The Candidates' Idiotic Debate Over War On Terror

If terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah are for Obama, as Republicans like to allege, but a new terrorist attack on American soil would tip the scales toward McCain, as his advisor Charles Black maintains, then logically there will be no terrorist attack against U.S. targets before the November election. Why would terrorists do anything to harm Obama's candidacy and help McCain's?

Ridiculous logic? Maybe. But frankly, this whole discussion of which candidate would be tougher on terrorists is an exercise for shedding IQ points. After all, how does one quantify toughness on terrorists, much less measure abstract feelings of safeness from foreign threats?

The issue comes down to: Is the war on terror winnable using traditional law-enforcement tools, or does it require manlier military means? Presumably this is not a debate over whether to fight al-Qaeda with either Tasers or tanks but rather: Can our courts and criminal justice system handle high-value detainees (i.e. the perpetrators of the first World Trade Center bombings), or should these unsavory folks be shipped to Guantanamo Bay or perhaps tortured in a CIA-run prison somewhere in Transylvania?

Republicans say: Well, there has been no terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11 so we must be doing something right, so there. Things like DHS's color-coded threat level might not make sense but they work. Might we add that Democrats propose weakening the war on terror and well, that makes us look like sissies abroad (Right-wingers' favorite date in history to lob at their opponents and stoke fear in the American heartland -- September 10, 2001)?

Democrats answer: Yes, but our tough-guy tactics have only produced more terrorists, angered Muslims, damaged our reputation abroad, and distracted ourselves from the real war against Bin Laden along the Afghan-Pakistani border. To that end, Obama proposes to invade this region to pursue terrorists -- something McCain's camp would never consider as it might wreck U.S.-Pakistani relations (which, let's be honest, are not that good to begin with).

So if Obama is willing to take the fight to the enemy, yet another attack against American soil would favor McCain, and Islamic jihadists, were they somehow granted suffrage tomorrow, would start wearing Obama stickers that read: "Yes, We Can", and yet both candidates are against torture -- where does that leave us? Confused, yes, but safer? That's anybody's guess.

Comments

[edgraham]

The terrorists have won.

Ed Graham

[RickO]

Terrorism is like a virus. You can't eradicate a virus but you prevent disease by having a strong immune system and a healthy body so when you do get the virus, you can shake it off and survive.

The absolute failure of the government is a) refusing the consider the root causes of terrorism, b) failing to improve the health of the country to absorb its effects.

The president is not Mighty Mouse.

[Cathexis]

The Bush Administration's Rx for the Terrorism Virus: Radical surgery! No time for anaesthesia -- the Enemy is multiplying! We'll CUT that virus out! Leave your wimpy anti-viral injections and IVs for the nurses!

In fact, we'd better perform surgery on the first healthy person we see! He may be infected! Do you want the first warning symptom to be a mushroom-shaped tumour?!?

[ponderman]

Maybe the reason we haven't experienced another terrorist attack on the scale of 9/11, is that the terrorists know it isn't needed. All one has to do is look at all that has transpired since they made their statement, and realize just how successful they were.

[zjr909]

Since this whole War on Terror is nothing but a PR campaign to keep the American people from noticing how fast the national treasury is being depleted by corporate America, it cannot be anything but idiotic to have any kind of debate about how best to conduct it. Somebody talking on their damn cell phone while driving down the superhighway is infinitely more dangerous to the average American than the entire al-Qaeda network. But has any legislature in the country successfully outlawed talking on a cell phone while driving? Like the man in the Bible said: "They strain at gnats and swallow a camel."

[kjdwyer]

The sad truth is that, regardless of Republican responsibility for the mess we're in, the Amurkan people (that percentage of Americans who vote stupidly) still have this notion that when it comes to matters of defense and security, the Republicans are more trustworthy. And given the percentages, that includes a fair amount of supposed dems who think that way, as well. For that reason alone, any breach in securtiy would be in the big fat elefant party's favor. That's partly how Bush won a second term; scaring everyone with changing alerts (yellow, orange, red, etc. remember Michael Moore's 911?).

No matter how much sense you make in this country, nothing seems to stick and with every succeding election, new depths of abject stupidity are mined and exposed for people like Limbagh and the rest to exploit. It's all well and good to opine as TYKER did in an earlier blog "How can attacks on America be an advantage to Repubs, since they were in control when they let 9/11 happen?", but that assumes that Amurkans think. They don't think, they react. Unless the dems can figure out how to push their buttons as effectively as Limbagh does, the only other solution is, as Bill Maher once joked, "to thin the herd."

At least I think he was joking.

[woodsywizz]

McCain no longer against torture. Oops...

[GayIthacan]

Seeing what a success the War on Drugs has been...........

[laocoon]

the real question is more can we fight the war on terrur with a president who has only his proper powers or do we need a president who has no constitutional restrictions on his powers. Does it matter which faction the president belongs to?

[RnR]

9/11/01 was the republicans watch. Why doesn't anyone mention that? I'm starting to think that the primaries and elections are money raising exercizes only with absolutely no intent to win by the Democrats.

[jbatch]

McCain isn't againt torture any more -- at least not today. Tomorrow? Who knows?

[thebassguy]

I think the proper term should be The War Against Terrorists, or the abbreviation for it...sort of goes with Bush, eh?

[wishiknew]

AHAHAHAH awesome. thanks for that one bassguy.

[indypete]

I don't understand what you said but I'll defend to the death your right to confuse me.

(Line from Hawkeye in a M*A*S*H* episode).

[beingrepubwontmakeurich]

Another terrorist attack WOULD help McCain simply because Fox news and Rush Limbaugh would say so, and the drooling braindead flock who hang on the every word of said media would believe it without question. AND I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.
As long as we continue to try to play where we are clearly not wanted for reasons that are clearly sinister and self-serving for the greedy/power hungry neo"cons" who have been calling the shots over several years, we will absolutely NOT BE SAFER.
We will only be safer once we earn back a decent reputation in the global arena, and get our priorities back in order relative to our place in it.

[laocoon]

I dont know when Germany became militaristic and engaged in preemptive attacks to protect itself didnt it make Germany safe forever. Didnt it keep the Soviets from raping and pillaging and instituting communism by force. Didnt it?

[TRYKER]

You seriously believe that the 'color codes of threat' has been the reason we've had no more attacks since 9/11?
Maybe they didn't need any more 'attacks' since the first one gave them all they wanted.
How can attacks on America be an advantage to Repubs, since they were in control when they let 9/11 happen? Look at what they've done to our country since.
In fact the only thing that will save the Rethugs is a Democratic administration that they can demonize and blame for everything.

[paixa3]

Color codes are a damn outright joke. How many years has it been orange?????

What crap from a crappy administration and government.

[laocoon]

As an analogy you are commanding the carrier task force in 1941. the Japanese instead of Pearl find the task force. A plane (early Kamikazi) flies into a tanker. a half an hour later another hits and sinks a destroyer. 40 minutes later you have yet to put up a fighter cap and have not put your anti aircraft batteries on alert. another plane strikes your flag ship without a shot fired to stop it. You are then hailed as the only one in the country who can lead us in the war against japan and are given despotic powers!!!!!. 911 the greatest failure of military leadership in US history.

[leftcoastindy]

I don't like your anology since PH was not remotely a 'terrorist' attack. It was actually a preemptive defensive attack to previent our navy from attacking them in the coming months.
Bush going into a classroom after he found out we were under attack should be considered treason and that single act completely disqaulifies him from being considered more than a COMPLETE FAILURE at being Commander in Chief, even if he doesn't completely mess up the rest of his tenure.

[FullChat]

There were two terrorist attacks under Clinton - the first World Trade Center bombing and Oklahoma City. Law enforcement caught the terrorists and jailed them.

We have been attacked once under Bush, and it has led to two unsuccessful wars and Bin Laden is still free.

Remember, Al Qeada has only had three successful bombings outside the Middle East - 9/11, London and Spain. No reputable plots have been stopped, so maybe they just haven't been trying!