RANGER AGAINST WAR: Puppy Dog Terrorists <

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

Puppy Dog Terrorists


______________

A fine piece today by Richard Clarke, chief counterterrorism advisor on the U.S. National Security Council under Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush (''Put Bush's 'Puppy Dog' Theory to Sleep.'') Unlike the president, it seems Clarke has taken Logic 101. Included below is a portion:

''Does the President think terrorists are puppy dogs? He keeps saying that terrorists will 'follow us home' like lost dogs. This will only happen, however, he says, if we 'lose' in Iraq.

The puppy dog theory is the corollary to earlier sloganeering that proved the President had never studied logic: "We are fighting terrorists in Iraq so that we will not have to face them and fight them in the streets of our own cities."

How is this odd terrorist puppy dog behavior supposed to work? The President must believe that terrorists are playing by some odd rules of chivalry. Would this be the "only one slaughter ground at a time" rule of terrorism?

Of course, nothing about our being "over there" in any way prevents terrorists from coming here. Quite the opposite, the evidence is overwhelming that our presence provides motivation for people throughout the Arab world to become anti-American terrorists.

At the same time, investing time, energy and resources in Iraq takes our eye off two far more urgent tasks at hand: one, guarding the homeland against terrorism much better than the pork-dispensing Department of Homeland Security currently does the job; and two, systematically dismantling Al Qaeda all over the world, from Canada to Asia to Africa. On both these fronts, the Bush administration's focus is sorely lacking.

Yet in the fantasyland of illogic in which the President dwells, shaped by slogans devised by spin doctors, America can "win" in Iraq. Then, we are to believe, the terrorists will be so demoralized that they will recant their beliefs and cease their terrorist ways.

In the real world, by choosing unnecessarily to go into Iraq, Bush not only diverted efforts from delivering a death blow to Al Qaeda, he gave that movement both a second chance and the best recruiting tool possible.

But we can be sure that when the next attacks come in the U.S., if Bush is down on the ranch cutting trees, he and whatever few followers he retains by then will blame his successor. You can almost hear them now: If only his successor had left enough U.S. troops in the Iraqi shooting gallery to satisfy the blood lust of the enemy, as Bush did, then they wouldn't have come here.

The truth: If not for this administration's reckless steps to push America into war - and strategic blunder after strategic blunder that has satisfied the blood lust of the enemy - fewer evildoers would follow us home like the dogs that they are.

--by Lisa

Labels: ,

4 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

C'mon Ranger.

You and Clarke should know better.

These guys cannot "multi-task" ... they are our enemy.

Therefore they are stupid. Everyone knows this ...

Anyway, in case you are wondering, I passed through Crawford, Texas just before I started writing this post ... something in the air there ... made me feel ... different ... kind of ... goofy ...

/Sarcasm Off/

It is a shame that guys like Clarke have to spend so much time mopping up the absurd arguments of this administration.

Wednesday, April 25, 2007 at 10:51:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger rangeragainstwar said...

KW,

Yeah, how silly of me.

It is a shame to have to comment to such sophomoric thinking. Clarke expressed the absurdity well.

Surreal.

Wednesday, April 25, 2007 at 11:10:00 PM GMT-5  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi Lisa,

As I travel around the blog world and read the blogs and the comments, I get concerned about the amount of energy we have to spend pushing the massive GWB admins turd ball back up the hill.

Every day.

All of the time.

Every damn day.

I kind of dream of a day when someone from the opposing political party may say something that makes me say "hmmm - he/she may have a point there ..."

I fear that when we encounter one of those dilemmas that appear to be a "six in one hand / half a dozen in the other" in the future - we will not be in shape enough mentally to analyze and deduce that it is really 6.5 in one hand 5.5 in the other.

Anyway, this is the state of the world at this point in time, I guess.

I just saw Bill Moyers piece on PBS re: the media and the war. It was very good. Maybe the tide will turn and the media will get competitive and try to scoop each other in putting out the GWB admins deepest secrets. Maybe more and more columnists and op-ed pieces will read like your Richard Clarke piece.

Anyway, sorry for the long post.

See ya, Lisa.

Thursday, April 26, 2007 at 1:07:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger rangeragainstwar said...

Always a pleasure, KW. I am glad you and your fellows are out there.

I understand entirely when you speak of the sisyphean task of rolling the idiocy back up the hill. Why should this be? There is only so much energy, money and time in this precious life. Why such dissembling?

Having never been much in the profiteering mindset, the bloody nastiness escapes my thinking.

My hope is that an activation energy will be reached, when enough reasoned voices speak out in opposed chorus to the unreasoned madness.

I want to be proud to be an American again.

Thursday, April 26, 2007 at 10:16:00 AM GMT-5  

Post a Comment

<< Home