A Convenient Threat

by Robert Kuttner - August 12, 2006 - The Boston Globe

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.

This article is amazing. Kuttner sees the world through a prism that leads him to the conclusion that we are not a war, except for the war we "initiated" in Iraq. There is no world wide islamofascist movement dedicated to restoring the caliphate to world domination. Isamofascists do not believe that intimidation will cause western governments to cave in to their demands. Iran will be "nice" and drop its proclaimed plan to destroy Israel if we just negotiate "effectively" with them. I think Kuttner is a joke . . . except that there are more and more people who buy this view of the world.

In the article Kuttner proposes a list of questions which he answers with cryptic yes or no responses. They are the "facts" that lead him to believe as he believes, the waronterror does not exist. However I think his facts are ridiculous. Let's just take the first one in his list. The lynch pin of his prism on the world.

Did Al Qaeda have any connection to Saddam Hussein? (No.)

NO?

Then who was Ansar Al Islam and why were they operating freely inside the total dictatorship of this man Saddam?

Who was Al Zarqawa and why was he the head of Saddam's insurgency operation?

Why are there so many papers that show cooperation on certain activities, and even document discussions about Saddam funding Osama Bin Laden?

Why did Saddam give $25,000 to the family of each suicide bomber?

Saddam understood the importance of helping with the broader islamofascist movement. The view that Saddam was a secularist and opposed to Al Qaeda ignores so much evidence that it is more of an "ostrich" position than a rational position.

The rest of Kuttner's article continues in the same style, positing complex questions (which have compelling arguments against the premise of the question) and answering them with simple yes or no . . . as if there is no argument against the premise. When a group does not even acknowledge facts that dispute their beliefs it is useless to try and have a discussion with them.

That is where we are today. There is really no discussion of how to fight against the world threat, islamofascism, going on between liberals and conservatives. When Bush even uses the phrase Islamic Fascists, democrats and anti war extremists condemn him for racism and bigotry. Don't allow the benefits of one strategy or another to be discussed, condemn as a racist and bigot anyone who does not agree with the only world view liberals have accepted. This is not a discussion. It is a joke.

To liberals 9-11 is simply a criminal matter about a small group known as Al Qaeda, and the larger threat of a movement of numerous other related groups, and some governments like Iran, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan before their current government changed sides . . as well as Saudi Arabia and Libya before we invaded Iraq is simply not allowed to be discussed.

When nuclear bombs are going off in Tel Aviv and New York, it will be too late for the "ostriches" to do anything about it. If we listen to them now there will be blood in the streets when the logical result of their refusal to accept reality happens. Just as they rejected the only rational way to deal with the threat of the Soviet Union, they reject now the only rational way to deal with islamofascism.

Adults proved that appeasement of the Soviet Union was not the way to go and as a result the Soviet Union was defeated. Refusing to acknowledge there is an islamofascist movement (with a resulting failure to respond) is appeasement. But then liberals still deny that we defeated the Soviet Union even as they denied they were a threat while they existsed. Why is anyone surprised they deny islamofascism is a threat today?