You can't argue with failure, can you? Maureen Dowd:

The Bushies' campaign pitch follows their usual backward logic: Because we have failed to make you safe, you should re-elect us to make you safer. Because we haven't caught Osama in three years, you need us to catch Osama in the next four years. Because we didn't bother to secure explosives in Iraq, you can count on us to make sure those explosives aren't used against you.

Why hasn't President Bush made it a priority to get bin Laden? And why are so many appeasers making excuses for his failure? They just don't get the nature of evil, and that the only thing evil understands is decisive defeat, do they?

Via Kevin Drum, former NSC terrorism expert Daniel Benjamin on why Bush let Zarqawi get away:

What seems evident is that the administration viewed Zarqawi as a lower-tier concern, despite his well-known history of running an Afghan terrorist training camp and conducting terrorist operations in Europe. The White House was unwilling to divert any effort from the buildup for war in Iraq to this kind of threat.

The idea that states are the real issue and terrorists and their organizations are of secondary concern has been present throughout the Bush presidency.

Again, you can't argue with failure, can you? But those appeasers keep making excuses. It's a shame they don't have the spine to do what it takes to defeat evil.

Posted by Laura at October 30, 2004 10:16 PM