Yet another reason not to have gone off on a tangent...but I don't think anyone's really opposed to getting tough with Pakistan. In fact, I think election season is pushing the Democrats somewhat to the right of Bush on this issue.

But I am broadly worried, like Sean Paul, that the nature of partisanship today is that it constrains action.

I think we can all agree that Clinton ought to have done more to combat terrorism; the extent to which partisanship prevented him from doing so more vigorously is troublesome indeed.

And if Bush's loss of credibility both at home and abroad prevents him from, say, doing something about Iran if military action is warranted, that would be deeply problematic. All the more reason not to cry wolf when you see a dog ...

A thoughtful analysis of the national security mistakes leading up to 9/11 would be useful. These hearings are not. They have changed no minds, they have they created no new insights nor provided a new guide to action.

They are Kabuki theater without the weird makeup.

Joe-

It is a very good point indeed. If Al-Qaeda has anything left to smile about it is that Europe and America are deeply divided and that America's will is diminished.

As you may recall, like Clark and others, I don't think invading Iraq was the right approach; it was a divisive distraction. That doesn't mean nothing should be done. It doesn't mean that terrorism with global reach isn't a threat or doesn't need to be defeated.

I get angry with those who think Iraq was the wrong strategy and then spill all their energy on attacking Bush ( a trap I fall into myself 'cause I dislike him so much ) when they could be pursuing a strategy that they think is effective.

Why not attack their financing; why not undermine the 'non-violent' arm of terrorist groups like Hamas by providing better hospitals, better education or better social programs; why don't the Europeans, Canada and others work towards multilateral support for tactics they can support; why not find 50 billion and help make Afghanistan the model democracy; why not pick a tactic that you can support and do something about it.

If you don't like the US approach, fine, pick one you do like and execute it.

I don't know which is more worrying, a lethargic international community or the escalating partisan backbiting.

We are going to have this kind of "partisanship" as long as the Baby Boomers are in charge because they will never stop refighting Viet Nam, just as the European Generation of '68 will not support us in combat for that same reason. So we had better learn how to conduct foreign policy in a partisan environment.

I would be interested to hear of an occasion on which Clinton's desire to do something about terrorism was limited by partisanship. Likewise, it is difficult to imagine circumstances in which Bush would pull a punch becasue of partisanship on military action in Iran if he thought it necessary.

On the other hand, the one lesson both sides learned in Viet Nam is that it is a mistake to lead the country into war if it is not united and will not stay behind the war. Leaders can stick their necks out only so far before they risk getting them cut off. FDR had to run a fine balancing act of leading but not getting too far ahead of the people prior to Pearl Harbor. Was that partisanship? On whose part?

nah, the partisanship is structural due to gerrymandering and both sides, and increased sophistication in polling and messaging. we're reaching political science theory levels here wrt the median voter theorem.

and come on, you don't remember "wag the dog!"

What this country clearly needs is a prominant politician who is willing to say the following:

AQ has divided the world into Islam and the rest. All members of the Islamic community are WARNED:

The X is on your forehead: act to stop the Islamofascists or the bullet is going thru your brain.

That would concentrate some minds on BOTH sides

No, I don't remember "wag the dog" stopping Clinton from launching any cruise missles. I don't recall any substantial partisan group saying he shouldn't have launched the missles to try and strike the targets. I don't recall any substantial partisan group saying he shouldn't launch any more missles. I do remember "wag the dog" as being the motivation a lot of partisan people thought was behind the missle strikes instead of a sincere motivation to deal with terror. Some people still think FDR knew about the Pearl Harbor attack beforehand also.

puh-lease!

Just because you have a poor recollection of the 1990s doesn't make it so....

Richard,

Kerry and the other Democrats never left Vietnam. They're still there playing Russian roulette.

Hello sean paul
is a fan from the gambia,i like your music simply because you;
through your melodic
a jamican
through your live style,hii me like you naturally.
Rimex king,seap paul

Is a fan from the gambia,i like you through your music. please keep i up.
Rimex king,sean panl.

Uh, dude, I think you mean this Jewish Reggae star... who has no public position on the 9/11 commission as far as I'm aware.