In fact it's Cheney who misunderstands

[timezoned]

I keep hearing things like this from Dick Cheney:

"It's very important that we choose someone who understands the nature of the enemy we face ... ...who understands that we're far better off taking them on over there than we are fighting them on the streets of our own cities," Cheney told a group of supporters last week in Michigan.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/1025cheney25.htm...



And it occurs to me that in fact it's he who completely misunderstands terrorism. He wants to think that it's some static thing, a certain fixed number of people, that we have to fight either "here or there". And this is nonsense. Terrorists are created also, and opportunities are created, and chaos is the best incubation for creating them of all.

Does he really want to tell us that the giant explosives cache that we know now was just carted off, that we're better of that way than how it was, under guard in Iraq? And the inspectors warned that it should be kept guarded (the inspectors you remember who were so uses less that they had to be pulled out, and this gang sent in instead).

BTW with all the French-bashing, does anyone actually know what the French position was about the war? It was essentially this: War could cause chaos, and chaos is a breeding ground for terrorism, and thus invasion should be only a very last resort, because even the containment standoff that existed was far safer than creating chaos.

Does ANYONE now think that they were wrong?

The ideological blindness, narrow thinking, and resulting incompetence of this administration if far, far too dangerous to put in office again.

Enough.

[krkaufman]

1. Yeah, you don't often hear....

... many pundits or Rethugs accepting how wrong they were, and how right Blix and the inspectors, and "Old Europe" were.

[timezoned]

2. Often?

Have you ever heard it? ;)