I made a statement yesterday, which I almost thought I would have to retract; that it is impossible to have a civil, productive debate with Liberals on the subject of National Security. One of the comments in the article I put up yesterday in Wizbang Politics seemed, just for a little while, to show that some Liberals were willing to explore the matter with a clear head and calm attitude. The reader posting under the name "Gadfly" wrote:
1. We now know that there were, in fact, caches and stockpiles of WMD...
2. ...turns out that President Bush's "Axis of Evil" was just as he claimed. (Assuming "axis" denotes and connotes "connection", linear or otherwise.)
3. How is Iraq under Saddam (i.e. secular) related to ISLAMO-fascism? Why do conservatives link them? Other than the conservative proclivity to both create and conflate enemies. Or because, to conservatives, they're all "towel-heads".
4. And in what ways do conservatives distinguish Islamo-fascism from Islam? I think they fail to utterly. (Particularly on this website). And, in doing so, escallate conflict, rather than "defeating" it."
All things considered, these were reasonable requests, which I thought and still think deserve answer. That answer will be presented further on. But I am familiar enough with the matter, and frankly dissatisfied with the evasion from the core question, that I pressed Gadfly to answer a few things himself:
(continued)
2. Please answer why you feel compelled to ignore clear factual evidence of WMD programs, with specifics as to how not invading Iraq would have prevented the development and use of known extant programs under Saddam Hussein.
3. The WMD threat was only one of numerous causes for the invasion of Iraq. Please respond to the other causes, including the attempted assassination of a former U.S. President, the use of WMD on civilians, and sponsorship of multiple terrorist groups.
4. Please explain the Liberal policy for containing/addressing fanatics like Ahmadinejad.
I will work on my response, and look forward to yours. It would also be illuminating to learn why Joe Lieberman was good enough for you to be Vice-President in 2000, but not Senator in 2007."
That, unfortunately, was the high-point of our discussion. Gadfly's next response was distinctly disappointing
[ Gadfly ignores the fact, or is trying to duck it, that during the past six years, the Liberals have poisoned the well of discourse with the majority of invective, and the worst slanders being repeated at the highest levels of the Democratic Party. George W. Bush had no insults to spew at Democrats, yet Howard Dean, while the front-runner for the 2004 party nomination, mentioned that the lie that President Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance was " the most interesting theory that I've heard so far". Ted Kennedy accused Buch of cooking up the war for political points, and nancy Pelosi claimed President Bush deliberately misled Americans about Iraq. The same Democrats who clearly supported the war against Saddam in 2002 when it was time to vote their conscience, are the ones who lied about their votes later when they saw a chance to play politics. The largest and most popular Liberal blogs - Daily Kos and Democratic Underground - censor their comments to deny participation at all by Conservatives, and regularly allow comments which are defamatory of Conservatives, and in some cases incendiary examples of slander and incitement of violence against Republicans ]
"What, specifically, would you suggest as an effective policy for addressing Islamofascism, as practiced by Al Qaeda and like-minded groups?
First, it would be akin to Bush's in taking the threat seriously, but 1) I wouldn't project the fear that he projects and 2) I would hold a very high standard for acting within the bounds of the law (for example the 1996 War Crimes Act) the constitution, and the Geneva convention as much as humanly and humanEly possible. Recognizing that many people in the world will lend their support (which we need for intelligence) to the more morally responsible party. We're not doing well on that front."
[ It is an untrue allegation that the President is 'projecting fear'. Sorry, but that projection is nothing more than the Liberal "projecting" his fear of the facts getting out. Terrorists want to kill Americans, and saying so is simply setting the necessary focus. I also find it interesting that Gadfly confirms my observation that Liberals want a legal prosecution of Terrorism, not an effective war. Terrorists need killing, not lawyers. I would strongly suggest that Gadfly and other Liberals read the specific terms of the 1996 War Crimes Act, the United States Constitution, and the Geneva Convention. The plain fact is, terrorists do not enjoy protection under any of those treaties. The Geneva Convention, for example, specifically limits its protection to civilian non-combatants and military combatants of sovereign nations. NGO's like Al Qaeda and the Taliban do not have the standing of soldiers or non-combatants ]
"Also, language. Good point Red Baron!!!! Don't bind our enemies together! But to add to his point - what you call islamo-fascism, I might call fundamentalist-terrorism. Because it avoids the disgracefully inaccurate implication that Islam is primarily or significantly fascist. Or that the world's Muslims are at war with the west. (Though I recognize that SUBSETS of Islam ARE certainly marked by a propensity for violence. A violence that may be comparable to Christianity when it, Christianity, was about 1,300 years old.) But also because it clarifies to a democracy-loving Muslim (whose support we need) that, in our eyes, they are NOT a more serious threat to the U.S. than, say, Timothy McVeigh."
[ This is a perversion of my phrase. I do not expect Gadfly to be especially familiar with my writings - for anyone interested, just visit my homepage and click on the 'Significant Posts' links, which begin with the Islamic condition in Iraq, or simply do a blogsearch matching "Drummond" with "Islam", and see how often I have separated the faith from men wishing to usurp it. In point of fact, however, I do not know of many Conservatives at all trying to pretend that Islamofascism is the same as Islam as a whole. Certainly President Bush has repeatedly emphasized that Islam is not the enemy. I will write more about the nature, source, and remedy to Islamofascism in my conclusion. ]
"Please answer why you feel compelled to ignore clear factual evidence of WMD programs...
I don't feel compelled to ignore them. I do think, though, that 1) the evidence obtained post-invasion, for most Americans, does not sufficiently match the pre-war evidence provided by Bush. Thus the perception that he "lied". Though I'd call it "misrepresentation" and/or "exaggeration". Which, when justifying war, is still profoundly immoral."
[ There you go again, projecting your own assumptions. The "pre-war evidence" was significant and effective, after all, since it demonstrated how the Bush Administration reached its decision, and that same information was available and seen by all leading members of the Republicans and Democrats. And frankly, there has been quite a bit of "post-invasion" evidence found. The problem has been the way that evidence has been portrayed by the MSM. Frankly, most Americans, according to the polls, do not think Bush lied at all. They may or may not support his decision, but the consensus is that he made his decision honestly. That's actually a very great mistake the Left makes: You could actually sway some people if you admitted that President Bush was and is honest, but that you simply disagreed with the decision and the present policy. That you take such an opportunity and try to make it into something which is simply not true, is yet another example of the problem the Left has in dealing with its compulsion to attack Bush, even when such attacks cost you support of reasonable people. ]
"2) evidence continues to surface which suggests that a DESIRE for war with Iraq affected the Administrations objectivity in assessing the level of the Iraqi threat. (For example the Downing Street memo suggests this)."
[ Sorry, there is no such "evidence". That the Bush Administration paid attention to all of the regional threats is accurate, but it is false to pretend that Bush influenced, or even tried to influence, the intelligence-gathering or the recommendations. Once again, this demonstrates the Left's habit of deciding what they want to believe, then trying to shoehorn the facts to make things fit. Kind of like saying Bush "rushed to war" against Iraq, when in fact he took his time with diplomatic efforts, consultations with allies and the United Nations, and dealing with Afghanistan long before anyone began to consider acting against Saddam. ]
"3) Had Bush & co. employed a higher, i.e. more truthful, standard of accuracy for the intelligence, the case for war would probably not have persuaded Americans to support a pre-emptive war.
If you have a problem with that, you have a problem with democracy."
[ That statement is a baseless cheap shot, and a lie. No further comment is warranted. ]
"with specifics as to how not invading Iraq would have prevented the development and use of known extant programs under Saddam Hussein.
Containment. It worked well against the Soviet Union."
[ The Cold War took decades, ate tens of trillions of dollars, killed more than a million people in proxy conflicts and incidents, destroyed the economies and infrastructure of those countries absorbed by the Communist Empire, and still poisons the future of more than a quarter of the planet. Only a great fool would suggest it was a model for confronting groups which developed during the Cold War, and which have created their tactics and supply lines to take advantage of that especially bureaucratic mode of conditions. Further, it is a fact that the French and other allies of Saddam were already moving to lift sanctions, after which time Saddam's protected WMD programs would soon have renewed their pace and development. ]
"Also, in consultation with military experts, I would build a case for war which turned out to be more true than not true. I would hold a high standard for evidence. More akin to Powell's standards than Cheney-Bush's (i.e. 1%). I would not fabricate arguments, especially those that appeal to vengeance - i.e. that Iraq was connected with 9/11. (Spin it all you want, that conflation was a clear case of irresponsible misrepresentation).
Second - I would place enormous, perhaps equal importance, on the "rebuilding" phase of the occupation. In order not to INCREASE TERRORISM. If my Secretary of D demonstrated a disdain for "rebuilding" I would fire him. That's not only imcompetent - that morally disgraceful."
[ Here again you demonstrate the elitist arrogance of the purely hypothetical thinker - as if war could be so quickly and cleanly removed from the matter. In the first place, the military developed the war plan used: The best minds with experience and insight planned the war. Narcissist generals like Wesley Clark have no clue as to the best and necessary way to prosecute the war in Iraq, even if they had the inclination. If you cannot understand the huge difference between social interaction with NATO allies in Bonn and Verona, and street warfare in Baghdad and Fallujah, you need to go back to remedial tactics. And as for the "rebuilding" phase, you pretend that Iran and Syria are not fomenting violence through the insertion of terrorists over the border, and seem to believe that we had, say, a swell plan for making the boo-boo better after World Wars I or II? Again, to pretend so only shows how little you know of History. ]
"Third - In addressing the Iraq problem (i.e. possible, indirect threat), I would make sure that it did not diminish my pursuit of Al Qaeda (i.e. KNOWN, DIRECT THREAT)."
[ What a strange statement! Do you even know how many Al Qaeda have been killed or captured, have you not read the desperation in their intercepted communications, or the fact that they have fled to Sudan for their Headquarters because no other place, literally, exists for them? And I am sure I don't need to remind you, that despite Liberal pretense, Al Qaeda has hardly been sitting around in one location, like a bad movie. The US military has done a spectacular job in hunting down these vermin, and your statement, while surely unintentional, demonstrates again how the Left does not in fact support the troops, since you are so unaware of even their most obvious accomplishments. ]
"Please respond to the other causes, including the attempted assassination of a former U.S. President...
Horrible as that was, we have no moral grounds to use that as justification - Cuba, Chile, Congo and (if you count coup attempts) Iran (Mossadeh) and Venezuela and many others."
[ You are wrong. Assassinations and attempts on heads of state are accepted as valid causes for declaring war. Your attempts - whether factual or just spiteful - to link the United States to Saddam's Iraq on this behavior, once again demonstrate to any reasonable person your contempt for America. We are the good guys, and that's how most of us see it - if Liberals ever want to hold the trust of the public, they're just going to have to change this kind of bile spewing. ]
"4. Please explain the Liberal policy for containing/addressing fanatics like Ahmadinejad.
Similar to an earlier question:
1) Take it seriously like Bush. But-
2) Don't be quite so idiotic and incompetent in the execution."
[ The jury will observe that Gadfly made no attempt whatsoever to respond in substance, but chose to revert to a baseless insult. ]
"It would also be illuminating to learn why Joe Lieberman was good enough for you to be Vice-President in 2000, but not Senator in 2007.
For me, it was his explicit encouragement that the public NOT question the president in the vague and nebulous arena of "war on terror". Which, from my pov, for an Senator, borders on constitutionally lazy, if not structurally (governmentally) dangerous."
[ Curiouser and curiouser. Lieberman never soft-pedaled the issue. In fact, he is still a critic of President Bush in many respects. You are simply lying about him, why? Because he finds the war in Iraq necessary. That speaks volumes. ]
(all Gadfly's comments quoted from above are here)
Sad, really. While the Gadfly was still attempting to be civil, he had already begun to turn away from the substance.
Once in moral decline, Gadfly continued a slow but unfortunate descent. His next comment, in response to anecdotal evidence reminding him of the connection between Saddam and Terrorism, was this:
Other Liberal comments were present, but they made no attempt at all to address the issue, but instead depended front to back on a barrage of insults and petty vitriol. Beyond noting that they unintentionally proved my point, they are worth no response.
The blog Sweetness & Light put up a compelling reminder yesterday of just how delusional and bitter the Left has become, to the point that even the most obviously non-biased sources were attacked simply for not buying their lies. James B. Meigs of "Popular Mechanics" writes today about the acid-laced delusion which led Liberals and 9/11 Conspiracists to defame his magazine, for proving that the conspiracy theories simply cannot be true (ht Betsy's Page).
In conclusion, then. Sorry, but the end is as long as everything up to it. In as brief as possible then, Liberals have demonstrated a delusion which makes it impossible to trust them in any post of responsibility. This is actually unfortunate, as Conservatives need a balancing force in debate and ideals to challenge their own assumptions and priorities. But the absolute hatred which drives the Left, makes their perspective irrational and a threat to the nation itself.
Now, to Gadfly's initial questions and points:
[] Liberals focus on only one aspect of one point of the decision to invade Iraq and depose Saddam Hussein; his nuclear weapons program and material. This misses a great deal about why the 2003 Coalition existed, why the U.S. Military was and remains strongly motivated, and why the effort has been a success on the merits of its clear objectives. Ed Morrisey eloquently explains the context.
[] The "Axis of Evil" must be understood in the context of the threat, not some artificial construct to be made into a strawman. Bill Clinton discussed abstract concerns, yet Liberals left him unchallenged, and Liberals have always supported "wars" on Poverty and Social Ills, but perhaps I must leave those for another time. There are, to be clear, to be blunt, nations which seek the destruction of the United States as it exists, and there is a cowardly unity to nations which hate us enough to make it their policy to find whatever weapons, however foul, they can use against the best nation on earth. Liberals who mock President Bush for trying to illuminate the danger, would do well to listen to the echoes from other Presidents calling out the clarion before him. There are nations which want you dead. It is not only right, but duty, to point that out.
[] Saddam Hussein deserved to die. Beyond that I do not see a speck of injustice in what he has lost, or why. I would be happy to discuss the specifics of how and why it was necessary and right to invade Iraq, but only after my Liberal counterpart acknowledges that removing him was right. No, you don't have to praise the war or any political position, but anyone who cannot agree to the basic fact that Saddam Hussein was an evil dictator who needed removal, which was in fact made the official policy of the United States in 1998 - that's uh, a while before Bush became President, by the way - is effectively so dispatched from reality that discussion is impossible.
[] Islamofascism is one of those insidious disorders, which takes a culture and does its damndest to pervert its ideals and strengths. I have said before that given the thousands of terrorist acts committed by self-proclaimed Muslims, and matching them against the billion or so Muslims in the world, is prima facia evidence that most of Islam is not aligned with these monsters.
But there is a serious, grave problem for Islam. The leaders of Islam are not speaking out against the evils done by fanatics, and whole governments have dictated "Jihad" against non-Muslims, simply because they exist. It is also a dark and undeniable fact, that the overwhelming majority of terrorist violence planned and committed is by groups which declare themselves to be Muslim, and who declare that their religion is the principal motivation for their crimes.
And no, Conservatives are not "escalating" the violence. They simply refuse to hide from it, or to let innocents be tyrannized and murdered in the hope that the evil ones will not notice us across the water. 9/11 proved that was a false hope, anyway. The planning for 9/11 started long before Bush was President, just as Americans were taken hostage at the U.S. Embassy in Teheran on motives which never concerned themselves with anything we actually did. We either hunt down these bastards, wherever and whoever they are, or we let them come and murder Americans.
I vote to take them out.
Permalink | Send To A Friend | Linking Blogs | Digg this!
Filed under:
Commentary
Comments (19)
Ted Kennedy accused Buch... (Below threshold)1. Posted by The Red State Baron | September 12, 2006 4:47 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Ted Kennedy accused Buch of cooking up the war for political points, and nancy Pelosi claimed President Bush deliberately misled Americans about Iraq.
That's hardly demagoguery. For one thing, every opposition party says such things (check out what Republicans said about Clinton's military actions). What's odd is how hysterical conservatives get about the suggestion that "Bush lied," as if no leader had ever told lies to get a country into war and such a thing is inconceivable. Hell, I can't think of a war where the leader didn't make deliberately misleading statements, or leave out things that contradicted his point.
It is an untrue allegation that the President is ‘projecting fear’.
Then why doesn't Bush encourage people not to be afraid? The responsible attitude to terrorism is to tell people to be careful but not be terrorized; instead Bush never, ever, discourages people from being afraid, and instead over-inflates the relatively minor threat of Islamic terrorism.
I also find it interesting that Gadfly confirms my observation that Liberals want a legal prosecution of Terrorism, not an effective war. Terrorists need killing, not lawyers.
This is like saying that gangsters and mafiosi "need killing, not lawyers." Terrorists are gangsters engaged in criminal conspiracies and acts; putting them on trial is no more a sell-out than putting any other gangster on trial. The law-enforcement approach works because it correctly identifies the nature of terrorism: a form of trans-national gangsterism. The "war" approach has failed (as can be clearly seen by the removal of Al Qaeda's enemy, Saddam) because it misunderstands the nature of terrorism, mis-identifying it as a "war" and therefore giving the terrorists much more credibility and prestige than gangsters and thugs deserve.
Liberals, who believe in law and order, want to capture terrorists and treat them like any other criminal scum. Conservatives for some reason want to inflate terrorists to mythic proportions and give them un-needed respect.
NGO’s like Al Qaeda and the Taliban do not have the standing of soldiers or non-combatants
Fine, but the problem with Bush's kangaroo courts is that it does not distinguish between people who actually belong to those NGOs and people who are just at Guantanamo by mistake. In other words, until there's evidence, we usually don't know who's a terrorist and who isn't; the Bush administration's word is not sufficient. So we treat terrorism as the law-enforcement matter it is, give them fair trials with evidence, and execute those found guilty. Simple, safe, and effective.
We either hunt down these bastards, wherever and whoever they are, or we let them come and murder Americans.
Except that even if you believe that stirring phrase, Saddam Hussein was the enemy of the religious Islamist fanatics, and therefore toppling him -- and replacing this secular thug with Iranian-linked religious thugs -- was exactly the opposite of what you advocate. In other words, I repeat: only those who opposed the Iraq war (or at least now admit that it was a mistake) can claim to take national security and the threat of Islamic terrorism seriously, since the Iraq war served no American interest and in fact removed an enemy of Islamic fundamentalists.
1. Posted by The Red State Baron | September 12, 2006 4:47 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 12, 2006 16:47
2. Posted by Jim Addison | September 12, 2006 4:55 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Red advocates giving illegal combatants who attacked Americans on foreign soil access to our criminal courts?
One more example why the left can never again be trusted with national security.
2. Posted by Jim Addison | September 12, 2006 4:55 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 12, 2006 16:55
3. Posted by The Red State Baron | September 12, 2006 5:05 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Red advocates giving illegal combatants who attacked Americans on foreign soil access to our criminal courts?
Dude, you are totally unable to distinguish between "Illegal combatants" and "people accused of being illegal combatants." Unless you give them access to a trial, lots of people who are not, in fact, illegal combatants will be held prisoner and maybe even killed for no reason. Not good.
The fact that the right can't understand the basic difference between "terrorist" and "guy the Bush administration claims might be a terrorist" proves that the right is too much in love with the government (or at least this government) to be trusted on national security. Basic distinctions, man.
As for your sneering dismissal of "access to our criminal courts," we give trials to lots of horrible scum and vermin. Hell, we gave public trials to the Nazi war criminals. If the right has contempt for the criminal justice system, that's their problem; liberals believe in law and order.
3. Posted by The Red State Baron | September 12, 2006 5:05 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 12, 2006 17:05
4. Posted by Cain | September 12, 2006 5:09 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Bravo DJ. A great post even though it's (as I believe you allude to in your response) far more effort than the questioner ultimately deserved.
But for those who have questions and are genuinely searching for clarity, the effort is more than worthy. The manner in which this debate is conducted, and the level of honesty employed on either side, are a strong influence and I believe you've done well for your part. Thank you for taking the time.
4. Posted by Cain | September 12, 2006 5:09 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 12, 2006 17:09
5. Posted by Mark L | September 12, 2006 5:31 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Red State Baron:
An individual:
-- caught setting an IED,
-- caught under arms without a uniform or distinguishing markings indicating he is a combatant
-- caught conducting military operations without belonging to an organized military formation that has no formal command structure
Is *not* someone "accused" of being an illegal combatant. According to the Geneva Convention that individual *is* an illegal combatant. This is not a legal matter, it is a military matter.
Someone captured under those circumstances can be shot out of hand -- even if that individual puts down his arms and offers no resistance. That is legal according to the Geneva Conventions. No trial is necessary.
Someone captured under those circumstances can have his (or her) surrender accepted, but it does not change that individual's status -- they are *still* an illegal combatant. The only difference is that once their surrender has been accepted, they cannot be shot out of hand. They may be tried by a military tribunal, and executed for being an illegal combatant afterwards, however.
The refusal to treat military matters as military matters, but to treat them instead as "criminal" actions was one of the failings of the previous administration, and seems to be one of your failings, too.
We signed the Geneva Conventions. If our foes violate those conventions they may be punished for those violations according to the protections offered to the United States.
5. Posted by Mark L | September 12, 2006 5:31 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 12, 2006 17:31
6. Posted by The Red State Baron | September 12, 2006 5:37 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Mark L:
All good points, but the problem is that the Bush Administration has not set up any kind of system for distinguishing between people actually caught doing the things you describe, and people just randomly picked up or turned over to the U.S. by their governments (for whatever reason). So having decided to conflate military matters with police matters (and the search for terrorists is essentially a police action, unlike the conflict in Iraq, which is essentially military), and to set up a camp mixing illegal combatants with accused criminals, the Bush administration has pretty much confused everyone and everything.
6. Posted by The Red State Baron | September 12, 2006 5:37 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 12, 2006 17:37
7. Posted by JohnMc | September 12, 2006 6:01 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Red State,
In 6 paragraphs you absolutely proved DJD's point about liberal mindsets.
I do wish to parse one observation of yours --
"Liberals, who believe in law and order, want to capture terrorists and treat them like any other criminal scum. Conservatives for some reason want to inflate terrorists to mythic proportions and give them un-needed respect."
I will for the moment take your assessment at face value. And here is the problem. It is not that Conservatives laud superhero status on Islamofacists. But conservatives do heap a whole bunch of credability on the technology at their disposal. The combination of Unhinged Islamist + WMD + $$ to facilitate is an explosive mix. And I mean that literally.
Now if this was the 1930's we could certainly treat this in the law and order fashion like the liberals envision. In fact we did, there were anarchists in the US with a penchant for blowing things up and were treated in that exact fashion during the 30's. But times have changed. Now that same person carrying a suit case nuke would take out half a city and a million of its inhabitants.
And I have to pose the question to you. Treating a triggered nuke as a crime scene has to be the height of folly. Where's the crook? -- gone. Where's the weapon? -- gone. Where are the witness to the crime? -- gone. In fact where is the crime scene? -- for all intents and puroses it's gone too. Either that or I must assume you subscribe to the idea that the FBI would cordon off 2 square miles with yellow police tape.
Think about it.
7. Posted by JohnMc | September 12, 2006 6:01 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 12, 2006 18:01
8. Posted by The Red State Baron | September 12, 2006 6:10 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
JohnMc --
What you're assuming is that there is no crime until the nuke goes off. But going around with a loose nuke, or even trying to get one, is a crime too. So law enforcement is perfectly able to go after terrorists before they commit terrorist acts, as we have seen from the many terrorism plots broken up by the Clinton administration (and occasionally by the Bush administration) before they could be successfully carried out.
Second, we've seen from Iraq the problem with assuming that we need to go to war to prevent states from giving nukes to terrorists: we wind up spending a lot of time and money and lives invading countries that had no nukes to give anybody. Also, I don't agree with the assumption that nuclear states supporting terrorism is a new and horrible threat. The Soviet Union supported terrorism all over the place (heck, even the U.S. sponsored terrorism sometimes: Reagan may have had a point in supporting the Contras, but they were unquestionably engaged in terrorism), and they would never have thought to equip a terrorist with nukes, largely because it would be traced back to them and they'd be wiped out. The same applies to why you're not going to see Iran giving nukes to terrorists: whereas terrorists don't care if they live or die, nation-states don't want to get wiped out.
8. Posted by The Red State Baron | September 12, 2006 6:10 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 12, 2006 18:10
9. Posted by Cain | September 12, 2006 6:26 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Red State - What you're assuming is that there is no crime until the nuke goes off. But going around with a loose nuke, or even trying to get one, is a crime too. So law enforcement is perfectly able to go after terrorists before they commit terrorist acts, as we have seen from the many terrorism plots broken up by the Clinton administration (and occasionally by the Bush administration) before they could be successfully carried out.
Red State, you completely ducked John's point.
9/11 happened
London happened
Madrid happened
Bali happened
They are going to get through no matter how many plots are successfully stopped. This isn't even up for debate. The question is how you handle things when the attack occurs. And sooner or later, WMD will indeed enter the equation whether it's nukes, bio, chem; whatever.
9. Posted by Cain | September 12, 2006 6:26 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 12, 2006 18:26
10. Posted by JohnMc | September 12, 2006 7:29 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Red - "But going around with a loose nuke, or even trying to get one, is a crime too."
Ok, I am going to use my 'take it to the edges' argument and see if your comment holds water. Were I capable of building a nuke and registered same with ATF would I have broken any laws? I would hazard probably not. The quirk of course would be I would file the forms as 'Custom AFW Mk 1." and ATF would be none the wiser. The clerk would assume it was a custom built gun of which there are many. Once I had the cert in my hand not a thing they can do. The possession of enriched uranium is not a crime in this country. And by the way there have been a few people who have pinched a couple of grams of the stuff. Their charge? -- theft, not possession.
Absurd? Well maybe. But the only thing that stops me is the technical difficulty not the ability to game the system. But consider there is a guy out in Sherman Texas that has fully functional tanks available for rent (link) . So don't think is not possible to be perfectly legal with a nuke in your living room. (The why is a different matter.)
The fundamental flaw that you seem to recognize but won't accept is that a crime has to be committed. Which means past tense. One cannot be a terrorist in this country till such time as one has demonstrated the act of being one. Then it is too late. Your references to Clintons efforts were you to dig deep enough would find that in most cases, guys like Mossoui (sic) were held on immigration violations NOT for being a terrorist as that was the only actionable crime he had committed.
"The Soviet Union supported terrorism all over the place (heck, even the U.S. sponsored terrorism sometimes..."
Here you clearly misunderstand the threat posed by religious fanatics. The Soviet Union for all its ills and foibles was what is called in the parlence a rational player. The nuclear MAD policy we had with them was understood that to act was to assure total destruction to both parties. No one pulls the tigger on a gun if it is known it shoots 2 bullets.
But to a fanatic whose death elevates himself to martyrdom and enlightment has no such restraints. "In the name of Allah I bring the light of a thousand suns to the infidels in Cleveland! Allah Akabar!!" To a man willing to die for his cause, there is no constraint short of death itself.
The other problem with the crime-punishment paradigm is the presumption that for most people the punishement serves as the basis for the deterrent. Which for most of us that is true. But for a Islamofacist there is no deterent factor. And in that case then the concept of 'a crime' and legal pursuit has no value. Much like a sexual predator, they will ratchet their efforts event afer event till they achieve martyrdom. That is their goal and pinnacle of their existence or lack there of as the case maybe.
10. Posted by JohnMc | September 12, 2006 7:29 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 12, 2006 19:29
11. Posted by FreeKeys | September 12, 2006 8:20 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
A few points:
1. Despite his later lies about it, Joe Wilson as well as others actually had found out that Saddam's reps HAD gone to Niger to buy uranium.
2. Saddam's training facilities at Salman Pak and elsewhere WERE used for training terrorists.
3. Saddam DID harbor Abu Nidal, Abdul Yassin, Ramzi Yusef, and other perpetrators of heinous acts of terrorism, including the 1993 WTC bombing. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed collaborator Yusef even had an office in Saddam's Mukhabarrat Secret Police HQ.
4. Since the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom, coalition forces have found enough chemical weapons in Iraq to kill about one half million people which the UN weapons inspectors never found -- probably because they were NOT in clearly-marked "stockpiles" or warehouses which the anti-war types seem to insist upon.
5. (My personal reason): As a legitimate country based on individual rights, we had the right to do any damn thing we needed to Saddam's illegitimate country, and guess what? We need to surround Iran best we can.
6,7,8,etc. See WHY IRAQ?
11. Posted by FreeKeys | September 12, 2006 8:20 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 12, 2006 20:20
12. Posted by FreeKeys | September 12, 2006 10:31 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Oh yes -- almost forgot. The danger of treating acts of terrorism as law enforcement problems is that it always means assigning attorneys and legal defense to captured terrorists and revealing to them AND THEIR ENTIRE NETWORKS all the evidence against them (which usually reveals HOW THAT EVIDENCE WAS OBTAINED). That may be okay for domestic criminals, but it's NOT a good idea while still at war, ESPECIALLY in a war for the survival of civilization.
12. Posted by FreeKeys | September 12, 2006 10:31 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 12, 2006 22:31
13. Posted by the gadfly | September 12, 2006 11:06 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
DJ,
I truly respect the depth of analysis of your posts. And your relative civility, compared to most of your wizbang colleagues.
Two major topics of your post:
1) the actual war on terror, facts, case for, etc.
2) the inability of "liberals" to rationally discuss it.
I think Red State Baron (and you) did a great job with #1.
I only have time to very briefly address #2.
Overall, you rightly condemn cheap shots and irrationality in the left. I'll concede that the extremes on both sides are supremely guilty of that. And for my contribution, I retract and apologize.
But in many (not all) of the cases where you see only an attempt to make a cheap shot or be malicious, etc, I'd encourage you to consider the possibility that there is, in fact, no such attempt.
Quick example ONLY TO ILLUSTRATE the larger point (liberal irrationality, etc.)...
I wrote...
Had Bush & co. employed a higher, i.e. more truthful, standard of accuracy for the intelligence, the case for war would probably not have persuaded Americans to support a pre-emptive war. If you have a problem with that, you have a problem with democracy.”
You call that a baseless cheapshot. I honestly have no such intention there. Very briefly, it is based on the numerous accounts that CONTRADICTORY evidence was disregarded or dismissed by the Bush administration. And that specious evidence was readily embraced (for example, Powell had to put up an enormous fight to remove Libby-Cheney's weaker arguments from Powell's UN speech).
Well-intentioned citizens might perceive, therefore, a failure of Bush-Cheney-Libby to hold a high standard of honesty in the SELECTION AND REJECTION of intelligence - as it it fit their purposes. That is not saying he intentionally-knowingly "lied". But it is, to me, still a form or immoral irresponsibility. One which many well-meaning citizens find threatening to democracy.
Overall, in many of the cases where you see evasiveness (on my part), it was in fact limited time. And where you see in libs anti-Americanism and tolerance of terrorism, I see, in fact, HIGH MORAL STANDARDS for America's prosecution of the war. Since Americans are first and foremost responsibe for the actions of their own nation. And because of the "hearts and minds" side of the war.
But, you're right, I intentionally took some cheap shots. And you have my humble retraction.
And, in your spirit of rational civility, I'd like to point out that numerous wizbangers on another thread(Islamofascists Try to Take Over US Embassy in Syria) are advocating that we destroy Mecca and militarily eliminate Muslims.
13. Posted by the gadfly | September 12, 2006 11:06 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 12, 2006 23:06
14. Posted by Jim Addison | September 13, 2006 4:16 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Everyone was on board with the WMD intelligence except for two of the CIA units. One said "no evidence of WMD" and the other said "not enough evidence of WMD." The rest of the CIA was certain of WMD, which is why Tenet told the President it was a "slam dunk." No other intelligence showed any sign of doubt. Even the notoriously ass-covering State Dept. intel was on board.
Not much to "cherry pick" when everyone is saying the same thing.
Sorry if that interferes with the meme you were taught.
14. Posted by Jim Addison | September 13, 2006 4:16 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 13, 2006 04:16
15. Posted by the gadfly | September 13, 2006 4:54 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Jim,
Sorry if that interferes with the meme you were taught.
It doesn't. No need to be sorry.
Despite my original support for Bush in Iraq, I find the subsequent arguments/evidence of "cherry picking" sufficiently pursuasive.
But thanks for your thoughts.
15. Posted by the gadfly | September 13, 2006 4:54 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 13, 2006 04:54
16. Posted by The Macker | September 13, 2006 12:18 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
gadfly simply ignores the cumulative reasons for the War. To wit:
1) Massive human rights violations.
2) Regular violations of the Gulf War surrender agreement by fireing on our planes.
3) Flaunting of UN resolutions.
4) History of WMD. Refusal to cooperate with inspectors.Possibility of existing WMD's. (His intent has now been proven.)
5) The threat (now proven) that Iraq would become a hub for the exporting of terror.
To focus only on the absence of large stockpiles of WMD is to miss the larger picture.As Hitchens said, "Iraq was an enduring threat."
16. Posted by The Macker | September 13, 2006 12:18 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 13, 2006 12:18
17. Posted by the gadfly | September 13, 2006 12:29 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
The Macker -
Read before you write. You're addressing someone else's argument, not mine.
17. Posted by the gadfly | September 13, 2006 12:29 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 13, 2006 12:29
18. Posted by The Macker | September 13, 2006 2:19 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
gadfly,
"Had Bush & co. employed a higher, i.e. more truthful, standard of accuracy for the intelligence"- gadfly
What was this all about, if not WMD?
18. Posted by The Macker | September 13, 2006 2:19 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 13, 2006 14:19
19. Posted by the gadfly | September 13, 2006 6:27 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Macker -
In the general category of cherry picking & lower standards for the intelligence selected & distorted objectivey, there is a lot of info. And I don't have time to recap the total argument & evidence.
But I will give some examples from "Cobra II", "Against All Enemies" and numerous other sources -
1) Accounts of repeated battles between Cheney and Powell in how high a standard they should hold for the intell.
2) Accounts of the Administration changing the language of the 2003 Iraq NIE before presentation. Removing modifiers, removing contradictory conclusions, etc.
3) Cheney's IMPLICATIONS of an Iraqi role in 9/11.
4) Accounts of Rumsfeld's utter disdain for "Phase Four" - planning Iraq's recovery.
5) Accounts of the Admin readily embracing Chalabi despite evidence of his unreliability.
6) The Downing Memo implication that intelligence was secondary to the decision to go to war.
Neither you nor I are in a position to DEFINITIVELY establish the reliability of all of those.
The point is that I found the arguments in sum, presented by many sources, sufficient to diminish Bush's credibility in my eyes.
19. Posted by the gadfly | September 13, 2006 6:27 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 13, 2006 18:27