Looks like I blogged too soon. In a previous post I quoted Mark Steyn's most recent column in which he postulated that the very last thing another terrorist attack on the USA would result in would be stricter controls on Muslim immigration or more thorough vetting of Muslim immigrants.
Thankfully we don't have to go through the horrors of another attack to have his point proved. Byron York has a piece up in which he details what former Clinton and Bush intel chief Richard Clarke thinks the US should do in the event of a terrorist attack-
In the raw aftermath of a successful attack, it will be very hard for an American president to shift the debate in a more productive and honest direction. Imagine if, after a fatal attack, President Obama responded by proposing greater outreach to Muslim communities domestically and around the world, in an effort to undercut radicalization. That is precisely what we and other nations should be doing, but it would undoubtedly be decried as a weak, starry-eyed reaction by our commander in chief, especially after an attack that revealed deficiencies in our counterterrorism system.
Yep, according to Clarke the US shouldn't respond to a terrorist attack which murders American citizens with retaliatory strikes or with silly things like strengthening the homeland security system- all the President needs to do to undermine a centuries old theological imperative to wage war against infidels is to try and be nicer to the Muslim world.
This from a guy who used to be the head counter-terrorism chap in the White House. Doesn't build confidence does it?