They still won’t follow us home

May 25, 2007

Two months ago, the WaPo reported that policy and intelligence experts do not believe that those committing violence in Iraq would, as the president insists, “follow us home” after we withdraw. “[U]nlike Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda organization in Pakistan, U.S. intelligence officials and outside experts believe, the Iraqi branch poses little danger to the security of the U.S. homeland,” the Post explained.

And yet, the notion that Iraq’s civil war will spill over onto the streets of the United States seems to be the president’s only argument against withdrawal. It’s certainly his favorite, repeating it ad nauseum at yesterday’s press conference: “If we were to fail, they’d come and get us.… If we let up, we’ll be attacked.… It’s better to fight them there than here.”

I kind of thought we were past this point, but as long as Bush continues to repeat nonsense, it’s probably a good idea to keep debunking it. Fred Kaplan, calling the president’s argument “nonsense,” once again sets the record straight.

First, the vast majority of the insurgents have nothing to do with al-Qaida or its ideology. They’re combatants in a sectarian conflict for power in Iraq, and they have neither the means nor the desire to threaten North America.

Second, to the extent that the true global terrorists could attack us at home, they could do so whether or not U.S. troops stay or win in Iraq. The one issue has nothing to do with the other.

Third, what kind of thing is this to say in front of the allies? If our main goal in bombing, strafing, and stomping through Iraq is to make sure we don’t have to do so on our own territory, will any needy nation ever again seek our aid and cover? Or will they seek out a less blatantly selfish protector?

I’d only add that Bush’s nonsensical argument also happens to be a blast from the past.

Josh Marshall noted yesterday:

According to a 2003 article from Knight-Ridder, LBJ also said: “If we quit Vietnam,” President Lyndon Johnson warned, “tomorrow we’ll be fighting in Hawaii, and next week we’ll have to fight in San Francisco.”

Digby added:

That’s just as crackled as Bush’s nonsensical statement that the “oceans don’t protect us anymore” and that kind of dumbass reasoning is why Johnson was booted out. Jesus. The truth is that we lived under the possibility of nuclear annihilation with intercontinental ballistic missiles for decades. All it would have taken was one little slip-up or a bad moment of judgment and most of the planet could have gone up in smoke.

There is no existential threat today that comes close to that, short of being hit by an asteroid, which means we have already proved that we can handle the problem of terrorism without turning into a bunch of hysterical ninnies squealing that they are coming to kill the children every five minutes.

I’d enjoy the policy debate over the future of Iraq so much more if the White House could bring itself to be coherent once in a while.

Like George Orwell said, “Sometimes the first duty of intelligent men is the restatement of the obvious.” The year is 1984, not 2007.

  • “If we were to fail, they’d come and get us.… If we let up, we’ll be attacked.… It’s better to fight them there than here.”

    Don’t the Iraqi people have a say in this, considering it is their country?

  • A nice history project for someone would be to find young George’s opinions about Vietnam at the time. We’ve joked that he thought he was protecting Galveston from the Vietcong while in the TANG, but… did he really believe that??

  • See, that’s the problem with terrorists, all the Marines going ‘He followed me home, Daddy, can I keep him?’

  • “If we were to fail, they’d come and get us.… If we let up, we’ll be attacked.… It’s better to fight them there than here.” — The Bat. Obviously he’s referring to the phantasmagoria that invade and torment a dipsomaniac who yields. It’s not uncommon for disturbed minds to project personal fears onto public reality. This must be such a case. Is there a procedure for requiring Mr. Bat to undergo psychiatric assessment?

  • Off topic: can someone direct me to a list of how Senators voted on the funding bill? My Democratic Congressman, bless his heart, voted against, after voting for previous measures.

    If your folks voted against, please write them a thank you email and tell them you appreciate their courage. Good to give some positive reinforcement.

  • Kaplan says:

    Third, what kind of thing is this to say in front of the allies? If our main goal in bombing, strafing, and stomping through Iraq is to make sure we don’t have to do so on our own territory, will any needy nation ever again seek our aid and cover? Or will they seek out a less blatantly selfish protector?

    I would add “will any allied, non-battleground nation ever again aid us in projecting force against terrorism? Or will they seek out a less blatently selfish ally?”

    If you are Australia, and are not currently a target, Bush’s argument has two problems. First, it suggests that if you join us, someday the terrorists will try and follow you home. If they haven’t visited yet, you may not want that outcome. Second, if what Bush really means is that terrorists will always try to come to the USA why should I waste Aussie lives and treasure for that? (or British, Canadian, Spanish, Italian, etc.)

    Which brings us back to some of the most fundamental failures in how Bush has handled Iraq: his diplomacy skills are so horrendously sub-par that he isn’t qualified to be a high school assistant Guidance Counseller, much less POTUS.

  • Good points. As most people, however, Digby seems to forget the present nuclear threat. He’d have been more accurate had he written, “…we HAVE lived under the possibility of nuclear annihilation with intercontinental ballistic missiles for decades. All it would TAKE was one little slip-up or a bad moment of judgment and most of the planet WOULD GO up in smoke.”

  • from #6: “a list of how Senators voted on the funding bill?”

    Well, my senators are Dodd and Lieberman … so I don’t think I need to see the list do I? LOL.

    My US Rep is Larson, and I believe he has stated he will vote against any funding without a timetable.

    I think the Dems need to learn how to farme things ahead of time. In this case that would have involved setting the public mindset so that the President’s refusal to sign the original supplemental would be viewed publicly as exactly what it was: a tantrum. One of the problems the Dems have in trying to frame issues is that they don’t have the same noise machine the Reps do to flood the airwaves with the frame.

    • Comments are closed.