My kingdom for some decent rhetoric!
I’m no fan of past totalitarian regimes, but at least some former propaganda machines respected the intelligence of the general populace!
Everyone has heard of the NIE report by now. It says that the invasion of
Yet the response has been nothing short of hilarious. Democrats have pounced on the report, in the hope of turning it into election fodder. No surprise there. Mr Bush & Co. have likewise remained true to form. Witness the inane logic that follows: (1) It is specious at best to make assumptions on the basis of a fragmentary account taken from a much larger document. (2) They can’t declassify the document, because it would jeopardize our intelligence-gathering apparatus. (3) The NIE report further proves that
All three of these claims are probably true. However, taken together, they might be satisfactory explanation for an adolescent. If you tell me that the rest of a report proves my assumptions wrong, but then tell me that you can’t tell me what the rest of the report says, am I to take your claims on faith? When I tell you that invading
As I have always maintained, I sadly agree with the administration that the WORST thing we could do now is withdraw from a mess we created. But the amazingly transparent irony of the situation is, WE CREATED THE MESS! They admit as much when they directly state that
Apparently the American Dream now includes investing in a self-lobotomy kit. Otherwise I’m not sure how one is supposed to make it through the nightly news.
-W.
posted by William H. Harwood at 9:43 PM
2 Comments:
I have been frustrated lately by the accusations back and forth in the Media. Was it George’s fault we got attacked? Or was it Slick Willy’s? Thank you Fox News for once again disemboweling the real issue. Clinton owned up to some of the blame when sparing with Chris Wallace. But the attack happened on Bush’s watch.
More importantly, it doesn’t matter anymore who was responsible for allowing the terrorists to get away with this. Of much greater importance is that we stop the terrorists from ever doing this again.
It is hard to deny things are bad in Iraq. There is no question many parts of this war have been handled poorly. And I do not doubt terrorists are training in Iraq. What I don’t know (and I hope our CIA knows) is where those trained terrorists are going? Most videos from terrorist leadership call for continued jihad in Iraq. Does this mean the new recruits are they flocking to Iraq? If so, that’s not necessarily a bad thing for America. If the terrorists are focused on attacking Iraq, then they’re not attacking US Homeland. But that’s a pretty big “if”. Are they going to Afghanistan? Are they leaving the Middle East?
Since we are far removed from the strategic levels of this borderless war, it is hard to know where we really stand. In an election year, we can’t trust the politicians rhetoric. That means we’re left to trust the CIA and the Pentagon are doing their job. That’s not the security blanket I was hoping to curl up with tonight. But I guess it will have to do.
I have a couple of problems with your comments:
(1) "Of much greater importance is that we stop the terrorists from ever doing this again." How? Remember: honorable, civilized people everywhere have declared war on types of resistance deemed "cowardly" (etc.) throughout history. To name a few: nuclear, chemical, trench, guerilla, the machine gun, the revolver, gunpowder, crossbows... If my memory serves, the Welsh horrified the world with their longbows, which in the hands of a peasant could pierce armor. For the first time in their lives, nobles started to be confused and afraid.
In short, if you mean by this trying to prevent an attack, it is both impossible and inevitable. If you mean by this trying to prevent the reasons by and for which we would be attacked, this is both possible and commendable. How do we achieve this? We could start by asking those countries that haven't been attacked what it is that makes them so special, no?
(2) "Are they [new recruits] flocking to Iraq? Is so, that's not necessarily a bad thing for America. If the terrorists are focused on attacking Iraq, then they're not attacking US Homeland." This is both callous and dangerous. First, there were no terrorist attacks in Iraq before we took over. Terrorists weren't flocking there. Something that tends to slip through media coverage and national debate is the deplorable truth behind Mr Bush's claim that our security depends on the fighting in the streets of Baghdad. Specifically, we dumped our own fight on another country and left them with the massive majority of casualties. Imagine you and I have a beef with each other. In order to work out our differences, we invite all of our friends and their friends to come a la Westside Story's Jets and Sharks. We make sure to bring as many explosives as possible. Then, when choosing our battleground, we go to an unrelated neighborhood and blow up their cars, homes, schools, kids, etc. Here's where the "dangerous" part comes in: how do you think those kids are going to feel about America if we continue to be happy about the fact that we moved our own problems onto their yard?
Incidentally, Mr Bush must really think people are stupid when he says "you do not create terrorism by fighting terrorism." You don't need a history or psych degree to know that this is EXACTLY how you create it. For those in doubt, just read one of bin Laden's speeches, or watch a film like Paradise Now or Death in Gaza. The all time best recruitment of terrorists has come from the Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank. The second best, it seems, is the American occupation of Iraq. Screw you, Kashmir! We're going for the Gold!
Post a Comment
<< Home