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 Next »
–So “helping” or “embolding” the enemy is patriotic?
Jimbo3 on February 9, 2010 at 12:20 PM
Only just recently has a doom & gloom outlook for my country begun disapate. The ignorance of the general populace to wisdom our founding fathers and recognition of the the path to purgatory we’ve steadily advanced upon since Wilson, seemed utterly complete. The nefarious web of unions, community organizers and infiltration of the once honorable Democratic Party seemed poised to establish absolute control.
But the Progresssives may pounced a tad early by a decade or two. There appears to be just enough distant memory of our origins and our resurgence under Reagan to pique the curiousity and arouse “we the people” to question our supposed experts in ivory towers.
It comes late in the game, this apparent rallying to the notions bred of the enlightenment and fostered by the 56 great men of yore, hom we were blessed by the improbable likelyhood of existing simultaneously in our remote colonies of the crown. We are by no means out of the woods yet! The Progressives still have momentum of the last 100yrs of insidious statist creep, five decades of collectivist indoctrination in our schools and the infrastructure of power imbedded by the labor movement. A daunting array is assembled before us, but for the first time in many a moon can I garner a glimmer of hope.
The Tea-parties and the resultant awakening of the electorate if allowed to remain unorganized and organic, thus unmanipulated by the power structure of either party, may just pull off a reclaiming of Liberty!
Archimedes on February 9, 2010 at 12:20 PM
So unless an enemy has a military force large enough to destroy the country, it should be ignored?
And people wonder why liberals are regarded with such contempt.
MarkTheGreat on February 9, 2010 at 12:20 PM
Because there are just far too many of them and the vulnerabilities cannot really be mitigated enough to remove the threat. This is like agrarian societies that find themselves more advanced than the hunter-gatherers, but because of this new advancement, the agrarian societies are far more susceptible to minor changes in temperature and weather that the hunter-gatherers can weather with no problem. The agrarians had their populations boom due to their advancement and phase change, but that larger population cannot move and is dependent on the fields, which cannot be moved, for their lives.
With every advancement there are new vulnerabilities opened up, just as with every beneficial invention that helps generate power (which our society needs to live) there is also the possibility of using that same invention to create destructive power.
Our nation is very advanced to the point that we cannot stand major disruptions in our systems – as our cities are supplied by just-in-time inventories dependednt on functioning complex marketing and delivery systems. This is the risk of being advanced, which is a natural balance to the great advantages that advancement provides.
neurosculptor on February 9, 2010 at 12:22 PM
It’s free speech, something Americans are entitled to.
Whether it is stupid speech or accurate speech is another matter. Cheney never called critics of the adminstration unpatriotic, just stupid.
MarkTheGreat on February 9, 2010 at 12:22 PM
Your first link is an opinion piece from someone at the anti-war CATO Institute.
Your second link? All fact. Remember, terrorists also put out a campaign ad for the 2004 Democrat “candidate” 3 days before the election. That candidate later blamed the ad for his losing to the idiot from Texas who actually had higher college grades than he did.
Del Dolemonte on February 9, 2010 at 12:22 PM
Sigh. I was trying to point out that comparing 9/11 to Pearl Harbor is invalid because AQ doesn’t have a navy or air force.
Dark-Star on February 9, 2010 at 12:23 PM
We have plenty of energy to do both.
And playing wack-a-mole kills terrorists and keeps them busy over there so they don’t have time to plan and executes attacks over here. Ever hear of a concept called defense in depth?
MarkTheGreat on February 9, 2010 at 12:23 PM
You do realize that you make yourself sound as stupid as Jimbo3 and Dark-Star when you keep trying to push this nonsense.
MarkTheGreat on February 9, 2010 at 12:25 PM
Hillary said it was in 2003.
Del Dolemonte on February 9, 2010 at 12:25 PM
That was Bush the Elder.
MarkTheGreat on February 9, 2010 at 12:26 PM
They had a 4 plane fleet on the morning of 9/11. Those 4 planes did more damage to the US than thousands of planes did in WW2.
Del Dolemonte on February 9, 2010 at 12:26 PM
Exactly.
You can kill more Americans by hijacking a couple of airplanes.
Oops! That’s not what your meme was aiming at, though, was it?
And the Japanese (or Nazis or Commies) didn’t manage to hit the Pentagon, either, did they?
You must not understand the concept of Asymmetrical Warfare.
Or how mere numbers of enemies means less than the weapons they can “hijack” (buy on the black market, et al)
profitsbeard on February 9, 2010 at 12:26 PM
We have looked at it. Cheney didn’t try to politicize the war. He just spoke the truth about what the opponents of the war were doing.
MarkTheGreat on February 9, 2010 at 12:28 PM
Joey B. said President PassTheBuck was going to be tested, and Joey gave us very strong indications he did not think the U.S. was going to fair very well as a result. “VP Oracle of Doom” might need to be a new czar or agency instead of this insane climate agency they are creating!
It is my most sincere prayer the American people remember the actions of this Administration come 2012, or when we are attacked. There is no doubt the economic condition of this nation is important, but if you have a weak nation, or a nation in a pile of ashes, YOU HAVE NO FREAKING COUNTRY!
freeus on February 9, 2010 at 12:29 PM
Sure, but not enough money.
I won’t argue that trying to keep terrorists occupied (pun not intended) somewhere besides our homeland is a good idea…but we can’t rely on that alone.
These scum are experts at this lethal game of hide-and-seek; they’ve had years of practice fighting another superior enemy (the soviets, whom they beat) and are more than able to pop up somewhere else that isn’t full of bombs and bullets.
We simply can’t kill all the vermin, even with all our high-tech weapons, but we can keep them out of the chicken coop.
Dark-Star on February 9, 2010 at 12:29 PM
The missions overseas are to deny AQ bases of training, supply, and operation. They need to be completed.
Here at home, we’re vulnerable and the Dems have made it that way. That goes all the way back to the Dem demand that security people be unionized (a major consideration for national security?), and continues in various ways to this day.
Pointing out failures of this Administration isn’t ‘helping’ our enemies. But the Dem fight against Bush at every turn, when he wanted to strengthen our defenses, could only be seen as political by even a casual observer who remained neutral.
And now, claiming to be continuing the policies of the previous Administration when Bush was fought for eight years and reviled since leaving office, can only be political.
If Bush was right all along, as continuing his policies would infer, it follows that the Democrats could only have been wrong all along. And that’s what galls them.
Liam on February 9, 2010 at 12:29 PM
Yup, a total fanatasy world.
MarkTheGreat on February 9, 2010 at 12:30 PM
The Indonesian imbecile
neurosculptor on February 9, 2010 at 12:02 PM
It’s what he is. He was likely an Indonesian national, though he is definitely Indonesian in his world view due to having spent his elementary school years being raised there, and he’s certainly an imbecile. “I was a little Jakarta street kid.” — The Precedent
The Indonesian imbecile sees himself as the avenging angel of the third world, descending upon America to pour out his wrath. Ifd you doubt me, just look at his words and policies. You cannot find me a single thing he has said or done in office that was in America’s interest. Not a single instance. How would you describe that?
neurosculptor on February 9, 2010 at 12:30 PM
As the terrorists, especially Iran, laugh their asses off at the U.S.
Yes, I miss GWBush, warts and all.
bridgetown on February 9, 2010 at 12:32 PM
And there is the ultimate sticking point: how do we define ‘completed’?
Indefinite occupation? Making the entire area unlivable? Wholesale slaughter of anyone with even mild AQ sympathies?
Dark-Star on February 9, 2010 at 12:32 PM
1) We are trying to beef up those areas.
2) Those turkey shoots keep the terrorists too busy to attack us again.
MarkTheGreat on February 9, 2010 at 12:32 PM
FTFY.
Dark-Star on February 9, 2010 at 12:33 PM
You keep trying to make that claim. Then you post again and disprove it.
Then we get the patented liberal disdain for anyone who disagrees with them.
MarkTheGreat on February 9, 2010 at 12:33 PM
–See below. And CATO is generally a right wing organization.
The vice president did offer support for his wife, Lynne Cheney, who took on CNN’s Wolf Blitzer in an interview last week that was supposed to be on the second lady’s latest book.
Referring to a network special earlier this month that showed terrorists attacking U.S. forces, Lynne Cheney asked the anchor why the network was “running terrorist tape of terrorists shooting Americans.”
At the June 19, 2006, President’s Dinner, a GOP fundraiser, Bush said that an “early withdrawal would be a defeat for the United States of America. An early withdrawal would embolden the terrorists. Talk about a deadline before we’ve done the job sends chills throughout the spines of Iraqi citizens who are wondering whether or not the United States has the capacity to keep its word. … An early withdrawal would embolden al Qaeda and bin Laden
Jimbo3 on February 9, 2010 at 12:33 PM
This administration sounds like a bunch of third graders. They need to stay off the damn tv channels and get to work fixing our security breeches so that “isolated” incidents like this don’t happen again. This isn’t a popularity contest, this is no time to point fingers and assign blame, it’s time to get to work!
scalleywag on February 9, 2010 at 12:34 PM
So, when Obama says that criticism amounts to helping the enemy he’s politicizing the war. When Bush or Cheney said that criticism amounts to helping the enemy, they weren’t politicizing the war.
Yeah. Right.
Jimbo3 on February 9, 2010 at 12:35 PM
LOL! As if the liberals had a monopoly on that! Are you seriously trying to claim that your side doesn’t do that? “Ivory tower elitists”, “arugula-munching libtards”…these and many more.
Dark-Star on February 9, 2010 at 12:35 PM
As some terrorist once said, when we play defense we have to be lucky enough to find and stop each attack before it can suceed. They only need to be lucky once.
The only long term strategy is to hunt them down and kill them before they can hatch their plots.
MarkTheGreat on February 9, 2010 at 12:36 PM
And I was pointing out that your comparison is utterly meaningless. Not that your average liberal would ever be able to figure out anything that complicated.
MarkTheGreat on February 9, 2010 at 12:37 PM
Newsflash for you: we’re already playing defense. We’re just playing it very badly, as PantyBomber illustrated so well.
Dark-Star on February 9, 2010 at 12:38 PM
We beat the soviets, using the mujihadeen as our murderous proxies.
A dangerous gamble, which has royally backfired.
It would have made more sense to let the soviets wipe our the taliban-in-embryo rather than providing any Muslim warriors with our tactical expertise and advanced weapons training, et al, since no one in the previous administrations did their homework on the 1350 year long assault on human liberty by a far more dangerous theocratic (read: eternal) enemy, Expansionistic Imperialistic Islam, than the secular, transitory, self-imploding soviet communists.
Al-Qaeda is one hydra head of this intolerant ideological monster.
Once it is cauterized, the next will need the same treatment.
And on and on until Islam either reforms radically, or is rendered one more dismal dogmatic disaster dumped on the ashheap of history.
profitsbeard on February 9, 2010 at 12:38 PM
–Obama didn’t call critics unpatriotic, either:
At the June 19, 2006, President’s Dinner, a GOP fundraiser, Bush said that an “early withdrawal would be a defeat for the United States of America. An early withdrawal would embolden the terrorists.
“They’re like, ‘Don’t criticize us because we’re right and you’re aiding the enemy,” says Hoekstra.
Jimbo3 on February 9, 2010 at 12:38 PM
Can you prove that it was al Qaeda that forced the Soviets to withdraw from Afghanistan? Seems to me that they got out of there because they ran out of money-after all, their own country was on the brink of collapse.
Del Dolemonte on February 9, 2010 at 12:39 PM
please tell me hoekstra is going to be fighting the good fight for us for awhile….
cmsinaz on February 9, 2010 at 12:39 PM
We have plenty of money as well.
The main thing we lack is the technology to do seal the borders adequately.
MarkTheGreat on February 9, 2010 at 12:39 PM
Only in your ‘great’ mind, which is unable to tell the difference between a modernized nation of god-king fanatics and a bunch of religious zealots fighting with homemade bombs and knockoff machine guns.
Dark-Star on February 9, 2010 at 12:40 PM
I forgot the W in GHWB, just trying to follow the attempt at politically blaming republicans where the left is the guilty party. Remember the evidence didn’t matter it was the seriousness of the charge that had to be investigated.
fourdeucer on February 9, 2010 at 12:40 PM
He spent a couple of years there as a kid.
It doesn’t make him an Indonesian.
MarkTheGreat on February 9, 2010 at 12:40 PM
When they decide that living is a better option than trying to attack us.
MarkTheGreat on February 9, 2010 at 12:41 PM
That’s how they won! They made their nation a sinkhole of money and men until the invading nation couldn’t afford to keep it up any longer! AQ took a page from the colonial war we fought to kick out England – and it worked like a charm.
Do you people not get this? AQ is playing the same game with the USA and the score is about to be 2-0 in their favor!
Dark-Star on February 9, 2010 at 12:42 PM
Man you really do live in a fantasy world?
You actually believe that since it’s impossible to kill every single terrorist, the only strategy is to hide in a hole and hope they don’t find us?
Why do you like showing off your inadequacies like this?
MarkTheGreat on February 9, 2010 at 12:43 PM
Wow, you really take this debate stuff personally.
Bishop on February 9, 2010 at 12:44 PM
Now you’re deflecting it to Mrs. Cheney? Hallucinatory.
And your calling CATO “right wing” is also a laugh riot. And about 20 years out of date.
Del Dolemonte on February 9, 2010 at 12:44 PM
I love it when liberals try to look smart.
They are so bad at it.
CATO is a libertarian organization. Only a liberal would think that equates to conservative.
MarkTheGreat on February 9, 2010 at 12:44 PM
The Indonesian imbecile is abetting the terrorists. His complaints about Americans who think that the US government should not be aiding the enemy are insanely ridiculous.
Everyone knows that The Precedent is on the other side. His idiotic musings about Americans and their concerns are of no value.
Bush and Cheney, on the other hand, worked in the interest of protecting America (whether you agreed with their implementation of that or not). Those who attacked them did not do so because they had some other idea for prosecuting the war, but only to win political points – which they did, with the help of the lame stream media lying their azzes off and the psychotic break brought on by the credit crisis.
You seem to have a big problem understanding the distinction between differences of quantity and differences of quality. Typical for a lefty. It wouldn’t be so bad if that were your only problem, but the extreme self-hate of the left leads them to adhere to our enemies and do everything they can to harm our nation.
Maybe you need to go burn some American flags to help you mellow out. Lefties are always calmed by the sight of a burning American flag.
neurosculptor on February 9, 2010 at 12:45 PM
Dark-Star on February 9, 2010 at 12:45 PM
1) When the Democrats criticized, they did so to end the war.
2) When the Republicans criticized, they did so to get Obama to start fighting it again.
MarkTheGreat on February 9, 2010 at 12:45 PM
Dark-Star on February 9, 2010 at 12:45 PM
Your Paulian philosophy is showing.
kingsjester on February 9, 2010 at 12:46 PM
Inept.
Terrye on February 9, 2010 at 12:46 PM
We aren’t the cold war Soviets, but nice to see your faith in the American military.
Bishop on February 9, 2010 at 12:46 PM
Newflash for you. We are playing both offense and defense.
You think that if only we stopped playing offense, we could somehow magically create a perfect defense.
MarkTheGreat on February 9, 2010 at 12:47 PM
Nice try, clown. Plays on one’s username are quite common on political sites – witness the people who think “Dork-Star” is a clever joke.
Dark-Star on February 9, 2010 at 12:47 PM
A copuple of years? You just have no idea what you’re talking about. He spent FIVE years there, from ages 5-10. FIVE YEARS. Just about all of elementary school. He grew up and developed his personality there. He is Indonesian in his sensibilities and it shows in his attitude about the world.
neurosculptor on February 9, 2010 at 12:47 PM
You believe that the entire Soviet Empire was brought to its knees by what happened in one country? I have some prime oceanfront land in Nebraska I’ll let you have for a song and a dance.
Del Dolemonte on February 9, 2010 at 12:47 PM
You are the only one stupid enough to believe that only someone with a big navy and air force can be dangerous.
MarkTheGreat on February 9, 2010 at 12:49 PM
–Bush and Cheney had only one way to fight the war and protect the US and thought anyone who disagreed with them was wrong. People could (and could still) believe that we should withdraw from Iraq and Afganistan without it being “to score political points”.
Jimbo3 on February 9, 2010 at 12:49 PM
We have weapons and gadgets the Soviets couldn’t have dreamed of having, and victory is still not in sight. And on the home front, our economy is about to collapse wholesale, at which point we will HAVE to withdraw.
Dark-Star on February 9, 2010 at 12:49 PM
If none of this is political among the Dems, why did they fight the Patriot Act in the first place, and why haven’t they rescinded it yet? Could it be that the PA was/is a good thing, and not the stampede over the Constitution the Dems said it would be?
Liam on February 9, 2010 at 12:49 PM
You be just as dead with a pipebomb filled with matchheads as from a major armaments company-made and expensively machine-tooled claymore mine and you be just as dead from a “knockoff” gun, as long as it fires real bullets, as from a pricey AR-15.
A boxcutter can take down a 767.
It isn’t the size of the weapon, but the determination of the enemy.
Until the jihadis are crushed and intimidated wherever they raise their diseased noggins, your arguing about their “weaknesses” is feckless.
profitsbeard on February 9, 2010 at 12:49 PM
And he was registered at schools in Indonesia that are believed to have accepted only Indonesian citizens, so the evidence that we have access to leans more heavily towards the idea that The Precedent was, indeed, Indonesian in nationality. And there’s that silly lillte fact taht he took on the name of his Indonesian stepfather, Soetoro, indicating a good chance that he was adopted – against pointing to having acquired Indonesian citizenship. But … we don’t know the full stories because none of the documentation is available. What we do know, however, points to my characterization of “the Indonesian imbecile”.
neurosculptor on February 9, 2010 at 12:51 PM
You typed a lot of words after that, but I didn’t read them. They may have made more sense than that short bit I quoted, but since you started out with this inane statement, the rest was likely not worth reading either.
Seriously – I loathe Obama, but you’re not helping anyone by staying on that silly bandwagon, imo.
Midas on February 9, 2010 at 12:51 PM
They fought a delaying action until the Soviets couldn’t afford to continue the war.
Dark-Star on February 9, 2010 at 12:51 PM
–So when is libertarian not right wing/conservative? I think you’d find a bunch of people here who think they are both libertarian and conservative.
Jimbo3 on February 9, 2010 at 12:51 PM
Dark-Star on February 9, 2010 at 12:45 PM
Which is the equivalent to trying to hide in a hole. Keeping them out of the US is completely impossible if we allow them the time to plan where and how to attack next time.
How many men do you want to put on the thousands of miles of border the thousands of miles of coastline?
How many men do you want to assign to examining every cargo container that is transported into this country.
Are you actually stupid enough to believe that if we completely cede to the terrorists the freedom of action and timing, that they won’t find a way through this “perfect” defense you envision?
MarkTheGreat on February 9, 2010 at 12:52 PM
Clown? While I am a firm believer in returning fire, what did I do to deserve that, dare to question you? You’ve been ripping on everyone in this thread that disagrees with you from the beginning, I’m just asking why you take it so seriously that you feel the need to do that? Haysoos, get a grip.
Bishop on February 9, 2010 at 12:52 PM
Since forever.
There are also a lot of libertarian/liberals.
MarkTheGreat on February 9, 2010 at 12:52 PM
–You are an idiot if you believe that. Oh, wait, you are an idiot.
Jimbo3 on February 9, 2010 at 12:54 PM
Nono, he’s ‘great’! He must be since he said so…
Dark-Star on February 9, 2010 at 12:54 PM
5 years is a couple of years.
MarkTheGreat on February 9, 2010 at 12:54 PM
It really is pathetic when liberals start believing their own propaganda.
MarkTheGreat on February 9, 2010 at 12:55 PM
How many people were killed at Pearl Harbor?
Johan Klaus on February 9, 2010 at 12:56 PM
Its even more pathetic when ‘conservatives’ accepts continual war and increased government spy powers as ‘necessary’.
Dark-Star on February 9, 2010 at 12:57 PM
That are believed. Now that’s definitive proof right there.
Additionally, as has been pointed out to you several times, parents can not legally revoke their children’s citizenship. Obama is a US citizen until he reaches adulthood and signs the papers himself.
MarkTheGreat on February 9, 2010 at 12:58 PM
The Soviets used artillery bombardments to erase suspect towns, they poisoned wells, slaughtered livestock and used chemical weapons; they used the same tactics as the Nazis, killing dozens of Afghans every time one of their own sentries was knocked off.
Their own army was untrained, poorly equipped and riddled with drug abuse. The chain of command did so much pilfering that frontline troops had to buy their own food from local villagers. 25% of the weapons that were brought in-country by the Red Army were sold directly to the Muj, often not for money but for drugs.
It’s not just a matter of “gadgets” but a matter of mindset and determination and tactics, both military and other. We aren’t the Soviets.
And I do wish you would include an insult in your responses, it just isn’t the same without one.
Bishop on February 9, 2010 at 12:58 PM
Classic liberal, anyone who disagrees with your view of how things ought to be is an idiot.
Try reading up on what exactly liberatarians believe in. They are neither liberal nor conservative.
MarkTheGreat on February 9, 2010 at 1:00 PM
I disagreed with Bush on the prosecution of the war, as did many conservatives. My problemwas that the ROE was far too restrictive and we weren’t concentrating on the important part, which was the gulf oil fields. In the end, all threats from the arab/persian/muslim world start and stop with control of the gulf oil fields. Once America realizes this, we will be able to zip this problem up and end it, for the most part.
But everyone with a brain knew that we had to go into Ira. Sh1t, anyone halfway intelligent realized, after Saddam intentionally dumped 40,000,000 barrels of oil into the gulf and lit just about every oil well in Kuwait on fire (without a peep from the greenies, BTW) that that regime could not be allowed to remain in control of one of the most strategically sensitive areas of the world. But, the US slacked, until 9/11 slapped many in the face and made them realize that we were allowing threats to continue that were far above any reasonable threshold.
That’s true. We have a few, here. But not every call to withdraw is equivalent. Some make that call because they don’t see us fighting for real and think that it is wrong to make our soldiers nothing but targets for the enemies. The lefties wanted to withdraw just to harm the US and make it appear that invading Iraq was unnecessary (even after so many dems voted for it).
Without the invasion of Iraq, Qadafi would not have been momentarily scared sh!tless – which led him to give in, turn over hi8s whole nuke program and opened the window fully on the AQ Khan network – which was were the real WMD action was. So, even in the WMD realm, the Iraq war turned up (and stopped) more WMDs (and more important WMDs) than anyone had even imagined. The only catch was that it was not from Iraq, but more important than the WMDs that we knew Iraq had before we allowed ourselves to be tossed out of there.
To bring it back to this issue, this administration goes out of its way to help terrorists and to investigate and try to prosecute our military and spies. That is an attack on America, as everyone sees very clearly.
I hope these people are eventually held accountable for their actions.
neurosculptor on February 9, 2010 at 1:01 PM
We have two choices, fight until the other side wants to give up, or surrender.
Why do you think it’s preferable to hide in a hole forever hoping that none of the attacks sent our way get through?
MarkTheGreat on February 9, 2010 at 1:01 PM
The last two work for me. And don’t think it can’t be done either. We just haven’t gotten around to being PO’d enough yet.
But the decade is just getting started. And as long as the Joint Chiefs can stave off his Nibs from eliminating our nuclear weapons, it always will be possible. I’d give them all up……. just as soon as every other country on the face of the Earth gave theirs up.
Subsunk
Subsunk on February 9, 2010 at 1:02 PM
Show me where I addressed the idea of The PRecedent revoking any citizenship. Otherwise, explain why you put that in, since it has nothing to do with anything I’ve said – or anything I’ve ever said, to be honest.
I don’t even see where I addressed the idea of The Precedent’s US citizenship. He can be Indonesian and a US citizen (though he wouldn’t be a natural born citizen in that case). Either you are confusing me with someone else (though I don’t know how that could be happening in this short discussion) or you are just being disingenuous in your argumentation.
But, you don’t seem to have a problem confusing 2 years of a child’s life with 5 years, either, so I don’t know what to make of you.
neurosculptor on February 9, 2010 at 1:04 PM
………… and those people would still be wrong. Period.
Subsunk
Subsunk on February 9, 2010 at 1:05 PM
–I don’t see that “very clearly”.
Jimbo3 on February 9, 2010 at 1:05 PM
Dark-Star on February 9, 2010 at 1:05 PM
None are so blind as those who refuse to see.
Subsunk
Subsunk on February 9, 2010 at 1:06 PM
Er … “couple” is widely acknowledgted to be TWO. You know “couple” … “pair” …
You would have still been incorrect if you had said “a few” but you would have been closer, at least.
Think, man.
neurosculptor on February 9, 2010 at 1:06 PM
Keep staring at your mirages, pal.
Dark-Star on February 9, 2010 at 1:08 PM
from wiki
Del Dolemonte on February 9, 2010 at 1:10 PM
Mutual Admiration Society meeting has started, I see.
Del Dolemonte on February 9, 2010 at 1:14 PM
You seem to be operating under the misperception that the definition of couple is 2.
That’s alright though. Misperception does seem to be your forte.
MarkTheGreat on February 9, 2010 at 1:15 PM
Wait until New York City or Los Angeles or Washington DC is a mass of cinders, ash, and rubble for a 5 mile RADIUS, with over 4 million dead or wounded severely, and then see if the American people are quite against being such “mindless destroyers”.
IF we were willing to blow away the Soviet Union after their first strike 30 yrs ago with massive retaliation in the form of nuclear weapons, then what, pray tell, is the difference today in a hypothetical nuclear war begun by Muslim terrorists smuggling a single nuclear weapon into an Amaerican city?
History has recorded, definitively, that the American military and the Soviet forces were ready, within 30 mins timeframe, to set in motion actions which would have completely obliterated the vast majority of infrastructure, resources, and human beings in each other’s countries. Why should that mindset, when it comes to Muslim extremists and the American public today, not be allowed to exist?
……..because it already does exist on both sides, in vast numbers of people who want to live every day of their natural born lives. They intend to kill us and dominate the world religiously. We intend to defend ourselves and kill anyone who tries to kill us first because we just want to live and be left alone by the jihadists of the world.
They ain’t having any of that.
We ain’t going quietly.
I vote to continue to live in America. Next question.
Subsunk
Subsunk on February 9, 2010 at 1:16 PM
In your family perhaps.
MarkTheGreat on February 9, 2010 at 1:16 PM
Either you’re being intentionally dense for the sake of snark, or you wouldn’t know sarcasm if you tripped over it.
A general question to one and all: is the belief in perpetual war one of the conservative ‘core beliefs’, one that you wouldn’t change your views on no matter what?
Dark-Star on February 9, 2010 at 1:17 PM
Subsunk on February 9, 2010 at 1:16 PM
I’ve said for years that we should make a public announcement. If any American city is hit by a nuke, within 24 hours Mecca will be a smoking crater.
MarkTheGreat on February 9, 2010 at 1:18 PM
Did you major in strawmen, or was it just a minor.
MarkTheGreat on February 9, 2010 at 1:20 PM
So that’s what you think you have been doing.
MarkTheGreat on February 9, 2010 at 1:20 PM
That would make them police themselves because nothing to this point has.
thomasaur on February 9, 2010 at 1:22 PM
That’s rich. The guy who thinks that FIVE is “a couple” and refuses to answer my direct questions about his strawmen is trying to hassle someone else about strawmen.
LOL.
neurosculptor on February 9, 2010 at 1:22 PM
That was an honest question. I didn’t expect you to understand it.
Dark-Star on February 9, 2010 at 1:23 PM
Mark doesn’t understand the difference between a direct question and a strawman argument. At least, he didn’t call your question “a couple”.
neurosculptor on February 9, 2010 at 1:25 PM
No.
A belief in unconditional Victory over forces that threaten the security of the United States or the Free World and would enslave, oppress, and tyrannize the rest of their neighbors, citizens, or opponents, however, is a basic conservative value. The difference between conservative worldviews and yours is in whom the enemy is. The difference in our view of Victory is in the method used to achieve that end. Each tool has its place.
War is only one tool, and in our view is the one used last, when all others have failed. You, however, have deleted it from your inventory and are left with……….
Ice cream, unicorns and charm? What?
…….whenever the barabrians are at the gate.
Subsunk
Subsunk on February 9, 2010 at 1:26 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »