qaeda types." > > Voila! Only a day later, Al Qaeda was revealed as plotting to bring > down 10 planes! > > I thought that was a nice parody line -- until I picked up yesterday's > Wall Street Journal. There, editorial page writer Daniel Henninger, in > a column headed, ``Democrats Knifed Lieberman on Eve of Airliner > Plot," goes beyond parody. > > Henninger writes, ``[G]etting on a US airliner, who would you rather > have in the Senate formulating policy towards this threat -- Ned > Lamont or Joe Lieberman?" > > We will face this story line between now and the November election, > and beyond: As the terror threat rises, you can't trust critics of the > Bush administration to keep America safe. The war in Iraq, the nuclear > designs of Iran, Hezbollah's rocketing of Israel, new diabolical > tactics by Al Qaeda, and the general ideological and military menace > of militant Islamism, are all jumbled into a single all-purpose word > -- waronterror. And if you're against the Bush strategy, you are of > course with the terrorists. > > ``Bipartisan" Democrats such as Lieberman, who help President Bush, > are good guys. Those who question Bush's strategy help our enemies and > make America less safe. The November elections, and the future of our > security, will depend on whether Americans see through this blarney. > If the right succeeds in persuading voters that this is all one > undifferentiated mess requiring Bush-style bravado, America is in even > deeper trouble. > > There are really several different policy challenges and debates here. > If you disentangle them, it adds up to a stunning indictment of Bush. > > Did Al Qaeda have any connection to Saddam Hussein? (No.) > > Was Bush's Iraq war a debilitating diversion of attention and > resources from the more important ongoing battle against Al Qaeda? (Yes.) > > Did Bush spend most of 2001 blowing off warnings about Al Qaeda, > shutting out people like national security official Richard Clarke who > actually knew something about terrorism, and ignoring escalating > warnings of a plot in progress? (Yes.) > > Has the Iraq war made America a more effective force for stability and > against militant Islamism? (No.) > > Did Bush's grand strategy advance the cause of Middle East democracy > and civility? (No.) > > Does Bush's larger design for the Middle East make Israel more secure? > (No.) > > Can we have effective levels of surveillance against terrorism and > still remain a constitutional democracy with liberties for law-abiding > Americans? (Yes -- but this administration is needlessly jeopardizing > those liberties, and bungling intelligence operations despite expanded > resources.) > > Does Bush's contempt for government impede his administration's > ability to use government to promote national security? (Yes.) > > With hundreds of millions of ordinary Muslims increasingly disgusted > and alienated by Bush's policy, can't we just settle this thing once > and for all, with an Armageddon to take out Syria, Iran, Hezbollah, > and Al Qaeda, in one fell swoop? (No!) > > This argument isn't about who supports terrorists. It's about the > right strategy for protecting America. And ever since this president > took office, his policies have set back that cause. > > Undaunted, the right will be relentlessly pounding one story: > Republicans will keep you safe, Democrats won't. Meanwhile, the far > right allied with Vice President Cheney and Secretary of Defense > Donald Rumsfeld will be pounding Bush to widen the war and compound > the damage. > > The administration is now using the London arrests as vindication of > extraordinary police and intelligence powers. Supposedly, Democrats' > qualms about illegal domestic spying ordered by Bush would disable > such counterintelligence. That's nonsense. The USA Patriot Act, > expanding surveillance, was passed by overwhelming bipartisan > majorities. In some circumstances, it requires a secret court to > approve surveillance. This approval is virtually always given. The > illegal spying explicitly violated what Congress enacted and Bush > signed. Many Republicans oppose it. > > So, to answer Henninger: Getting on an airplane, I'd much rather have > Lamont in the Senate, and either Democrats or traditional > foreign-policy Republicans in the Congressional majority and the White > House. > > After more than five years of Bush's blundering grandiosity, a > majority of Americans are increasingly skeptical of his policies. > America has never faced anything like the hydra-headed threat of > Islamist terrorism. Bush's entire performance, from assumption to > execution, has placed America at greater risk. To say that is not to > abet terrorism, and Bush's critics should be saying it loud and clear. > > Correction: Last week I wrote that the Senate's investigation of tax > cheating was initiated by Democratic Senator Carl Levin and later > endorsed by his Republican counterpart, Senator Norm Coleman. The > investigation was proposed by Levin, but conducted on a bipartisan basis. > > Robert Kuttner is co-editor of The American Prospect. His column > appears regularly in the Globe. > > > > © Copyright <http://www.boston.com/help/bostoncom_info/copyright> 2006 > The New York Times Company >
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com *************************************************************************** Berdikusi dg Santun & Elegan, dg Semangat Persahabatan. Menuju Indonesia yg Lebih Baik, in Commonality & Shared Destiny. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ppiindia *************************************************************************** __________________________________________________________________________ Mohon Perhatian: 1. Harap tdk. memposting/reply yg menyinggung SARA (kecuali sbg otokritik) 2. Pesan yg akan direply harap dihapus, kecuali yg akan dikomentari. 3. Reading only, http://dear.to/ppi 4. Satu email perhari: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 5. No-email/web only: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 6. kembali menerima email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ppiindia/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
