Let the Real Debate on Terrorism Begin

David Ignatius On the Importance of Debate in Fighting the War on Terrorism

Normally, I dislike bi-partisanship and “independent” voter mentality as a false way of portraying oneself as open-minded. There’s a hint of this mentality in David Ignatius’ article regarding terrorism, but he makes a valid enough point for people to consider:

Sadly, Kerry’s me-too approach to the Sept. 11 commission is of a piece with his bland flag-waving on foreign policy in general. America is a nation at war. Yet we have no sense, even after Kerry has been nominated, just what policies he would pursue in Iraq and the Middle East. There’s a three-alarm blaze outside, and he’s telling us he supports the fire department.

The Bush administration’s effort to wrap itself in the bipartisan flag of the commission is even more outrageous. Do the administration’s spin controllers think the country has forgotten that the president refused to allow his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, to testify before the panel until forced to do so by public outcry? Do they think people won’t actually read the report and see its devastating account of the administration’s failure to mobilize for the Al-Qaeda threat?

So let the debate begin. Personally, I think the commission is wrong to propose a national intelligence director at the White House. We already have such a position in the US government – it’s called the ‘national security adviser.’ For proof that it can mobilize the secret apparatus of government, just take a look at the records of Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski in that job. “

Regardless of whether you agree with him or not, the goal and purpose of the article are indeed the point. We should be having a national debate regarding terrorism and the best way to deal with it. Leaving it to the pundits and policy wonks just won’t do.