Some disagreement -- Some agreement
Reader comment on item: 9/10 vs. 9/12 on 11/2

Submitted by GW (United States), Nov 9, 2004 at 12:48

I agree that the approach taken by Pres. Bush has been a bit radical and innovative. I also agree when you say, "He has since spoken of 'a long-lasting ideological struggle' in which totalitarians use terror 'as a tool to intimidate the free.' He sees the enemy's goal as nothing less than a war to destroy America. Mr. Bush is nothing if not consistent - some accuse him of stubbornness - and he invariably assesses terrorism as the greatest challenge of our time."

But from this point, I'd like to make a couple of points:

1. The radicals of islam are intent on destroying ALL the enemies of Islam, and they want to do it in this century. Whether or not the millenarial movement is guided by some prophecy or ulema kooks, they are really impatient to take the war to the non-islamic world. Those who do not believe this ought to read the literature easily available in Saudi Arabia, in Pakistan, or in Washington, DC. The radicals want to take charge of the religion.

2. The radicals consider islamic moderates to be their enemies as well. Perhaps even more than the West, native moderates are in greater danger from terrorism. Just observe what's been going on in Algeria and Iraq.

And to stand up for the intent of what Senator Kerry said, I'd like to clarify the context of the article. Like Dick Clarke, the administration's former head of counter-terrorism activities, GW Bush was completely shell-shocked by 9/11. He had no idea an attack was coming, even when others clued him in. He also had no idea of the depth of Saudi complicity in the events of 9/11. But Senator Kerry seems to have demonstrated a sound understanding of the threats before 9/11 and he realizes that we have to live above fear, especially fear that is used as a re-election tool.

The distinctions on Kerry's comments are now moot. He lost the election, and it's the Bush administration's show going forward. The scary thing is htat the administration may be so addicted to fighting with bombs, tanks and soldiers that it will lose sight of diplomatic alternatives.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments. For informational purposes, we identify countries from which comments are sent.