The terror bombing threats over the weekend in London and Glasgow remind us how tenuous our lives are in the new mixed world of internationalism and religious fanaticism.
Are we, as some news media sites claim, in for a Summer of Terror?

Wasn’t the war in Iraq supposed to protect the world from terrorism?
Has the war on terrorism been lost — or was it never really waged in
the first place? What could have been done better? What should never
have happened?
Do we fight worldwide terrorism by continuing to referee sectarian violence in Iraq? Or is there a better way?

Is the USA in for another big bang like 9/11?
If the United States is struck in any way by any sort of “foreign”
terrorism will the war in Iraq be even more of stone in Bush’s shoe?
Isn’t that why the world went to war in Iraq — so we fight the
terrorists there so we “don’t have to fight them here?”

And I’m going to keep talking about it. That’s my job
as the president, is to tell people the threats we face and what we’re
doing about it. They’re dangerous, and I can’t put it any more plainly
to the American people, and to them, we will stay on the offense. It’s
better to fight them there than here.

What is your take on this? What is your gut telling you? What are you sensing?
Are we in for a Summer of Terror or not?
Or are we now living in a permanent world State of Terror?


  1. Hi David,
    I admit to being a little nervous about the upcoming holiday.
    I am also nervous about the war in Iraq. Will the “deadline” of September for results against the insurgents come and go without any real action by Congress to bring the troops home?
    Will Bush press us into war in Iran or another country in the Middle East? Maybe use a “pre-emptive strike”?
    Bush backed off his “pre-emptive strike” policy, somewhat, after things started not going his way in Iraq, but he has since that time escalated troop movements, so what does this tell us about his policies? I don’t trust his stance because it seems to change with each new threat.
    Here is a quote from an article in 2004, regarding policy on pre-emptive strikes,
    “The Bush administration continues to insist that the doctrine remains U.S. policy. It has a number of elements, including an insistence that any state that supports terrorists will be considered an enemy, that the United States has the right to attack such countries pre-emptively — even, as in the case of Iraq, before an enemy has mounted a challenge or the president feels there is an imminent threat of an attack.”
    Here is a link to the whole article,
    The bottom line is I am very nervous about our current policy regarding terrorism.

  2. Donna —
    The White House already said there will be no draw down in September and that is what has finally caused Voinovich, Luger and McConnell — with Warner soon to follow — to begin to call for a distancing from the president and a gradual “get out of town fast” policy in Iraq. I’m hearing the Republican leadership seems to think they will need to see significant changes in Iraq by next April in order to keep their party alive and undecimated in the 2008 elections. Bush doesn’t care about the party. He’s done with elections forever. The senators, however, are worried because even if they aren’t in danger of losing, they’re in danger of becoming the permanent minority with no power at all.
    I think we’re in for a grand winnowing of the White House shade for the next year or so. The Cheney mess is unwinding slowly and deliciously. Bush lost on immigration. The Hispanic population — a perfect fit for true Republicanism… anti-abortion, family-centered, Catholic — despises them with such a burning hatred now that we will have a major shift to Democrat rule in the legislative branch for generations to come as the growing minority replaces the power majority in states like California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. If Bush TRIES to build any sort of fence — that will just seal Republican doom forever and the Democrats are happy to let them run off their own cliff of hatred to their deaths.
    I do think Terrorism will become more frequent now in the USA. Sporting events will be prime targets. 50,000-100,000 people in a single, enclosed, space is just too juicy to ignore if your goal is to hurt as many people as possible with the least amount of effort.

  3. Hi David,
    I know I am just playing Echo today, but my gut (not to mention my brain) tells me what yours tells you:
    You do not fight terrorism with a war.
    You fight it with covert, quiet, accurate attacks, not with bombast and bloodshed.
    Unfortunately, especially when you consider Bush’s “pre-emptive strike” policy that Donna has provided above, it is obvious that our current Administration is much more inclined toward the latter.

  4. Right, Emily. The USA likes to make a big show of everything. There is little subtlety in our current foreign policy. Quiet attacks are the way to go to fight future terroristic threats.
    We also REALLY need to stop this new habit of calling the USA “The Homeland.” It’s just so silly! As Garrison Keillor says, “Calling the United States ‘The Homeland’ has a Fascist, Nazi, ring to it… ‘Vee must proteckt zee Homeland!’ and by golly he’s so right!”
    “The Homeland” is more about drudging up ancient fears and re-naming the United States by the terror watchers instead of just concentrating on doing the job of protecting America, The Beautiful.

  5. David,
    HA! I must admit I hadn’t thought about it, but Keillor is right! How awful…
    It has been a very, very long time since I’ve heard anyone refer to our country as America, The Beautiful.

  6. Emily —
    I love calling it “the Homeland” now because it’s so oppressive and scary and just what we deserve for 8 years of a true co-dependent co-presidency.

Comments are closed.