Not surprisingly the whole of Britian is contemplating how it got into the situation it finds itself, and where to go now. What to do with the terrorist element it harbored for so many years [hat tip RealClearPolitics]

A kind of fatalism led us to expect that our city would take its turn to be attacked after New York, Washington, Istanbul and Madrid, but we harboured an unfounded expectation that once it had happened, it would be over.

Living with continuing fear and suspicion is a harder proposition than merely moving on from a single horrific event. The killing of an innocent man by the police adds to the jitteriness that will be felt in London.
…
In the past two weeks Britain has been stunned to discover that there are people living here who have resisted integration and who loathe this country.
…
The government has been poorly focused. Only now does it come forward with proposals to outlaw acts preparatory to terrorism and the “indirect” incitement of violence. Why not before? The prime minister now calls for phone-tap evidence to be used in proceedings against suspects, while the Conservatives have long urged that change. Four years after September 11 the Foreign Office at last discovers that it can get agreement from Jordan to take deportees from Britain with guarantees about their treatment.

Sadly, those waking up are those who were dismissive of the threat in the first place. The ones who thought there was a way to reason, nay to posture, around the islamo-fascist movement. There isn’t. You can only delay the time of judgement by keeping a lower profile than the ones fighting the terrorists. It is incredibly cheeky for anyone to blame the government when Blair has had to drag the populace into even partially facing the threat and being pro-active.

But the denial continues, and so does the unwillingness to take actions that are considered politically incorrect, from a liberal perspective

We have wasted parliamentary time on identity cards. They will not help us to fight terror and they have distracted us from more effective measures. The government has also dissipated its energy defending its power to lock up suspects without charge on the say so of a minister.

It has now decided to create the new offences, which is better because the suspects will enjoy due process in the courts.

Identity cards imply a background check. A background check is at least a pro-active effort to identify bad people in your midst and coming into your country.

Locking up suspects without due cause is not something to condone – nobody does. However, the focus is still on law enforcement solutions only. If the movement dies out in the Middle East, what does the jihadist in the UK have to fight for? If the Muslims in the Middle East turn away from islamo-fascism, how could muslims in Europe feel they are fighting for the soul and survival of the religion? One cannot limit the response to only ones of legal adjustments.

So how did they get here? Denial of course.

It is easy to explain how the Londonistan phenomenon (the concentration of Muslim political activists in the capital) has come about. For years foreign governments have complained that dissidents settled in Britain were using the fax and the internet to foment discontent in their countries. Our response has been dilatory. Under our asylum rules we have made no distinction between the innocent victims of persecution and others intent on bringing down states.

As democrats we feel some sympathy for those who voice opposition to autocratic regimes. Maybe our response has been coloured by memories of the brave French resistance sabotaging the Nazis under control from London. It has taken us a long time to accept that not all enemies of dictatorships are either democrats or patriots.

And not all ‘enemies’ were dictatorships – recall the preference for Saddam’s word over that of George Bush? He was considered an enemy. It had gone well beyond nostalgia.

Britain’s tardy reaction to the growing threat is harder to explain. Yet Blair has escaped criticism.

It is not hard to explain. The liberal-socialist strangle hold on Europe’s news media is incredibly strong, and was incredibly wrong. My regular trips there for years never made it less shocking how poorly they understood America because their news was pure propoganda. The news media never interviewed anyone from center right unless they were in a maverick role. The news media never explained the political right’s perspectives or arguments – they were simply dismissed without debate. And now they wonder how they could have been so wrong?

They never listened. They were too smart, too perfect, to above-it-all to need to listen.

Al-Muhajiroun must be a candidate for similar treatment, as an extremist body that refuses to condemn terrorism in Britain and celebrates the September 11 attacks on America. We have found few other ways to disrupt the middlemen who warp the minds of young people and make them ripe for recruitment to suicide missions.

While I laud this attitude, it is still missing the point. For years since 9-11 the media has pretty much said America had it coming. America deserved what it got. And when the UK allied with us on Iraq the media said Blair and Britain where poodle dogs following their master – Bush.

So why the surprise when the youth want to take Britain back from the wayward, undeserving Americans? Why the shock when the youth want to send a wake up call? The media has been tempting them with this line every moment of their short, rebellious lives. Young people want to rebel against the establishment, make their mark and save the world – and the BBC has been pointing to the problem with the world for years, 24 by 7. America and Bush.

During the past week there have been several attempts (notably by the journalist John Pilger) to blame the bombings on Blair because of the war in Iraq. According to opinion polls a majority thinks that the conflict has increased our vulnerability.

I rest my case. The media could never admit it played a role in the complacency and misdirected focus. The UK’s enemy was not across the Atlantic – never has been. But the UK media has been blindly politicalizing national security. And this is now becoming clearer to many in the UK

But we should at least recall history accurately. Al-Qaeda set off a truck bomb in the World Trade Center on February 26, 1993, almost a decade before George Bush invaded Iraq. President Clinton, the darling of the left, had been inaugurated a month before. It would be difficult to blame US foreign policy for the attack. America had gone to the aid of Muslim Kuwait and freed it from Iraqi occupation. Observing the letter of its United Nations mandate, it withdrew from Iraq and left Saddam Hussein in place (although it kept forces in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait with the agreement of those governments).
…
Long before George W Bush became president a policy of turning the other cheek was met by a sharp intensification of the terrorist onslaught on America, culminating in the September 11 attacks.

Sadly, this clarity of logic from the leftward fringes has been lacking on both sides of the pond.

Note Mark Coffey’s similar discussion based on a similar article.