Truespeak

Where have they been? Weren't they paying attention last year? Didn't they get the memo? Apparently not.

El-Nashar was arrested at Cairo International Airport at the request of London authorities, said Egyptian security sources, who spoke only on condition of anonymity.

Scotland Yard issued a statement acknowledging his arrest but saying it was "not prepared to discuss who we may or may not wish to interview in connection with this investigation."

You know, I may be crazy, but it looks as if the British are trying to deal with the London bombings as if it were a law enforcement situation. Whoa.... deja vu. Why do I feel like I've heard something like this before?

Oh yeah!

BROKAW: Senator Kerry, let me ask you a question. Robert Kagan, who writes about these issues a great deal from the Carnegie Institute for Peace, has written recently that Europeans believe that the Bush administration has exaggerated the threat of terrorism, and the Bush administration believes that the Europeans simply don't get it.

Who is right?

KERRY: I think it's somewhere in between. I think that there has been an exaggeration and there has been a refocusing...

BROKAW: Where has the exaggeration been in the threat on terrorism?

KERRY: Well, 45 minutes deployment of weapons of mass destruction, number one.

Aerial vehicles to be able to deliver materials of mass destruction, number two.

I mean, I -- nuclear weapons, number three.

I could run a long list of clear misleading, clear exaggeration. The linkage to Al Qaida, number four.

That said, they are really misleading all of America, Tom, in a profound way. The war on terror is less -- it is occasionally military, and it will be, and it will continue to be for a long time. And we will need the best-trained and the most well-equipped and the most capable military, such as we have today.

But it's primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world -- the very thing this administration is worst at. And most importantly, the war on terror is also an engagement in the Middle East economically, socially, culturally, in a way that we haven't embraced, because otherwise we're inviting a clash of civilizations.

And I think this administration's arrogant and ideological policy is taking America down a more dangerous path. I will make America safer than they are.

And what was the reaction from the Republicans? Well, here's one from the National Review (I'm not linking to this trash, you can find it on your own if you want):

You say that terrorism is a law-enforcement issue. As a former prosecutor, you know that a criminal trial requires disclosing to the accused all information in the government's possession that could be considered material to the preparation of the defense; all prior statements made by government witnesses (and often witnesses not called by the government); and any information that even arguably suggests that the defendant is not guilty, that the crime was committed in a manner different from the government's theory of its commission, or that might induce the jury to vote against the death penalty. Is handing over to our enemies this treasure trove of intelligence what you favor? If not, what exactly is it that the president is doing wrong?

The atrocities of the past eleven years have demonstrated that there are thousands of anti-American terrorists in al Qaeda and its affiliated organizations. In the eight years from 1993 to 2001, when terrorism was regarded as a law-enforcement issue, we managed to prosecute about 40 terrorists in trials that generally took six months or more, and terrorist attacks nevertheless continued apace. On the other hand, since October 2001, our military has killed or captured thousands of terrorists and there have been no domestic attacks. Why are trials better than military operations?

I think it's safe to say that the Republicans weren't too fond of Kerry's approach. No, they didn't like it at all. They ridiculed it saying that Kerry wanted to arrest the people who killed 3,000 innocent Americans. He wanted to put them in jail. This of course implies that any real man wouldn't want to seek justice for the crimes of 9/11 but would seek retribution, instead. In other words, they'd bomb the shit out of a country, lay waste to its infrastructure and then quickly pull out most of the troops to go fight an unrelated war leaving the first country in disarray. They must be terribly disappointed with Great Britain right now. How could they?

No, I would have to say the British are going about this the wrong way. How dare they arrest people and hold them responsible for their actions. Obviously, these guys haven't learned anything.

/sarcasm (in case you couldn't tell)