Beinart: No, we’re not at war with radical jihadist terrorism

posted at 11:36 am on January 4, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Peter Beinart makes an interesting, if somewhat contradictory, argument at the Daily Beast regarding Dick Cheney’s argument that the Obama administration doesn’t really think it’s fighting a war against terrorists.  On one hand, Beinart argues that the Obama administration successfully rebuked Cheney through its reference to its own rhetoric, in which they used the term “war” as recently as the inauguration almost a year ago.  Beinart then argues that Cheney was right after all, and that Barack Obama should embrace the idea that he isn’t fighting a war against radical jihadist terrorism:

It was your garden-variety partisan smackdown. After the underwear-bomber attack, Dick Cheney accused President Obama of “trying to pretend we are not at war” with jihadist terrorism. The White House responded by quoting Obama’s inaugural address, in which the president declared that “our nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred” and his Nobel Prize speech, in which he reiterated that “we are at war.” Democrats congratulated themselves for making Cheney look like an ass, again.

But they missed the larger point, which is that while America is obviously at war in Afghanistan and Iraq, it isn’t actually at war with jihadist terrorism. Rather than proving Cheney wrong, the White House should have done something more audacious: Prove him right. …

Why doesn’t the White House recognize this? Because while Cheney and company love the word “war” precisely because they define it as military conflict, Americans in recent decades have gotten used to employing the word to mean something more like “national mobilization.” As a result of Washington’s “wars” on poverty, drugs and cancer, the word’s meaning has grown fuzzy. It is this fuzziness that allows the Obama administration to try to have it both ways. On the one hand, they claim that for them, war means mobilizing the economic, diplomatic, and ideological aspects of American power, with the military playing only a supporting role. On the other, they can brandish the macho-sounding “war” to deflect Republican charges that they’re soft on national security.

This makes for an interesting and provocative argument, which should be read in full.  If I could boil Beinart’s argument down to its essential, he says that we should use the word “war” for explicit and total military involvement.  Using “war” in the context of poverty, cancer, and drugs cheapens the term and makes it much too broad for application in a variety of efforts.  Later in the piece, Beinart states that only those who have been impacted by foreign wars and foreign attacks understand the death, destruction, and horror of actual war, and if we understood that much, we wouldn’t apply the term to the present conflict or domestic issues like poverty.

I hate to state the obvious, but the US actually does qualify for Beinart’s contrasting case.  What was 9/11 if not an attack on the US by foreign forces that left massive death and destruction?  Almost 3,000 people died in the attacks, and more would have died had not the passengers of United 93 courageously took action to prevent it.  In the smoking pit of death at the World Trade Center, Americans understood that war had been declared on the US, and that we had failed in preventing the first offensive on our home soil.

Beinart makes a good point about the use of “war” on domestic policy issues, but neglects to provide the full etymology of its use.  The “war on poverty” didn’t come from reactionary neocons, but from the rhetoric of the anti-war Left and its political leaders.  They demanded that the resources the US used in fighting its (imperialist) wars be used instead to fight the ills of humanity, starting with poverty.  Lyndon Johnson adopted that rallying cry for his Great Society, and it passed easily into the political lexicon from there.

But on the Cold War, Beinart is on shakier ground.  While it is true that the US and the USSR did not fight a war on a battlefield, both mobilized as though at war with the other.  We fought active wars in places like Vietnam and Korea, proxy wars in South America, and near wars in Europe.  We did fight ideological and economic battles as well, but Beinart misses the fact that it was a massive military expansion that finally broke the back of the Soviet economy and forced the Russians into retreat in Europe.  And it was covert war in Afghanistan that broke the Soviet military, although in the words of former Rep. Charlie Wilson, we managed to “f* up the end game.”  Without their defeat in Afghanistan and their economic exhaustion from keeping pace with the American military buildup, would the Soviets still have crumbled in Eastern Europe?

In the present case, we are most definitely at war.  War also involves ideological and diplomatic efforts, as any student of World War II, the last truly “total war” could attest; those are not mutually exclusive.  In fighting and killing jihadis in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and elsewhere, we are using our military to fight straight-up battles against foreign networks of terrorists before they get a chance to use those resources against our citizens here at home, and we use our intelligence assets to find them there and elsewhere (Pakistan, mainly) and root them out through less public means.  We’re not serving subpoenas and warrants on the end of Predator drone missiles, after all.  Instead of pretending that we’re not at war because we’re not marching the entire 4th Infantry Division across Waziristan, we should start recognizing that war for us will be almost entirely asymmetrical but will require the same level of commitment to victory — and not in a courtroom.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Beinart is a fool who does not understand the first thing about war. To believe that war is merely kenetic is to ignore history and essentially every serious study ever done on warfare. In a war all elements of national power must be utilized. In school we used the acronym DIME, Diplomatic, Informational, Military and Economic to describe the different elements. Very broad categories, but comprehensive. All should work together, but one or more take precedence depending on the situation and phase.

Also, the fact that Obama mentioned the word ‘war’ on several occasions does not invalidate Cheney’s point. The actions of this administration belie the claim that we are in a war. Fighting a war means focusing all elements of national power on winning. We clearly are not. Obama does not even want to talk of victory.

With regard to ROE, here’s a quote from someone that knows a little about war.

“Kind hearted people might, of course, think there is some ingenious way to disarm or defeat an enemy without too much bloodshed, and might imagine this is the true goal of the art of war. Pleasant as it sounds, it is a fallacy that must be exposed. War is such a dangerous business that the mistakes which come from kindness are the very worst.” Clausewitz

SoonerMarine on January 4, 2010 at 1:15 PM

This Administration cares more about our enemy than they do about the safety of our Best and Brightest. Treasonous.

kingsjester on January 4, 2010 at 1:16 PM

I am faced with trying to accomplish a very specific mission which must be taken through very exact steps to be legally executed under the articles of war and they’ve taken the one step I can use to show the enemy we mean business without actually engaging them directly. I am deprived of the small chance of prosecuting the maneuver by making him surrender before he decides to fire. I am not even sure how to legally try to do that mission now.

hawkdriver on January 4, 2010 at 1:04 PM

============================================================
============================================================

This information,needs to be forwarded to Rush Limbaugh,
so Rush can do a segment on this!

canopfor on January 4, 2010 at 1:17 PM

A very thorough and excellent response Ed.

chicagojedi on January 4, 2010 at 1:18 PM

Bleeds Blue=No Clue

1921 C DRUM on January 4, 2010 at 12:52 PM

Normally I say “a mind is a terrible thing to waste” but in this sad example, it’s too late.

Let’s see…

Bush Presidency

1. 9/11 attacks. Inherited from Clinton, as bin Laden said they were supposed to happen on his watch, not his successor’s.

2. Shoe Bomb guy

After that, 7 years of pretty much nothing; many attacks were foiled, but the Left claims they were “made up”-just as they would have claimed Bush “made up” the impending 9/11 attacks had he been able to prevent them from taking place.

Under Dear Leader:

1. First terror attack on US soil since 9/11 (Fort Hood)

2. Panty-Bomber attempt in Detroit.

3. CIA massacre in Afghanistan.

And all that in less than 12 months.

Epic fail so far.

Del Dolemonte on January 4, 2010 at 1:19 PM

Also, the fact that Obama mentioned the word ‘war’ on several occasions does not invalidate Cheney’s point. The actions of this administration belie the claim that we are in a war. Fighting a war means focusing all elements of national power on winning. We clearly are not. Obama does not even want to talk of victory.

SoonerMarine on January 4, 2010 at 1:15 PM

Hey, he even ordered that the phrase “War on Terror” be thrown into the trash can.

What a cool guy!

Del Dolemonte on January 4, 2010 at 1:21 PM

Remember,ROE,was also changed with Bill Clinton,

BlackHawk Down,and the USS Cole,were victims of this,
and now Obama is playing russian-roulette with the US
Military,

and,with another Liberal President,its Deja-vu,once again!

canopfor on January 4, 2010 at 12:41 PM

Absolutely correct, the Obama administration is clearly taking us back to a pre-9-11 mentality and approach where our enemy actions are treated as a law enforcement issue instead of what it really is, a WAR!

President Obama is fighting terrorism more broadly and, arguably, more intelligently than the Bush-Cheney administration ever did.

Bleeds Blue on January 4, 2010 at 12:14 PM

Really? First of all Bleeds you must not have received the memo from THE ONE that specifically states you are not to refer to jihadi actions as terrorism but instead refer to them as man-caused disasters!

You and the rest of your lefty brothers and sisters are so confused you don’t know how to refer to these acts, you state that Obama and he administration are fighting terror more broadly and with more intelligence than Bush did yet the Obama administration won’t even use the word terror anymore to describe these acts and instead refer to them as man-caused disasters.

So which is it Bleeds, is it terrorism or are all of these attacks merely man-caused disasters perpetrate by a lone violent extremist?

As for Obama fighting these lone violent extremists responsible for these man-caused disasters more broadly and with more intelligence that is LAUGHABLE considering Obama and his administration do not consider us to be at war with terrorism (let alone what it truly is and that is a war against fascist Islam) and instead have taken us back to a pre-9-11 mentality and are approaching what is really a war with a law enforcement mentality which will only result in the same failures that occurred in the Carter and Clinton administrations and America and its citizens will eventually pay the price for the lefts and this administrations continued denial that we are at war with fascist Islam and have been for some time!

Liberty or Death on January 4, 2010 at 1:21 PM

Didn’t Cheney win the first Gulf war while SecDef? Or are you going to claim that the allied coalition didn’t win that war either?

blink on January 4, 2010 at 1:20 PM

Don’t confuse it with facts.

And Blue will just tell you that we in fact didn’t “win” that war, despite all of the evidence to the contrary. We liberated Kuwait, which was the objective. And both sides signed a cease-fire agreement. But those facts are irrelevant to the Left.

Del Dolemonte on January 4, 2010 at 1:29 PM

According to the non-partisan Center for Public Integrity, Rasmussen has been a paid consultant for the RNC and President Bush’s 2004 campaign. The RNC paid Rasmussen $95,500 between 2003 and 2004 for items listed as “survey,” “survey cost” and “voter data.” Bush’s campaign paid Rasmussen $45,500 for “survey research.”

fastestslug on January 4, 2010 at 1:31 PM

Bleeds Blue=No Clue

1921 C DRUM on January 4, 2010 at 12:52 PM

Normally I say “a mind is a terrible thing to waste” but in this sad example, it’s too late.

Let’s see…

Bush Presidency

1. 9/11 attacks. Inherited from Clinton, as bin Laden said they were supposed to happen on his watch, not his successor’s.

2. Shoe Bomb guy

After that, 7 years of pretty much nothing; many attacks were foiled, but the Left claims they were “made up”-just as they would have claimed Bush “made up” the impending 9/11 attacks had he been able to prevent them from taking place.

Under Dear Leader:

1. First terror attack on US soil since 9/11 (Fort Hood)

2. Panty-Bomber attempt in Detroit.

3. CIA massacre in Afghanistan.

And all that in less than 12 months.

Epic fail so far.

Del Dolemonte on January 4, 2010 at 1:19 PM

I knew someone would try to blame the CIA thing on Obama. Because he was standing guard in a war zone when it happened.

The crotch bomber — fortunately — failed. not to excuse the Obama team, but he did get on the plane under a security regime created by the previous administration. Similarly, the Fort Hood killer’s been sending signals for several years now, the idea that Obama (or Bush, for that matter) was in a position to see them is ludicrous. Apparently career military screwed up badly, for whatever that’s worth.

And 9/11? Still blaming that on the President who left office long before that happened? I suppose Clinton is to blame for the 2008 recession, Michael Jackson’s death the Phillies’ poor performance last fall.

Bleeds Blue on January 4, 2010 at 1:34 PM

The first definition of ‘war’ in my dictionary is “a state of armed conflict” (it goes on interminably from there), and the purpose of arms is to kill or maim.

When unacceptable losses in life and money are inflicted, one wins a war. Because we want to change the definition and not kill anybody, we don’t ever win any more. We’d rather go frown at them and hope they give in.

We accept that using the A-bomb saved American lives in the long run. We seem to have trouble accepting that being ‘nice’ is costing more lives in the long run. We have the best arms on the planet, but refuse to use them, so a hatchet in the hands of someone willing to use it ends up the better weapon.

When we are unwilling to kill, and our opponent isn’t, we are not likely to succeed. Our PC overlords believe they can think their way out of it, and redefine reality. Of course nobody likes it, killing people, I mean, but what is the difficulty in the ‘us versus them’ concept? Little kids can understand that.

jodetoad on January 4, 2010 at 1:34 PM

fastestslug on January 4, 2010 at 1:31 PM

When the CPI was established in May 1990, advertising and government grants were ruled out. Aside from foundations, the CPI gained $US500,000 in its first five years from a smattering of corporations – Intel, W. R. Grace & Co, DuPont and Milliken & Co, and a public service employees union.

Corporate and union funding inevitably attracted criticism about potential conflicts of interest that echoed charges the CPI levelled at others. The CPI now excludes funding from corporations or unions and is laregly funded by philanthropic foundations.

Charles Lewis, a former producer at CBS and ABC television networks, founded CPI and served as its executive director until 2004.

Major Institutional Funders include Obama and Ayers’ former employer The Annenberg Foundation.

courtesy sourcewatch.org

Nice try.

kingsjester on January 4, 2010 at 1:35 PM

According to the non-partisan Center for Public Integrity, Rasmussen has been a paid consultant for the RNC and President Bush’s 2004 campaign. The RNC paid Rasmussen $95,500 between 2003 and 2004 for items listed as “survey,” “survey cost” and “voter data.” Bush’s campaign paid Rasmussen $45,500 for “survey research.”

fastestslug on January 4, 2010 at 1:31 PM

A quick check of their “board of directors” page indicates NO CONSERVATIVES on their board.

Non-partisan?

Sure.

massrighty on January 4, 2010 at 1:36 PM

And 9/11? Still blaming that on the President who left office long before that happened? I suppose Clinton is to blame for the 2008 recession, Michael Jackson’s death the Phillies’ poor performance last fall.

Bleeds Blue on January 4, 2010 at 1:34 PM

You suggest it’s inapropriate to blame prior administrations for the conditions that caused current events?

Ask Barack “I inherited….” Obama about that one.

massrighty on January 4, 2010 at 1:38 PM

security regime

Bleeds Blue on January 4, 2010 at 1:34 PM

Bleeds Blue: Nice talk’n points!

canopfor on January 4, 2010 at 1:39 PM

And 9/11? Still blaming that on the President who left office long before that happened? I suppose Clinton is to blame for the 2008 recession, Michael Jackson’s death the Phillies’ poor performance last fall.

Bleeds Blue on January 4, 2010 at 1:34 PM

* 8 months was a loooong time?You think al-queada trained those guys,got them flying lessons,and over here within those 8 months?
And at least give Bush some credit…unlike our current dear leader,he never ONCE blamed that,or even insinuated that it was Clintons fault.

theTarCzar on January 4, 2010 at 1:41 PM

theTarCzar on January 4, 2010 at 1:12 PM

I’ve told this story before here. Pass if you’ve read this before. But I will never forget the day I actually felt betrayed, like what people said about media bias was true.

During the referendum on the Iraqi Constitution, I was assigned to provide two team of two UH60s from my unit to fly combat cameramen over large cities to study and film how urban violence was conducted by the insurgents. The media reported that there would be wide spread bombings and that the Iraqi People would have a poor showing because of their fears. You could almost hear the certainty “or desire for it to be true” in the major networks anchors when they talked about it. I was assigned to Kirkuk and Erbil up North. The two UH60s from our reserve unit out of Clearwater Florida were assigned to Ramadi and Fallujah. We really expected the worst.

After flying for a half hour over Kirkuk, it became obvious that nothing was going to happen. The Iraqis marched in great numbers very peacefully to vote. No bombs, no shooting, just people pointing their fingers in the air as we flew around. My doorgunners said the people waved and actually were pointing their fingers at us. After a while we wanted to see why they all seemed to point. We descended low enough to see them and they were showing us their purple fingers. Every man and woman that we flew over wanted us to see and to know they voted on a constitution to govern their nation. Whether you think it too religious or secular, it was theirs and they voted on it. They voted in greater numbers than American ever accomplished. They braved warnings of bombs where some of ours turn back for rain.

To feel like you were part of that, to be there and to see that; made me and my crew feel like we too were part of history. Can you imagine if you were able to say that you were there when the Constitution of our country was agreed to? It was the same in Erbil and when I called the other birds over Ramadi, I thought surly they’ll have seen some violence. They simply reported that the entire city seemed bent on showing them a purple finger from where they walked away from their polling places.

The news that night though was different than what we had seen. The networks that did cover it for more than just a byline, described it as “less violent than expected.” Damn, there was virtually no violence.

There in is my point. An American media that at least hoped for a positive outcome in Iraq would cheer this. They might even champion it. They couldn’t though. They couldn’t because it would be a Bush victory as much as an Iraqi victory. They knew if they wanted to paint Bush as a complete failure they could concede nothing. To this day people like Bleeds Blue and his ilk can only see what they considered the failures and repeat other lies they’ve been told. And I trust very little I see on the news.

hawkdriver on January 4, 2010 at 1:44 PM

Beinart, Who cares what Bozo says? Talk is cheap, live are not. His reactions to both the Fort Hood terrorist massacre and the undiebomber that is his delay and “isolated extremist” bull, proves most completely that he refuses to accept that the nation is at war.

His change in the RoE and the attempted use of surgical drone attacks show it as well. It will not achieve victory. It never has and never will. Bozo proves over an over again that he and his clueless clown posse see the situation as a police action, not as a war.

This failing has plagued every liberal President since Johnson. They have failed and failed and failed again.

Plainly, Bein boy neither you nor Bozo know what you’re talking about, and we all know you don’t give a rats backside. Its all campaign posture and rhetoric for you jerks.

Bozo already announced our surrender and is trying to turn the bloodthirsty Taliban into his allies. Our enemies look at that and laugh.

dogsoldier on January 4, 2010 at 1:44 PM

* 8 months was a loooong time?You think al-queada trained those guys,got them flying lessons,and over here within those 8 months?

theTarCzar on January 4, 2010 at 1:41 PM

Would they really need that much training for a one-way suicide mission? The hardest part would be teaching how to point the plane at the right building, not too hard to do after the professional pilots already had the thing in the air at altitude.

Dark-Star on January 4, 2010 at 1:46 PM

hawkdriver on January 4, 2010 at 1:44 PM

Yes its disgusting how our media play politics with such serious issues.Thank God for the internet that at least SOME of us know the truth about all the great,and heroic things you guys did/have done/and will do.

theTarCzar on January 4, 2010 at 1:49 PM

Would they really need that much training for a one-way suicide mission? The hardest part would be teaching how to point the plane at the right building, not too hard to do after the professional pilots already had the thing in the air at altitude.

Dark-Star on January 4, 2010 at 1:46 PM

Maybe not,but the fact is most of the attackers were here for years,and embedded in our communities.

theTarCzar on January 4, 2010 at 1:50 PM

Because while Cheney and company love the word “war” precisely because they define it as military conflict, Americans in recent decades have gotten used to employing the word to mean something more like “national mobilization.”

Who the flock cares what it’s called?

This is an Obama excuses to do nothing.

Getting the vapors over what name you call it, is a moronic dodge, wrapped in an intellectual cluster flock.

Question:
What was World War One called in 1933?

For the slow folks,

What was Gulf War One called BEFORE Gulf War Two?

As history shows the name of the conflict doesn’t change the conflict.

DSchoen on January 4, 2010 at 1:52 PM

massrighty on January 4, 2010 at 1:38 PM

+1

the fall back statement for dear leader

cmsinaz on January 4, 2010 at 1:52 PM

hawkdriver on January 4, 2010 at 1:44 PM

The sad thing is,if Gore had won in 2000,and done the exact same things Bush did,the entire war would have been spun the total opposite way(which would have helped end it sooner,with alot less bloodshed),and he’d probably be considered a great president.

theTarCzar on January 4, 2010 at 1:53 PM

but he did get on the plane under a security regime created by the previous administration

I don’t get you. You blame Bush over Clinton because he didn’t inherit the intelligence community mess made by Jamie Gorelic, but blame Bush over Obama because it was his administration that established security before Obama was elected. Very selective logic process there my friend.

I am a 50 year old white guy, and I go to the penalty box every time I pass through TSA and it happens even when I’m in uniform. The pressure even since the TSA was established has been to not offend the Muslim People. And yes that pressure was there, albeit from your side, even when Bush was President.

hawkdriver on January 4, 2010 at 1:54 PM

hawkdriver on January 4, 2010 at 1:44 PM

thank you for your service hawkdriver…
what number tour is this for you?

cmsinaz on January 4, 2010 at 1:56 PM

I am a 50 year old white guy, and I go to the penalty box every time I pass through TSA and it happens even when I’m in uniform. The pressure even since the TSA was established has been to not offend the Muslim People. And yes that pressure was there, albeit from your side, even when Bush was President.

hawkdriver on January 4, 2010 at 1:54 PM

Also,didnt we just see an article where it was pointed out that the O administration has told various security agencies to ease up on “profiling” muslims,or those from “terrorist” countries?It was also pointed out that this was a huge difference from the policy under Bush.

theTarCzar on January 4, 2010 at 2:00 PM

Bleeds. 9/11 was planned to happen on Clinton’s watch. The pilots were training for it on American soil under his watch.

Holger on January 4, 2010 at 2:01 PM

I am a 50 year old white guy, and I go to the penalty box every time I pass through TSA and it happens even when I’m in uniform. The pressure even since the TSA was established has been to not offend the Muslim People. And yes that pressure was there, albeit from your side, even when Bush was President.

hawkdriver on January 4, 2010 at 1:54 PM

I’m a 50-year-old white guy and I haven’t been sent to the “penalty box” in years. There was a time a while back when I got the special treatment so often that I thought I must have some weird anecdote on file. But lately, nothing. Just statistics, I suspect.

Bleeds. 9/11 was planned to happen on Clinton’s watch. The pilots were training for it on American soil under his watch.

Holger on January 4, 2010 at 2:01 PM

but it didn’t happen under Clinton’s watch. It happened under Bush’s.

Bleeds Blue on January 4, 2010 at 2:07 PM

hawkdriver on January 4, 2010 at 1:54 PM

Just had my first experience of the pat down and they took my checked bag, which I didn’t get back until almost 1 a.m.. It’s weird that it would be your “turn” so often.

Cindy Munford on January 4, 2010 at 2:08 PM

And 9/11? Still blaming that on the President who left office long before that happened? I suppose Clinton is to blame for the 2008 recession, Michael Jackson’s death the Phillies’ poor performance last fall.

Bleeds Blue on January 4, 2010 at 1:34 PM

Yes Bleeds, the numerous failures by the Clinton administration are what directly lead to 9-11 being successful and the proof is in how the Clinton administration over its 8 years in office continually failed to take the threat of fascist Islam seriously, e.g.;

1) Reacting to attacks on US Embassies and the USS Cole with a law enforcement mentality instead of what they really were, an act of war!

2) Gutting our military and intelligence capabilities for the “budget surplus” he was always bragging about that lead the numerous failures both in intelligence and military strategies that could have prevented 9-11!

3) Implementing controls that prevented our intelligence and law enforcement entities from feely communicating with each other to share important information.

4) Clinton was so busy playing hide-the-cigar in the oval office and covering his azz due to his many indiscretions he totally dropped the ball on protecting America and its citizens, something that is JOB #1 for ANY administration!

5) 9-11 was a plot that required years of planning, funding, and training all that was occurring during the Clinton administration. The 9-11 plot came to fruition only 9 months after Bush took office, so while 9-11 occurred when Bush was in office it has since been clearly established that it was the numerous failures during Clinton’s 8 years in office and their misguided approach to AQ as a law enforcement issue and not a war that placed our pants around our ankles on 9-11!

6) The USS Cole Bombing, the US Embassy bombings, and Osama declaring war on the US in 1998 are all defacto acts and declarations of war yet Clinton failed to act even when he had Osama in his sites and had nations willing to turn Osama over to the US!

The list goes on from there and as someone else posted there is much more damning information in the documentary “The Path to 9-11″ which was linked to should you need more information on how Clinton’s failures (not Bush’s) lead directy to 9-11 coming to pass. It’s no wonder Clinton tried so hard to block that documentary from coming out as the truth hurts!

Now the current administration is taking us back to a pre-9-11 mentality, hell we’re even giving these azzholes habeas corpus rights when the fact of the matter is they are(according to the GC) illegal enemy combatants and can be shot on-sight; besides the fact they aren’t even American citizens that have no US constitutional rights to habeas corpus!

Clinton’s failures and the lefts failures in general to come to terms with the fact we are at war with fascist Islam are what has allowed such attacks as 9-11 to come to pass and as long as the left and this administration continue to live in this bizzaro world of denial we as Americans will continue to be in peril!

Liberty or Death on January 4, 2010 at 2:09 PM

cmsinaz on January 4, 2010 at 1:56 PM

Since the war started…

Six months in Qatar,
Three months based in Kuwait supporting missions in Iraq,
Thirteen months in Iraq,
Thirteen months in Afghanistan, RC East,
Currently on month ten of thirteen in Afghanistan, RC South.

Off to bed here, but Cindy, Upinak, Ladyingray and Nacly_dog, you all have a box in the mail from our detachment. And Michelle “the lurker”, I’m putting one together for you too.

All of you guys, keep the heat on till I get home.

hawkdriver on January 4, 2010 at 2:11 PM

theTarCzar on January 4, 2010 at 2:00 PM

Not sure TC but it wouldn’t surprise me.

hawkdriver on January 4, 2010 at 2:15 PM

hawkdriver on January 4, 2010 at 2:11 PM

stay safe

cmsinaz on January 4, 2010 at 2:16 PM

strike? oops

cmsinaz on January 4, 2010 at 2:17 PM

It’s weird that it would be your “turn” so often.

Cindy Munford on January 4, 2010 at 2:08 PM

Janet told them to watch for me. ;-P

hawkdriver on January 4, 2010 at 2:17 PM

but it didn’t happen under Clinton’s watch. It happened under Bush’s.

Bleeds Blue on January 4, 2010 at 2:07 PM

Well,10% unemployment,quadrupling the deficit,Trillions added to the debt,a huge uptick in terrorist attacks/attempts,the sudden turnaround(for the worse),etc,etc happened during Obamas watch.Own it.

theTarCzar on January 4, 2010 at 2:20 PM

he sudden turnaround(for the worse) in Afghanistan oopz

theTarCzar on January 4, 2010 at 2:21 PM

hawkdriver on January 4, 2010 at 2:15 PM

Im pretty sure it was in the headlines hear last week.Take care man.

theTarCzar on January 4, 2010 at 2:22 PM

failed. not to excuse the Obama team, but he did get on the plane under a security regime created by the previous administration.

Bleedsblue

Really? Are you sureeeeeeeeeeee?
Do you really think the “security regime created” by Bush allowed,
Someone from Europe with a “one way ticket” to get on a plane?
Someone from Europe with “no luggage with that one way ticket
Someone from Europe with “no luggage with that one way ticket and no passport or Visa in their possession ” to get on a plane WITHOUT checking this person out?

All of this info was known by our government when our government approved the passenger list BEFORE the plane left the ground!

The answer is no, they wouldn’t.
In this case, the Obama admin did.

In fact under the Obama admin they didn’t even check to see if this guy “no luggage with that one way ticket and no passport or Visa in their possession” was on ANY terrorist watch list (he was).

What is absolutely clear is the Obama admin followed NO security regime at all.

To even try and blame Bush for any part of this massive F-up by Obama is disgusting.

DSchoen on January 4, 2010 at 2:23 PM

Waste of energy to ague facts with leftists like BleedsBlue. They make up their own facts as they go along – much like the laws they choose to enforce when one of their own breaks one.

Sporty1946 on January 4, 2010 at 2:26 PM

but it didn’t happen under Clinton’s watch. It happened under Bush’s.

Bleeds Blue on January 4, 2010 at 2:07 PM

Clinton Lied, People died.

Holger on January 4, 2010 at 2:27 PM

What is obvious is that Obama and his terrorist sympathizers in the State Dept have re-erected the Gorelick wall which prohibited communication of info between various agencies to prevent finding terrorists and keeping them out.

Sporty1946 on January 4, 2010 at 2:29 PM

Janet told them to watch for me. ;-P

hawkdriver on January 4, 2010 at 2:17 PM

She’s probably hot for you.

Cindy Munford on January 4, 2010 at 2:38 PM

DSchoen on January 4, 2010 at 2:23 PM

I think he paid cash for his ticket also. How many red flags is that?

Cindy Munford on January 4, 2010 at 2:39 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/03/AR2010010302191.html

Proof positive that Bozo and company see the WoT as a Law Enforcement perspective instead of a war.

They Mirandized the undie bomber and plan to offer him a plea deal.

By the way Bleeds Blue, Bozo and Janet incompetano allowed the bomber through. Bush is not is office and hasn’t been for almost a year.

As for Bubba, he had many many chances to stop Bin Laden and refused to do it.

dogsoldier on January 4, 2010 at 2:46 PM

There was a time a while back when I got the special treatment so often that I thought I must have some weird anecdote on file. But lately, nothing. Just statistics, I suspect.

Bleeds

not to excuse the Obama team, but he did get on the plane under a security regime created by the previous administration.

Bleeds

“But lately, nothing. Just statistics, I suspect.”

Bleeds, your living proof Obama is NOT following the “security regime created by” Bush!

How the flock did you miss that?

DSchoen on January 4, 2010 at 2:48 PM

I think he paid cash for his ticket also. How many red flags is that?

Cindy Munford on January 4, 2010 at 2:39 PM

I heard one comment that makes sense. In the US, paying for tickets in cash is odd but Nigeria is a cash-based society and it isn’t as strange. The biggie for me is the fact that one would show up for what is supposedly a two-week stay in the US and has no luggage.

Not that this administration cares about sensible profiling measures. An attempted terrorist attack and Nepolitano saw no problems with the system, the President didn’t even bother commenting during his vacation (until forced by negative reaction), and the DOJ treats it like a isolated crime despite the links with the radical Imam also connected to Hassan and the FT Hood shootings. These are not serious people who care.

highhopes on January 4, 2010 at 2:54 PM

Bleeds,,,Isn’t the CIA being hammered by the leftwing and Janet N. in favor of open borders? Isn’t she also worried about right wing soldiers coming back after their service then the Islamic terrorists? Didn’t BO apologize to the Isamics for the US trying to defend itself? How is all this supposed to help the morale for our armed forces and intelligence agencies? Which war in US history and world history for that matter didn’t have problems and mistakes? In the 70′s I remember Carter and his team undercutting the CIA while the Soviets probably increased the power of the KGB. Carter himself said he was shocked when Brezhnev invaded Afhganistan which points out how naive Carter was. As for Bush not doing anything prior to 9-11, can you tell us what he was supposed to do? The lefties would have screamed bloody murder if Bush had implemented more airport checks without any incident forthcoming. Face it BO and his support of putting the Gitmo guys on trial in NYC and going after the Seals leaves a message that BO prefers the enemy in this war.

garydt on January 4, 2010 at 3:05 PM

but it didn’t happen under Clinton’s watch. It happened under Bush’s.

Bleeds Blue on January 4, 2010 at 2:07 PM

It is an indisputable point that Bill Clinton is responsible for the 3000 Americans who were killed in the 9/11/01 atrocities. The intelligence community was decimated (literally) under Clinton. Jamie Gorelick and Janet Reno put up walls that prevented the sharing of crucial information. The entry rules for “students” were lax without any sort of method to determine if they had overstayed their welcome. IMO, Gorelick should have been forced to testify under oath instead of joining the 9/11 commission so that the depths of her guilt might be better examined.

The atrocities might have occurred 9 months after the Bush administration took office but the guilt all belongs to Clinton and his cadre. Sadly, the current crop of criminals make Gorelick look like a hawk.

highhopes on January 4, 2010 at 3:07 PM

but it didn’t happen under Clinton’s watch. It happened under Bush’s.

Bleeds Blue on January 4, 2010 at 2:07 PM

So, according to your statements:

If it happened during the Bush Presidency (regardless of how long it took to plan, or when it was planned to happen) it’s Bush’s fault.

And, if it happened during the Obama Presidency it’s Bush’s fault.

Your standard = two sets of standards.

Logic? Not your thing.

massrighty on January 4, 2010 at 3:20 PM

It’s no wonder Clinton tried so hard to block that documentary from coming out as the truth hurts!

Liberty or Death on January 4

Not ta over state the obvious but the left constantly claim OBL has been on the lose for 7 years since the 911 attack.

Absolute clarification that prior to 911 we NEVER really went after OBL.

So yes, the failure to go after OBL through out Clinton’s 2 terms be directly linked to 911.

The left doesn’t even try and hide that fact anymore.

DSchoen on January 4, 2010 at 3:37 PM

And 9/11? Still blaming that on the President who left office long before that happened?

Bleeds Blue on January 4, 2010 at 1:34 PM

Well, let’s look at the FACTS.

1. bin Laden declared War against the US in 1996. Mentioned Bill Clinton by name in his Fatwa, as a matter of fact.

2. The planning for the 9/11 attacks began the same year.

3. bin Laden himself said the attacks were intended to happen on Clinton’s watch-but Mohammed Atta told him they needed more time to train. Time well spent, as 3 of the 4 attacks succeeded.

4. After 9/11, Bill Clinton had his Democrat cronies place the guiltiest person from his Administration on the 9/11 Commission, solely so she could not be questioned under oath about the Wall she created that prevented intel agencies from sharing information that could have prevented the attacks. When a witness before said “Commission” pointed this out in testimony to the Panel, he was loudly booed by Clinton kneepads like yourself in the gallery.

5. Clinton also had his cronies place another Clinton sycophant to be a “Commissioner” on the same panel, namely a lawyer who’d been joined at the hip with Hillary since the Watergate Hearings.

6. And during the 9/11 Commission “hearings”, Clinton had his former “National Security Advisor” go into the National Archives and then steal and destroy classified documents related to the attacks.

If Bush were “to blame” for the 9/11 attacks, the American public would never have given him a 90% job approval after those attacks. A number that your friend Clinton and your new hero Dear Leader will never ever see.

Spin away, Maytag.

Del Dolemonte on January 4, 2010 at 4:10 PM

According to the non-partisan Center for Public Integrity, Rasmussen has been a paid consultant for the RNC and President Bush’s 2004 campaign. The RNC paid Rasmussen $95,500 between 2003 and 2004 for items listed as “survey,” “survey cost” and “voter data.” Bush’s campaign paid Rasmussen $45,500 for “survey research.”

fastestslug on January 4, 2010 at 1:31 PM

Ah, another Troll Sleeper Cell activated! “Mission Accomplished”.

Sorry, kid, but you cut and pasted this to the wrong thread.

Del Dolemonte on January 4, 2010 at 4:13 PM

Would they really need that much training for a one-way suicide mission?

The hardest part would be teaching how to point the plane at the right building, not too hard to do after the professional pilots already had the thing in the air at altitude.

Dark-Star on January 4, 2010 at 1:46 PM

Another sleeper cell?

Please don’t insult our intelligence-after the lengthy process of pilot training and getting their licenses, they then conducted dozens of dry runs on cross country flights to try and figure out the best times to take over the cockpits, and also figure out how many “muscle” hijackers they would have needed.

And despite your child-like comprehension of the matter, they had to to a lot more than “point the plane at the right building”.

After the planes out of Boston were taken over, they had to keep those planes airborne for at least 30 minutes, and navigate those planes some 200 miles flawlessly to their targets. And once the targets were in sight, they would have to disengage the auto pilots to guide the planes into the targets themselves.

And remember, the guy who flew the plane into the Pentagon (assuming you believe that it was a plane that hit the Pentagon LOL) did some unbelievably amazing flying that morning. Much more than simply “pointing the plane at the building”.

You kids aren’t having a good day on this thread. Mainly because you don’t have any facts on your side, only Leftist talking points.

Del Dolemonte on January 4, 2010 at 4:21 PM

Bleeds. 9/11 was planned to happen on Clinton’s watch. The pilots were training for it on American soil under his watch.

Holger on January 4, 2010 at 2:01 PM

“No it wasn’t! No they weren’t!”

Bleeds Bleu

Del Dolemonte on January 4, 2010 at 4:24 PM

After the planes out of Boston were taken over, they had to keep those planes airborne for at least 30 minutes, and navigate those planes some 200 miles flawlessly to their targets.

Del Dolemonte on January 4, 2010 at 4:21 PM

And let’s not forget that the pilots who took over Flight 93 after it left Newark flew that plane all the way across Pennsylvania and across part of Ohio before turning the plane around.

Del Dolemonte on January 4, 2010 at 4:35 PM

The buck stops in the Oval Office.

Bleeds Blue on January 4, 2010 at 12:29 PM

I knew someone would try to blame the CIA thing on Obama. Because he was standing guard in a war zone when it happened.

Bleeds Blue on January 4, 2010 at 1:34 PM

Astounding!!! All in the same thread.

PappaMac on January 4, 2010 at 4:59 PM

PappaMac on January 4, 2010 at 4:59 PM

Leftists like that have 2 major problems-an attention span that lasts about 7 seconds, and a propensity to type before “thinking”.

Del Dolemonte on January 4, 2010 at 5:07 PM

Instead of pretending that we’re not at war because we’re not marching the entire 4th Infantry Division across Waziristan, we should start recognizing that war for us will be almost entirely asymmetrical but will require the same level of commitment to victory — and not in a courtroom.

Perxactly!

Heavens, do I have a lot to catch up on here at HA today! Good to see you all back, rested and in great form! Happy New Year, Ed, to you and yours and all here at HA.

KendraWilder on January 4, 2010 at 6:31 PM

And, if it happened during the Obama Presidency it’s Bush’s fault.

Your standard = two sets of standards.

Logic? Not your thing.

massrighty on January 4, 2010 at 3:20 PM

It’s perfectly logical!

If it’s good to have standards, it is twice as good to have double standards!

Random Numbers (Brian Epps) on January 4, 2010 at 10:49 PM

The alleged president Obama, and his “Coddle and Release” program, prove they are not at war with any Islamic jihadi terrorists;
ONLY THE CIVILIANS ARE! WE ARE ON OUR OWN!

Cybergeezer on January 5, 2010 at 10:57 AM

Hawkdriver

that was a great story on the Iraqi elections, a moving event which the left never seems to be a part of why?

Bleeds blue

you are 50?

That can’t be

do you deliver the early paper or afternoon?

Sonosam on January 5, 2010 at 11:20 AM

ISLAM IS A terrorist organization. No one can argue against that fact. So get on with all that is obvious. get the traitor president out of the loop.

proconstitution on January 5, 2010 at 9:06 PM

by quoting Obama’s inaugural address, in which the president declared that “our nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred

“War against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred” sounds a heckuva more nebulous than a “war on terror” or a “war on jihadist terrorism”. What are the benchmarks or the exit strategy for ObaMao’s definition?

ObaMao’s transformative vision for America flies in the face of his sworn, defined Constitutional duties.

onlineanalyst on January 5, 2010 at 9:53 PM

Comment pages: 1 2