The Wrong Debate
Once again, William Safire has got it wrong. He casts the present debate in terms of hindsight, mischaracterizes the antiwar movement, and addresses the dilemma facing the U.S. and its allies as a choice between moving forward or of treading water. That’s not it, which is probably why Tony Blair is on his way over to have frank words with George II. The debate may include assessments of the choices made by Bush and his administration cronies to ignore terrorism in favor of developing an agenda against Iraq, and the developing situation there (or collapse into chaos depending on your perspective) has to inform our present decisions for the future. Nevertheless, the debate is ultimately that of the population at large, not just the politicians sitting in judgment, and consists of trying to choose between fighting terrorism using all the methods available to us or simplistically opting for military force alone against nations regardless of their participation in supporting non-state terrorists. We have to choose between who do we bomb next and how do we defeat terrorism? Letting Condoleeza Rice off the hook doesn’t help the debate, much as Mr. Safire would prefer it. I really have to stop reading his column.