More on the London bombing

Ivan Eland provides a compelling answer to the question,  "Why Did Terrorists Strike London?.

After explaining the likely strategic objectives behind this monstrous crime, he provides some moral clarity and consistency to his level-headed analysis that is conspicuously absent from so much of the commentary to be found in the American media:

Anytime non-combatants are purposefully killed, a monstrous moral crime
has been committed. But in the United States, no one ever seems to ask
why the attackers are motivated to commit such horrendous acts. Much of
the U.S. public seems to believe President Bush’s erroneous claim that
the Islamists are attacking the United States because it is “free”
instead of honestly examining the history of the U.S. government’s
profligate meddling in the affairs of other countries.

Eland’s Independent Institute is one of the few "non-partisan" thinktanks or institutes that is worthy of the name, providing policy recommendations that are refreshingly honest and free of the cowardly "balance" (read: silence concerning the inconsistency and intellectual bankruptcy of the Bush administration’s policies) that characterize so much "independent" analysis we see in Washington.  Perhaps their secret is being in California, beyond the crushing gravitational pull of that intellectual black hole known as the "Beltway Consensus".

If original and courageous voices like Eland’s were given half the airtime of slick apologists for the  economic and political status quo such as Thomas Friedman, America would be a much better place.  Fat chance, though, as the corporate media have a built-in preference for "attitude" and style over substance, and this preference is only becoming increasingly pronounced. 

Still, it’s heartening to see that there still is some room in the American policy arena for serious, independent analysis.