First they wanted no war. Then they thought that we should engage the enemy in talks. Then it was our fault for not seeing the attacks coming. Now someone must be blamed for not catching the terrorists responsible in the first place. The finger of blame has moved more than a compass in a magnet factory.
With news this weekend of a new Al Qaeda tape which claims that Osama bin Laden and his top henchmen are still alive and promising new attacks, we are reminded that the war on terror was not a rout ending with the toppling of the Taliban in Afghanistan. The war on terror must not end with the successful headlines that accompanied the high-tech military achievements.
History will judge the Bush Administration kindly for taking concrete steps to stop terror in its tracks. Admittedly it is an uphill battle, but the move itself requires discipline and courage, two traits the citizens of the United States are sadly lacking. Our microwaveable short attention spanned generation would rather see the quick and easy solution to one that is lasting and real. The new Al Qaeda words are not intended to be mere threats, but actions in the planning. It would be prudent for the United States and its allies to take the appropriate actions necessary to prevent attacks. These future actions, in the words spoken by Abu Ghaith state that the US will not “be able to know the place, the time, or manner in which these attacks will be carried out”- this is serious talk and should be treated as so by the United States. Regardless of the outcome, the current administration will be seen as taking brave steps to combat a deadly and pervasive force.
A libertarian friend of mine got pretty hot at the “so called war on terror”. Furthermore he stated that our civil rights are being undermined by the lack of a clear enemy. An open call to libertarians- we have found the enemy- and they just sent us a tape explaining, clearly, that there will be more attacks carried out against the people of the United States and Israel. Is that enough? Does that qualify as an enemy? It is a sad day when critics of the war on terror will justify that Abdullah al-Mujahir’s (err, excuse me Jose Padilla’s) rights are more important than the lives of millions of citizens in New York or some other major target.
The critics of George W. Bush are, at best, disorganized in their repeated assaults against the war on terror. It is far easier to stay in the role of “hindsight visionary” than to take any responsibility for protecting the freedom they obviously wish exterminated.
Stephen A. McDonald Bigtreenews.com