You know things are going badly when you see a headline like that.
[The foiling of the London plot] 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."
Did the world just shake for a moment?
Will quotes the Weekly Standard capturing a beautifully insane response by a "senior administration official":
"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."
What? As Will says:
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."
Yep. I've been saying that all along.
George Will, terrorism, Kerry, Iraq, politics, midtopia
2 comments:
We know the appocalpyse is near if Buckley repeats the same thoughts.
Well, he -- or at least, National Review -- is getting close.
That's not overly surprising. The Iraq war and the Bush administration's domestic policies are exposing papered-over rifts between neo-cons and classic semi-isolationist conservatives, and between fiscal/foreign policy conservatives and social conservatives.
Post a Comment