Yes, the Democrats could help by presenting a serious alternative. But unless the party in power for the next two and half years shakes free of its denial, we are in really, really big trouble.

I think the environment in DC and media-sphere is the biggest part of the problem. If the Democrats even attempt to have a national dialog about what we should be doing in the war on terror, they get hammered for being soft on security. That's a very dangerous thing. On many levels, it's becoming harder and harder to have any sort of meaningful discourse. The public discourse on our approach to the war on terror has been amounting to jingoism.

September 11th forced a shift in people's views toward national security. This has amounted to "follow the leader, they know what they are doing" in many ways. The discursive space seems to be divided in all the wrong ways. We need a very real public debate, and I don't see it.

For instance... The approach to the war on terror that the Democrats were pushing, was very quickly dismissed as a "law enforcement approach" or "treating it like crime", as they were pounded for being "weak on security". I think this was a very bad way to cast the argument. Looking at the situation in London, I'm seeing that approach as being at the heart of the success. It seems that the key factor was cooperation between intelligence agencies in multiple countries.

I sincerely hope it does not take another successful attack to kickstart the process of looking at what is working, and what is not working. I fear that much of what we are doing is not working. I get that feeling every time I'm reading reports from the Middle East or anything about DHS.

(I wish I could read the full text of this article.)

Rattle wrote:

It seems that the key factor was cooperation between intelligence agencies in multiple countries.

Or, as Brian Ross put it to Charlie Rose (jump to around 6:40):

Ross: The US was brought in; the US was asked to use its elaborate electronic eavesdropping apparatus to run checks on the phone calls and the bank transfers, which I am told were _very_ helpful.

Rose: One more argument for the Bush administration in terms of --

Ross: well, it is, they do have that ability. Generally, what happens is, we spy on the British, and the British spy on our citizens. We exchange information, [and] nobody breaks their own laws.

noteworthy wrote:
Rattle wrote:

It seems that the key factor was cooperation between intelligence agencies in multiple countries.

Or, as Brian Ross put it to Charlie Rose

Ross: The US was brought in; the US was asked to use its elaborate electronic eavesdropping apparatus to run checks on the phone calls and the bank transfers, which I am told were _very_ helpful.

Rose: One more argument for the Bush administration in terms of --

Ross: well, it is, they do have that ability. Generally, what happens is, we spy on the British, and the British spy on our citizens. We exchange information, [and] nobody breaks their own laws.

Hasn't that been the status-quo for decades? All throughout the Cold War?

In my opinion, that does nothing for the Bush Administration's argument for expanded spying powers. International cooperation between intelligence agencies seems to still be the winning approach.

There is a disparity in the approach and the rhetoric of the Bush Administration. Not only here, but also in efforts to get Hutchison and Dubai Ports World involved in managing our port security. (An approach I support..) If the administration wants to go the route of international cooperation for that problem, why not continue using that model if it's worked, continues to work, and has been the basis of our most recent successes?

In order to lead the world, as it becomes more globalized and interconnected, we need to continue eating our own soup.