The Seattle Times doesn't get it

The Times weighs in with an unsigned editorial today on the London bombings, and in the spirit of Patty "Day Care" Murray, they somehow think the best way to fight terrorists is through aid programs in Africa.

The work of the G-8 summit in Gleneagles, Scotland, is the best antidote to the mindless violence of yesterday's murderous assault on London commuters. Uniting to fight poverty and disease pushes back hard against terrorism.

Now there are a lot of reasons Islamic fascists like Al Qaeda are at war with us, religious, cultural, political, but somehow I don't think it is over debt relief for Africa! Remember, the 9/11 hijackers were mostly from Saudi Arabia, a rather rich country, and were living in relatively good conditions in the US and Europe. It isn't poverty stricken Ugandans or Haitians who are bombing the US, they just want to move here and get jobs. If we want to change the conditions that precipitate terrorism, we need to attack the roots of the hate and corruption in the Islamic world caused by their political, economic, and cultural backwardness maintained by a web of vicious dictatorships. Democracy and freedom in Iraq, Lebanon and other countries in the region will fight terrorism way more than malaria vaccinations in the Congo (not that this is a bad idea). Now why can't the Seattle Times get behind those causes?