The comments about the "war on terror" and the "war in Iraq" that Joe Lieberman has made vis-à-vis the discovery of the bombing plot on airliners is one of the problems with why people have a tendency to think more highly of one-celled creatures than they do of politicians. Yes, there are bad guys in Iraq. Yes, some of those people can be given the appellation "terrorist." But why should anyone think that there is some sort of direct connection between those who are setting off bombs in Baghdad and those who would like to take down airliners in flight?
The rhetoric has it that "we'll fight them over there so that we don't have to fight them over her." Huh? If that's the case, then why don't we make sure that "they" stay "over there." Which means that we do an even better job of securing the borders against those who are unauthorized to enter the country. As someone who spends more than his fair share of time on airplanes, I am not in the least bit miffed that I can't bring on a Dasani or have to put my toothpaste in a checked bag. To be sure, it may be an inconvenience, but it is a hell of a lot less inconvenient than the alternative. Rather than having lots of people deployed "over there," and spending billions of dollars "over there," wouldn't we be better off if the deployment and the people were "over here"? I am mystified as to how people who are maintaining that the end game in Iraq is not going to be a pretty one and that we might as well start getting ready to accept that at a fixed point in time rather than waiting for some sort of surprise (e.g., "My fellow 'mericans. We goofed. We're leaving tomorrow.") are in some way weak on the "war on terror." Perhaps Lieberman can go visit Bradley International Airport and explain that to all of those frustrated people waiting in lines.