Saturday, July 9

Aren't you glad you don't have to fight the terrorists at home?

Now that the utter worthlessness of the Bush administration's "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" theory has been proven once again, you'd think that Bush would stop mentioning it, and would certainly not stoop to mentioning it at some completely inappropriate time such as, I don't know, right after laying a freaking wreath" at Downing Street.

Well, as Digby points out, you would be wrong:

After returning from the summit on Friday, Bush visited the British Embassy in Washington and signed a book of condolence and laid a wreath in front of the ambassador's residence.

Bush said the London attacks were a reminder of the "evil" of the Sept. 11 attacks and underscored that the United States and its allies were fighting a "global war on terror."

"We will stay on the offense, fighting the terrorists abroad so we do not have to face them at home," Bush said.

So, just for the record, the list of people supposedly not fighting the terrorists at home includes the Iraqis, the Spaniards, and the British. How lucky they must feel right now!


P's No Spin Zone said...

Don't you think it is better to fight them over there as opposed to over here?

ACG said...

Obviously, it's better to fight them over there than over here. The problem with that theory is that the two aren't mutually exclusive. Spain and Great Britain will tell you that they've been fighting them "over there," and they got hit "over here" just the same.

Anonymous said...

P, don't try and rationalize with this crowd. Their frame of reference changes depending on if it suits their argument. The London bombing is just as good as over here. It doesn't matter if you have to have a 3,000 mile out of body experience or not.

PS They don't like fighting them over there, either.

ACG said...

Oh, golly, anonymous, I must have missed part of Bush's "flypaper" strategy. Now, I thought he justified going into Iraq by saying that all of the terrorists would go there and we woudn't have to fight them outside of Iraq. There must have been some footnote where he mentioned that the terrorists could blow up Iraq, Afghanistan, Spain, England, hell, Canada, as long as it wasn't specifically right here.

Screw you, global community! Up yours, Coalition allies!

Anonymous said...

"Don't you think it is better to fight them over there as opposed to over here?"

Sure, it would be better. It doesn't seem to be working that way, though. It would also be better to fight them where they were (Afghanistan), and then move on to other projects.

Anonymous said...

So, anon, according to you we should fight one battle in one location at a time? Focus on Afghanistan, then move on to the next hot spot? That would be great if the enemy would cooperate. Maybe we should send 'em your script.

ACG said...

Sigh. One more time: Bush's justification was fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here. The "so we don't have to" indicates that the two are mutually exclusive, implying that his actions in Iraq will preempt terrorist activity outside of Iraq. Recent bombings in London have proved that such a theory is horseshit. But continue to defend it if you have nothing better to do.

Anonymous said...

Bush's fighting them over there, etc. comments are wreckless mainly because it's just more fodder for the leftists who tend to hang there enemies, like Bush, by taking their comments out of context.

The real lesson from the London bombings may be that it validates the Patriot Act. The Brit liberals continue to let the radical Islamists roam the streets with disdain for fear that detaining them would violate their civil liberties. Kinda like leaving Clinton alone with a young, female intern. Uhhh, make that alone with any female.

merlallen said...

Took his comments out of context? What the fuck? I guess it takes a "special" brain to be a wingnut.