GOP: White House has politicized terror all along
posted at 11:36 am on February 9, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
Byron York reports on the Republican response to John Brennan’s accusation that criticism of the Obama administration’s handling of the EunuchBomber amounts to assisting al-Qaeda. Senator Kit Bond and Rep. Pete Hoekstra, the ranking Republicans on the intelligence committees, blasted the White House for its accusations and its handling of the Christmas Day attack. Instead of following Barack Obama’s “the buck stops with me” approach, they accuse administration officials of passing the buck for their own failures:
“The only one making this political is the White House,” says Bond in a statement. “The administration must do better, because trying to pass the buck for their dangerous decisions and divulging sensitive information to al Qaeda is not an effective terror-fighting strategy.”
Hoekstra, too, sees a White House trying to deflect blame from itself for the decision to grant Abdulmutallab full American constitutional rights. “In the last week, the Obama administration has made the calculation that, ‘We’re doing so poorly on national security, let’s blame the Republicans, and let’s say that any criticism of our policies is dangerous to national security and is purely political,’” Hoekstra told me.
In a Wall Street Journal op-ed written prior to the release of Brennan’s, William McGurn notices that the rhetoric at the White House has completely changed after the botched attack. Instead of distancing themselves from the Bush administration’s policies, Obama and his team have wrapped themselves in the Bush cloak:
This weekend, Americans were treated to something new: Barack Obama defending his war policies by suggesting they merely continue his predecessor’s practices. The defense is illuminating, not least for its implicit recognition that George W. Bush has more credibility on fighting terrorists than does the sitting president. …
Leave aside, for just a moment, the substance. Far more arresting is that Mr. Obama now defends himself by invoking a man he has spent the past year blaming for al Qaeda’s growth. You know—all those Niebuhrian speeches about how America had gone “off course,” “shown arrogance and been dismissive,” and “made decisions based on fear rather than foresight,” thus handing al Qaeda a valuable recruiting tool.
Others have happily piled on. John Brennan, a career CIA holdover, used his first public appearance last August as Mr. Obama’s counterterrorism chief to declare a new dawn. No longer would America’s policies serve as “a recruitment bonanza for terrorists.” No longer would we be “defining and indeed distorting our entire national security apparatus” because of terrorism. Henceforth, Mr. Obama would abandon the “global war” mindset, and take care not to “validate al Qaeda’s twisted worldview.”
Like Mr. Obama, Mr. Brennan was singing a different tune this weekend. On NBC’s “Meet the Press,” a testy Mr. Brennan defended the decision that allowed Christmas bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to lawyer up by invoking—you guessed it—the Bush administration. Mr. Brennan claimed the process for reading Abdulmutallab his Miranda rights was “the same process that we have used for every other terrorist who has been captured on our soil.” The FBI, he asserted, was simply following guidelines put in place by Bush Attorney General Michael Mukasey.
Mr. Mukasey begs to differ. “First, the guidelines Mr. Brennan refers to involve intelligence gathering,” he told me. “They do not deal with whether someone in custody is to be treated as a criminal defendant or as an intelligence asset.”
“Second, as for gathering intelligence, it begs the whole question about whether he [Abdulmutallab] should have been designated a criminal suspect. And there is nothing—zero, zilch, nada—in those guidelines that makes that choice. It is a decision that ought to be made at the highest level, and the heads of our security agencies have testified that it was made without consulting them.”
Hoekstra also demanded some salient facts from the White House:
As one of the leading critics of the administration’s anti-terror policies, Hoekstra believes Brennan’s comments are directed at him, among others. “He’s accusing me of distorting of misleading the facts,” Hoekstra says. “So John, let’s talk about what the facts are. Did Janet Napolitano say we were going to get rid of the term ‘terrorism’ and use ‘man-made disasters’ or not? Did the president commit to closing Gitmo within one year or didn’t he? Did he commit to moving the trial of KSM from Cuba to New York City or didn’t he? Did the national security team refuse to identify Ft. Hood as a terrorist attack or not? Did you Mirandize the Christmas Day bomber or didn’t you? Did you hold a press conference to tell the world that he was cooperating or didn’t you? Those are all policy decisions. If I’ve got the facts wrong, where are those facts wrong?”
“They’re like, ‘Don’t criticize us because we’re right and you’re aiding the enemy,” says Hoekstra. “That’s totally inaccurate. We’re arguing for policies that we think will keep American safe, and we are arguing against policies that we think jeopardize our national security.”
But … but … the White House today declared that argument was off-limits, Rep. Hoekstra! It’s not patriotic to question their war and counterterrorism policies — convenient timing, to be sure, while they attempt to hide behind the skirts of the man Obama and his allies bitterly criticized for the last three years.
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: « Previous 1 2 3
I’ve already answered the question. I’m not surprised that you ignored it.
I was responding to the rather weak strawman.
MarkTheGreat on February 9, 2010 at 1:29 PM
A lot depends on the content of the criticism. Let’s lay it out in simple terms for you.
Let’s say we’re in a war and the administration get criticized by the opposition who is saying: “The war is lost. The enemy are like the Founding Fathers! We can’t win, let’s get out!!”
Yeah, I guess that kind of criticism doesn’t really buck up the ol’ effort does it? Makes the enemy feel pretty good, I think. Kind of makes it HARDER to win don’t it? So yes, I would question the patriotism of those who would do that knowing it would make more DEFEAT more likely.
Now examine the other scenario. Say that the critics are now saying: “We can WIN this. Let’s hit him harder and they’ll fall. Stop being so defeatest and stop engaging in policies that will make victory harder for us to achieve!”
That’s an entirely different set of criticism and while it is still slamming the administration, it does not provide much comfort to the enemy who is hoping to see signs of a weaking of will on the part of the U.S.
PackerBronco on February 9, 2010 at 1:30 PM
neurosculptor on February 9, 2010 at 1:22 PM
I could have sworn that you were one of the people who have claimed that barry’s parents signed away his citizenship.
If you don’t think that his citizenship is in doubt, why did you even bring up the claim that he went to a school, “that is believed” to accept only Indonesian citizens.
MarkTheGreat on February 9, 2010 at 1:32 PM
PackerBronco on February 9, 2010 at 1:30 PM
–So you’re questioning the patriotism of anyone who wants to get out of a war?
Jimbo3 on February 9, 2010 at 1:32 PM
neurosculptor on February 9, 2010 at 1:25 PM
So you, and you alone know what the true definition of a word. If the dictionary disagrees, then the dictionary is wrong.
Why do you get so upset when others contest your claim that barry is Indonessian? Do you have some kind of emotional connection with that particular fantasy? Considering how you manage to squeeze the claim into almost every post …
MarkTheGreat on February 9, 2010 at 1:34 PM
Dork-Star, do you believe that after Pearl Harbor, FDR should have declared that if the US hadn’t won after 5 years, we would quit?
MarkTheGreat on February 9, 2010 at 1:35 PM
Patriotism and sanity.
MarkTheGreat on February 9, 2010 at 1:35 PM
Get me a specific war and a specific set of facts concerning that war: it’s aims and prospect for success, the ramifications of failure and I’ll answer that question. Without knowing those things, how could one possible answer?
PackerBronco on February 9, 2010 at 1:38 PM
–
–So you think limited government, free markets, individual liberty and peace are not conservative principles?
From the Cato Website: The mission of the Cato Institute is to increase the understanding of public policies based on the principles of limited government, free markets, individual liberty, and peace.
Today, those who subscribe to the principles of the American Revolution–individual liberty, limited government, the free market, and the rule of law–call themselves by a variety of terms, including conservative, libertarian, classical liberal, and liberal. We see problems with all of those terms. “Conservative” smacks of an unwillingness to change, of a desire to preserve the status quo. Only in America do people seem to refer to free-market capitalism–the most progressive, dynamic, and ever-changing system the world has ever known–as conservative. Additionally, many contemporary American conservatives favor state intervention in some areas, most notably in trade and into our private lives.
“Classical liberal” is a bit closer to the mark, but the word “classical” connotes a backward-looking philosophy.
Finally, “liberal” may well be the perfect word in most of the world–the liberals in societies from China to Iran to South Africa to Argentina are supporters of human rights and free markets–but its meaning has clearly been corrupted by contemporary American liberals.
The Jeffersonian philosophy that animates Cato’s work has increasingly come to be called “libertarianism” or “market liberalism.” It combines an appreciation for entrepreneurship, the market process, and lower taxes with strict respect for civil liberties and skepticism about the benefits of both the welfare state and foreign military adventurism.
The market-liberal vision brings the wisdom of the American Founders to bear on the problems of today. As did the Founders, it looks to the future with optimism and excitement, eager to discover what great things women and men will do in the coming century. Market liberals appreciate the complexity of a great society, they recognize that socialism and government planning are just too clumsy for the modern world. It is–or used to be–the conventional wisdom that a more complex society needs more government, but the truth is just the opposite. The simpler the society, the less damage government planning does. Planning is cumbersome in an agricultural society, costly in an industrial economy, and impossible in the information age. Today collectivism and planning are outmoded and backward, a drag on social progress.
Market liberals have a cosmopolitan, inclusive vision for society. We reject the bashing of gays, China, rich people, and immigrants that contemporary liberals and conservatives seem to think addresses society’s problems. We applaud the liberation of blacks and women from the statist restrictions that for so long kept them out of the economic mainstream. Our greatest challenge today is to extend the promise of political freedom and economic opportunity to those who are still denied it, in our own country and around the world.
Jimbo3 on February 9, 2010 at 1:38 PM
I figured as much from you.
Would you keep that position for any war? No matter what the circumstances?
Dark-Star on February 9, 2010 at 1:41 PM
Granted that Cato is more libertarian than anything else, but when is limited government, free markets and individual liberty not conservative?
From their website: the mission of the Cato Institute is to increase the understanding of public policies based on the principles of limited government, free markets, individual liberty, and peace.
http://www.cato.org/about.php
Jimbo3 on February 9, 2010 at 1:42 PM
I figured that you would make such an assumption.
Why do you believe that just because someone supports this war, they would automatically support any war?
Could it be your liberal training kicking in again?
Why haven’t you answered my question? I’ve answered all of yours?
MarkTheGreat on February 9, 2010 at 1:44 PM
Limited govt is neither conservative nor liberal. At least it didn’t used to be.
Personal freedom tends to be more liberal than conservative. (ever hear of gay rights?)
Why not examine their actual positions rather than rely on naturally vague mission statements.
MarkTheGreat on February 9, 2010 at 1:46 PM
Because of the fervor with which you’re defending these wars.
That’s just your ‘conservative’ projection kicking in, since you (like the libtards) can’t deal with someone you can’t pigeonhole.
Dark-Star on February 9, 2010 at 1:46 PM
Are you actually going to argue that liberals oppose all of these things?
MarkTheGreat on February 9, 2010 at 1:47 PM
That’s a very stupid basis for making any conclusion, much less one of this magnitude. But then I don’t expect any better from you.
When are you going to answer my question? I’ve answered all of yours?
MarkTheGreat on February 9, 2010 at 1:48 PM
You aren’t going to try to pass of that “evolved beyond left and right” cr@p again?
You have never put forth a position that isn’t straight to far left liberal.
MarkTheGreat on February 9, 2010 at 1:49 PM
I can hardly believe my eyes. A conservative arguing that liberals oppose limited government and free markets?
I’ve never seen such a thing. Ever.
Mark, every true liberal I’ve argued with thought Big Daddy Government was the answer to everything. Economic problems, social injustice, whatever. Big Gov’t would solve it all.
Liberals despise free markets in any form, and spout cloaked Marxist propaganda about how it’s a reverse Robin Hood system.
Dark-Star on February 9, 2010 at 1:51 PM
Because he IS Indonesian in his sensibilities. That is where he grew up. That is where his world view was set. Why do you feel some intense need to deny the obvious?
And, if you don’t know why I bring up the Indonesian situation, including the idea that only Indonesian citizens were allowed at his schools, (without referencing the status of his US citizenship – though it doesn’t matter), then you just don’t understand the whole eligibility issue.
And I would like you to tell me (though I really don’t trust that you’ll be honest) when you said “a couple of years”, exactly how many years did YOU think you were talking about?
The OED has “meh” down as a word. Great stuff. You can go to dictionaries all you want, but I work with the publicly acknowledged definitions that I know from use. No one, and I mean NO ONE, says “a couple” in reference to FIVE unless they are trying to disingenuously downplay the size without appearing to have “lied”.
Go back and read your own comment about my appropriate and accurate use of “Indonesian imbecile” and then talk to me about “emotional connections”.
There are several names I use for The Precedent and they appear in all references I make to him. “The Indonesian imbecile” is but one, and an accurate and descriptive one.
neurosculptor on February 9, 2010 at 1:51 PM
Everything looks ‘far left’ when you’re so far on the right.
Dark-Star on February 9, 2010 at 1:51 PM
Do you think that Hot Air is liberal? Then why is this article posted today on Hot Air: “The Center for Freedom and Prosperity released another of its Econ 101 video series today, this time with Isabel Santa of Cato discussing the problems of monopolies — especially in regard to school choice.”
Jimbo3 on February 9, 2010 at 1:54 PM
From wikipedia
couple: two, or a small number.
Are you denying that 5 is a small number?
MarkTheGreat on February 9, 2010 at 1:58 PM
Dark-Star on February 9, 2010 at 1:51 PM
They call our position “the right” for a reason. If believing that our freedom and safety should come first makes one a far-right extremist, I’ll happily wear that label.
RachDubya on February 9, 2010 at 1:58 PM
You are defining conservative as “can be found on HotAir”?
Interesting attempt to dodge the question.
MarkTheGreat on February 9, 2010 at 1:59 PM
With respect to “a couple”? Yes. Is SEVEN “a couple”? Are there only a couple of days in a week? Or, for you, the work week consists of a couple of days. Really?
And try to answer me about exactly how many years you had thought that the Indonesian imbecile had spent in Indonesia as a kid – before I informed you that it was FIVE.
neurosculptor on February 9, 2010 at 2:00 PM
I know that as a liberal, you’ve had your reading comprehension surgically removed, but if you ask your lab partner real nice, maybe she will explain it to you.
Jimbo produced a list of about 5 items. I was asking about the entire list, not just those two items. Maybe you should take a side trip to wiki and look up the meaning of the word “all”.
Until then, you should stop trying to look smart. You don’t do it well at all.
MarkTheGreat on February 9, 2010 at 2:01 PM
Can you cite some examples to prove this belief of yours?
Every position I’ve seen him take is standard collegiate liberal. A position taken by millions of liberals who have never set foot in Indonesia.
MarkTheGreat on February 9, 2010 at 2:03 PM
It is neither accurate, nor appropriate and the only thing it does is make you look like a moron who should be ignored. Which is what I should have done.
MarkTheGreat on February 9, 2010 at 2:04 PM
I support this war, therefore I’m far left?
I know you have trouble dealing with reality, but I hadn’t realized how far you have fallen.
MarkTheGreat on February 9, 2010 at 2:05 PM
neurosculptor on February 9, 2010 at 2:20 PM
Yeah, I would. Maybe they have a stronger motive than patriotism, but it’s about the hardest knock to patriotism you can pull.
Chris_Balsz on February 9, 2010 at 2:22 PM
The headliners are drifting into sync with Clinton’s DLC.
Chris_Balsz on February 9, 2010 at 2:23 PM
The Japanese vast navy and air force killed 2402 Americans at Pearl Harbor. The “boogeymen” terrorists killed 2973 Americans on 9-11, so are you saying that the terrorist were just more efficient?
Johan Klaus on February 9, 2010 at 2:28 PM
Lets see the complete difference between fighting a nation and a nebulous organization that is mostly hidden aside from having no hard military targets and having to rely entirely on gathering intelligence from captured Terrorists is the fact that every single person in the country is considered a military Target in their eyes like children schools or hospitals or shopping malls. In fact those places are better targets because it shows they can strike anywhere and at anyone and quite literally no one is safe from them.
How do you stop such groups ? Lets see that would involve capturing people to interrogate to unravel the strings leading to more people you can capture and interrogate until finally you gather up enough strings showing the entire network that you then destroy. Where are a majority of these upper level guys going to be that you want to capture and interrogate ? They are going to be overseas setting up new strings of suicide bombers,small attack squads,making new alliances with groups with similar short term goals, and infiltrators to set up attacks all across the world. This glee the current Administration takes in trumpeting how they have blown up more Terrorists using Predator Drones than Bush did shows they do not understand one of the basic fundamentals of defeating the various Islamic Terrorist Organizations operating in the world today. A Dead terrorist only stops him from carrying out more acts. Thats what you want to do a serial killer or a serial child molester but not a potential source of information leading to more terrorists and their future plans
alloyiv on February 9, 2010 at 2:29 PM
So are you ok with socialism/communism?
Johan Klaus on February 9, 2010 at 2:32 PM
You are confusing the useful idiots with those who drive and direct them.
neurosculptor on February 9, 2010 at 2:35 PM
Neither of them are good ideas for any nation.
True socialism is only for very small-scale operations, and then on a voluntary basis. And communism is nothing more than mob violence manipulated by an elite group to gain power.
Dark-Star on February 9, 2010 at 2:36 PM
Implemented on that scale (in a range) in its purest and most workable form by the Israeli kibbutzim. It was an epic failure. Socialism (and leftist social organization, in general) is inherently stagnating to the environment around it. This is what happens with centralization of power and control. It is an innate trait of leftist thinking, since leftists are staticists who work off of the theoretical picture of a static world. In the extreme it is a static utopia (as a utopia can’t change and still be utopia), but in the more realistic cases it is a centralization force that constantly sueezes society into the limited parameters that the central committees are built on or come up with. That stagnating influence affects the population (as innovation in such an environment is much harder and pays off much less) and the whole society sinks downwards.
Communism is just one of the inevitable results of the implementation of socialism on a large scale. Centralization of power and control is what socialism is all about. That provides a very attractive prize – as the Founders knew and why the Constitution is specifically built to disallow the centralization of even those limited powers that it affords to the various governments, so that no such prize can exist.
neurosculptor on February 9, 2010 at 2:45 PM
“From their website”?
I always take those claims with a grain of salt. Many of those websites in their mastheads also claim that they are “non-partisan”.
Del Dolemonte on February 9, 2010 at 2:59 PM
When they are leading Democrat members of Congress, and they tell us “this war is lost”? Or tell the General in charge of Iraq that he’s a liar before he even testifies to them?
Yes, I do question their patriotism.
Del Dolemonte on February 9, 2010 at 3:04 PM
Just came across an old blog post by Ed from the Captain’s Quarters days. Hard to believe this was written almost 3 years ago.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton yesterday raised the prospect of a terror attack before next year’s election, warning that it could boost the GOP’s efforts to hold on to the White House.
Discussing the possibility of a new nightmare assault while campaigning in New Hampshire, Clinton also insisted she is the Democratic candidate best equipped to deal with it.
“It’s a horrible prospect to ask yourself, ‘What if? What if?’ But if certain things happen between now and the election, particularly with respect to terrorism, that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again, no matter how badly they have mishandled it, no matter how much more dangerous they have made the world,” Clinton told supporters in Concord.
“So I think I’m the best of the Democrats to deal with that,” she added.
Del Dolemonte on February 9, 2010 at 3:46 PM
–Thanks. You just helped me prove my point. “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss..”
And both sides did this:
Jimbo3 on February 9, 2010 at 3:54 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,213439,00.html
Del Dolemonte on February 9, 2010 at 3:54 PM
You honestly don’t see the difference? Then you cannot be reasoned with logically.
Del Dolemonte on February 9, 2010 at 3:57 PM
Of course it is about politics AND national security. This is the American political system at work, biting at each other and getting in the way of good police and military work. Remember, the most important person in the room with a politician is the politician himself. He or she very little else.
But that doesn’t make Obama’s policy decision correct. Frankly, he’s an idiot with a pie in the sky belief. The same wrong headed, lacking in historical context, beliefs that many lefties have.
Talking to them is like trying to tell them that a “climate agency” being assembled during the worst storm in history is stupid. Especially after the science has been found “not settled” at all. But they won’t listen. This is about power and control. Remember that.
archer52 on February 9, 2010 at 4:23 PM
Please, enough with this b.s. talking point. I want somebody, anybody from the WH kennel of media mutts to tell me/us how many terrorists have been captured on our soil, where they were captured, who mirandized them, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. Are they talking about the knuckleheads
still residing in Gitmo, ’cause if so they need to show us or refer to the documentation. Otherwise it’s just another lie being propigated by the “most transparent administration in history.”
Goldy1 on February 9, 2010 at 4:27 PM
Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing. When people speak to you about a preventive war, you tell them to go and fight it. After my experience, I have come to hate war.
- Dwight D. Eisenhower, 5 star General, Supreme Allied Commander and 34th President of the United States of America.
MB4 on February 9, 2010 at 4:37 PM
A couple of years ago, these same people told us that dissent was the highest form of patriotism.
molonlabe28 on February 9, 2010 at 4:38 PM
Demonizing Bush and Cheney all those years with Obama chiding and scolding makes this shoe on the other foot and up their butts, so “duh-lish!”
Only trouble is, it will be everyday Americans paying the price again with these pantywaists in charge!
chickasaw42 on February 9, 2010 at 4:42 PM
Didn’t know he was that inane. He must have studied some preventive wars at West Point. Peter the Great used it, so did Napoleon, and German diplomats used it to justify the bloodiest campaign in human history to that time, the preventive invasion of France.
Chris_Balsz on February 9, 2010 at 4:51 PM
But but but it’s kinda of like “target Practice”!
DSchoen on February 9, 2010 at 4:51 PM
Silly me, Taiping Rebellion was the worst. My bad.
Chris_Balsz on February 9, 2010 at 4:53 PM
For a party not in any majority position the republicans from Bush on down sure seem to be keeping the liberals in knots.
fourdeucer on February 9, 2010 at 11:47 AM
Yep!
Seems the Dems are engaged in “shadow boxing”……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….And And losing!
DSchoen on February 9, 2010 at 5:02 PM
–You apparently can’t explain the difference logically, so I am honestly having a problem seeing the difference, unless it is basically either (i) anyone who wants us to withdraw/not fight a war is politicizing it, but anyone who wants us to fight is not; or (ii) anything anyone who is a GOP-type says is not politicizing it, but anything anyone who is a Dem-type saying is politicizing it.
Jimbo3 on February 9, 2010 at 5:13 PM
Let’s not forget the ultimate example of the Democrats shamelessly politicizing terror. Namely, “the 9/11 Commission”.
The purpose of that Commission was to determine if there had been any breakdowns in our intelligence that could have enabled us to prevent those attacks from taking place. But the Democrats turned the whole thing into a political circus-primarily to spare the people who were really to blame from getting the blame. Hint: those people were all Democrats.
The Democrats chose the Assistant Attorney General for Bill Clinton, who had in fact created the “wall” between the FBI and CIA, to be one of the “9/11 Commissioners”. Why? So she would not be able to be questioned under oath. When another witness correctly pointed this fact out in his testimony to the “Commission”, he was loudly booed and jeered by the Clinton kneepads in the visitors’ gallery.
The Democrats also placed a longtime Clinton appendage to the “Commission”, namely Hillary’s former partner in the Watergate investigation Richard Ben-Veniste; this is the same guy who later started the attempt to suppress the made for TV Movie “The Path to 9/11″ solely because it portrayed Hillary’s husband in a bad light.
When Chimpy Bush testified in private before the 9/11 Commission, he was widely ridiculed by Democrat politicians for not testifying without Dick Cheney at his side. Yet during the same investigation, the same Democrats gave Bill Clinton a pass for not testifying without his consigliere Bruce Lindsey at his side.
And it was another Democrat, Sandy Berger, who stole classified documents from the National Archives before he testified. He did so to protect his boss.
A true American would let the chips fall as they may no matter what the politics of the people who screwed up was. But I’ve just proved what those of us with more than one brain cell have known all along-to the Democrats, national security is something that’s inconvenient, and only important when they can use it for their own political gain.
Del Dolemonte on February 9, 2010 at 5:32 PM
Dark-Star and Mark the Great: Get a ROOM.
leftnomore on February 9, 2010 at 6:44 PM
I wouldn’t willingly get within a mile of MtG, let alone the same room. His grade of stupidity might be contagious!
Dark-Star on February 9, 2010 at 6:54 PM
Beautiful. Would love to know what mental knots Mark is tying himself in right now.
Dark-Star on February 9, 2010 at 6:55 PM
Keep reading.
BTW, would any of you HA bridge-dwellers care to opine on the “preventive war” strike Israel carried out in 1981 against the Iraqi nuclear reactor? Did it delay that country from developing nuclear weapons or not?
Del Dolemonte on February 9, 2010 at 7:23 PM
You can throw in the pre-emptive strike for the Six-Day War, too – though that was a forced reaction to the arabs constantly massing their forces and causeing Israel to grind to a halt with call-ups of reservists. Proof of the need for that was seen in the very near loss because Israel refused to have a pre-emptive strike in ’73 and allowed the arabs to hit first.
neurosculptor on February 9, 2010 at 8:13 PM
There are two ways to end a war: win it or lose it. It is generally better to be on the winning side. Wanting to end a war by ‘losing’ it would typically benefit the opponent (unpatriotic), while winning is usually the better situation (patriotic). The real question is how committed are you to ending the war by winning it (regardless of how long and how much effort it takes.) Setting a timetable for ending a war (or fight) is setting out on the road to losing, as this perspective sees ending the war as more important than winning it.
jerseyman on February 9, 2010 at 9:41 PM
You’re a fine one to talk.
Like your standard liberal, defining everyone who disagrees with you as being stupid.
MarkTheGreat on February 10, 2010 at 8:30 AM
Being grade A stupid, I’m not surprised that you missed why the comment isn’t relevant.
We are talking about whether it is a good idea to get out of a war. And MB4 is talking about preventitive wars.
Not the same at all.
MarkTheGreat on February 10, 2010 at 8:31 AM
Preventitive strikes have been used throughout history. Most hitorians believe that if Britain and France had acted to prevent Hitler from taking the Rhineland, there never would have been a WWII.
The pacifism shown by DS has been tried many times throughout history. And has resulted in millions of deaths.
MarkTheGreat on February 10, 2010 at 8:33 AM
Hey Obama! YOU WON!
gordo on February 10, 2010 at 8:58 AM
Isn’t there a difference between a preventative war and a preventative strike?
Jimbo3 on February 10, 2010 at 10:14 AM
Democrats voted for the war, Democrats demonized the Republicans who led the war, Democrats urged you to vote Democrat to end the war, Democrats got elected but won’t end the war, Democrats don’t seem to take the war seriously and don’t want talk about how the war’s going.
Republicans voted for the war, Republicans ran the war, Republicans lost defending the war as necessary, Republicans are demanding that since the Democrats won the elections, they gotta run the war to win it.
Who’s politicizing the war?
Chris_Balsz on February 10, 2010 at 10:28 AM
Yeah. Preventative strikes are done by guys who don’t understand that starts a war.
Chris_Balsz on February 10, 2010 at 10:29 AM
For example, Reagan sank the Iranian navy, which took care of the Iranian naval threat–everything they’ve done to us since doesn’t involve boats.
Chris_Balsz on February 10, 2010 at 10:30 AM
In scale only.
MarkTheGreat on February 10, 2010 at 10:42 AM
Along the lines of deciding scale.
Are the Afghan and Iraqi conflicts, two seperate wars, or are they two fronts in the same war?
MarkTheGreat on February 10, 2010 at 11:53 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3