Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Can Partisan Spin Rehab 3rd Consecutive GOP President's "Rep" But Kill Our Pol.Forum

powerclown · 07-09-2007, 10:50 AM

More irrelevant spin fit for the disintegration machine, or relevant adult conservative opinion deserving of inclusion in the American political conversation? I would offer up the opinion that many, many, many Americans hold these exact same views. Referring to millions and millions of people's opinions as irrelevant strikes me as naive.

Setback for the ACLU

By THE EDITORS
July 9, 2007 6:30 AM

In a welcome decision, a divided panel of the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Friday reversed a Detroit federal judge’s ruling from last summer which purported to invalidate the Bush administration’s Terrorist Surveillance Program. The TSP, which is no longer in effect, involved eavesdropping by the National Security Agency, without court warrants, on communications into and out of the United States by suspected members of al Qaeda.

Notwithstanding relentless efforts by administration critics to mischaracterize the program as “domestic spying,” it proved to be popular with the public, which understood that for terrorist operatives inside our country to take directions from overseas requires communication.

Despite their criticism of President Bush’s alleged lawlessness, Democrats made no serious effort to end the program by cutting off funding. Most said they believed such communications should be monitored; their sole objection, they claimed, was that they wanted it done within the “rule of law” — by which they meant they wanted it done only with judicial blessing under a 1978 statute Congress had enacted. They rejected the notion that the president, as commander-in-chief, maintained the inherent authority to order the surveillance as a way to protect the nation from foreign attack during wartime. But all wartime presidents have exercised this authority (once the technology made this sort of surveillance possible), and all courts that have considered the issue have concluded the chief executive indeed has this constitutional power.

What we really had, in other words, in the TSP controversy was a simple policy dispute over the proper balance between concern for our safety and concern for our privacy. Such disputes are supposed to be decided in the political process. Elected representatives make the judgment calls, and are then rewarded or punished at the ballot box by the people whose lives are at stake. That is called democracy.

Decisions on national-security matters are not supposed to be imposed on us by unaccountable judges, issuing rulings in lawsuits brought by activist plaintiffs who pretend to represent “the public” but, in fact, represent only their own agendas. They certainly have a right to fight for their views— but only by persuading us in the political arena, not usurping our self-determination through the courts.

That is what the Sixth Circuit majority has held. The federal courts are limited by a doctrine called “standing.” Essentially, it means that a litigant cannot bring a lawsuit unless he can show that the actions of a party, including the government, are harming him in a specific and unique way. If he is just another concerned citizen who thinks his taxes are too high or worries that his police department’s policies may someday result in actions that are too aggressive, that is not grist for a lawsuit. If it were, all policymaking would be transferred to the courts. The standing doctrine is not legal procedural arcana; it is a bedrock limitation on judicial power designed to protect democratic self-determination.

The panel reasoned that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the TSP in court. Led by the American Civil Liberties Union, the Council on American Islamic Relations, and various other activists, these plaintiffs were a collection of lawyers, journalists, and Muslim interest groups. They had no idea — nor could they, since the program is classified — whether their communications had actually been intercepted by the NSA. Rather, they purported to fear the possibility, which they portrayed as a likelihood that they could be overheard. They claimed harm from being shunned by the people with whom they wanted to communicate — the kind of people the government might suspect of al Qaeda connections because, well, they just might have al Qaeda connections.

This claim of a “chilling effect” was never persuasive. After all, even if there were no TSP, the government could monitor the very same people by getting judicial warrants. That, however, is almost beside the point. There is nothing that makes these plaintiffs so special that they, unlike the rest of us, are uniquely affected by having to worry that their conversations with our enemies in wartime might be monitored. They just don’t like the idea of George W. Bush managing a war. That’s a perfectly acceptable position to take, but it is a political position, not a legal one.

Typically, the mainstream media has been quick to label the appeals-court ruling as a setback for civil liberties. No, it is merely a setback for the ACLU. The most important civil liberty is our right to govern ourselves. The Sixth Circuit’s judgment takes wartime surveillance of the enemy out of the courts and back into the political arena, where it belongs.

How Bush Lost the Right by Waging the Wrong War
by Chuck Muth
Posted: 10/31/2006

It’s a given that Republicans have lost the confidence of conservatives over issue after issue; unfulfilled promise after unfulfilled promise. From spending to immigration; from expanding rather than eliminating the Department of (Mis)Education to the creation of the new prescription drug entitlement. But when you hear that conservative support for the war in Iraq is a major reason the GOP may lose control on Congress next week, you have to wonder if that’s true or just left-wing media spin.

Sadly, it’s true.

But not for the reasons the Left would have you believe. It’s not that the Right doesn’t still support the war on terror or even the war in Iraq. It’s that the White House is losing the Right’s support for not aggressively pursuing the war; for pussy-footing around and waging a politically correct “sensitive” war.

This erosion of support started almost immediately after 9/11, and has decreased steadily ever since. Let me suggest six key turning points which have helped chip away at conservative support for President Bush’s war effort.

The first missed opportunity was the president’s post-9/11 statements. Instead of telling the American people to get back to their normal lives, he should have called for sacrifice. And he should have stoked the public’s righteous anger into support for doing whatever was necessary to wipe this militant Islamic scourge from the face of the earth. And his very first action should have been to announce to the world that he was rescinding the Executive Order which bans assassinations of foreign leaders.

I’m not saying he necessarily should have used it; but he should have declared it. He should have sent the unmistakable message that America would not fight this war with one hand tied behind its back. And that if one of our Marine sharp-shooters gets a shot at a dirtbag, that dirtbag is going down. End of story. Case closed. Hello, 72 virgins.

Then the world would have known we were serious. Dead serious.

The second decision which began a slow erosion of conservative support for the president’s war on terror was the president’s new war on grannies and toddlers. I’m talking about combining a bunch of big federal agencies into one HUGE federal agency – the Department of Homeland Security. Oh, and its evil spawn, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA).

Conservatives instinctively know that expanding the government bureaucracy is never the answer to a problem. By taking private airport security screeners and making them government workers, Republicans asked for – begged for – the backlash they’re getting now. The longest lines in the United States today are government-created: the DMV and the TSA. Thanks, Republicans.

But wasn’t just the federalizing of an entire workforce. And it’s not just the inconvenience. It’s the pure stupidity. It’s watching little old ladies and tots in strollers being patted down while 18-to-34 year old Middle Eastern men are shuffled right on through for fear of being accused of “profiling.” A nation serious about winning a war isn’t worried about offending the sensitivities of those who just happen to match the description of those most likely to do us harm.

As for going into Iraq, conservatives aren’t having second thoughts about that. They’re not buying the liberal line that “Bush lied and people died.” Saddam Hussein was one of the bad guys. In fact, he was one of the worst of the worst bad guys. Given the chance he’d have gladly financed, if not organized, additional attacks on America (or Israel). Saddam gave us reason, cause and opportunity to make an example out of somebody. And lo and behold, almost the minute Saddam went down, Muammar Khadafi gave up all his hidden, secret weapons of mass destruction. Go figure.

Which brings me to the third big mistake the Administration made in the war. We knew Saddam was one of the bad guys, and we knew we were going to take him out. But instead of doing so immediately, we pussy-footed around with the United Nations and the Democrats for months. Months in which Saddam had plenty of opportunity to hide weapons that everybody, including the hapless Bill Clinton, knew he had (after all, he’d USED them already on his own people in Halabjah).

The Air Force and the Navy’s rockets red glare should have lit up Baghdad in October, not March.

And just think, as a White House spokesman said at the time (which landed him in a heap of trouble), one sniper’s bullet back then could avoided this whole thing.

Taking out the Taliban in Afghanistan and taking down Saddam in Iraq WAS the original mission of our military. So yes, THAT mission WAS accomplished…no matter how much and how often the Left continues to deny it. The problems which have eroded conservative support for the war effort have occurred afterward.

The first major sign that the Administration wasn’t taking prosecution of the war seriously was when Americans learned that pilotless Predator aircraft were patrolling the battlefield armed with Hellfire missiles but let one of the bad guys go. We learned that a Predator had Taliban leader Mullah Omar in its sights, but as USA Today noted, “military lawyers could not decide whether he could be struck.” Instead of taking the dirtball out, the Predator’s missiles “were ultimately fired near him, but not to kill him.”

What? A declared enemy of the nation could have been taken out, but our military wasn’t allowed to do so because of…lawyers? Is that insane or what? No wonder conservatives are ticked off. Who’s running this show…the Pentagon or the ACLU? If it’s the ACLU, “Check, please.”

And then there was Fallujah.

Americans were told that the Iraqi city of Fallujah was Insurgent Central. It was a terrorist swamp. Indeed, the top leaders of the opposition were believed to be holed up in Fallujah. The military’s mission: Drain the swamp. Exterminate the vermin. And if that means blowing up a mosque or two in the process, so be it.

But, nooooooo.

Political considerations entered the picture. Some in the new Iraqi government – which wouldn’t even BE there if not for the United States military – objected. So the swamp-draining mission into Fallujah was postponed…and by the time we finally did go in, most of the terrorist roaches had already checked out.

Wonderful.

But I think the biggest mistake we made was in capturing Saddam Hussein. Not in actually capturing him, but in not immediately giving him a firing squad instead of a two-year (and counting) circus trial for all the world to see. Where’s Judge Roy Bean when you need him? (“Bring that guilty man in here so we can give him a fair trial and a proper hanging before dinner.”)

THAT’S what Saddam deserved. THAT’S what he should have gotten. And if Americans didn’t have the stomach for it, they should have just turned him over to the Kurds in Halabjah.

If Republicans are losing conservative support for the war in Iraq or the war on terror, it’s not because conservatives don’t support the notion of the war in Iraq or the war on terror. It’s because conservatives no longer believe this administration is willing to do WHATEVER IT TAKES to WIN the war.

Saddam’s still alive (Spin? -ed.)…and 3,000 American servicemen and women are dead. Lawyers are calling the shots, not generals. We can’t blow up buildings where terrorists and insurgents are hiding. Military missions are delayed for political considerations.

But at least no one’s allowed to carry a big tube of toothpaste on a plane any longer.

And that’s why the war in Iraq may now be a reason why Republicans lose control of Congress next Tuesday. Get me Jack Bauer on the phone.

Mr. Muth is president of Citizen Outreach, a non-profit public policy advocacy organization in Washington, D.C. The views expressed are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Citizen Outreach.

Peace In Our Time?
by Chuck Freilich
Posted: 06/13/2007

If the Bush Administration would just leave well enough alone. Withdraw from Iraq, leave the Iranians to their own devices. Butt out.

Then we could all go back to the “me generation” desire to feel good about ourselves, our surroundings, other countries. Why upset allies, have a majority in Europe and elsewhere view the U.S. as the primary source of international instability and insecurity? Why not just continue sticking our heads in the ground ostrich-like, maybe the whole bloody mess will just go away?

It won’t. We live in a PC society hesitant to speak of a clash of civilizations, of cultures, of (heaven forbid, shh, make sure no one hears) religions. Our adversaries have no such compunctions, they simply blow up those who disagree with them, behead them, sow hatred, seek to undermine societies, threaten to destroy nations.

Does anyone seriously think that by withdrawing from Iraq the clash with extremist Islam will end? That it won’t follow the U.S. home thereafter? The President’s repeated efforts to make this case go unheard, drowned out by the opposing clamor of the anti-war movement for immediate gratification, bring the troops home and the future be damned!

Did U.S. problems with the extremists of the Moslem world begin with the May 2003 invasion of Iraq? 9/11 preceded the war in Iraq, as did the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, as did Palestinian terrorism (remember a time when one could fly without security measures?). Syrian terrorism (downing aircraft in 1980s), Libyan terror (downing two aircraft in the 80s and 90s), the blowing up of the Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983, the murder of Leon Klinghoffer on the Achille Lauro in 1985, all preceded the war in Iraq.

Does the anti-war movement forget the eight year long Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, in which hundreds of thousands died on both sides, the thousands who died due to Islamic terror in Algeria in the 1990s, or the Assad regime's highly effective means of dealing with the domestic threat posed by the Moslem Brotherhood, in which it simply shelled its own city of Hamma, killing over 10,000 citizens? How many civilians have been killed by Islamic terrorists in Egypt, Bali, Madrid, London, Tanzania, Israel, Chechnya? Do Iran’s endless denunciations of both the “Great and Small Satan” (the U.S. and Israel) and call for their downfall mean nothing?

There is a war on, whether we like it or not, and it will not end by withdrawing from Iraq. Can any one doubt the likelihood that at any given moment, maybe while you are reading this very article, al-Qaeda or some other group of nihilistic maniacs is plotting the next 9/11? Only this time they will want to do something really dramatic. Oh, blowing up a couple of skyscrapers? Big deal, “been there, done that”, now lets do something serious.

The few attempts at renewed attacks since 9/11 have been successfully thwarted and the U.S. has gotten a serious homeland security process underway, even if it is still far from complete. But maybe the various lunatics are simply biding their time, maybe it has been plain old luck. For how long?

As yet, no one has devised a fully effective counter-terrorism policy, or for winning in Iraq, or for dealing with Iran. Indeed, there probably is no one single policy, but a cumulative combination of various different approaches. Staying the course in Iraq will not do it, even a significant ongoing increase in troop strength may not suffice. But does getting out improve things? Or is just wishing the problem away a strategy?

Some may be surprised to know that a somewhat similar domestic debate took place in Israel as well, at the height of Palestinian terror in 2002. Many maintained (not incorrectly) that Israel’s security measures, as the U.S.’s in Iraq, further increased Palestinian animosity and exacerbated terror, that there was no military answer to the problem, that Israel should show greater restraint and live with it. Well, Israel took dramatic offensive measures in the March 2002 Operation Defensive Shield, which broke the backbone of the terror onslaught and then continued to pursue an ongoing offensive strategy. This has not “solved” the problem, certainly not its root causes, but it has brought it down to manageable proportions. There truly are no purely military “solutions” to terror and wars of values and belief, but they certainly help.

In 1937 at Munich, the “feel gooders” sought to appease the enemy, dismiss its aggressive designs. If only we would be reasonable and address their “concerns”, all would be well. If we just maintained our distance, disengaged. Well, it did not work then -- "peace in our time” proved to be a tragic, historic mistake -- and it won’t succeed this time either. (Judgement call: has Godwin just been invoked?)

---
Can it really all be spin?

07-09-2007, 10:50 AM	#2 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	More irrelevant spin fit for the disintegration machine, or relevant adult conservative opinion deserving of inclusion in the American political conversation? I would offer up the opinion that many, many, many Americans hold these exact same views. Referring to millions and millions of people's opinions as irrelevant strikes me as naive. Setback for the ACLU By THE EDITORS July 9, 2007 6:30 AM In a welcome decision, a divided panel of the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Friday reversed a Detroit federal judge’s ruling from last summer which purported to invalidate the Bush administration’s Terrorist Surveillance Program. The TSP, which is no longer in effect, involved eavesdropping by the National Security Agency, without court warrants, on communications into and out of the United States by suspected members of al Qaeda. Notwithstanding relentless efforts by administration critics to mischaracterize the program as “domestic spying,” it proved to be popular with the public, which understood that for terrorist operatives inside our country to take directions from overseas requires communication. Despite their criticism of President Bush’s alleged lawlessness, Democrats made no serious effort to end the program by cutting off funding. Most said they believed such communications should be monitored; their sole objection, they claimed, was that they wanted it done within the “rule of law” — by which they meant they wanted it done only with judicial blessing under a 1978 statute Congress had enacted. They rejected the notion that the president, as commander-in-chief, maintained the inherent authority to order the surveillance as a way to protect the nation from foreign attack during wartime. But all wartime presidents have exercised this authority (once the technology made this sort of surveillance possible), and all courts that have considered the issue have concluded the chief executive indeed has this constitutional power. What we really had, in other words, in the TSP controversy was a simple policy dispute over the proper balance between concern for our safety and concern for our privacy. Such disputes are supposed to be decided in the political process. Elected representatives make the judgment calls, and are then rewarded or punished at the ballot box by the people whose lives are at stake. That is called democracy. Decisions on national-security matters are not supposed to be imposed on us by unaccountable judges, issuing rulings in lawsuits brought by activist plaintiffs who pretend to represent “the public” but, in fact, represent only their own agendas. They certainly have a right to fight for their views— but only by persuading us in the political arena, not usurping our self-determination through the courts. That is what the Sixth Circuit majority has held. The federal courts are limited by a doctrine called “standing.” Essentially, it means that a litigant cannot bring a lawsuit unless he can show that the actions of a party, including the government, are harming him in a specific and unique way. If he is just another concerned citizen who thinks his taxes are too high or worries that his police department’s policies may someday result in actions that are too aggressive, that is not grist for a lawsuit. If it were, all policymaking would be transferred to the courts. The standing doctrine is not legal procedural arcana; it is a bedrock limitation on judicial power designed to protect democratic self-determination. The panel reasoned that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the TSP in court. Led by the American Civil Liberties Union, the Council on American Islamic Relations, and various other activists, these plaintiffs were a collection of lawyers, journalists, and Muslim interest groups. They had no idea — nor could they, since the program is classified — whether their communications had actually been intercepted by the NSA. Rather, they purported to fear the possibility, which they portrayed as a likelihood that they could be overheard. They claimed harm from being shunned by the people with whom they wanted to communicate — the kind of people the government might suspect of al Qaeda connections because, well, they just might have al Qaeda connections. This claim of a “chilling effect” was never persuasive. After all, even if there were no TSP, the government could monitor the very same people by getting judicial warrants. That, however, is almost beside the point. There is nothing that makes these plaintiffs so special that they, unlike the rest of us, are uniquely affected by having to worry that their conversations with our enemies in wartime might be monitored. They just don’t like the idea of George W. Bush managing a war. That’s a perfectly acceptable position to take, but it is a political position, not a legal one. Typically, the mainstream media has been quick to label the appeals-court ruling as a setback for civil liberties. No, it is merely a setback for the ACLU. The most important civil liberty is our right to govern ourselves. The Sixth Circuit’s judgment takes wartime surveillance of the enemy out of the courts and back into the political arena, where it belongs. How Bush Lost the Right by Waging the Wrong War by Chuck Muth Posted: 10/31/2006 It’s a given that Republicans have lost the confidence of conservatives over issue after issue; unfulfilled promise after unfulfilled promise. From spending to immigration; from expanding rather than eliminating the Department of (Mis)Education to the creation of the new prescription drug entitlement. But when you hear that conservative support for the war in Iraq is a major reason the GOP may lose control on Congress next week, you have to wonder if that’s true or just left-wing media spin. Sadly, it’s true. But not for the reasons the Left would have you believe. It’s not that the Right doesn’t still support the war on terror or even the war in Iraq. It’s that the White House is losing the Right’s support for not aggressively pursuing the war; for pussy-footing around and waging a politically correct “sensitive” war. This erosion of support started almost immediately after 9/11, and has decreased steadily ever since. Let me suggest six key turning points which have helped chip away at conservative support for President Bush’s war effort. The first missed opportunity was the president’s post-9/11 statements. Instead of telling the American people to get back to their normal lives, he should have called for sacrifice. And he should have stoked the public’s righteous anger into support for doing whatever was necessary to wipe this militant Islamic scourge from the face of the earth. And his very first action should have been to announce to the world that he was rescinding the Executive Order which bans assassinations of foreign leaders. I’m not saying he necessarily should have used it; but he should have declared it. He should have sent the unmistakable message that America would not fight this war with one hand tied behind its back. And that if one of our Marine sharp-shooters gets a shot at a dirtbag, that dirtbag is going down. End of story. Case closed. Hello, 72 virgins. Then the world would have known we were serious. Dead serious. The second decision which began a slow erosion of conservative support for the president’s war on terror was the president’s new war on grannies and toddlers. I’m talking about combining a bunch of big federal agencies into one HUGE federal agency – the Department of Homeland Security. Oh, and its evil spawn, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). Conservatives instinctively know that expanding the government bureaucracy is never the answer to a problem. By taking private airport security screeners and making them government workers, Republicans asked for – begged for – the backlash they’re getting now. The longest lines in the United States today are government-created: the DMV and the TSA. Thanks, Republicans. But wasn’t just the federalizing of an entire workforce. And it’s not just the inconvenience. It’s the pure stupidity. It’s watching little old ladies and tots in strollers being patted down while 18-to-34 year old Middle Eastern men are shuffled right on through for fear of being accused of “profiling.” A nation serious about winning a war isn’t worried about offending the sensitivities of those who just happen to match the description of those most likely to do us harm. As for going into Iraq, conservatives aren’t having second thoughts about that. They’re not buying the liberal line that “Bush lied and people died.” Saddam Hussein was one of the bad guys. In fact, he was one of the worst of the worst bad guys. Given the chance he’d have gladly financed, if not organized, additional attacks on America (or Israel). Saddam gave us reason, cause and opportunity to make an example out of somebody. And lo and behold, almost the minute Saddam went down, Muammar Khadafi gave up all his hidden, secret weapons of mass destruction. Go figure. Which brings me to the third big mistake the Administration made in the war. We knew Saddam was one of the bad guys, and we knew we were going to take him out. But instead of doing so immediately, we pussy-footed around with the United Nations and the Democrats for months. Months in which Saddam had plenty of opportunity to hide weapons that everybody, including the hapless Bill Clinton, knew he had (after all, he’d USED them already on his own people in Halabjah). The Air Force and the Navy’s rockets red glare should have lit up Baghdad in October, not March. And just think, as a White House spokesman said at the time (which landed him in a heap of trouble), one sniper’s bullet back then could avoided this whole thing. Taking out the Taliban in Afghanistan and taking down Saddam in Iraq WAS the original mission of our military. So yes, THAT mission WAS accomplished…no matter how much and how often the Left continues to deny it. The problems which have eroded conservative support for the war effort have occurred afterward. The first major sign that the Administration wasn’t taking prosecution of the war seriously was when Americans learned that pilotless Predator aircraft were patrolling the battlefield armed with Hellfire missiles but let one of the bad guys go. We learned that a Predator had Taliban leader Mullah Omar in its sights, but as USA Today noted, “military lawyers could not decide whether he could be struck.” Instead of taking the dirtball out, the Predator’s missiles “were ultimately fired near him, but not to kill him.” What? A declared enemy of the nation could have been taken out, but our military wasn’t allowed to do so because of…lawyers? Is that insane or what? No wonder conservatives are ticked off. Who’s running this show…the Pentagon or the ACLU? If it’s the ACLU, “Check, please.” And then there was Fallujah. Americans were told that the Iraqi city of Fallujah was Insurgent Central. It was a terrorist swamp. Indeed, the top leaders of the opposition were believed to be holed up in Fallujah. The military’s mission: Drain the swamp. Exterminate the vermin. And if that means blowing up a mosque or two in the process, so be it. But, nooooooo. Political considerations entered the picture. Some in the new Iraqi government – which wouldn’t even BE there if not for the United States military – objected. So the swamp-draining mission into Fallujah was postponed…and by the time we finally did go in, most of the terrorist roaches had already checked out. Wonderful. But I think the biggest mistake we made was in capturing Saddam Hussein. Not in actually capturing him, but in not immediately giving him a firing squad instead of a two-year (and counting) circus trial for all the world to see. Where’s Judge Roy Bean when you need him? (“Bring that guilty man in here so we can give him a fair trial and a proper hanging before dinner.”) THAT’S what Saddam deserved. THAT’S what he should have gotten. And if Americans didn’t have the stomach for it, they should have just turned him over to the Kurds in Halabjah. If Republicans are losing conservative support for the war in Iraq or the war on terror, it’s not because conservatives don’t support the notion of the war in Iraq or the war on terror. It’s because conservatives no longer believe this administration is willing to do WHATEVER IT TAKES to WIN the war. Saddam’s still alive *(Spin? -ed.)…and 3,000 American servicemen and women are dead. Lawyers are calling the shots, not generals. We can’t blow up buildings where terrorists and insurgents are hiding. Military missions are delayed for political considerations. But at least no one’s allowed to carry a big tube of toothpaste on a plane any longer. And that’s why the war in Iraq may now be a reason why Republicans lose control of Congress next Tuesday. Get me Jack Bauer on the phone. Mr. Muth is president of Citizen Outreach, a non-profit public policy advocacy organization in Washington, D.C. The views expressed are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Citizen Outreach. Peace In Our Time?* by Chuck Freilich Posted: 06/13/2007 If the Bush Administration would just leave well enough alone. Withdraw from Iraq, leave the Iranians to their own devices. Butt out. Then we could all go back to the “me generation” desire to feel good about ourselves, our surroundings, other countries. Why upset allies, have a majority in Europe and elsewhere view the U.S. as the primary source of international instability and insecurity? Why not just continue sticking our heads in the ground ostrich-like, maybe the whole bloody mess will just go away? It won’t. We live in a PC society hesitant to speak of a clash of civilizations, of cultures, of (heaven forbid, shh, make sure no one hears) religions. Our adversaries have no such compunctions, they simply blow up those who disagree with them, behead them, sow hatred, seek to undermine societies, threaten to destroy nations. Does anyone seriously think that by withdrawing from Iraq the clash with extremist Islam will end? That it won’t follow the U.S. home thereafter? The President’s repeated efforts to make this case go unheard, drowned out by the opposing clamor of the anti-war movement for immediate gratification, bring the troops home and the future be damned! Did U.S. problems with the extremists of the Moslem world begin with the May 2003 invasion of Iraq? 9/11 preceded the war in Iraq, as did the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, as did Palestinian terrorism (remember a time when one could fly without security measures?). Syrian terrorism (downing aircraft in 1980s), Libyan terror (downing two aircraft in the 80s and 90s), the blowing up of the Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983, the murder of Leon Klinghoffer on the Achille Lauro in 1985, all preceded the war in Iraq. Does the anti-war movement forget the eight year long Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, in which hundreds of thousands died on both sides, the thousands who died due to Islamic terror in Algeria in the 1990s, or the Assad regime's highly effective means of dealing with the domestic threat posed by the Moslem Brotherhood, in which it simply shelled its own city of Hamma, killing over 10,000 citizens? How many civilians have been killed by Islamic terrorists in Egypt, Bali, Madrid, London, Tanzania, Israel, Chechnya? Do Iran’s endless denunciations of both the “Great and Small Satan” (the U.S. and Israel) and call for their downfall mean nothing? There is a war on, whether we like it or not, and it will not end by withdrawing from Iraq. Can any one doubt the likelihood that at any given moment, maybe while you are reading this very article, al-Qaeda or some other group of nihilistic maniacs is plotting the next 9/11? Only this time they will want to do something really dramatic. Oh, blowing up a couple of skyscrapers? Big deal, “been there, done that”, now lets do something serious. The few attempts at renewed attacks since 9/11 have been successfully thwarted and the U.S. has gotten a serious homeland security process underway, even if it is still far from complete. But maybe the various lunatics are simply biding their time, maybe it has been plain old luck. For how long? As yet, no one has devised a fully effective counter-terrorism policy, or for winning in Iraq, or for dealing with Iran. Indeed, there probably is no one single policy, but a cumulative combination of various different approaches. Staying the course in Iraq will not do it, even a significant ongoing increase in troop strength may not suffice. But does getting out improve things? Or is just wishing the problem away a strategy? Some may be surprised to know that a somewhat similar domestic debate took place in Israel as well, at the height of Palestinian terror in 2002. Many maintained (not incorrectly) that Israel’s security measures, as the U.S.’s in Iraq, further increased Palestinian animosity and exacerbated terror, that there was no military answer to the problem, that Israel should show greater restraint and live with it. Well, Israel took dramatic offensive measures in the March 2002 Operation Defensive Shield, which broke the backbone of the terror onslaught and then continued to pursue an ongoing offensive strategy. This has not “solved” the problem, certainly not its root causes, but it has brought it down to manageable proportions. There truly are no purely military “solutions” to terror and wars of values and belief, but they certainly help. In 1937 at Munich, the “feel gooders” sought to appease the enemy, dismiss its aggressive designs. If only we would be reasonable and address their “concerns”, all would be well. If we just maintained our distance, disengaged. Well, it did not work then -- "peace in our time” proved to be a tragic, historic mistake -- and it won’t succeed this time either. (Judgement call: has Godwin just been invoked?) --- Can it really all be spin? Last edited by powerclown; 07-09-2007 at 11:16 AM..