One more housekeeping item before I begin my series on presidential candidates. I think it is time for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to resign. Why? The first reason is this incredibly dorky picture, at left, that is his "official" photo. Second, Mr. Gonzales seems to be operating under the assumption that he is still President Bush's personal attorney. He is not. He is my attorney, your attorney, and the rest of the population of the United States' attorney. There are plenty of bad guys out there for him to catch and he has proven that he would rather spend his days making sure which of the 93 US Attorneys are "loyal Bushies" than try to....say...prevent another terrorist attack.Now, Attorney General Gonzales did not break the law...technically....when he, Karl Rove, and multiple staff members of the Justice Department fired eight US Attorneys a few months back. Administrations can hire and fire as they please. The problem that I see with all of this is that the fired attorneys, while loyal conservatives, weren't loyal to President Bush. They were loyal to the law. So when pressure was placed on them to act in more political issues than issues of the law, they balked. In other words, they wanted to uphold the law of the land, not go on snipe hunts for W.
Most people that I talk with about this "scandal" say that no one cares, really, unless they live in Washington DC. Your average Joe or Jane doesn't really think about it because it's all just "politics as usual." Well, if I were you, I would care about it because this whole mess has exposed the depth of President Bush's bullshit. And brother is it hip deep!
He has purposefully surrounded himself with mindless sycophants who are in their j0bs because they know how to say "yes" and they have no idea how to say "no." In other words, they are in their jobs to protect the president while he bends and breaks the law. They are not serving us. They are mindlessly serving their master who selected them based on their loyalty, not on their ability to do their jobs.
Take Monica Goodling for example. Until March 26 of this year, she was the Director of Public Affairs for the Justice Department. That's the third highest member of that department. Any idea where she got her law degree? Harvard? No. Yale? Nope. She got her law degree from Regent University. What school is that you say? Well, it happens to be the one run by this man to the left: Pat Robertson. Yes, that's right. Ms. Goodling got her degree from a TV evangelist's school which, by the way, is ranked among the lowest, academically speaking, in our entire country. Care to take a guess at how many other Bush administration appointees hale from Regent University?150.
One hundred and fifty! It says so on their web site. Check it out here! Are you fucking kidding me? Is it any wonder that disaster after catastrophe has occurred during the last six years? These people are not smart, completely lack intellectual curiosity, and are perfect fodder for brainwashing into "loyal Bushies." Ms. Goodling is no exception.
When the fired attorneys scandal fully broke, she resigned her position at the Department of Justice and refused to testify, citing the fifth amendment. In its history, no Department of Justice employee has ever exercised their fifth amendment rights with respect to their official conduct, and remained an employee.
What will come of all of this? Who knows? But support for Attorney General Gonzales is fading, even with Republicans, and I think it's time he was replaced. President Bush needs to understand that the business of government should not be run by his personal pals and cronies. Can we please just fast forward to January of 2009 when our next president, from either side of the aisle, can appoint qualified, intelligent people that are not mindless zombies?
Sheesh....
23 comments:
Mark, stop making points that I cannot so easily refute. Again, I’m forced to agree with you. (…I’m braking out in hives from it.) Gonzales should go. Not for the reasons you state, but because he’s just plain incompetent. How hard is it to simply say why you did it? And if someone objects, tell them where to go. If the administration decides to fire these people because they won’t dye their hair green, don’t like how they vote or whatever reason they dream up or no reason at all, that is simply their prerogative. And is no different than any other administration.
(Ooo....Maybe they can bring Ashcroft back? That would rock!)
Haven’t heard about that “Regent’s U” bit…will have to look it up. It would be an interesting comparison against other administration’s appointees.
Pleading the 5th? That doesn’t look good for a DA. However, due to the polarization of our current country, what would you do? Let’s say you honestly forget something that someone tells you because, being tasked with countless important daily issues, you forget some minor detail. You’re up in front of congress and are asked about that detail and you state as much. It is now precedent that you could very well be prosecuted for that lapse in memory. Who would want to testify in front of a congress with more interest in bringing down the current administration that finding actual wrong doing?
Regent's University--heh heh. Good point, Mark. I sometimes remind myself that hey, someone has to graduate at the bottom of the class... like when I come across a doctor or lawyer who is incompetent, yet fully degreed and accredited, etc. But NOW I'm going to remind myself that hey, Regent's University has a lot of graduates, and someone has to graduate at the bottom of each class at that cruddy school.
Wow. Stunning. I double checked your facts--I am a progressive after all so I don't immediately believe everything I hear from my side like all the people that still support Bush do--and it's really all true. It makes sense, too, when you think about it. The last six years haven't been about serving the people, they have been about serving the business interests of Bush supporters and donors.
Alberto Gonzales represents the perfect conservative in his child like stubborness in never being able to admit a mistake, even when it threatens our security and our way of law. What an asshole. But then again, all of them are.
None of any of this comes as a shock to me. These people have broken so many laws that they should count themselves lucky that they are getting off with just the "incompetence" label.
I wonder how many more flicks of the bic lighter to the Constitution it will take before the American public will demand that the majority of the Bush Administration should be tried for their crimes.
To which crimes are you referring? Or which constitutional items? Or are political differences now branded criminal? I have no doubt that in your preferred state, it would indeed be a single party system, ey, comrade?
I have read your posts on here, joe, and sadly you are the victim of the greatest mass brainwashing in human history. Or maybe you go willingly into the comfort of ignorance?
I am sure you will agree that perjury is a crime? Or is that only if it is Bill Clinton?
I believe that intentionally revealing the identity of a CIA agent is also a crime-punishable by death, if I am not mistaken.
Let's not forget the illegal wiretaps, a program which the Bush administration ended by citing the fact that it was illegal, after all.
I could go on but I think you get the point. Wake up and start thinking.
Wide awake, sir...Thank You.
Perjury…sure…if it’s a crime, it’s a crime for all; no complaints here. But there’s a big difference between lying (Clinton), not remembering (Libby) and just plain being wrong (Bush). I could post links to any dictionary definitions, but you folk don’t go by traditional definitions, but nuance words into meaninglessness.
And what was Scooter Libby convicted of pre tell? Revealing the name of a CIA agent? Sorry, but that was Armitage who leaked; which the prosecutor knew full well but prosecuted Libby for what then? To see if he could get someone, anyone to slip up under duress and then push perjury charges? If Libby lied, then fine, he lied and he’ll be punished. But don’t link him to the leak, ‘cause it just ain’t so. Want to punish Armitage? Great, I’ll get the rope…but alas, that’s an interesting dichotomy…why is Libby going to jail yet Sandy Berger and Richard Armitage walking free?
Illegal wiretaps? Ever read the constitution? Here’s a link to the amendment in question.
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am4.html
…course, you’ll want to parse, nuance, twist, spin it and remove some of that excess wording to suit your fancy, but I’ll take it the good old fashioned way, myself. Just like us old fashioned conservative types to take the words of our nation’s founders over some flannel wearing coffee-house misanthropes.
And in case you forgot your 9th grade civics, although Congress has its place and its oversights, the President leads the country; and Congress cannot take away from the President what the constitution expressly gives him.
No, you really aren't wide awake.
Your bias is clear in how you define perjury. It's true. Bill Clinton did lie so that's perjury. Scooter Libby also lied and was convicted by a jury of his peers so that's perjury too. I am not aware of Bush ever being under oath so as far as I can tell he did not commit perjury although pretty much everything out of his mouth is, in fact, a lie.
A piece of evidence submitted in the Libby Trial was Joe Wilson's Op Ed piece in the times with Vice President Cheney's handwriting on it which read, "Did he bring his wife with him?" It does not take a genius to infer what the VP was threatening. Cheney knew exactly what he was doing when he handed this scrap of paper to Libby.
I don't have to twist anything as far as wiretaps go. Detroit District Court judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruled on August 17, 2006 that the program is illegal under FISA as well as unconstitutional under the First and Fourth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Proof of your delusion lies in the fact that you don't understand the meaning of the words "warrant" and "probable cause," two things the NSA program, under direct orders from President Bush, conveniently ignored. If you have Qwest for phone service, be thankful that their executives realized how illegal this program was and refused to allow the government access.
As far as your civics lesson, I would suggest you take your knowledge to 1600 Pensylvania and have a discussion with the current occupant. The topic?
Checks and balances.
Anyone care to guess what Richard Armitage is up to these days?
He is on the Board of Directors at Conocco Phillips, comfortably resting in his paid off cocoon of bullshit.
Anna Diggs Taylor? Her? That's your proof? Bwahhhaahha....
"What's the problem with her?," john said knowingly leading joe into carefully laid snafu.
Yeah, Joe, what's the problem with a US District Judge who knows a fuckuva lot more about the law than you do?
Hey torch, you kiss you mom w/ that mouth?
I guess when she’s not trying to fix the judge pool on affirmative action cases; Anna has time to invent a few rights in between her judicial activism. After all, who knew that unnoticed these last two centuries; there’s been a First Amendment right to communicate privately, overseas, in wartime, with enemy operatives plotting to murder Americans? Thank God Anna’s here to set us straight. So, no, I do not think much of Judge Anna; it’s only a matter of time until that is overturned. My guess, it will be once a Democrat is in the White House; being most of this stuff comes out of spite for our President than reasonable thinking.
But, to expand on this (plagiarizing & summarizing from some good reading of late) …to arrive at this novel discovery, Judge Anna simply needed to blow past the long-settled law of standing-to-sue, as well as about 150 years of precedent — reaffirmed by the Supreme Court only a year ago — which holds that lawsuits may not go forward if they run an undue risk of impairing the national defense by publicly revealing our intelligence gathering capabilities.
But again, what makes this president think he can invade the privacy of Americans without a warrant? I don't know. Could it be the zillion or so types of searches, long recognized by federal law, for which judicial probable-cause warrants are not required, such as:
• Detain American citizens for investigative purposes without a warrant;
• Arrest American citizens, based on probable cause, without a warrant;
• Conduct a warrantless search of the person of an American citizen who has been detained, with or without a warrant;
• Conduct a warrantless search of the home of an American citizen in order to secure the premises while a warrant is being obtained;
• Conduct a warrantless search of, and seize, items belonging to American citizens that are displayed in plain view and that are obviously criminal or dangerous in nature;
• Conduct a warrantless search of anything belonging to an American citizen under exigent circumstances if considerations of public safety make obtaining a warrant impractical;
• Conduct a warrantless search of an American citizen's home and belongings if another person, who has apparent authority over the premises, consents;
• Conduct a warrantless search of an American citizen's car anytime there is probable cause to believe it contains contraband or any evidence of a crime;
• Conduct a warrantless search of any closed container inside the car of an American citizen if there is probable cause to search the car—regardless of whether there is probable cause to search the container itself;
• Conduct a warrantless search of any property apparently abandoned by an American citizen;
• Conduct a warrantless search of any property of an American citizen that has lawfully been seized in order to create an inventory and protect police from potential hazards or civil claims;
• Conduct a warrantless search—including a strip search—at the border of any American citizen entering or leaving the United States;
• Conduct a warrantless search at the border of the baggage and other property of any American citizen entering or leaving the United States;
• Conduct a warrantless search of any American citizen seeking to enter a public building;
• Conduct a warrantless search of random Americans at police checkpoints established for public-safety purposes (such as to detect and discourage drunk driving);
• Conduct warrantless monitoring of common areas frequented by American citizens;
• Conduct warrantless searches of American citizens and their vessels on the high seas;
• Conduct warrantless monitoring of any telephone call or conversation of an American citizen as long as one participant in the conversation has consented to the monitoring;
• Conduct warrantless searches of junkyards maintained by American citizens;
• Conduct warrantless searches of docks maintained by American citizens;
• Conduct warrantless searches of bars or nightclubs owned by American citizens to police underage drinking;
• Conduct warrantless searches of auto-repair shops operated by American citizens;
• Conduct warrantless searches of the books of American gem dealers in order to discourage traffic in stolen goods;
• Conduct warrantless drug screening of American citizens working in government, emergency services, the transportation industry, and nuclear plants;
• Conduct warrantless drug screening of American citizens who are school officials;
• Conduct warrantless drug screening of American citizens who are school students;
• Conduct warrantless searches of American citizens who are on bail, probation or parole.
These could conceivably be some of the things that the president is thinking about, though certainly not all. I neglected, after all, to mention the long-established "inherent authority" of the president to "conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information," recognized by federal appeals courts and assumed by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review in 2002.
But, let’s leave aside standing. And state secrets. And the bizarre construction of free speech principles. And even Judge Taylor’s preposterous assertion that the Fourth Amendment “requires prior warrants for any reasonable search, based on probable cause”.
What is truly galling here is the democrats lecture about “separation of powers” and “checks and balances”.
In the system of separated powers set by the Founders, the courts had no role — none — in defending this nation from foreign threats. That was to be the job of the President and the Congress, which is to say, the officials actually accountable to the citizens. The check our system has designed for national-security matters is political, not judicial. It is about the right of the American people to govern themselves. Not a few select judges who are not accountable to the populace.
Courts are not there to tell us how to live and tell the other branches how to do their jobs. They are there to redress concrete injuries that directly and uniquely affect individuals. If there is a government policy — such as monitoring al Qaeda’s international communications — that affects all of us more or less the same way, that is not a legal problem. It is a political issue. And has been, more or less until Carter began the era of appointing judges who decided to get through courts what they could never achieve through the ballot box.
If a president tilts too far in the direction of either civil liberties or national security, Americans have the final check; they can vote him out of office. If the president really shreds the Constitution, citizens can spur congress to impeach him. Congress, meanwhile, can convene hearings, summon experts, make findings, and enact laws which balance liberty and security. If legislators believe a national security initiative goes too far, they can end it by de-funding it … and face the wrath of their constituents who may well decide that increased safety is worth sacrificing some hypothetical privacy in chatting with Zawahiri.
The president of the United States needing Judge Anna’s permission to penetrate the communications of a hostile alien terrorist network scheming to slaughter Americans. That was not exactly what Madison had in mind.
And one final thing… Liberals are always so defensive about people questioning there patriotism. Since you never have anything positive to say about America (other than you love the fact you can bash your own country), by looking at this one case alone and how selectively liberals pick which warrentless searches are good and which aren’t, how liberals constantly work to undermine the efforts, how can anyone conclude anything other than the fact that liberals outright want America to lose the War on Terrorism? And if you want America to lose, how can you possibly say you’re patriotic?
Joe, Are you a conservative? Because I am and the last thing I want is the government intruding in my life in anyway. You sure don't sound like a conservative. I have to fight every day to make sure that they don't outlaw my gun collection, which I am quite proud of by the way. Listening in on my phone conversations, tracking my emails--I will have none of that, thank you very much.
It has been my experience with the government that when they say they need to do something for "national security," they are usually lying. Their goal is to interfere and wreak havoc in my life, not protect me. I can do that myself, thank you very much.
Ah, I love it when the debate rages without me. It's refreshing.
Joe, I think I have said this to you before but I'm not sure so I will say it again. It's not that I "hate America." Please clean out the plaque that is right wing talk radio and Fox News from your brain.
Now...stay with me on this one because I know it's hard for a neocon to construct this concept in their brain but.....liberals have other ideas on how to fight terrorism. "Other ideas" does not immediately translate into "hate America" or "Wrong/Bad." Get over the fact that it is Bush's way or the highway. Better yet, please grow up and realize that yes, Virginia, Republicans can make mistakes.
I have plenty of positive things to say about America...when it is being run by people who actually want to protect us instead of their own business interests. I think you have made the mistake in thinking that George Bush is somehow "America." He is not. It is the policies of our current administration that I hate because the consequences of their actions will be felt by my children for years to come. And your children as well.
My biggest gripe is that there is no thought being put into how to combat terrorism. We are all following, blindly in your case, the policies of a man who has no interest in learning more about the Middle East and has every interest in showing his dad's pals how rich he can make them. He will lie every step of the way to make sure the latter happens.
Losing the war on Terrorism? No sir, I want to win. Winning the War on Terror means getting back to Afghanistan where the people that attacked us actually are hiding and re-building their forces quite well, I might add. Winning means destroying the current Terrorist Training Ground Du Jour (Iraq), not through military means, but by bringing in every country in the region--and I mean every country--to the table to fix it. Winning means becoming energy independant with alternative fuel sources here at home so we aren't beholden to countries like Saudi Arabia. Winning means learning more about Islam, the various factions, what motivates them, how each country is different and what their stakes are in the game. Winning means being smarter.
These are all things every Democrat has said, at one time or another, you just won't lisen. It's President Bush's (and your's) inability to admit fault that will ultimately lead to failure. Some say it already has....so from my perspective it is YOU that wants to lose.
Oh, I’m listening baby…I just don’t hear anything. But, OK, if liberalism is the land of open thinking & fresh ideas; great, let’s have ‘em. I’m open-minded. What are they?
Devote an article to what you “would do” not what you hate about what’s currently being done. Don’t use bumper sticker ideology, like, “we need to “think” or put “thought” into how we fight terrorism.”
The New York Times devotes copious amounts of money to exposing our intelligence apparatus used to fight terrorism. Have they ever devoted some funds to exposing the bad guy’s intelligence network, etc?
Explain how you’d cut off their funding if you cannot use the methods the Times exposed.
Explain how you’d find out that they’re conspiring with agents within our borders without any type of surveillance as the Times also exposed?
Explain how you’d negotiate w/ Iran when they say that if you try to stop them from getting nuclear weapons that it’s tantamount to war and they’ll get nuclear weapons.
Explain how “learning” about the enemy will stop them from killing you. For that matter, explain why what we’ve already learned is irrelevant?
Explain what you’re going to do when you “learn” that the enemy isn’t interested in learning from us, they want to kill you. But don’t take that from me; take if from the horse’s mouth: “As Hussein Massawi, former leader of Hezbollah, put it: "We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you."
Explain how you’re going to bring Iran & Syria in to help Iraq when it’s in their best interests to destroy democracy in Iraq?
Explain how bringing in “EVERY” nation, which means Israel, will not end up in chaos due to a millennia of hatred against Israel that is beyond all of our control?
Explain how Israel, our alley and the only pro-western gov’t in the middle east should be treated now better than terrorist states like Iran?
Explain how the War on Terror is isolated to Afghanistan? When you’ve commented in volumes on how it’s comprised of Saudis, Egyptians, Syrians, Iranians, etc? Why limit the war to a single theatre?
Explain how you’re going to become energy independent, don’t just say it. Explain how you’re going to immediately cut off Saudi Arabian oil but not drill in the gulf or Alaska? How you’re going to run the world on corn but not make my corn flakes cost $15?
I’ve never said the GOP is faultless. Some (many) are complete morons. I can curse GW up a blue streak, but I’ll take action over sitting on my thumbs hoping our enemies will be nice to us any day.
So, please, please, please…lay it on me. What are those wondrous ideas? Don’t give me this rhetoric crap. Explain how it’s going to actually happen.
Joe, I hope I get this in before Mark answers any of your questions. I have read much of what you have posted here and read much of what Mark has posted here and I am very curious about something. You say you have kids and I know Mark does so here is what is puzzling me.
From the first days of the earliest grades of schools we teach our children to resolve conflicts with resorting to violence. Any sort of fighting results in a non-violent punishment, usually a time out. I think this is a good thing. It teaches them to be moral people.
You have said in the past that America is more moral than Iran, for example, and I would agree with that. I think most of our morality comes from what we teach our children in school about resolving conflicts in non violent way. I find it puzzling that one the hand you say we are more moral then other countries and then you say that the only thing our enemy understands is force so we have to treat them the way they treat us. Isn't that the exact opposite of how we raise our children in this country?
There is no denying the fact that there are several countries in the Middle East that teach their children to be violent. Are you saying we need to do the same thing? If so, I think it bodes very badly for us as a civilization if we always have to resort to violence in combatting terror as you say we do. I think force is necessary in some areas (Afghanistan) and really not called for at all in others (Iraq).
Correct me if I am wrong, please do, but it seems to me you want us to become more like terrorists in order to defeat them? Makes no sense to me.
I don’t think my point is a contradiction at all. Have you heard the term righteous anger? That’s what I’m talking about. We resolved WWI & II with violence. People sometimes say that we can’t get down on their level and fight in the gutter. Well, when your enemy crawls out of the sewer, maybe fighting them in the gutter is where you need to be. I don’t see us like them in the least. I’m advocating an American style of war. I would never reduce us to their level and you’re foolish if you’re trying to equate the two. One type of violence does not equal another. We don’t strap bomb belts to our kids and take them on parades as future martyrs. We don’t (deliberately) target the innocent. We don’t hind behind the ladies.
A simple test: Let’s say Mark’s a pacifist. I walk up and punch him in the face. He turns the other cheek. So I punch him in that one. He’s mad now and curses me up a blue steak. So, I hit him again, with gusto. How many times am I going to have to hit him before he realizes that he needs to fight back?
As my friend Jack would say, “Son, we live in world with walls. And those wall needs to be guarded.” There are bad people in this country and teaching our kids that sharks do not exist is a dangerous strategy that I won’t tolerate. A holocaust survivor famously stated, “when someone says that they want to kill you, believe them.”
...oops...that last line should read:
...there's bad people in this "world"...
Kaylee, nice points. I think Joe missed them but hey, I hope you post here again.
Joe, if you have been reading my blog for a long time then you know that I have, in several posts, laid out plans for how I think we can make this country a better place. If you read my Profiles in Courage series then you know I picked several role models who are befitting of the word "hero." One of them is running for president in 2008. So I suggest you go back and re-read them.
Nevertheless I will answer your "Explain To Me" diatribe.
Intelligence or good detective work is one area I would actually increase in effort and cost. Of course we need to spy on them electronically but we also need to get human intelligence, as Bush 41 has suggested, so that means training more American Muslims to go undercover and infiltrate Al Qaeda. Wiretaps are fine, as long they are legal. Under FISA, you can obtain a warrant even after 15 days of surveillence so you don't even need one right away. Make no mistake: surveillance is necessary but we should not let our government abuse this.
Something else on the matter of security, we need to enact every single one of the 9-11 commission's recomendations starting with making sure that we provide adequate radio spectrum for emergency responders. Also, our airline screening needs improvement and we need to make more of an effort to look for WMDs in other countries.
Iran can't pay it's bills to Russia for the material they need to make nuclear weapons. Their economy is in a shambles. Their people are angry at their leadership and want a change. We need to foster that change by putting more economic pressure on them. We also need to increase our propaganda campaign over there. The people love America and we need to reach them through one of the things we do best: the media.
Something else you need to keep in mind. Israel will not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear bomb. It is in their best interests to launch a pre-emptive strike before anything goes online there. Mark my words, they will do it and Iran will be much weakened in the region as a result.
Iran and Syria are having a difficult time with refugees, adding further to their economic problems. So I disagree with you. A stable Iraq is in their best interests, especially a Shi'ite led one in the case of Iran. So getting everyone to sit down and talk about how to do that is a start. More than likely one or both of them will storm out, act like babies, and make a lot of grandiose statements. That's great for us because at least we show that we are the adult in the situation. In the end, though, money will talk and I think they will stick around because it's good for their pocketbooks to be in business with us.
As far as Israel goes, I think the way they have handled themselves has been exemplary. The restraint that they have shown is extraordinary and we should follow their example. They defend themselves when they need to and attack people who are threats. And yet they gave the Palestinians Gaza and built a wall between Israel and the West Bank. How many suicide bombings have their been lately? Again, if countries in the region won't negotiate with Israel, then they will be the ones left behind. Even the Arab league is considering recognizing Israel, by the way.
Afganistan is where our efforts should be concentrated. That is where Al Qaeda leadership is holed up. Iraq is a distraction. It's a civil war and we don't have time to play referee. If you want to say something positive about Iraq you can say "Mission Accomplished" because Saddam is gone and there are no WMDs, which was our original mission.
But you're right. We should also be in other countries. Pakistan comes to mind. They are supposedly our allies so how about a joint task force made up of special ops guys that track terrorism on the Pakistani side of the border? The Saudis need to be straightened out too but we need to become energy independant first.
Rather than spend another 600 billion dollars on a conflict that does not get us anywhere strategically, spend it on alternative energy research. Solar, wind, and yes even nuclear. You might find this hard to believe but I am a big pro-nuke guy. I am a Star Trek fan so it's only natural that I think that warp power is the way to go!
I am not advocating sitting on our thumbs. We, as a nation, have a lot of work to do. I think we can both agree that our country as a whole has become fat and lazy thus easy to manipulate. If we don't want to end up like the Romans, we need to start now.
It starts with inspiring and motivating people. It has to be both. You can inspire someone to do something but will they stick with it? They need to be motivated as well. Could we motivate the entire country to figure out a way to effectively deter terrorism? I think we can and I think the answer starts with education. People like you and I need to learn as much as we can about that region of the world so we can end this conflict.
Knowledge is Power.
Some good points, I’ll grant... Thank you for clarifying your positions beyond the rhetoric. I won’t say I agree with all of them, but when you phrase it in a manner like that, it leaves the door open for more reasonable discussion than foul-mouthed rants. ‘Course if you keep this up, you’d lose some of your silver-tongued readers like Torch.
Thought experiment: Bring in a completely neutral observer — a Martian — and point out to him that the United States is involved in two hot wars against radical Islamic insurgents. One is in Afghanistan, a geographically marginal backwater with no resources, no industrial and no technological infrastructure. The other is in Iraq, one of the three principal Arab states, with untold oil wealth, an educated population, an advanced military and technological infrastructure which, though suffering decay in the later Saddam years, could easily be revived if it falls into the right (i.e. wrong) hands. Add to that the fact that its strategic location would give its rulers inordinate influence over the entire Persian Gulf region, including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the Gulf states. Then ask your Martian: Which is the more important battle? He would not even understand why you are asking the question.
Al Qaeda has provided the answer many times. Osama bin Laden, the one whose presence in Afghanistan presumably makes it the central front in the war on terror, has been explicit that “the most serious issue today for the whole world is this Third World War that is raging in Iraq.” Al Qaeda's No. 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, has declared that Iraq “is now the place for the greatest battle of Islam in this era.”
I’m not advocating leaving Afghanistan nor forsaking the search for the leaders of Al Qaeda. But, whether you agree with America getting into Iraq or not, whether you believe it’s in civil war or not, and whether you believe there are other areas that we could better focus, Iraq very much indeed is, if not before, then most assuredly now, a focal point in the war on terror.
Your basing your assumptions about Iraq on an extremly flawed intelligence system, though. When 9-11 happened, most of the intelligence apparatus of this country was exposed as being completely lacking in Arabic language and culture. They still are lacking because our current administration has no interest in learning about our enemy, discovering the intricacies of their culture, and exploiting them. I think that you misinterpret the people who say we should sit down and talk with our enemy as meaning they are giving up or surrendering. They are not. They want to measure them and study them, at least that's what I would do.
The violence in Iraq is a combination of groups all fighting for their gripe. Mostly, they are killing each other and really have no gripe with us. The foreign fighters there are a much smaller group than, say, the Sunni who basically want to just kill Shi'ite. You know as well as I do that bin Laden and Zawahari are using Iraq as propoganda. Not everyone in the Middle East believes their bullshit. Many know what is really going in Iraq and America is part of the problem not the solution. We are not defending ourselves there. There are smarter ways to defend ourselves in many other areas of the world, not just Afghanistan.
The important thing to also keep in mind is that liberals are saying the same thing I am. They don't hate America. They want to defend her in a different way then the way we are now, which I think has proven to be flawed. We have tried it Bush's way for five years and it hasn't worked out well. bin Laden is still less than 100 miles from four nuclear submarines stationed in a hotbed of Anti-American sentiment. Add that in to your description to your Martian friend and see how he responds then.
Post a Comment