Surrender to Osama

A few years back the Bush Administration announced a "War on Terror", the idea being to persuade we frightened masses that they'd defend us from all those nasty people who "hate us for our freedoms". Successfully waging that war involved surrendering a number of those freedoms and ignoring some of the more quaint passages in the Constitution, but, hey, sometimes you have to make sacrifices. Of course, terror is a tactic, not a definable enemy, so such a war can be waged indefinitely, or at least for as long as our noble defenders can create, pander to and leverage our fears. And again, absent a definition, the theater of said war can be virtually anywhere, which explains why we lost interest in Afghanistan and invaded Iraq. (Destroying WMD mysteriously morphed into "spreading democracy" following the San Diego "Mission Accomplished" celebration, despite the fact that we weren't "nation building"; but a war on terror is a movable feast).

Odd, then, that our most vocal erstwhile defenders are now waving the white flag. A recent, unsuccessful act of terrorism has a surprising collection of these strutting "victors" calling for ever greater limitations on our freedoms and on travel. These haters of big government are demanding stricter regulations, which presumably beats asking TSA to do its job, at the expense of normal travelers. The same people who have forced the top TSA spot to remain unfilled, and allowed intelligence agency communication failings to go unresolved are demanding ever more draconian security measures, thereby assuring our enemies we're at their mercy. (A case in point is the call to ban carry-on luggage - as opposed to banning underwear, I guess - despite the fact that the normal alternative to carry-on luggage is lost luggage).

Worse, people who do in fact know better are cynically using this as yet another opportunity to undermine President Obama, as if continued application of their failed strategies could produce different results. Having repeatedly made clear their desire to "break" the President, they now choose to align themselves with the same terrorists to whom they would so willingly surrender our freedoms, all to regain what they selfishly squandered the last time they had a crack at governance. Strong language? They abandoned the notion of "loyal opposition" the moment President Obama was sworn in, choosing instead to just say "no" to anything coming from the White House (even, frequently, when an idea they previously supported is at hand). No president in living memory - and perhaps none, period - has been the target of such relentless maliciousness, and never have we seen so many seemingly decent men and women abandon their own mores so enthusiastically and transparently.

You know, a less forgiving man than I might be inclined to suggest that this sort of deliberate, conscious subversion, with an aim to bringing down a presidency, and with it a nation, borders on sedition. Such a fellow might call these people traitors, or terrorists. He might even suggest that where they are concerned, and in their way, habeas corpus be suspended as soon as they emerge from their undisclosed locations, and they be packed off to Guantanamo Bay for a little R&R, there to have their thirst quenched with a little waterboarding. But not me. I wouldn't suggest such a thing.