"Character Matters; Leadership Descends From Character"
A quote from Rush Limbaugh
I happened to be listening to the radio yesterday with a friend and to my dismay my buddy is a Rush Limbaugh fan, it was his radio.
As not to seem like a raving lunatic with a foul demeanor who yells profanities at inanimate objects—the radio, not my friend; I generally ignore most of Rush’s brainless rantings and concentrate on more important things; like who the Tampa Bay Devil Rays are going to sign for the Aubrey Huff trade.
But the other day, Rush the autocrat caught my attention.
He read a letter, and who knows if it is a real letter, from on of his ditto-head listeners who raddled on about the Iraq Occupation and the unfortunate killing of two brave American soldiers. Two soldiers who were murdered and tortured under absolutely unjustifiable and horrible circumstances.
Here’s the email:
"Rush,
Now that two of our own have been tortured and murdered by the terrorists in Iraq will the left say that they deserved it?
I am so sick of our cut and run liberals.
Keep up your great work!"
Rush sounded off, “I gotta tell ya, I perused the liberal kook blogs today and they are happy that theses two soldiers got tortured”
He went on, “They are saying good riddens! Hope Rumsfield and who ever sleep well tonight”
Yet he failed to provide any evidence of any liberal blog which made such an insensitive statement. In fact, contextually, he made it appear as though acerbic rancor is the norm for the left against our soldiers, yet provided no evidence for this either.
This is a far cry from his normal strawman rantings about heroic conservative attempts to demise the spineless liberal. No, this is much worse...
Rush has once again crossed the line from rude stupidity to depraved dishonesty.
Here is a nationally syndicated talk show host using the deaths of two brave men to score political points and attempt to trash the ideals of better than half of all Americans who believe in traditional liberal values. Liberal values which represent equality, responsibility and stewardship.
Shame on you Rush. Shame on you for using the deaths of these unfortunate soldiers to advance your egocentric musings.
A quote from Rush Limbaugh
I happened to be listening to the radio yesterday with a friend and to my dismay my buddy is a Rush Limbaugh fan, it was his radio.
As not to seem like a raving lunatic with a foul demeanor who yells profanities at inanimate objects—the radio, not my friend; I generally ignore most of Rush’s brainless rantings and concentrate on more important things; like who the Tampa Bay Devil Rays are going to sign for the Aubrey Huff trade.
But the other day, Rush the autocrat caught my attention.
He read a letter, and who knows if it is a real letter, from on of his ditto-head listeners who raddled on about the Iraq Occupation and the unfortunate killing of two brave American soldiers. Two soldiers who were murdered and tortured under absolutely unjustifiable and horrible circumstances.
Here’s the email:
"Rush,
Now that two of our own have been tortured and murdered by the terrorists in Iraq will the left say that they deserved it?
I am so sick of our cut and run liberals.
Keep up your great work!"
Rush sounded off, “I gotta tell ya, I perused the liberal kook blogs today and they are happy that theses two soldiers got tortured”
He went on, “They are saying good riddens! Hope Rumsfield and who ever sleep well tonight”
Yet he failed to provide any evidence of any liberal blog which made such an insensitive statement. In fact, contextually, he made it appear as though acerbic rancor is the norm for the left against our soldiers, yet provided no evidence for this either.
This is a far cry from his normal strawman rantings about heroic conservative attempts to demise the spineless liberal. No, this is much worse...
Rush has once again crossed the line from rude stupidity to depraved dishonesty.
Here is a nationally syndicated talk show host using the deaths of two brave men to score political points and attempt to trash the ideals of better than half of all Americans who believe in traditional liberal values. Liberal values which represent equality, responsibility and stewardship.
Shame on you Rush. Shame on you for using the deaths of these unfortunate soldiers to advance your egocentric musings.
posted by Van at 6:06 AM
17 Comments:
In full disclosure I did not check out the Kos-minded sites. But I have no doubt people would say such a thing. If they cheer on Watada for failing to follow orders, I can only assume some would see soldiers who did follow orders as the criminal breed they believe the President is (remember treatment of soldiers post-Vietnam). After reading the quotes of people on such blogs as saying the following against Rove, why would it be out of the question they would bash soldiers?
Shoot, I planned to track down the exact quotes for you. But I could not find them, I hope you will just take my word for it that what I say is real. But there was an entire thread about Rove, and people just piled on about “if I were his mom, I would have committed suicide too.” “If I produced devil spawn like him I would kill him than myself.”
I mean it just went on and on, some half a page long of how they understood why Rove’s mom killed herself. It was because of what Rove had “become.” Now if people are willing to blame suicide on a son (his worst crime is maybe hardball politics, he isn't an axe murderer) and talk about it in a vile way, I don’t hesitate to believe they would feel people carrying guns… who they have been convinced are “cold blooded killers” would deserve to die.
God I hope I am wrong, but I don’t think I am.
PS- As for listening to Rush, I can understand you not wanting to listen to the truth Van. Just kidding, while I tend to agree I cannot stand to listen to him. Once in a blue moon, but I am not a “ditto-head.” I don’t blame anyone who thinks he is up on his high horse and obnoxious, that doesn’t make him instantly wrong… nor right.
MD - thank you for commenting.
You asked, " why would it be out of the question they would bash soldiers?"
Why? Because C Rove is a policy maker. He is open to critism, however a soldier must follow orders -- which are a result of policy makers.
Rove is open to critism because his decisions can change the course of our nation, at least until recently.
Soldier follow orders, policy makers create orders.
Also I think that there is a difference between a blog posting and a thread.
I haven't seen one liberal blog posting that backs up the EIB Blowhard, so he's likely making the whole thing up.
I'm happy to know that you don't listen to Rush, even when I was a die-hard conservative I couldn't stand his rhetoric.
Have a great weekend.
I listen to conservative talk radio sometimes even though I almost always disagree with what's being said. It gives me some great ideas for blog topics (because many of the radio host's research on topics is so minimal or incorrect the record simply must be set straight) or I hear about things I might not normally hear about (like Bush's plan to create the North American Union).
That said, I will never listen to Rush for a number of reasons:
1) Like you mentioned, he is way too quick to generalize and rarely backs up his ridiculous, unproven claims.
2) He accuses and rants on liberals for doing many of the same things he does. He calls liberals like Michael Moore hateful, idiotic, and biased. Notice the irony?
3) Callers who agree with his extreme viewpoints get as much talk-time as they want but if you dare break the first commandment ("Thou shalt not deny a Rush-based statement.") you're cut off or disconnected. And he says Michael Moore isn't open to opposing viewpoints...
Great post. I completely agree. This is one of many times he's done this sort of thing, though.
-Comrade Dave
http://theredmantis.blogspot.com/
^^Come visit sometime, and comment if you're interested.
Van, I'm sure you're aware that venues like the Daily Kos and the Democratic Underground routinely bash American soldiers for "going along with an illegal war," just as they laud terrorists as "freedom fighters."
Like it or not, they ARE both "Left-leaning sites," even if they don't speak for all Liberals.
Ted Rall (a liberal cartoonist/columnist) also routinely ridicules American troops and recently wrote a column entitled "The War We DON'T NEED to FIGHT or WIN," in which he was refering to the "War on Terrorism."
Another inane, "There is NO terrorist threat," line from an delusional Leftist radical.
It's thoughts like those, in the wake of the recent Florida arrests that alienate more and more people from that viewpoint.
Van,
I have no problem with people criticizing Rove. I agree with your overall point on that matter. But saying you know he is the reason his mom killed herself? That isn’t criticizing Rove!!!! I could sit down and give you talking points against Rove (I won’t obviously) and none of them involve his father, mother, wife, family at all. Nor would any involve going to his private home and property to harass him (and his family) and trespassing.
Hi JMK -
You wrote:
"Like it or not, they ARE both "Left-leaning sites," even if they don't speak for all Liberals."
Well, if what you say is true, then no, I do not like it.
I don't visit these sites much, but I'll check them out more often.
Hi MD - I agree with you too. Hitting below the belt on both sides is wrong.
But Limbaugh should provide some proof for such accusations, don't you think?
Van, let me point out another bit of outright distortion that you've linked to from this very site.
Media Matters for America (MMA) claims Bill O'Reilly misrepresented a Notre Dame (Don Wycliff) professor's remarks, but their own statement clearly shows them to be in error and backs up O'Reilly's assertion.
They did the same thing a few years back by supporting the repulsive Jonathan Glick, whose father was killed in the 9/11 attacks on the WTC. O'Reilly threw young Glick off the show for claiming the Bush administration knew about the attacks in advance and wanted them to occur.
It appears that MMA agreed with young Mr. Glick back then and now agree with Professor Don Wycliff now.
Here's what MMA says (in bold type) along with my notes (in italics);
According to Media Matters for America (MMA), “Bill O'Reilly falsely asserted that Notre Dame professor Don Wycliff, in a June 22 Chicago Tribune op-ed that criticized O'Reilly, wrote that "the United States government bears more responsibility ... than the terrorists" for the recent deaths of two U.S. soldiers in Iraq who were also apparently tortured.
“In fact, Wycliff criticized O'Reilly in the op-ed for attacking "the press or the Democrats or the ACLU or Air America" for the soldiers' deaths rather than blaming the Bush administration officials responsible for conducting the war "for whom you have been a cheerleader."
(Media Matters for America)
<
<
<
But MMA’s own statement shows them to be either LIARS, or clueless dolts!
Their inane claim appears to be “the Bush administration officials responsible for conducting the war,” is NOT synonymous with “the United States government.”
Note to MMA - "Guys, those TWO terms ARE indeed synonomous."
Wycliff clearly blamed “the United States government” for the two soldiers deaths. He seemed to hold the U.S. government and the war supporters within it to be “responsible” for the soldier’s deaths, with the line, “...rather than blaming the Bush administration officials responsible for conducting the war.”
Wycliff clearly blames the U.S. government as the phrase that Wycliff used to excoriate O’Reilly for attacking "the press or the Democrats or the ACLU or Air America for the soldiers' deaths rather than blaming the Bush administration officials responsible for conducting the war, for whom you have been a cheerleader," makes VERY clear.
It’s a stupid statement (by Wycliff) that MMA clearly defends and agrees with."
OK, so Limbaugh didn't give links to the many who've blamed the U.S. government for those soldier's deaths, but here, MMA actually tries to deliberately contort a false argument in favor of a Notre Dame professor (Don Wycliff) who took O'Reilly to task for blaming the hard Left (the ACLU, MoveOn.org, etc) "rather than blaming the Bush administration officials/(the U.S. government) responsible for conducting the war."
That is both dishonest and disingeuous on MMA's part.
JMK - OK, so MMA either made a mistake or they were wrong, took the wrong side or missed an obvious contradiction.
But, they at least had the integrity to publish their findings, mistakes and all and not make some vague claim that the "liberal kook" blogs are happy that two soldiers were tortured, yet provide absolutely no evidence.
There is a distinction here between Media Matters and Rush Limbaugh that is that Media Matters publishes their claims, Limbaugh did not, nor does he in most cases.
Actually that's not much of a distinction.
MMA posted their opinions about O'Reilly's condemnation of Professor Wycliff's remarks.
Now I don't believe that the folks at MMA are stupid (I'm certain they know that there's really no difference between "the Bush administration officials responsible for conducting the war,” and “the United States government.”
So I must conclude that they deliberately misrepresented O'Reilly's assertion.
If ONLY Professor Wycliff had criticized, O'Reilly in the op-ed for blaming "the press or the Democrats or the ACLU or Air America for the soldiers' deaths rather than blaming the TERRORISTS themselves," they would've been right and O'Reilly wrong, but Wycliff didn't blame the terrorists instead of those O'Reilly sees as "American sympathizers," he blamed the U.S. government (the Bush administration officials responsible for conducting the war).
Rush didn't publish his opinions, he stated them.
I've NEVER heard any commentator point to internet linked sources, like the DU or the Daily Kos.
Was it a stretch to use those sort of Left-wing sites as a barometer for ALL Liberals?
Yes it was, so it was misleading too, but no less so than the MMA article defending Notre Dame Professor Wycliff, which apparently deliberately sought to misrepresent both what Wycliff said and O'Reilly's objection.
My point here is that this scorched earth tactic of personal destruction has been the norm on BOTH sides for a long while now.
It is why the ideological divide is now very close to an ideological war.
JMK -
You wrote:
"Their inane claim appears to be “the Bush administration officials responsible for conducting the war,” is NOT synonymous with “the United States government.”
Note to MMA - "Guys, those TWO terms ARE indeed synonomous."
No, these terms are not synonomous. In fact Wycliff stated, accurately I might add, in his op-ed piece that our military (an element of government) called for more troops in front of Congress (an element of government), yet the President's cabinet (an element of government) said no, and used less troops to controll the insurgence and occupation.
He provided a context, which is less than O'Reily did.
Our government is not one monolithic body, Bush is not a King nor does he have absolute power. Our government has several bodies, checks and balances which are meant to prevent absolute power, each represents a piece of our government, not the whole.
The asertion that the Bush adminsitration IS the Federal Government is like saying that the 7th Calvary IS the Army.
No, the 7th is part of the whole.
I read the Wycliff article, he in no way sides with the terrorists, he places blame for the failures in Iraq where they belong, in the Bush administration.
He also blasts O'Reily for not doing the same. I find it amusing that O'Reily wants to blame the failures in Iraq on the ACLU, the Democrats and the press when the failures are a matter of policy, not perception.
And actually he didn't blame the Bush Administration for conducting the war, he blamed the deaths of these two soldiers on the way the Bush Administration conducts the war.
The jist of the piece is that if there is any blame due, it's on policy not public opinion.
I, along with Angelo M. Codevilla and William F Buckley Jr, tend to agree. The blame should be on policy.
Here's an excerpt from the article by Wycliff (posted on MMA):
"Bill, does the name Eric Shinseki mean anything to you? On the assumption that it doesn't, let me explain that he was the Army chief of staff who was shown the door by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld after Shinseki had the audacity to tell members of Congress that we would need "several hundred thousand soldiers" to control Iraq after an invasion."
and
"Wycliff argued: "[I]t wasn't the press or the Democrats or the ACLU or Air America that sent our soldiers to Iraq in numbers that evidently are too small to control the place. It was Don Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz who did that." Wycliff concluded that he understood O'Reilly's "dilemma," that O'Reilly "want[ed] to blame somebody for outrages like the murders of" the soldiers "but if you put the blame where it really belongs, you have to say bad things about some people for whom you have been a cheerleader."
Wycliff is pointing to context, Bill is ranting emotionally about phantom enemies (Democrats, liberals, etc.)
Finally, to reillustrate my point that Rush is a hack.
MMA published their findings, open for all to read.
Limbaugh did not, nor did he site any sources. This is where he loses credibility.
And besides, don't you think that if Rush really knew of a liberal kook site that lauded the death of two Americnan soldiers he would have mentioned it by name? To not would miss a huge chance to slam the liberal kooks and to boost his falling ratings - that would make him pretty stupid.
I listen to lots of talk radio, and I have to say that I've heard many commentator give sources, it's a matter of honesty.
One of my favorites is the Thom Hartman program. He debates people from the Ayn Rand institute, Cato, CRM, Heritage and any other conservative group or person that has the guts to show up.
He sites his sources.
The Bush administration IS the Executive branch of our government.
Not only that, the government/"those who supported and conducted the war" includes the Representative branch as well, as both the invasions of Afghanistan AND Iraq, along with the Patriot Act here at home, were all supported by a broad bi-partisan coalition in BOTH Houses of Congress.
No, Wycliff assailed and blamed the "the U.S. government" instead of the terrorists for the deaths of those two soldiers, just as O'Reilly pointed out.
And his defending terrosit sympathizers like MoveOn.org, the ACLU, the NY Times, AAR, et al is contemptable.
O'Reilly is right about those groups as well.
Limbaugh like EVERY on air commentator Left & Right is a hack. The only difference is that those commentators on "the Right," the O'Reilly's, the Hannity's, the Limbaugh's etc also happen to be "right," more often, as well as "in tune" with what more traditional Americans think & believe.
No on-air personality of any stripe ever gives out online sources. Come to think of it, one of the things that outrages bloggers is that the NY Times (and most other Left-wing papers, the LA Times, WaPo) virtually never cite online sources either, claiming blogs as "public access" sites "with no official journalistic standing." A nice way of saying, "They don't count."
So why should a Limbaugh, or Hannity or an O'Reilly be required to cite sources that the MSM refuses to cite (ie the DU, the Daily Kos, Free Conservative, The Ace of Spades HQ, etc)???
The DU is rife with vile anti-Military sentiment and rants against our "barbaric troops."
It may be slightly disingenuous for Limbaugh to surreptitiously refer to those kooks and infer that they represent mainstream Liberal opinion, but the MSM routinely does the very same thing.
Fair game.
JMK - You know as well as I do that the represenative branch does not have a say in the day to day operations, but
the executive branch does. The executive branch runs the war, they create the policies.
The representative branch allocates the funding and facilitates the resources.
And actually Wycliff makes no bones about who is to blame for bad policy in Iraq, he is blaming Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. Both men represent the Bush Administration.
He points out how General Eric Shinseki asked for more troops and was shot down by both of them.
Are we reading the same articke?
The theme of the article is pretty clear within the first three paragraphs.
Bill O'Reily is blaming liberals for bad policy in Iraq.
The only time the Wycliff mentions the unfortunate soldiers is to express remorse. Here are his exact words,
"O'Reilly was burned up about the mutilation and murders of those two American soldiers--Pfc. Thomas Tucker and Pfc. Kristian Menchaca--who were captured in Iraq by insurgents last week and whose bodies were retrieved Tuesday.
What civilized person would not have been? The military didn't give a detailed public description of the conditions of the soldier's bodies, but decapitation seems to have been the least of the savageries inflicted on them--and may have been a grisly coup de grace."
He never said that the federal government killed these men.
Wycliff is making the argument Bill O'Reilly shouldn't blame the ACLU or the left for bad policy in Iraq. Which is precisely what he was doing by the way.
Here is the crux of his piece:
"Less than two years ago, George W. Bush won a second term in office with the biggest popular vote in American history. His party controls both houses of Congress. The ACLU is preoccupied with controlling the speech of its board of directors. The New York Times, which also came in for some of Bill's dishonorable mention, has not endorsed the winner in the last two presidential elections.
And yet you, Bill, are peddling the notion that Bush is hamstrung in fighting the Iraq war because of domestic doubt and opposition from the left"
He goes on to say:
Bill, does the name Eric Shinseki mean anything to you? On the assumption that it doesn't, let me explain that he was the Army chief of staff who was shown the door by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld after Shinseki had the audacity to tell members of Congress that we would need "several hundred thousand soldiers" to control Iraq after an invasion.
Bill, it wasn't the press or the Democrats or the ACLU or Air America that sent our soldiers to Iraq in numbers that evidently are too small to control the place. It was Don Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz who did that, because they had some notions about smaller, lighter, quicker forces that ... Well, let's not go there.
Bill, I understand your dilemma. You want to blame somebody for outrages like the murders of Menchaca and Tucker, but if you put the blame where it really belongs, you have to say bad things about some people for whom you have been a cheerleader.
It's OK , Bill. Nobody who cares about the truth takes you seriously anyway."
I tend to agree that the occupation of Iraq is a complete policy disaster. And on some levels I blame the Bush Administration.
That's not to say that these two soldiers would be alive if there were three hundred thousand troops in Iraq, but at least the soldiers would have a better chance.
At a minimum, the Bush Administration is more to blame here than the ACLU and the left.
Whoa! That’s a very flawed overview there Van. Compared to O’Reilly, Wycliff is a “Johnny-come-lately” to criticizing the way the Iraq war has been waged. No one’s been more critical of the post-war effort in iraq, in a practical manner, than O’Reilly.
Now, I don’t agree as much with O’Reilly (who believes, like many Military leaders, that more troops were needed, that may well be true, BUT with Michael Scheuer, author of Imperial Hubris, who says, the problem is that “We’re simply not killing enough of the enemy”), but Wycliff wasn’t critiquing the war, but commenting upon the death of those two soldiers...and that’s where Wycliff CLEARLY mis-spoke and O’Reilly rightly and astutely caught and called him on that.
Wycliff was responding to comments O’Reilly made about “American terrorist sympathizers,” he was NOT critiquing the overall post-war effort (insurgency).
Wycliff DIDN’T criticize O’Reilly for assailing the hard Left instead of blaming THE TERRORISTS, no, he said, “...instead of “blaming the Bush administration officials responsible for conducting the war, which is the same as saying, as O’Reilly pointed out, “the United States government.”
There’s really only ONE responsible party for the deaths of those soldiers, THE TERRORISTS, the adherents of radicalized Islam (really anyone who adheres to basic Sharia Law) who’ve been at war with America for the past twelve years. Sadly, America only joined the fight going on five years ago!
Thank GOD for this administration, otherwise we might have had a group in there (the Gore administration) whose first impulse would’ve been to “understand their anger” and try and reach a negotiated settlement.
We dodged that bullet and the Bush administration did the right and necessary thing, embarked us on a path to a twenty to fifty year war, which is only now beginning, though I believe I can safely say, it’s now a path that cannot be undone, nor changed by any amount of negotiation, no matter who comes into office in the future.
There’s no running away from this destiny now.
We’re going to be fighting the forces of worldwide Jihad/radicalized Islam for a very long time to come, until such time as we crush that fetid ideology.
I enjoy the way that our comments sometime, usually is more accurate, move in several different directions with in the course of a day.
This is the root of good conversation.
I'm with you on your remarks about the terrorists being our enemy, perhaps I am misreading the Wycliff article, but he seems to be suggesting that O'Reily was blaming the death of those two unfortunate soldiers on the perception of the war, and the liberal opposition, that's what I get out of it.
I honestly think that our efforts to fight terrorism had little or nothing to do with our invasion of Iraq.
The fact seem to bare this out with each passing day.
Besides PNAC (Project for a New American Century) published on this very topic in 98, most of Bush's cabinet (pre GW of course) signed off on the plan.
I wouldn't be the first time that a president has lied to get into a war.
I am more inclined to side with Angelo
Cordevello in that regime change was more like the medicine that terrorists need. Instead what we've done is attack a nation state that has little or nothing to do Al Qaeda. In fact Iraq was not even our number 1 enemy. Iraq was the fifth greatest threat to the United States, just in front of or behind Cuba -- I don't recall right now.
The point that I am making is that it's not that we are not killing the enough people; our problem is that we are not killing the right people.
For instance, the Wahabists are basically running the Saudi government all the while funding the international terrorists network.
Why haven't we taken them out? Well, you've seen the photographs of President Bush and the Saudi Royal Family -- they are a little too cozy.
But this is not a criticism of the Bush/Saudi connection. No, I am criticizing our lack foresight and brain power in White House.
There were many other ways to topple Sadam, we chose the most difficult and costly, and so far we've only gained a little.
Largely though, the so called War on Terror is being fought with conventional means, but we all know that this is a shadow war.
The biggest contention that I have with the Bush Administration in terms of fighting terror is that he has validated the terrorist by treating them as worthy adversaries and not the lowly criminals that they are.
We lost the moment that we mobilized our Army and sent our troops to a country that had very little to do with 9/11.
I think what makes me the angriest about the mismanagement of the war in Iraq is that the war there has been a drain in Afghanistan. I think that we had an opportunity to do some good work in Afghanistan, but we dropped the ball. The Taliban is back.
As far a Gore goes, who knows?
I suspect that he would have treated the terrorists as criminals, but that is as likely as projection as any.
It may surprise you to know that I voted for Bush in 2000. I honestly thought that he was a moderate. Boy was I wrong.
Great comments JMK!
I gotta go, my kid is trying to eat the dinning room table. I guess it's time for dinner?
I agree that Wycliff apparently felt O'Reilly was blaming the ACLU, the NY Times, AAR, MoveOn.org, etc, but I beleive that that was a flawed perception.
O'Reilly excoriated those groups (rightly or wrongly) as "terrorist sympathizers."
The NY Times shameful leak of the classified use of SWIFT to uncover terrorist funds certainly makes them seem so, just as all those group's opposition to and misrepresentation of the NSA wiretapping does.
The NSA has always been allowed to track communications originating in "suspect foreign portals" INTO America, under the umbrella term of "collecting foreign intelligence."
The only thing the current program changed was allowing the NSA to track communications FROM America TO "suspect foreign portals." The flip side of the same policy, which was upheld by four federal courts, including the FISA court.
Why Wycliff chose to defend those more radical elements, by calling O'Reilly to task for attacking (those groups) "rather than blaming the officials in the Bush administration who've prosecuted this war," (a/k/a "the U.S. government"), I'll never know. Perhaps he simply mis-spoke.
If he'd have said "...instead of the terrorists," he'd have been right and O'Reilly would not have been able to take him to task for "blaming the U.S. government/government officials INSTEAD of the terrorists."
One of the biggest problems with the current "war on terrorism," is the inability, or unwillingness of those in our government to properly define the enemy and the reasons for our actions in that fight.
It is NOT a war on "terrorism."
It is a war against the forces of radicalized Islam.
But what is "radicalized Islam?
Since Islam has never had a Reformation, that's hard to precisely define, but simply (probably over-simply) it could be defined as "anyone who adheres to or advocates Sharia Law," which would include the vast majority of Muslims everywhere.
It's easy to see why those in our government wouldn't want to precisely define "radicalized Islam." There is certainly the fear that such a definition would make targets out of many Muslims in the Westand possibly endanger their public safety.
It's harder to figure out why so many officials insist on mis-stating our reasons for our list of targeted nations (Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran & Syria topped that list)...but it was never about "freeing Afghan women from burquas," or "saving Iraq from the evils of Saddam."
Hell if we were really in the business of "fighting evil," we'd have been involved in Rwanda before some 700,000 Tutsis were slaughtered by the Hutus there.
No, we invaded Afghanistan ONLY because they harbored the Taliban and wouldn't turn them over, when we demanded they do so.
We invaded Iraq because al Qaeda had long had the Ansar al Islam camps in northern Iraq and shared a common enemy with Saddam - the Kurds.
We also KNEW that Hussein had left unaccounted for many, many stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons that we'd shared with him during the Iran-Iraq war.
We could not risk the possibility of those kinds of weapons getting into the hands of international terrorists...and Saddam Hussein was NOT going to cooperate with the West.
We f*&ked over Hussein big time, so he was rightly pissed off at the U.S. by 2003.
Did you know that before he invaded Kuwait (Kuwait was slant drilling across their border with Iraq and, in effect, stealing Iraqi oil) Hussein asked the U.S. (Bush 41) to intervene?
He was told that "America didn't get involved in such petty border disputes," which he took as a green light to deal with Kuwait directly.
When he did invade Kuwait, the U.S. feigned shock and outrage over "the rape of Kuwait" and promptly attacked Saddam's Iraq.
His former ally in the Iran-Iraq war (America) had now publically humiliated him and spit in his face.
That's when Saddam's hatred for America solidified.
Like many pan-Arabists before him (ie Egypt's Sadat) he was more than willing to deal with pan-Islamicists like OBL and others, to smite a common enemy.
That's why between 1991 and 2003 Saddam's Iraq topped the U.S. State Department's list of "State Sponsors of Terrorism."
Now I agree with you on Gore.
I also believe that he would've mistakenly tried to deal with international terrorism (unconventional warfare) as a "criminal justice matter."
Our own FBI admitted back in 1993, after the first WTC attacks, that America's criminal justice system could not effectively deal with international terrorism.
These international terrorists are NOT "lowly criminals" or cave dwellers (as some call them), they're a well trained, well-financed and well organized global movement.
Rogue nations like Syria, Iraq, Iran, Somalia and Afghanistan have used these terrorists much like the north African states of Tunis, Tripoli and Algiers once used the Barbary Pirates.
Funny you voted for Bush...I supported Pat Buchanan. I felt (and still feel) that G W Bush is NOT Conservative enough.
I'd support Newt Gingrich in 2008 if he can move forward....I've always really like that guy.
P.S. God bless your kids!
You sound like a great Dad.
Stay well.
JMK - I think that you are wrong about why we invaded Iraq. In fact the reasons that you provide are at odds with the official reason provided by Colin Powell in his address to the U.N.
No, and don't get me wrong, I'm not a conspiracy nut.
But I think that our President indended to invade Iraq well before the 9/11 tragedy.
There is enough evidence to support that theory.
Rumsfeld, Vice President Dick Cheney, and a small band of conservative ideologues had begun making the case for an American invasion of Iraq as early as 1997 - nearly four years before the Sept. 11 attacks and three years before President Bush took office.
An obscure right-wing policy group called Project for the New American Century, or PNAC - affiliated with Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rumsfeld's top deputy Paul Wolfowitz and Bush's brother Jeb - even urged then-President Clinton to invade Iraq back in January 1998.
"We urge you to... enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world," stated the letter to Clinton, signed by Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and others. "That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power." (For full text of the letter, see www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm)
It wouldn't be the first time that one of our President's lied us into a war, heck, remember Vietnam?
That was a Liberal President to boot!
Actually, you’re right to the point that plans were definitely in the WH blueprinting an invasion of Iraq pre-9/11.
In fact, the previous administration had those plans on the Oval Office desk and John Kerry supported an invasion back in 1998, decrying Clinton’s settling on a bombing campaign as “Not nearly enough.”
From 1992 through 2003 Saddam’s Iraq was at the top of the U.S. State Department’s list of “State Sponsors of Terrorism.”
It’s not even “revisionist history” to say that Iraq was “no enemy of the United States before 9/11,” because Saddam’s Iraq was a primary enemy of the United States during that time. So those, like Michael Moore, who claim “Iraq was no threat to America, nor American interests (Oil & Israel) are not resorting in “revisionist history,” but outright lies.
Just as surely as the Gulf of Tonkin was a pretense to get Americans to support our government’s dedication to the “Domino Theory” at that time and to support our alliance with South Vietnam, the Maine (“Remember the Maine”) is now seen as a faked attack that the U.S. used to get us into the Spanish-American war, as was the Lusitania (which WAS carrying munitions) a pretense to get us into WW I.
Saddam’s Iraq’s hatred for America was solidified when we first told him that his dispute with Kuwait, over their purported “slant drilling” across the border into Iraq, was none of our concern and then pounded Iraq as soon as they invaded Kuwait (an invasion we’d apparently green-lighted, in Saddam’s view).
Before 9/11/01 I would’ve said, “Iran, Iraq, Syria, it’s a pick’em,” it wouldn’t have been a mistake to invade any of those place, as ALL of them were major STATE SPONSORS OF TERRORISM, but once Saddam’s Iraq violated UN Resolution 1441, which England and the U.S. both said was “a last chance Resolution,” Iraq moved to the forefront of the big three.
I can’t stress enough how wrong those who see international terrorism as a criminal justice matter are, but even FBI Director Fox (back in 1993) said the U.S. criminal justice system is inadequate to deal with large scale international terrorism.
The recent terror cells cracked in Toronto, Miami and recently in NYC & Lebanon should give those who espouse more dialogue and a criminal justice approach to terrorism real pause for thought.
They’re clearly on the wrong side of this issue and it will cost those folks politically down the road.
Our enemy is “radicalized Islam.” Radicalized Islam is actually ANYONE who adheres to and espouses Muslim Sharia Law. That means we’re in for a very long fight indeed.
The problem wasn’t an “over-reaction" in 2002 (Afghanistan) and 2003 (Iraq), the tragedy was that we waited over ten years to join a fight that had been relentlessly waged against us (America and American interests) since 1992!
Post a Comment
<< Home