Monday, August 14, 2006

Iraq a 'distraction' on the War on Terror

the bobble heads drive me crazy. this week David Gregory filled in for Timmeh, and had Kean and Hamilton on. Here's a snippet:
MR. GREGORY: Governor Kean, what has to be done for policymakers, counterterror specialists, to get ahead—both technologically and imaginatively—of the terrorists?

MR. KEAN: This has to be a priority. It’s not right now. It’s a priority, but not a top priority. They’re talking about other things because we’re fighting two wars. We’re doing a number of other things. But you’ve got to make that a priority.

MR. GREGORY: Can you do both? Can you fight two wars, or do you have to be focused singularly on, on the war on terror?

MR. KEAN: If you don’t make the defense of the American people your top priority, you’re not doing your job.

MR. GREGORY: Is Iraq a distraction in this, in this sense?

MR. HAMILTON: It’s, it’s, it’s part of the total picture. It’s not just two wars we’re fighting, we’re fighting three wars, Afghanistan, Iraq, and the war on terror.

MR. GREGORY: But are the resources—the priority of Iraq—is that a distraction from some of these other measures that we’re focused on?

MR. HAMILTON: If you, if you pour billions and billions of dollars into Iraq, as we’re now doing, and if you put most of your military effort there, it is clearly a priority for the administration and for the country at this point in time. When you do that, it means you do less things in other areas. We cannot do it all. We don’t have the resources, we don’t have the manpower.

So the priorities that you establish automatically reject other options.

MR. GREGORY: But Governor Kean, in your view, then, is the war in Iraq part of the war on terror or is it a distraction from the priorities you’re outlining?

MR. KEAN: Well, it’s part of the war on terror in the sense that, if we fail, Iraq will become another sanctuary for terrorists. There’s not much question about that. If Iraq goes into chaos, that’s the kind of situation that bin Laden and al-Qaeda like. So we’ve got to stop that from happening. So in that sense, it’s a part of a worldwide view where we’ve got to get a hold of these areas that are ungoverned where terrorists work.

MR. GREGORY: But you’re sensitive on this point. The direction question is, do you think it’s a distraction from meeting the priorities that you’ve outlined?

MR. KEAN: Any time you’re spending a tremendous amount of money in one area, Lee is right, it distracts from another. But we think that the number one priority has got to be the defense of the American people, and that’s this war on terror in the United States. We’re not protecting our own people in this country. The government is not doing its job.

MR. GREGORY: Fighting the war in Iraq is not protecting the people of the United States, in your view?

MR. HAMILTON: I think it’s possible to do both.

this is the best that we can expect from a brave bobblehead:
"Is Iraq a distraction on the War on Terror?"
there's so much wrong in that one question, and he asked it six times.

and Gregory is probably one of the best we've got. sheesh.

(meanwhile, no questions about the Pentagon lying at 911comm.)

1 comment:

noise said...

Maybe the priority of the current administration is not to protect Americans. I've suggested that there may be three broad categories related to fighting terror...military, intelligence analysts/operatives and politicians. The first two groups have plenty of qualified people who are concerned about protecting Americans. The third group has people like often fails to do his job. If people die becaue he was reading to kids or clearing brush or playing guitar or not having the intelligence/backbone to tell Cheney/Rumsfeld to get lost...he blames anyone but himself. But if someone does a good job (ie...MI5) he will rush to take all the credit.

The politicians are the weak link in the system.