Friday, October 08, 2004


It says a lot that the best Charles Krauthammer can come up with in support of Bush at this point is to claim that the terrorists want Bush to lose.

Krauthammer's presupposition, which I don't grant, is that Bush is the one who will take the fight to the terrorists, whereas Kerry is basically not interested. Thus, Chuck reasons, al Qaeda would prefer that Kerry win the election because President Bush will more effectively confront them than would President Kerry.

Quick question: is there more terrorism now than when Bush began his War on Terror? Quick answer: Yes, there is. Bush's mishandling of the aftermath of the invasion of Iraq has proven to be a bonanza for jihadi recruitment the Muslim world over, and may eventually, regrettably prove to be as much of a galvanizing event for radical transnational Islamism as was the mujahedeen's long war against the Soviets in Afghanistan. I really hope I'm wrong on that, but it's hard to see how anyone can argue that that possibility, in addition to the increasing isolation of the United States that has resulted from Bush's unilateralism in conducting the war on terror, has done anything other than delight Osama bin Laden.

Krauthammer is representative of a lot of conservatives who seem unable to consider that any plan other than Bush's could be effective in combating terrorism, or that anyone who believes such a thing is at all serious about it. It's Bush's way, or surrender, they seem to say. I think Kerry, unending distortions of his positions notwithstanding, has demonstrated that he has a better plan for confronting and defeating jihadism, one that understands that it must be a united, global effort, and one that doesn't involve going out of our way to make the world hate us, or result in a massive jump in jihadist recruitment.

But while people can differ on who would more effectively conduct the war on terror, the main difference between Krauthammer and me, other than that I'm not a congenital sourpuss, is that I wouldn't ever suggest that we take our cues on whom to vote for from Osama bin Laden. I mean, who really gives a damn what Osama wants? Maybe he wants to visit Dollywood someday, does that mean we should burn Dollywood to the ground? Nay, let Dollywood be, says I. Pretend like we're not looking for Osama anymore (this won't be hard, as Bush has been pretending this for quite some time now), let him visit Dollywood, then slap the cuffs on him as he's coming off the Tenessee Tornado, all discombobulated. That, friends, is the way to fight terrorists: lure them to our country & western theme parks. Those that don't commit suicide immediately will still be dazed and confused enough for our agents to throw sacks over their heads, toss them into vans, and spirit them off to Guantanamo or whichever site we're currently using to skirt the Constitution.

No comments: