Support BuzzFlash Get a copy of click image BuzzFlash Content Interviews P.M. Carpenter Maureen Farrell World Media Watch Barbara's Daily Buzz Eric Harrison Thomas Burns Steven C. Day The Angry Liberal Editorials Contributors Mailbag Perspectives Analysis News Alerts Link Archives Search About FAQ Buy a Book and Support BuzzFlash

Europe and Terror

A BUZZFLASH READER CONTRIBUTION

It now seems obvious that even with the horrible event in Spain, Europeans do not see the war in Iraq linked to the "war on terror."  They may "get religion" (as the right is hoping) but it's not exactly the creed Bush was proselytizing.

Bush has had almost three years to stem the tide of terror.  He has had three years to build intelligence networks, alliances, etc.  Admittedly, a terrorist attack can happen anywhere, anytime, to anybody.  But the evidence surrounding this one, and its political result (ouster of one of the few governments anywhere friendly to Bush) seem to indicate that Bush has failed miserably in any long-term, strategic sense in his attempts to rid the world of terror.

In the aftermath of this latest attack, will we see American intelligence working in any meaningful way with European networks -- especially Spanish -- to figure out how this happened and how to prevent it in the future?  And are these networks any stronger and better and more effective and more intertwined than they were before Bush took office?

The truth of the matter is that, as former Senator Bob Kerrey said, after Pearl Harbor we did not declare a war against Japanese airplanes.  In order to be effective and realistic, this effort should be against al Quaida, not against a tactic (terrorism).

But the strange and grandiose idea of a war against a tactic (or "evil" in general) allows Bush all kinds of flexibility (read: power).  America in a war against evil is America in a war forever -- or until Armageddon, as even the most fundamental of fundamentalists knows.

And if America were permanently at war, then Bush could forget democracy and representative government.  In wartime, the American president becomes, effectively, a dictator if he so chooses.  (And Bush, as we have seen and as even he himself has said, does so choose.)

Maybe he should have figured al Quaida was the problem all along.  Maybe he should have concentrated on them.  But no.  I guess that would just make too much sense.  Besides -- it would have been possible to get rid of an organization in three years.  But then he might have had to govern.

Sincerely,

A BuzzFlash Reader

A BUZZFLASH READER CONTRIBUTION