Friday, August 11, 2006

My day at Gatwick

I was there, standing in the queue with the rest of the restless, carrying my few items; passport, boarding pass, a few dollars and pounds, and a tube of Chap Stick in a clear plastic bag and hoping my flight would not be canceled. It wasn’t and I made it home a bit later than planned. Considering what could have happened I can deal with a 5 hour flight delay – even if the in-flight movies did suck.

Nailing the Islamofascist pigs that were planning to blow up US-bound American airliners is a testament to great intelligence work by collation of countries, including the US. It makes one proud of the men and women who every day to uncover and destroy terrorist cells. Their work is just as important at that of the military in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Then I come home and read this pile of rotting tripe in today’s Star & Sickle. The simpletons who populate the S&S editorial board hate W so much, they couldn’t pass up the opportunity, however specious, to take another shot at him:

Candidate George W. Bush loved to lampoon the Clinton administration's emphasis on law enforcement and the legal system as tools against terrorism. They were too wimpy for him; a good, strong military action against a terror-sponsoring state was more his kind of action. And so military action we got.

Despite what these cretins would like their mouth breathing followers to think, W has never eschewed the need for police work. On the contrary, his position has always been that a combination of police and military efforts are needed to find and destroy the Islamic pigs. It’s they who want a one-dimensional fight.

Meanwhile, patient, meticulous police work in Britain and elsewhere identified and monitored this plot by a smallish, nonstate group of criminal terrorists until the need to take them down became urgent.

British officials said Thursday that their long-term efforts against this group involved close cooperation with police services in numerous nations, including the United States. That is the way you take out most terrorists, not with bombs and missiles but with time-tested law-enforcement techniques.

Um, if one bomb can kill 100 terrorists and one investigation, taking several months can net 24, which is most effective?

Everyone, from frightened public to counterterrorism officials, they believed, would be better off and act more effectively if they understood this was a struggle that would go on perhaps for decades and would more often than not involve work far less romantic than sending forces off to battle.

Yes. Good. Correct. And that is why W said so in his address to the joint session shortly after 9/11. He told the world that the battle would be fought on many fronts, most of which would happen out of the glare of the cameras. Just because the NY Times isn’t leaking it, doesn’t’ mean it’s not happening.

Thank goodness for the excellent detective work of British security personnel and those around the globe who helped them. They showed how it should be done.

See that, no more military. If Iran backs an Al Qaeda attack, send in the cops. Forget the Marines.

There is not one iota of intelligence or wisdom to be found in the above.

The fools on the editorial board at the state’s biggest newspaper prefer that terrorists continue to be raised and trained across the world and sent to do Allah’s bidding while hoping the police are able to stop them before they kill hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent people.

Let’s compromise, shall we: How about rooting out the bastards living among us, while we bomb the shit out of the countries that raise them?

No comments: