03-31-2004, 11:17 PM
Great website for fairly independent views on politics.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.classlesswarfare.com/">http://www.classlesswarfare.com/</a><!-- m -->
Theres a real good essay there on how we should deal with terrorism.
beginning teenweek like cut and paste here....
"As the public tesimony winds down in front of the September 11 commission, several things are pretty clear. One, the United States government going back probably to the Reagan administration never took the threat of terrorism as seriously as they should have, nor did they deal with it the way they should have.
I don't care what Richard Clarke says about the Clinton administration. A low body count does not equal success. Each attach by Al Qaeda became more bold than the previous one, culminating in the attacks of September 11. They didn't do as much as they could have, or should have.
The Bush administration does not get off lightly either. George Tenet and John Ashcroft both should have been fired in light of 9/11. Other high level members of the CIA and FBI should have been fired as well. You don't allow a breach of that magnitude to take place and not pay the price for it. Tenet for not more agrressively going after Al Qaeda and John Ashcroft for thinking the pointless drug war and porno was more important than counter-terrorism.
At the end of the day, none of it really matters. The attacks happened, and as a result, the outlook on how to deal with the terror threat has changed. Oliver, in a rambling entry takes to complaining about Iraq as many have. The charges that we're "diverting resources" away from the war on terror is complete hogwash. The war on terror is not one that is fought with tanks, gunships and fighter jets. Oliver and his ilk are claiming we need more troops in Afghanistan. Why? So they can run around in the mountains of Afghanistan for the next couple of years looking in caves for scattered remnants of the Taliban and Al Qaeda? It's so easy to say, "We need 15,000 more troops in Afghanistan!", but what value does it have? The answer is, it doesn't. But it sounds good, so people will keep repeating it.
The war on terror now is going to rely heavily on covert operations and the intelligence community. It means more vigorous enforcement of immigration laws and the scaling back of things like student visas so that people like Mohammed Atta cannot get into this country to plan attacks against us. Chances are, it probably means a return to something so many have loathed recently: profiling. It doesn't do any good to keep an eye on Grandma Moses while she's at the airport, but a young Saudi national here on a student visa I'm sorry to say is somebody that deserves a second look.
As far as Iraq is concerned, it had ties to terrorism, and Saddam Hussein, just through his presence created instability in the region. He should have been dealt with long ago. People can mock the results all they want, but the fact of the matter is, Iraq is going to have a constitution, the likes of which is nowhere to be found in the Middle East other than Israel. Our action against Iraq has had the kind of repercussions that naysayers claimed would not exist. The increasing protests in Iran, new freedom based protests in Syria and Libya seeking once again to normalize relations all put water on the fiery arguments of those who claim it would have the reverse affect. The war on terrorism has been strengthened, not weakened by what happened in Iraq, despite what happened in Spain.
We have paid a price of course, and that price is being shamelessly exploited by those opposed to the war to score their own political points. They're the same people that complained when President Bush used images of 9/11 in a campaign ad, but they don't have any problem repeating the phrase 'dead soldiers' for maximum political effect.
Iraq is no save haven as the continuing attacks prove. But the Iraqi people agree that their lives are better now that Saddam is no longer there. They recognize it. Other parts of the world recognize it. That stands above all of the sniping about 'profiteering' and 'settling old scores' which is nothing but partisan bullsheot. There's no substance to it and it sounds like a campaign ad. A bad one at that.
The global war on terror is going to continue. The threat of Al Qaeda would exist if we never went after Saddam and had 200,000 troops traipsing all over the mountains of Afghanistan. The question is, What methods will we use to stop it?
It's painfully obvious that was employed throughout the 1990's failed miserably. Diplomatic and law enforcement type solutions did nothing. It didn't scare them off, and too many people were busy covering their own asses to make any diplomatic solution work. The scary thing is, Oliver and his crowd support John Kerry, who wants a return to that way of thinking in dealing with that threat. Oh sure, you can brag about imprisoning Ramsey Yousef and marvel at how great we did in thwarting millenium attacks, but who cares? What did it do? They still went and carried out the most daring and deadly terrorist attacks the world has ever seen on United States soil.
John Kerry would return to that way of thinking and would defer to the UN when it comes to protecting our national security. That's not leadership. That's a backward way of thinking that opens us up to new attacks. The Bush administration has been far from perfect in that regard. But I'll sleep safer knowing he's in the White House.
"
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.classlesswarfare.com/">http://www.classlesswarfare.com/</a><!-- m -->
Theres a real good essay there on how we should deal with terrorism.
beginning teenweek like cut and paste here....
"As the public tesimony winds down in front of the September 11 commission, several things are pretty clear. One, the United States government going back probably to the Reagan administration never took the threat of terrorism as seriously as they should have, nor did they deal with it the way they should have.
I don't care what Richard Clarke says about the Clinton administration. A low body count does not equal success. Each attach by Al Qaeda became more bold than the previous one, culminating in the attacks of September 11. They didn't do as much as they could have, or should have.
The Bush administration does not get off lightly either. George Tenet and John Ashcroft both should have been fired in light of 9/11. Other high level members of the CIA and FBI should have been fired as well. You don't allow a breach of that magnitude to take place and not pay the price for it. Tenet for not more agrressively going after Al Qaeda and John Ashcroft for thinking the pointless drug war and porno was more important than counter-terrorism.
At the end of the day, none of it really matters. The attacks happened, and as a result, the outlook on how to deal with the terror threat has changed. Oliver, in a rambling entry takes to complaining about Iraq as many have. The charges that we're "diverting resources" away from the war on terror is complete hogwash. The war on terror is not one that is fought with tanks, gunships and fighter jets. Oliver and his ilk are claiming we need more troops in Afghanistan. Why? So they can run around in the mountains of Afghanistan for the next couple of years looking in caves for scattered remnants of the Taliban and Al Qaeda? It's so easy to say, "We need 15,000 more troops in Afghanistan!", but what value does it have? The answer is, it doesn't. But it sounds good, so people will keep repeating it.
The war on terror now is going to rely heavily on covert operations and the intelligence community. It means more vigorous enforcement of immigration laws and the scaling back of things like student visas so that people like Mohammed Atta cannot get into this country to plan attacks against us. Chances are, it probably means a return to something so many have loathed recently: profiling. It doesn't do any good to keep an eye on Grandma Moses while she's at the airport, but a young Saudi national here on a student visa I'm sorry to say is somebody that deserves a second look.
As far as Iraq is concerned, it had ties to terrorism, and Saddam Hussein, just through his presence created instability in the region. He should have been dealt with long ago. People can mock the results all they want, but the fact of the matter is, Iraq is going to have a constitution, the likes of which is nowhere to be found in the Middle East other than Israel. Our action against Iraq has had the kind of repercussions that naysayers claimed would not exist. The increasing protests in Iran, new freedom based protests in Syria and Libya seeking once again to normalize relations all put water on the fiery arguments of those who claim it would have the reverse affect. The war on terrorism has been strengthened, not weakened by what happened in Iraq, despite what happened in Spain.
We have paid a price of course, and that price is being shamelessly exploited by those opposed to the war to score their own political points. They're the same people that complained when President Bush used images of 9/11 in a campaign ad, but they don't have any problem repeating the phrase 'dead soldiers' for maximum political effect.
Iraq is no save haven as the continuing attacks prove. But the Iraqi people agree that their lives are better now that Saddam is no longer there. They recognize it. Other parts of the world recognize it. That stands above all of the sniping about 'profiteering' and 'settling old scores' which is nothing but partisan bullsheot. There's no substance to it and it sounds like a campaign ad. A bad one at that.
The global war on terror is going to continue. The threat of Al Qaeda would exist if we never went after Saddam and had 200,000 troops traipsing all over the mountains of Afghanistan. The question is, What methods will we use to stop it?
It's painfully obvious that was employed throughout the 1990's failed miserably. Diplomatic and law enforcement type solutions did nothing. It didn't scare them off, and too many people were busy covering their own asses to make any diplomatic solution work. The scary thing is, Oliver and his crowd support John Kerry, who wants a return to that way of thinking in dealing with that threat. Oh sure, you can brag about imprisoning Ramsey Yousef and marvel at how great we did in thwarting millenium attacks, but who cares? What did it do? They still went and carried out the most daring and deadly terrorist attacks the world has ever seen on United States soil.
John Kerry would return to that way of thinking and would defer to the UN when it comes to protecting our national security. That's not leadership. That's a backward way of thinking that opens us up to new attacks. The Bush administration has been far from perfect in that regard. But I'll sleep safer knowing he's in the White House.
"