It should be clear by now that the McCain campaign and the GOP surrogates are all over Obama's allegedly being "soft on terrorism". "Terrorism" is the new Communism. But it's not an ideology. Just a time-honored tactic that almost every ideological, nationalistic, or patriotic movement has used. The Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism in some ways. I cannot understand how the Democrats have bought into the terminology of the "War on Terror". Edwards came close to bringing this out into the open when he called it a "bumper sticker slogan" or something like that.
OK, never mind all that. Maybe it's too late to educate the public on this issue. Perhaps the public understands that the "war on terror" means how to prevent radical Islamic terrorist attacks.
But the "pre-9/11" failures are those of the GOP, not the Democratic administration. Who is making this point besides Vincent Bugliosi in his new book, THE PROSECUTION OF GEORGE W. BUSH FOR MURDER?
This, and foreign policy in general, should be our issue, not theirs.
Richard Clarke laid out the case for the Bush administration's negligence in his 2004 book, AGAINST ALL ENEMIES. The hapless Kerry/Edwards campaign did not pick up the ball and run with it. And they could not even make the point that Bugliosi makes so convincingly in his book--Bush and Cheney opposed the formation of the 9/11 Commission and resisted its efforts to find out why and how the attacks happened.
This should have been the biggest issue in the 2004 election.
Michael Moore tried in "Fahrenheit 9-11". And he showed that Bush/Cheney neglected the terrorist threats in the summer of 2001. But I've never been able to understand how he failed to make a point related to his Columbine film. After the 9-11 attacks, National Security Advisor Rice infamously claimed that nobody could have imagined the hijackings and using planes as missiles. Moore rightly cited the 8-6-2001 Presidential Daily Brief that referred specifically to Bin Laden, hijackings, and targeted buildings in NYC and Washington. But why did he not mention that Columbine teenager Eric Harris had specifically talked about hijacking an airplane and crashing it into NYC? A lonely Colorado teenager can imagine kamikaze attacks and a National Security Advisor can't?
With all the warnings coming out in the summer of 2001, and Clarke having warned the incoming administration about the dangers of Osama Bin Laden in January of 2001, why isn't this our issue? As Bugliosi remarks in his book, Bush should have returned to Washington, met with National Security staff, maybe even warned the public. So how is this a winning GOP issue?
Then there is the U.S.S. Cole, a terrorist attack that occurred in October of 2000. The Democrats have not fought back on this issue and the public thinks that we did not retaliate and that this encouraged Al Qaeda and led to 9-11-01. The facts are that the outgoing Clinton administration did not have the ability even to know who the incoming administration would be until mid-December. It was the Bush administration that neglected the continuing threat of Al Qaeda.
Meanwhile, the "liberal media" are repeating the conventional wisdom that McCain and the GOP have the strong hand on terrorism and foreign policy. General Wesley Clark made the case against McCain on that recently--just because a guy was shot down and then was a POW does not make him an expert on military strategy or foreign policy.
I've said it before here and elsewhere. Karl Rove has the right idea: take on your opponent on what is perceived to be his or her greatest strength. What's puzzling to me is that Rove succeeded when he should have failed--attacking Gore as a liar and Kerry as a coward. We should succeed by attacking Bush/McCain as negligent in not preventing the terrorist attacks and in not responding appropriately. We have a start on that with Barack on the situation in Pakistan, but I think we need to see more. Especially when we start to see escalated terror alerts.
What about "going on offense"? I would argue that it makes no sense.
Going on offense would have led to countless wars in the last fifty years,
against the U.S.S.R., China, any nation that is perceived as an "enemy".
The U.S.S.R. declared that it would bury us. And they had nukes.
Some of us who remember the Cuban Missile Crisis recall that we did not really know what the details of the deal were. We were told that Krushchev backed down. I remember hearing the news on a Sunday morning in church when I was ten years old. We who had been so anxious were then so relieved. The reality that we learned so much later is how close we were to a catastrophe and that it was JFK and RFK who made the difference.
And yes, they cut a deal that was deceptive in some ways. Thank goodness they did not listen to the "experts".