Liberal Bloggers Ask: Why Has Osama bin Laden Not Been Captured? Why Continue Failing Hawk Approach to Terrorism? Why Listen to Fox?

Browsing the blogopshere for reactions to the brutal bombings in London, one comment stands out as asking the right question....After 9/11, after years and billions spent by George Bush in hunting Osama bin Laden, why has he not been captured?

From Reed Hundt at TPMCafe, "Failing to find the leadership of Al Qaeda cannot be tolerated. The savage attacks in London, the even more murderous Madrid bombings, the never-to-be forgotten 9/11 assaults speak many terrible things, and not all hear the same messages. But no one in the civilized world (that plainly includes Muslims, Christians, Jews and people of all other faiths and creeds) can possibly tolerate the fact that Osama has not yet been apprehended. "

While liberal and progressive leaders generally remained mum, waiting for the facts to emerge, conservative leaders, pundits and bloggers rattled sabers; threatened various ethnic groups, religions and countries; promised more of the same US/British military jihad; and, well...uttered some amazing comments.

Top blogger LiberalOasis points out the crassest of crass conservative comments, both uttered on FoxNews, ...." (Fox) Morning host Brian Kilmeade’s initial reaction, following remarks from Tony Blair, was:...'But it's important for them (G8 leaders now assembled in Scotland) all to be together. I think that works to our advantage, in the Western world's advantage, for people to experience something like this together, just 500 miles from where the attacks have happened.'

In the afternoon, Fox’s Managing Editor Brit Hume, discussing the attack’s effect on the financial markets, candidly offered his gut feelings: '...my first thought when I heard -- just on a personal basis, when I heard there had been this attack and I saw the futures this morning, which were really in the tank, I thought, 'Hmmm, time to buy.' '

The ... two comments from the FOXers represent your two basic conservative caricatures. One is the warmonger conservative, who believes violence can solve most anything. And what it can’t, isn’t his concern....

The other is the cynical conservative, who doesn’t believe much of anything can ever get solved. He is happy to simply sit back make money on whatever misfortune transpires."

Chris Bowers of leading group blog MyDD expressed it eloquently for the liberal blogosphere...."The hawks have failed to reduce the threat of terrorism, period. They said the war in Iraq would prevent us from having to fight terrorists in our streets. They were wrong. They said invading Iraq would reduce terrorism worldwide. They were wrong. They said that invading Iraq would make Iraq a safer place. They were wrong.

The heavily military approach to the threat of terrorism adopted by both the Bush and Blair administration are not to blame for today's attacks in London, but their near total lack of attention to stamping out the underlying causes of terrorism are at least partially to blame for similar attacks that will undoubtedly take place in the future....

They are using a massive, military approach to try and quell what is, primarily, a scattered, nation-less, civilian reaction to imposed ignorance, poverty and radicalized identity. It clearly is not working.....the truth is that as long as they remain in power, conservative hawks and their worship of all things military will leave us in ever increasing danger of future attacks of the sort we saw today. "

Amen, brother.