Punditry Like It's September 10

In the post-7/7 era, the happy Leftist is gleefully looking at the 53 dead and saying something like this:

Just last week, President Bush explained to a sea of stony-faced servicemen that the reason we were fighting in Iraq was so that we could be free of terrorist attacks at home. That by baiting Iraq with our soldiers we were drawing terrorists away from our civilian population. If London proved nothing else, it proved that this sort of double-digit-IQ approach to dealing with terrorism has absolutely no basis in truth or reality.

Or this:

Odds are we probably won’t be hearing for a while the Bush mantra that the reason we're fighting them over in Iraq is so we don't have to fight them here at home. For the last few months, this ludicrous shibboleth has been the president’s go-to line -- his latest rationale for slogging on in Iraq.

Four Paki-English punks blow themselves up one morning -- something dreadful that we never wanted to see -- and suddenly there is no truth to the statement that we're fighting the Islamopsychos here instead of over there.

Really?

If we're not taking the fight over there, then how do we explain the daily bombings in Iraq? Are those not terrorists? Are they really over here, not over there?

If we weren't in Iraq, would we be killing jihad-o-whacks by the dozens as they slime their way into Iraq from Syria?

In the face of all this shallow avoidance of truth and miscasting of reality, the only logical conclusion to draw is that these people actually want the terror to come to this shore, so they can have a policy victory over Bush. How insanely twisted.

Aden Nak at Democratic Underground, the author of the first quote above, anticipated that someone like me would take a swipe like that at him, so he included this in his column:

Once again, I must pause to close the yammering pieholes of whatever half-brained simians are surely crafting poorly thought out, jingo-jackoff responses to this rant even now. I believed after 9/11, and I still believe today, that we needed some kind of military action in Afghanistan.

Oh, I feel so small for thinking lowly thoughts about Nak. Gosh, after all, he has the clarity to dislike a regime that beat women for showing an ankle, kicked all girls out of school, destroyed any religion but theirs, imprisoned or killed anyone who looked crosswise at them, and facilitated the 9/11 attack. In fact, he disliked them so much that he thought "some kind of military action" was necessary.

Perhaps something like firing a cruise missile at one of their deserted training camps.

Even after July 7, some people are living like it's September 10.