Use of National Security Letters Greatly Expanded under the Obama Administration –
Ross Douthat writes, “For those with eyes to see, the daylight between the foreign policies of George W. Bush and Barack Obama has been shrinking ever since the current president took the oath of office. But last week made it official: When the story of America’s post-9/11 wars is written, historians will be obliged to assess the two administrations together, and pass judgment on the Bush-Obama era.”
According to a report from the Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich, “During calendar year 2010, the Government made 1,579 applications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (hereinafter ‘FISC’) for authority to conduct electronic surveillance and/or physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes.”
The number of people that the FBI has targeted with national security letters (NSLs) has more than doubled in the last year.
According to an article in the Washington Post on Monday, “The letters enable the bureau to collect a large amount of sensitive information like financial and phone records in terrorism and espionage investigations.”
“In 2007, the Justice Department’s inspector general found widespread violations in FBI use of the letters, including demands without proper authorization and information obtained in non-emergency circumstances,” the Post article continues
The Post writes, “The FBI has tightened oversight of the system. The letters are controversial because there is no court scrutiny of the process.”
According to a release from the American Civil Liberties Union, this marks a “dramatic increase in surveillance of Americans between 2009 and 2010, and these statistics don’t even include surveillance conducted under the new FISA [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, 1978] Amendments Act [FAA].”
The ACLU goes on to report, “The government more than quadrupled its use of secret court subpoenas, known as 215 orders, which give the government access to “any tangible thing,” including a wide range of sensitive information such as financial records, medical records, and even library records. In 2010, the FBI made 96 applications, up from just 21 in 2009.”
The Assistant Attorney General points out, “The FISC did not deny, in whole or in part, any such application filed by the Government during calendar year 2010.”
“There was also a huge increase in NSLs, which allow the FBI to demand records related to a broad range of personal information, including financial records, a list of e-mail addresses with which a person has corresponded, and even the identity of a person who has posted anonymous speech on a political website, all without the permission or supervision of a court,” the ACLU continues.
The ACLU continues, “In 2010, the FBI more than doubled the number of U.S. persons it surveilled with NSLs, requesting 24,287 NSLs on 14,212 people, up from 14,788 NSLs on 6,114 people the year before. The FBI also increased its electronic and physical surveillance, making 1,579 applications to wiretap and physically search individuals’ property last year, up from 1,376 the year before.”
In just a few weeks, according to the ACLU, “three of the most controversial provisions of the Patriot Act are set to expire: the aforementioned 215 orders; the roving wiretap provision that allows the government to listen in on phone calls without specifically identifying a phone line for their tap, even a target; and the ‘lone wolf provision,’ which has never been used, but nevertheless allows the government to conduct surveillance on non-U.S. citizens who have no connection to a terrorist organization.”
They conclude, “This report is yet another example of the need for reform. For nearly 10 years, the Patriot Act has allowed the government to abuse the privacy of innocent Americans by spying on them without cause accountability.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[i]”In an editorial appearing this morning, the Sacramento Bee argues that “President Obama’s foreign policy looks like President Bush’s.”[/i]
Not according to the Davis Peace Coalition. They are still protesting Bush’s Iraq war, while ignoring Obama’s two current wars.
Yesterday I looked at the DPC website to see if maybe, just maybe, they would have anything to say about the slaughter going on in Syria. Not a word. Nothing about Yemen or any other hotspots. The closest they had was a piece by one of their members defending Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Never mind that the DPC’s good friends, the ayatollahs, were busy mowing down home-grown Iranian protesters, holding two California hikers hostage, funding the largest three terrorist organizations in the Arab world, and training the Syrian thugs in how to kill demonstrators. Nice guys, those theocratic Iranians.
Here is the link ([url]http://www.davispeace.org/Articles/Article.44.html[/url]) to the DPC’s pro-Iran propaganda.
Obama is all about big gov’t and that gov’t knows best, so it is no surprise that gov’t surveillance is up, not down under his watch. Obama has vigorously used gov’t powers to go after anyone who doesn’t agree with him… look what he is doing in regard to Boeing… trying to use the NLRB to prevent Boeing from setting up a non-union shop in South Carolina… pure thuggery…
So, you on the left… you were angry at Bush for allowing enhanced interrogation techniques (i.e., water boarding) of terrorists. You labeled this “torture” and demanded Bush tried for war crimes Obama came out against these practices. Then you voted him in office. Now, not only do we continue these practices, we also condone just assassinating unarmed terrorists. So Bush cannot water board terrorists, but Obama can shoot them in the head.
You on the left also howled at each indication that Bush was keeping war-time secrets from the public. “Bush lied people died”, was one of your favorite chants.
No nary a peep even though the Obama administration appears to have grown more secretive and less transparent.
Jeff, the left is okay with it because it’s their guy doing it now. Obama has lied more than Bush ever did.
[quote]No nary a peep even though the Obama administration appears to have grown more secretive and less transparent.[/quote]
Excellent point.
[quote]Jeff, the left is okay with it because it’s their guy doing it now. Obama has lied more than Bush ever did.[/quote]
Isn’t the hypocrisy on the left astounding on this issue?
Rusty49, I wouldn’t have so much of a problem with this obvious hypocrisy had the left been more civil and less vitriolic in their treatment of Bush. They became unhinged over these things. Now they are celebrating in the street over the killing of Bin Laden… a killing made possible by these enhanced interrogation techniques. I have heard a few comments from people with left-leaning tendencies that they were “uncomfortable” that Bin Laden was shot and not tried… and disappointed that people were celebrating his killing. However, the volume of this chatter is about .0001 % of what it was during Bush torturegate.
Looking for consistency on this topic that would indicate a level of objectivity from my friends on the left… I find little. For me it is another indication that the intellectual rigor they claim is more apt to be used to fight ideological wars rather than to seek balance and truth.
Clearly you folks don’t read Daily Kos.
Don: I have tried to read that site, but I find it cluttered and there is a complete lack of any journalistic standards that I am familiar with. The despicable Huffington Post at least tries to be a news site… separating authored content from the blogger junk. However, there is not much there in objection to Obama killing Osama.
I think though, instead of pointing to one or two insignificant sources in the new media, we should focus instead on the main scream media. Also, we should analyze what all the lefty leaders are saying, how frequently they are saying it, and loud they are saying it. There is barely a whimper in objection about Obama authorizing the murder of this alleged terrorist… while previously we were lead down a path of labeling water boarding and photos of naked bound alleged terrorists as the most egregious of all crimes against humanity.
Interesting too the almost complete lack of objection from the GOP leadership on the killing of Bin Laden. I guess they understand the importance of supporting a president in a time of war.
It is this contrast that really makes a person like me question the true patriotism, or maybe just the sanity, of people like Nancy Pelosi and the editors and station chiefs of just about every major news source.
From a April, 2009 NY Daily News report… Notsee Peloski on water boarding:
[quote]’ Pelosi has stepped up Democrats’ calls to form a torture “truth commission,” urging President Obama not to give immunity to anyone who illegally abused terror thugs.
Pelosi on Wednesday seized on Obama’s openness to prosecuting top Bush administration lawyers who formulated policies to strip, slap, shove and waterboard detainees said to be among Al Qaeda’s worst in U.S. custody after 9/11.
“It gives further impetus among members to have some kind of truth commission as to what happened,” Pelosi said. “I do not think immunity should be granted to everyone in a blanket way,” she added.’ [/quote]
… on Osama Bin Laden’s killing:
[quote]’The death of Osama bin Laden marks the most significant development in our fight against al-Qaida. … I salute President Obama, his national security team, Director Panetta, our men and women in the intelligence community and military, and other nations who supported this effort for their leadership in achieving this major accomplishment. … The death of Osama bin Laden is historic….’[/quote]
I don’t make this stuff up folks, I just report it.
And to think she was just two steps away from the presidency…
Jeff, Here’s what Pelosi said in 2006:
Just five years ago, when President Bush was still in power leading the hunt for the world’s most wanted terrorist, the California Democrat said capturing or killing Osama bin Laden was not vital to national security.
“Even if he’s is caught tomorrow, it is five years too late. Even to capture him now I don’t think makes us any safer.”
Like you said Jeff, you can’t make this stuff up.
Rusty: Exactly!
It does not surprise me that people like Nancy Pelosi exist… what surprises me is how many seemingly smart people vote for her and support her. Pelosi does not only represent a single failure of leadership, she represents a massive failure of so many voters to recognize or admit what real leadership should be. Doesn’t she come up for re-election in 2012? Do you want to place any bets that she gets re-elected or not?
Yes, clearly liberals are all hypocrites who hate America. You all have fun with this theme. I’ll just leave you to it.
Don, Well then help me understand then. Can you explain why people on the left would want to skewer Bush over authorizing a rough spa treatment to get terrorists to talk, but congratulate Obama for an authorized head shot to kill an unarmed terrorist and several other people in the process?
By the way, I did not write that I believe “liberals hate America”. I do think they may dislike aspects of American society, American culture, American policies, American business, etc… but not all and certainly not the entire country. My point was that there is evidence that, despite their strong stance on certain principles and ideas, their rhetoric is inconsistent, variable and suspect of being only a means to an end. If your senses were assaulted and you were embarrassed to be an American when the news reports were raging about water boarding and naked prisoner pictures, they why wouldn’t you have a worse reaction to the killing of Osama? Why would a leader like Nancy Pelosi blow in the wind this way? It is evidence to me that the principles she so adamantly claims to stand for are only what she thinks will make her popular with her fan base. Why would anyone vote for a leader that behaves that way? How can you trust someone that does that type of thing? Given that she was two steps away from the presidency, why wouldn’t you be concerned?
Just one observation 2day: the ACLU is not an unbiased news source.
It seems to me tbat there is no lack of inconsistency on either side. I completely agree with the inconsistency of the specific quotes that have been posted.
But before those on the right become too self righteous i would ask you to consider the following:
1)Not one of you has made any positive comment about David’s putting this forward in the first place.
2)Nor have I seen the unqualified support for Obama making the decision that I suspect many of you would have applauded had it been made by Bush.
3)Nor have the nationally prominent Republicans chosen to be consistent. While Cheney had the apparent courage of his convictions and congratulated Obama, many others chose to use this as justification for their ( in my opinion) illegal and immoral actions in the area of torture.
4) My guess is that not one of you who defend the use of torture when done by Americans would defend the exact same methods when used on Americans. I realize that mine will not be a popular position but I feel that it is completely consistent to deplore the immorality of an action regardless of the nationality of the perpetrator.
5) I suspect that most of you have not discussed this with many liberals. I have been, and am finding that most of those conversations do not involve a celebration of OBLs death since most that I have spoken with would have preferred his capture and trial as consistent with the belief in the rule of law.
[quote]Ross Douthat writes, “For those with eyes to see, the daylight between the foreign policies of George W. Bush and Barack Obama has been shrinking ever since the current president took the oath of office. But last week made it official: When the story of America’s post-9/11 wars is written, historians will be obliged to assess the two administrations together, and pass judgment on the Bush-Obama era.”[/quote]
This was an excellent column and well worth quoting in the Vanguard. Douhat is one of the very few columnists who makes me think even if I disagree with him. That is what great columnists do.
Douhat could also have added that Obama’s economic polices are not that different from the Bush/Paulson/Geithner era, indeed Geithner was promoted. Obama has been better on taxing the rich and tinkered with healthcare, but otherwise his primary economic policies are not that different from the last year or two of the Bush administration.
J Boone,
“So, you on the left… you were angry at Bush for allowing enhanced interrogation techniques (i.e., water boarding) of terrorists.”
Just those on the left? From no non-partisan source was it suggested that “enhanced interrogation techniques” were not helpful, if not damaging? Didn’t the National Defense Intelligence College release a report to that effect? Are they a bunch of peace loving liberals? What of the former military interrogators who believe these techniques are unhelpful and damaging? Are they all left leaning?
“Now, not only do we continue these practices…”
Wait, water boarding is currently a practiced interrogation technique? Which practices are you referring to?
“So Bush cannot water board terrorists, but Obama can shoot them in the head.”
Not following your logic here. (1) Concerns relating to the treatment of suspected terrorists and the information extracted by various interrogation techniques, long/short term effects of torture in interrogations, etc. and (2) a CIA operation/Military combat mission to take into custody and/or kill the leader of the terrorist organization responsible for murdering Americans, per the Obama administration’s stated goal?
“Now they are celebrating in the street over the killing of Bin Laden…”
You know the political affiliations and leanings of those celebrating the death of Bin Laden in the streets?
“a killing made possible by these enhanced interrogation techniques.”
How so?
“Looking for consistency on this topic that would indicate a level of objectivity from my friends on the left… I find little”
Your friends, who are the basis for your assertions re: the “left” and its consistency on various complex political issues and international affairs?
“For me it is another indication that the intellectual rigor they claim is more apt to be used to fight ideological wars rather than to seek balance and truth.”
The claims made by your friends?
“There is barely a whimper in objection about Obama authorizing the murder of this alleged terrorist… while previously we were lead down a path of labeling water boarding and photos of naked bound alleged terrorists as the most egregious of all crimes against humanity”
Apples and oranges.
“Interesting too the almost complete lack of objection from the GOP leadership on the killing of Bin Laden. I guess they understand the importance of supporting a president in a time of war.”
It is not at all interesting. You really think the lack of objection by the GOP leadership is due to an allegiance to this president, because we are fighting wars? Do you really think that?
“Can you explain why people on the left would want to skewer Bush over authorizing a rough spa treatment to get terrorists to talk, but congratulate Obama for an authorized head shot to kill an unarmed terrorist and several other people in the process?”
Yes, apples and oranges. Also, your characterization of the enhanced interrogation techniques is indicative of a fundamental misunderstanding of what it entails, the type of information it induces and the effects it has/can have on the long-term mission of combating terrorism. It’s not just the “left” who has taken issue with the so-called enhanced interrogation techniques. You are aware of this, right?
Can you explain to me who or what the “left” is?
“My point was that there is evidence that, despite their strong stance on certain principles and ideas, their rhetoric is inconsistent, variable and suspect of being only a means to an end.”
So what you’re saying here is this: among the “left,” there are people who compromise their principles for some political gain and use rhetoric to do so? This you find very troubling and unique to the “left,” mostly?
Rusty,
“Obama has lied more than Bush ever did.”
A determination based on what, exactly?
ERM,
“Isn’t the hypocrisy on the left astounding on this issue?”
What broad strokes you paint with, ERM. Surely you have never been critical of others for similarly piling a stratified and diverse population/group under one umbrella.
“Just one observation 2day: the ACLU is not an unbiased news source. “
For the purposes of this article why does that matter? I used their quotes but the underlying report gave the same facts.
[quote]Yes, clearly liberals are all hypocrites who hate America. You all have fun with this theme. I’ll just leave you to it.[/quote]
When I made the statement “Isn’t the hypocrisy on the left astounding on this issue”, I was referring to the manner in which Bush was villified by Democratic leaders for torture techniques; yet Obama is given a pass by those same Democratic leaders for ordering a hit on Osama. Such hypocritical vitriole by Democratic leaders is internally inconsistent.
Now that doesn’t mean the right isn’t just as guilty of hypocrisy on other issues. It doesn’t mean all lefties hate America. What it means is the Democratic leadership seems to have a tendency to say whatever is convenient at the time, and shift their position with whichever way the wind is blowing.
If I were to assess Obama, he was a blowhard during his campaign for presidency, but is finding once in office things look quite a bit different. I actually give him some credit for recognizing that his former positions during the campaign were naive and unrealistic. I also give him some credit for wanting to bring some real reform to the federal gov’t – I just don’t happen to agree with the reforms he has wrought as being truly effective or workable. But I do give him credit for trying…
I also recognize the repugnance of torture (John McCain was a true leader in this regard bc he actually spoke from personal experience), but I also recognize the harsh reality of who we are dealing with – terrorists who have no reverence for human life. I honestly don’t know what I would do if I were President in so far as torture. The idea of torture makes me very uncomfortable, and my guess is that other techniques that don’t involve torture could be just as effective. (One technique that turned out to be very effective was playing Barney music over and over again!) But that is coming from someone (me) who is not really knowledgeable about these things who is talking here. However, taking out Osama Bin Laden was the right thing to do – of that I have absolutely no doubt. And I applaud Obama for making the right and difficult decision. And I do not agree it would have been better to capture Bin Laden – to do so would have been fraught w all sorts of problems – as Obama found out when he tried to close Gitmo. In the War on Terror, there are unfortunately no easy answers. I would just prefer the Democratic leadership to honestly acknowledge that, instead of taking contradictory positions whenever it suits them and continue Bush-bashing ad nauseum.
So when I refer to the “left” or “right”, I am usually referring to the party leadership. I generally don’t refer to average voters, bc I think most people are conflicted on many of these issues, which is as it should be. Life is often messy, with a lot of gray areas, with very few easy choices.
[quote]What broad strokes you paint with, ERM. [/quote]
See discussion above…
Superfluous Man & Medwoman: See Elaine’s post for answers to most of the questions you raised. Elaine did a great job articulating most of the same points I agree with was attempting to make. I see an alarming double-standard being played out in American politics, and in the American main media, on a regular basis. My issue is the poor quality leadership of the political left, and the passes they get from the main media and most of their left-leaning supporters. These supporters are seemingly intellectually agitated about everything else except the behavior of THEIR politicians. I am a righty – and like most righties I applaud the Obama killing of Bin Laden AND supported the Bush enhanced interrogation techniques used to gather the information that was used to find him (John McCain does not represent the average GOP politician on this topic and should recuse himself given his unique, and understandable, bias).
As of late yesterday, we are starting to see a bit more left-side media chatter in opposition to the Bin Laden killing. However, there is zero left-side political leadership chatter. Like Pelosi, they are patting Obama on the back with the same intensity that they were sticking a knife in the back of Bush.
[i]You really think the lack of objection by the GOP leadership is due to an allegiance to this president, because we are fighting wars?[/i]
Absolutely, 1000000%. That is what patriots do. They don’t tear down a president undermining his power and giving strength to the enemy in a time of war.
J. Boone,
Neither you nor ERM addressed “most” of the issues, questions, etc brought up in my comment to you in the slightest. You can start by informing me how it is you were able to differentiate a democrat from a republican amongst the revelers in the streets post Bin Laden killing…or your argument re: opposition to water boarding v. okay with CIA/Military operation that resulted in the death of BL=the “left” is incredibly hypocritical.
“John McCain does not represent the average GOP politician on this topic and should recuse himself given his unique, and understandable, bias”
Understandable you say, in what way?
“As of late yesterday, we are starting to see a bit more left-side media chatter in opposition to the Bin Laden killing.”
Who, where?
“That is what patriots do. They don’t tear down a president undermining his power and giving strength to the enemy in a time of war.”
You honestly believe the “right” would not have criticized Obama’s decision if it were politically advantageous or say if the operation was not so successful? With respect to tearing down a president, undermining his power, etc, etc…really? You don’t think the “right” or so-called “patriots” are not guilty of doing/attempting to do any of those things?
The whole “a real patriot does x, y and z” thing is about as trite as is gets, IMO.
[i]”You honestly believe the “right” would not have criticized Obama’s decision if it were politically advantageous or say if the operation was not so successful?”[/i]
The GOP does not generally seek political advantage on matters of national security and national defense when their actions could result in national embarrassment. If the operation had not been successful, then yes, I would expect them to raise questions… however, it would be done in consideration of them wanting the US to be perceived by the rest of the world as being in a position of strength. In fact, that would drive the attack against the president for his failure… because the failure would make us appear bumbling and weak.
That is a difference between the behavior of the Democrat party and the Republican party on matters of national security and defense: the Democrats don’t value the perspective that the US is the most powerful nation on the planet and hence do not care that the US would be embarrassed or appear weaker pursuing some politically-advantageous attack against a GOP president. Contrastingly, the GOP not only values the belief that the US is the strongest and most successful nation on the planet, but the GOP party will continue to make it a primary consideration in matters of politics.
[i] “John McCain does not represent the average GOP politician on this topic and should recuse himself given his unique, and understandable, bias”
Understandable you say, in what way?[/i]
John McCain was a prisoner of war and was tortured. Of course he has a visceral and emotional opposition to the practice of water boarding. Although I respect his opinion, it is too biased to be counted as a primary policy driver.
Lefty chatter about the Osama killing: [url] http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/RosieODonnell-OsamabinLaden-killed-SEALs/2011/05/11/id/395929%5B/url%5D
Link might be broken in the previous. Try this…
[url]http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/RosieODonnell-OsamabinLaden-killed-SEALs/2011/05/11/id/395929[/url]
[quote]Neither you nor ERM addressed “most” of the issues, [/quote]
I thought I made my position pretty clear… and Jeff Boone/rusty49 did an excellent job of laying out Pelosi’s contradictory statements…
[quote]John McCain was a prisoner of war and was tortured. Of course he has a visceral and emotional opposition to the practice of water boarding. Although I respect his opinion, it is too biased to be counted as a primary policy driver. [/quote]
It is bc McCain experienced torture first hand that I think his opinion counts more than anyone else’s. The rest of us really speak from total ignorance… just my opinion…
ERM,
“I thought I made my position pretty clear… and Jeff Boone/rusty49 did an excellent job of laying out Pelosi’s contradictory statements…”
You qualified your use of “the left” when referring to their purported hypocrisy on the issue. This was done so by presenting two quotes in which Pelosi apparently states that even if we caught Osama, it wouldn’t necessarily be a big deal…flash forward to present day she now finds it a significant moment. Okay, so the left is comprised of hypocrites, at least in part.
Now, that is hardly “most” of the issues, questions, etc. put forth in my comments to J. Boone. He still will not answer the simplest of questions. Boone seems to find it hypocritical of “the left” as they were opposed to torture, yet are fine with the Obama administration’s call here, which resulted in BL’s death. How can one logically conclude, as Boone did, that it is hypocritical to oppose torture, for practical and/or moral reasons, but support the administration’s attempt to capture/kill the man responsible for those attacks? I suspect flawed reasoning, but he has not explained. However, I don’t expect you to answer that, I asked him.
He also will not substantiate this apparent assertion that torture was in some way directly linked to locating and killing BL.
My point is that you did respond to that one issue, but that hardly qualifies as responding to “most” of the issues put forth by myself and medwoman in our comments to JB, which is what he wrote. Asked again to respond, he still did not.
Nevertheless, rusty, Boone and yourself find Pelosi’s comment re: capturing OBL being not a big deal and now stating otherwise, which is suspected of being a politically driven “flip-flop,” I assume.
Are Pres. Bush’s comments, likewise, hypocritical and indicative of one GOP member blowing with the proverbial political winds?
Pres. Bush when asked about the whereabouts of Bin Laden, “I wouldn’t necessarily say he’s at the center of any command structure…I truly am not that concerned about him” (March 13, 2002). LA Times, quoting the official White House transcript. Approximately six months after 9/11. http://articles.latimes.com/2004/oct/14/nation/na-osama14
Pre. Bush post Bin Laden’s death: “This momentous achievement marks a victory for America, for people who seek peace around the world, and for all those who lost loved ones on September 11, 2001…tonight America has sent an unmistakable message: No matter how long it takes, justice will be done.” http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/05/02/president-george-w-bush-congratulates-obama-bin-laden-killing/
Shortly after we were attacked by Al Qaeda (funded in large part and lead by BL) on 9/11, BL is not really a significant player, he’s not really worried about him for he has run off somewhere. However, now, his death signifies victory, a momentous achievement for America, one which Bush would surely appreciate some credit for. That isn’t at all contradictory?
J. Boone,
“The GOP does not generally seek political advantage on matters of national security and national defense when their actions could result in national embarrassment.”
Really…
[img]http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.historycommons.org/events-images/b027_bush_mission_accomplished_2050081722-7750.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=torture,_rendition,_and_other_abuses_against_captives_in_iraq,_afghanistan,_and_elsewhere_1104&usg=__P8Nez-lTQzQTqAK8Xvf-Y1rnUdA=&h=276&w=282&sz=47&hl=en&start=2&zoom=1&tbnid=XAsjajUG9fS-kM:&tbnh=112&tbnw=114&ei=FpnMTb-2BYT0tgOXm631CA&prev=/search?q=Bush+USS+lincoln&um=1&hl=en&sa=N&rlz=1R2ADRA_enUS368&biw=1276&bih=577&tbm=isch&um=1&itbs=1[/img][img]http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://cdn.lightgalleries.net/4bd5ec090c079/images/Bush_BK01MAY03A-copy-2-1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.brookskraft.com/contents/MOMENTS/image-Bush_BK01MAY03A-copy-2/&usg=__zrtv7tJwlqmK61-K-3Jxyer_FSE=&h=823&w=1200&sz=178&hl=en&start=18&zoom=1&tbnid=4-drE37MbY-atM:&tbnh=131&tbnw=159&ei=QprMTY6pFJDEsAPZ78noCA&prev=/search?q=Bush+USS+lincolm&um=1&hl=en&sa=N&rlz=1R2ADRA_enUS368&biw=1276&bih=577&tbm=isch&um=1&itbs=1&iact=rc&dur=47&page=2&ndsp=20&ved=1t:429,r:12,s:18&tx=95&ty=98[/img]
[img]http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://cdn.lightgalleries.net/4bd5ec090c079/images/Bush_BK01MAY03A-copy-2-1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.brookskraft.com/contents/MOMENTS/image-Bush_BK01MAY03A-copy-2/&usg=__zrtv7tJwlqmK61-K-3Jxyer_FSE=&h=823&w=1200&sz=178&hl=en&start=18&zoom=1&tbnid=4-drE37MbY-atM:&tbnh=131&tbnw=159&ei=QprMTY6pFJDEsAPZ78noCA&prev=/search?q=Bush+USS+lincolm&um=1&hl=en&sa=N&rlz=1R2ADRA_enUS368&biw=1276&bih=577&tbm=isch&um=1&itbs=1&iact=rc&dur=421&page=2&ndsp=20&ved=1t:429,r:12,s:18&tx=61&ty=105[/img]
Mr. Rumsfeld re: WMDs ‘We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad…” Oops, he says in his memoir, that was a ‘misstatement’ in reference to what he says were actually just ‘suspect sights’… http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/08/donald-rumsfeld-book-misstatements-wmd
I don’t think many elected officials or political operative would knowingly seek political advantage of this or that, in whatever fashion, if they believed it would cost them their seat, power, influence, etc, on both sides.
A lot of people found plenty of the Bush-era decisions to be nationally and internationally embarrassing. There is no shortage of material and, no, I am not referring to Bush’s bloopers and follies. Although they were and still are comical.
Guess those images didn’t appear…
take your pick: http://www.google.com/search?um=1&hl=en&rlz=1R2ADRA_enUS368&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=FpnMTb-2BYT0tgOXm631CA&ved=0CDkQvwUoAQ&q=Bush+USS+lincoln&spell=1&biw=1259&bih=577
“John McCain was a prisoner of war and was tortured. Of course he has a visceral and emotional opposition to the practice of water boarding. Although I respect his opinion, it is too biased to be counted as a primary policy driver.”
It would make no sense to have an individual with such insight into what torture entails and the type of information it produces as a “primary policy driver?” Yes,that is precisely what should be done…
Why, Mr. Boone, do you think Sen. McCain may have such a problem with water boarding and other forms of torture, if it is really such a successful and vital component to the war on terror and thus linked to national security?
J. Boone,
With respect to your assertion, one which has been perpetuated by certain Fox News pundits, Bush admin officials, etc, that torture led to the location/killig of Bin Laden…
[quote]
McCain, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he asked Panetta “for the facts. And I received the following information:
“The trail to Bin Laden did not begin with a disclosure from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was waterboarded 183 times. We did not first learn from Khalid Shaikh Mohammed the real name of bin Laden’s courier, or his alias, Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti – the man who ultimately enabled us to find bin Laden. The first mention of the name Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti, as well as a description of him as an important member of al-Qaida, came from a detainee held in another country.”
McCain added: “We did not learn Abu Ahmed’s real name or alias as a result of waterboarding or any ‘enhanced interrogation technique’ used on a detainee in U.S. custody. None of the three detainees who were waterboarded provided Abu Ahmed’s real name, his whereabouts, or an accurate description of his role in al-Qaida.”
The senator continued: “In fact, not only did the use of ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed not provide us with key leads on bin Laden’s courier, Abu Ahmed; it actually produced false and misleading information. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed specifically told his interrogators that Abu Ahmed had moved to Peshawar, got married, and ceased his role as an al-Qaida facilitator – which was not true, as we now know. All we learned about Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti through the use of waterboarding and other ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was the confirmation of the already known fact that the courier existed and used an alias.”
Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/05/12/3622380/mccain-abusive-interrogation-didnt.html#ixzz1MCSOQhTP%5B/quote%5D
J. Boone,
“That is a difference between the behavior of the Democrat party and the Republican party on matters of national security and defense: the Democrats don’t value the perspective that the US is the most powerful nation on the planet and hence do not care that the US would be embarrassed or appear weaker pursuing some politically-advantageous attack against a GOP president.”
Maybe, just maybe…Americans-democrat, republican and independent alike-find that our armed forces and, thus, America engaging in degrading, cruel and inhumane treatment of imprisoned fighters/soldiers/enemy combatants is harmful to this country’s reputation and safety. It illustrates that we are not the moral standard, something I think Americans place a great deal of pride in.
Some suggest that the use of torture increases the likelihood that American soldiers, if captured, may be subjected to far worse treatment than they would have faced had we not engaged in such techniques. The argument that “they” would not treat Americans with respect and dignity does not justify our use of these techniques.
Once again, Mr. Boone, explain to me how torture and our degrading treatment of these prisoners strengthened this nation, improved our international reputation and made us safer.
J. Boone,
“In fact, that would drive the attack against the president for his failure… because the failure would make us appear bumbling and weak.”
So you hypothesize… I feel like you are underestimating the GOP’s desire to unseat Obama and completely in denial as to what motivates most elected officials. It’s almost unbelievable the degree to which you can, understandably so, approach the rhetoric and actions of the “left” with such cynicism and criticism, then proceed to say things like you have here and elsewhere. It’s as if you cannot see the forest for the trees.
“the Democrats don’t value the perspective that the US is the most powerful nation on the planet and hence do not care that the US would be embarrassed or appear weaker pursuing some politically-advantageous attack against a GOP president.”
Again, speaking with such general terms. You must be correct, Democrats don’t appreciate the fact that we are the most powerful nation in the world. Or could it be that there are plenty of Democrats who do “value” that perspective, but the means by which such great power is utilized to influence domestic and foreign policy differs from this or that person from whatever party, org, etc? You really think Democrats loathe being a “powerful” nation?
Is it just easier for you to meander through life with the: it’s black or white and right or wrong worldview? I mean, really, the “Democrats” don’t appreciate how grand and powerful America is. That is a truthful statement.
“Contrastingly, the GOP not only values the belief that the US is the strongest and most successful nation on the planet, but the GOP party will continue to make it a primary consideration in matters of politics.”
Such a bold political stance to take, cloaking oneself in the flag. Thank goodness for the GOP for putting this long forgotten concept at the forefront of their national message…
To Superfluous Man: Compare what Pelosi and Bush said –
PELOSI:
Pelosi has stepped up Democrats’ calls to form a torture “truth commission,” urging President Obama not to give immunity to anyone who illegally abused terror thugs.
On the death of Bin Laden: ’The death of Osama bin Laden marks the most significant development in our fight against al-Qaida… The death of Osama bin Laden is historic….’
BUSH:
“I wouldn’t necessarily say he’s at the center of any command structure…I truly am not that concerned about him”
“This momentous achievement marks a victory for America, for people who seek peace around the world, and for all those who lost loved ones on September 11, 2001…tonight America has sent an unmistakable message: No matter how long it takes, justice will be done.”
Pelosi is screaming “off w their heads” to anyone who would torture a terrorist, but has no problem shooting a terrorist in the head w/o trial as if that were a benign act. Pelosi is viciously calling for retribution against those who disagree with her opinion on torture – unless the torture is committed by someone of her own party.
Bush is saying he is not concerned about Bin Laden as much as he is about toppling Hussein or removing the Taliban, then later rejoices in the death of a terrorist who killed thousands of people.
I’m not seeing even remote or moral equivalency here…
ERM,
“Pelosi is screaming “off w their heads” to anyone who would torture a terrorist, but has no problem shooting a terrorist in the head w/o trial as if that were a benign act. Pelosi is viciously calling for retribution against those who disagree with her opinion on torture – unless the torture is committed by someone of her own party.
Bush is saying he is not concerned about Bin Laden as much as he is about toppling Hussein or removing the Taliban, then later rejoices in the death of a terrorist who killed thousands of people.
I’m not seeing even remote or moral equivalency here… “
Is there no distinction made re: treatment of an in custody and defenseless prisoner of war/combat and the combat itself? We have made a distinction, as a country. Are you suggesting that Pelosi (ie “the left”) is not? There is a difference, no?
As for Pelosi, who I am not carrying water for as I couldn’t care less, my point was that her remarks are likely just as much a load of crap as I believe Bush’s were with his stumbling around trying to explain why he has no clue where BL is. How can one reflect on these two wars under the Bush administration and not be more upset about the “mistatements” and nonsense leading up to and everything else associated with the handling of the wars, particularly in its earlier years. He’s not as concerned about BL as Hussein, which was a brilliant decision by the way. Was that what that diversion remark was all about?
The fact is, instead of looking critically at why six months after 9/11 he would say such a thing, some appear to step in what Bush had dropped behind him. Is that the “when it’s your guy” thing you or someone else was talking about? It sounds to me like many republicans are quick to eat up whatever is dished to them, just like democrats are. That’s what I’m hearing anyway.
By the way, in what context did Pelosi make that statement re: even if BL was killed, it’s been five years….? So Bush can take a stance six months out that BL is no biggie and later speak of what a great achievement it is that he’s dead. Pelosi says she doesn’t think his death will necessarily make us safer and several years later calls it a major success in the war on terror, but you find no similarities?
What torture is Pelosi okay with? Viciously calling for some hearings of some sort?
SM: From an NBC News Today interview:
[quote]“Enhanced interrogation techniques” were used to extract information that led to the mission’s success, Panetta said during an interview with anchor Brian Williams. Those techniques included waterboarding, he acknowledged.
Panetta, who in a 2009 CIA confirmation hearing declared “waterboarding is torture and it’s wrong,” said Tuesday that debate about its use will continue.
“Whether we would have gotten the same information through other approaches I think is always gonna be an open question,” Panetta said.[/quote]
Last I checked, Panetta was the CIA chief and John McCain was not. But you go on believing what you want to believe. The Obama administration has proven that all they have to do is say something else and the media and the left forgets and moves on.
[i]”explain to me how torture and our degrading treatment of these prisoners strengthened this nation, improved our international reputation and made us safer.”[/i]
I never made the point that it made us safer from the terrorists. Do you want to make the point that it makes us less safe? Frankly, I don’t think it matters. They hate you and me the same regardless. I would at least prefer that they fear us.
My point was that all the unhindged chatter and all the replay of the the story and pictures by the media and the all the attacks of the administration, the military and the CIA from the leaders of the Democrat party (leaders that make John Kennedy appear like Patrick J. Buchanan by comparison) gave pride and comfort to the enemy at a time of war. It helped them not fear us because Nancy Pelosi – two steps from the presidency – was on their side.
Now, does shooting an unarmed Osama in the head and dumping his body in the sea make us safer?
Apparently, our european friends are not real happy about it. They see this as an example of the “ugly American” syndrome. Not that I care too much about what these, entitled, ungrateful for being US-protected, 30-hour work week, Neville Chamberlain-types think. But I suspect that you might care a bit more.
[i]”Such a bold political stance to take, cloaking oneself in the flag. Thank goodness for the GOP for putting this long forgotten concept at the forefront of their national message… “[/i]
I noticed that you did not write that you agreed that the US is the strongest and most successful nation on the planet. However, you wrote enough here to confirm my point. Cloaking yourself proudly in the US flag seems to be repelling to you. Am I wrong? It isn’t for me and it isn’t for most conservatives.
I am really not as partisan as this issue might make it seem. My problem is the Democrat leadership and their anti-American actions, and the media that seems to give them a super hall pass for every gaff, lie and obvious hypocrisy. And, for those that defend these freaks of American politics… I tend to put them in the same boat of disdain.
Nancy Pelosi called the CIA a bunch of liars while lying herself about being briefed on the use of enhanced terrorism techniques.
John Kerry: [quote]” And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the–of–the historical customs, religious customs. Whether you like it or not…[/quote]
Harry Reid said in direct media interviews we are losing the Iraq war and General Petraeus is a liar and President Bush is a liar about the reasons for going to war, and the surge will not work.
Maybe these three should try cloaking themselves in the flag for a bit… or maybe we should export them to somewhere overseas where America-hating is all the rage.
Obama was against the war, lack of government transparency, the patriot act, gay marriage, water boarding… (need I go on)… before he was for all these things. He just changes his mind with no hardball challenges from the media.
[i]”A lot of people found plenty of the Bush-era decisions to be nationally and internationally embarrassing. There is no shortage of material and, no, I am not referring to Bush’s bloopers and follies. Although they were and still are comical”[/i]
Oh gheesh… read up on WWII and get back to me on FDR and Truman-era decisions that might have embarrassed a few people. War time requires decisions that bring out the armchair quarterbacks and Einsteins in hindsight.
I find a trend with left-leaning people to be mightily concerned about being embarrassed except when their leaders gaff and make mistakes. I think losing a war is very embarrassing. I think the Democrat leaders have been more embarrassing to the country from this perspective.
J. Boone,
“Last I checked, Panetta was the CIA chief and John McCain was not. But you go on believing what you want to believe.”
It’s not a matter of me “wanting to believe” something. In that interview, I came away not too sure what Panetta was trying to say. Seemed like a lot of ambiguity to me.
Anyhow, is you reread the quote from the Bee, McCain said he asked Panetta for the facts leading up to the mission before giving his Senate speech. He then goes on to refute the assertion that torture developed key leads to bin Laden’s courier and ultimately BL.
What’s more, McCain said “All we learned about Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti through the use of waterboarding and other ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was the confirmation of the already known fact that the courier existed and used an alias.”
As McCain’s tells it, through the “facts” he obtained from Panetta, torture at best produced information previously acquired (courier existed/used an alias) without the application of torture. He said the facts indicated the information torture produced was even completely false re: the whereabouts of the courier.
You think he is mistaken about the facts as expressed to him by CIA Director Panetta or being less than forthcoming?
“The Obama administration has proven that all they have to do is say something else and the media and the left forgets and moves on.”
Truly, unique to the Obama administration…Anyway, what I referenced had absolutely nothing to do with the Obama administration, rather what McCain stated were the facts, given to him by Director Panetta, surrounding the information obtained through interrogation techniques which led to the courier who then led us to BL.
“I never made the point that it made us safer from the terrorists. Do you want to make the point that it makes us less safe?”
I was posing a question to you. I have suggested in which ways it could make us less safe. I personally think torture is morally wrong and practically unnecessary for us to accomplish whatever military/intelligence goals the nation has.
“Frankly, I don’t think it matters. They hate you and me the same regardless. I would at least prefer that they fear us.”
Okay, “they” probably do…so you think the prospect of being tortured will in some way deter “them” or what? That’s not a very good justification for the use of torture. I’m at ease with your uses of “us” and “them.” Nice and clean.
I think it does matter when we receive erroneous and unreliable information, which at the very least results in a waste of precious resources, personnel and time? I think that’s extremely important to our national security and that’s not a “them there on the left” sentiment.
J. Boone,
“My point was that all the unhindged chatter and all the replay of the the story…”
Replay of which story?
“…and pictures by the media and the all the attacks of the administration, the military and the CIA from the leaders of the Democrat party (leaders that make John Kennedy appear like Patrick J. Buchanan by comparison) gave pride and comfort to the enemy at a time of war.”
Because some people in this country fundamentally disagreed with the use of torture? The catastrophic decision to engage our military in a second war under false pretenses? I always found torture to be deplorable and impractical. I always found the rhetoric leading up to the Iraq war and rationale for doing so completely ridiculous. From day one I did not think we needed to be there, I don’t think I was wrong.
I also found it irresponsible for us to be engaged in two wars without raising taxes, you know doing the patriotic thing and financially supporting our military efforts with our tax dollars because we all sacrifice in a time of war…who’s paying for that…our children…our children’s children?
So people, such as myself, were helping the enemy, or whatever it is you’re insinuating above, because we vocally (and loudly) disagreed with the administration’s foreign policy decisions? How…American of you to accuse people whose opinions differed greatly from those in the Bush administration of somehow giving the enemy pride and comfort. When will people learn that a true patriot, especially when the issue pertains to matters of war, says nothing when they find their government’s actions troubling, as well as in conflict with their personal values and commonsense…for it may make America look weak.
Anyway, like today is any different with the warm embrace “the right” has given Obama?
“Now, does shooting an unarmed Osama in the head and dumping his body in the sea make us safer?”
I think it was necessary for the Obama administration to continue to seek justice and it is significant. Of course we are not now forever shielded from any terrorist attack due to his death. Are you in some way questioning the mission?
“Apparently, our european friends are not real happy about it. They see this as an example of the “ugly American” syndrome. Not that I care too much about what these, entitled, ungrateful for being US-protected, 30-hour work week, Neville Chamberlain-types think. But I suspect that you might care a bit more.”
Do you watch a lot of the 24 hr news stuff or listen to certain radio personalities regularly? I haven’t heard much about this minor crap, such as your vague reference to our European friends not being too happy about the killing of BL. Don’t really care about your feelings towards Europe.
As to the last sentence in your quote, you’ve got me pegged.
J. Boone,
“Oh gheesh… read up on WWII and get back to me on FDR and Truman-era decisions that might have embarrassed a few people. War time requires decisions that bring out the armchair quarterbacks and Einsteins in hindsight”
I wasn’t stating that no one has before made mistakes, but that there were plenty of decisions made by the Bush administration that were embarrassing. There were plenty of people projecting the outcomes of said Bush-era embarrassments.
“I find a trend with left-leaning people to be mightily concerned about being embarrassed except when their leaders gaff and make mistakes.”
Goodness, lefties are willing to forgive their elected leaders more so than they are the opposition party’s leaders? Is the inverse true?
We have a two-party system, which means it’s not very representative of the political spectrum. So yes, people on the left are going to take it easy on Obama so as to preserve his chances of sticking around another four years. The “left” will vote to reelect him in 2012, despite having some disappointments in him and his first term, with the hope that they will get some tiny little victory in his second term.
I think many voters understand that it may have been too risky for Obama to tackle certain issues head-on, which is not a good long-term plan. They would rather have four more years with a chance at getting what they want as opposed to voting for the only other option, the Republican,which would perceivably diminish those chances.
No matter which way you split it, the American voter has two options. People on the “left” are going to be more inclined to forgive their guy just as people on the “right” are more inclined to forgive their guy. That’s not exactly a revelation.
Just as you have listed all these “the left” is x, y and z or you don’t get how they could vote for what/whomever…your counterparts on “the left” are uttering similar things about you. I find it interesting when I here the same qualifiers used to describe both sides.
Do you ever wonder if, just as those folks on “the left” have been accused, you’ve simply purchased a different brand of bull ****, but it’s bull **** nonetheless?
SM: [i]”Okay, “they” probably do…so you think the prospect of being tortured will in some way deter “them” or what? That’s not a very good justification for the use of torture. I’m at ease with your uses of “us” and “them.” Nice and clean.[/i]
“They” in this case are Islamic-extremist terrorists. Just revisit the videos of the twin towers collapsing and people jumping to their deaths… or of “them” sawing off the head of a live Daniel Pearl, if you need help getting your bearings on this definition. Also, please forgive me if I am just a bit less sensitive than you labeling these people as “them”. I truly wish the world was populated only with individual humans worthy of our high-expectations for ethical treatment. I too am disgusted about the use of torture. However, given the Islamic-extremist terrorist’s typical glee over strapping on vests of explosives and blowing themselves up in a cafe to murder as many innocent people as possible, I see them as being in a special humanoid category unworthy of ethical standards of treatment. I assess the same value to their life that their beliefs provide them… the difference being we can use enhanced interrogation techniques to prevent them from snuffing out the lives of others not subscribing to their beliefs.
Will innocent people be water boarded? I doubt it. It would be a waste of time and energy for our security forces to use this technique except on only the most deserving of terrorists. Not only can I live with this, but I think it is the moral thing to do. This enemy is different than any other before and our sensitive standards do not apply. Our nation should demonstrate consistent zero tolerance for their violent beliefs and actions, and stop trying to win the war by twisted empathy, stupid apology and foolish embrace.
“They” are the enemy that we are trying to defeat to protect our way of life and the future for our children. I am all for tolerance for beliefs and would very much like to see all global humans live together in harmony. However, there must be a baseline of standards for human behavior. The bar for this should be low… for example, require all individuals and groups to value their life and lives of other innocent people. Behaviors below that baseline should not be tolerated.
I’m not sure why you are singling out [i]Islamic[/i] terrorist groups. There are dozens of terrorist groups around the world, including many Christian ones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism) and some which operate right here in the United States. Should Army of God members, American citizens, be water-boarded in order to glean information to prevent future attacks on abortion clinics? Of the 40 – 50 foreign terrorist organizations on the State Dept list, many are nationalist groups. Terrorism isn’t unique to a particular religion or ethnicity.
Don: [i]”I’m not sure why you are singling out Islamic terrorist groups”[/i]
See these lists of incidents of terrorism covering the last ten years. I’m having a difficult time finding any representing these other groups you mention.
[Url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2011[/url]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2010 [/url]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2009 [/url]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2008 [/url]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2007 [/url]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2006 [/url]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2005 [/url]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2004 [/url]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2003 [/url]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2002 [/url]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2001 [/url]
However, to answer your question… yes, if some Christian group started murdering innocent people I would support water boarding of them to gain information that could be used to protect more people.
Look at the list of areas of significant violence going on in the world today. Other than the Mexican drug wars, the vast majority of the violent conflicts involve Muslims. Note too that it is only recently that a few leaders of Islam have issued a Fatwa against suicide bombers.
I clicked on one of those pages, and of the 90 or so listed I was readily able to identify 40 or so that were not specifically “Islamic terrorist” groups. Several incidents in Northern Ireland, lots in Russia (where Islamism and separatism are very intertwined), and so on. Your statement that “the vast majority of the violent conflicts involve Muslims” is not supported by the one page I looked at, and probably not provable one way or another.
“… if some Christian group started murdering innocent people I would support water boarding of them”
“Started”?!? Lots of Christian groups have murdered lots of innocent people in the United States. Water boarding them would almost surely be a violation of the 8th Amendment. You sure you’re ok with that?
Don: Do you really want to head down this path equating the actions of Christians versus the actions of Muslims over the last decade as it relates to global terrorism? Those lists I provided are all you need to see that the vast majority of violent terrorists – the type where a person will blow himself or set off a standalone bomb to murder many innocent people – are acts are done by people claiming it in the name of their Islamic god and profit. How many Christians are doing these types of things in the name of their Christian God and Jesus Christ? I am frankly a bit irritated that you would attempt to make that comparison because it seems to support that Fox News story that those with left-leaning political tendencies hate Christians.
Let’s make it more succinct: “Islamic terrorism is a term for acts of terrorism committed by extremists who call themselves Muslims for the purpose of achieving varying political and/or religious ends.”
You pointed out that the article you looked at included many events in Russia where Muslim Chechen militant terrorists had murdered many innocent Russian citizens.
So, can you provide me evidence of acts of terrorism committed by extreme Christians for the purpose of achieving varying political and/or religious ends? And please don’t go back to the crusades… we are talking about the present decade.
Do I want to ‘equate’ the groups? Yes. Terrorism is terrorism. The FBI issues reports periodically on the terrorist threat within the country, and the groups range all over the ideological spectrum.
Example: [url]http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005[/url]
Worldwide, groups with Islamic ties might be greater in number than other groups, though many are nationalists or separatists. Domestically I think that extreme right-wing groups, with what they consider a Christian basis, are probably more directly dangerous to Americans within our borders. Aryan groups, the KKK, and anti-abortion zealots in particular have long histories of acts of domestic terrorism.
[i]”it seems to support that Fox News story that those with left-leaning political tendencies hate Christians.[/i]”
That is quite a leap.
[i]Note too that it is only recently that a few leaders of Islam have issued a Fatwa against suicide bombers[/i]
This page has been up since 2005, and has been updated periodically:
[url]http://www.religioustolerance.org/islfatwa.htm[/url]
Don: Did you actually read the FBI list. Most of these were done by the left-side animal rights and environmental wackos. In fact, since the attack of 9/11/2001, the Earth Liberation Front and the Animal Liberation Front are responsible for about 95% of the events listed. So, how did you come to the conclusion that Christians were terrorizing the US or the world? You say “terrorism is terrorism”. So by this definition you don’t discriminate between strapping on a bomb to murder hundreds, and malicious property destruction and tree spiking?
[i]” Aryan groups, the KKK, and anti-abortion zealots in particular have long histories of acts of domestic terrorism.”[/i]
Assuming I agree with this statement, and I don’t, how far back do we go… can I list the terrorism of the Ottoman Empire too? Even ignoring the attempt to compare history with the present, you are also comparing a drop of oil to a tar pit.
The FBI list is of course only domestic. Are you purposely ignoring the list of global terrorism events?
Again, your source of the Fatwa against terrorism is from a Washington-based organization. You are going 100% domestic on this argument. There are about 1.6 billion Muslims on this planet. I think going only domestic misses the point by a long-shot.
This [url]http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1969662,00.html[/url] is the type of thing I am talking about… and they have been very slow and very late in coming.
Prof. Charles Kurzman of the Department of Sociology at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has collected dozens of statements by Muslim academics, authors, commentators, politicians, theologians etc which condemn religiously motivated violence. The collection spans the interval from 9/11 (2001-SEP-11) to the present time.
A few examples:
0.2001-SEP-13: Muslim Brotherhood, an opposition Islamist group in Egypt, said it was “horrified” by the attack and expressed “condolences and sadness:” ”[We] strongly condemn such activities that are against all humanist and Islamic morals. … [We] condemn and oppose all aggression on human life, freedom and dignity anywhere in the world.”
0.2001-SEP-14: Mustafa Mashhur, General Guide, Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt; Qazi Hussain Ahmed, Ameer, Jamaat-e-Islami Pakistan, Pakistan; Muti Rahman Nizami, Ameer, Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh, Bangladesh; Shaykh Ahmad Yassin, Founder, Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas), Palestine; Rashid Ghannoushi, President, Nahda Renaissance Movement, Tunisia; Fazil Nour, President, PAS – Parti Islam SeMalaysia, Malaysia; and 40 other Muslim scholars and politicians:
“The undersigned, leaders of Islamic movements, are horrified by the events of Tuesday 11 September 2001 in the United States which resulted in massive killing, destruction and attack on innocent lives. We express our deepest sympathies and sorrow. We condemn, in the strongest terms, the incidents, which are against all human and Islamic norms. This is grounded in the Noble Laws of Islam which forbid all forms of attacks on innocents. God Almighty says in the Holy Qur’an: ‘No bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another’ (Surah al-Isra 17:15).”
0.2001-SEP-13: Shaykh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, chairman of the Sunna and Sira Council, Qatar: ”Our hearts bleed for the attacks that has targeted the World Trade Center [WTC], as well as other institutions in the United States despite our strong oppositions to the American biased policy towards Israel on the military, political and economic fronts. Islam, the religion of tolerance, holds the human soul in high esteem, and considers the attack against innocent human beings a grave sin, this is backed by the Qur’anic verse which reads: ‘Who so ever kills a human being [as punishment] for [crimes] other than manslaughter or [sowing] corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he has killed all mankind, and who so ever saves the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind’ (Al-Ma’idah:32).”
0.2001-SEP-15: Abdulaziz bin ‘Abdallah Al-Ashaykh, chief mufti of Saudi Arabia: ”Firstly: the recent developments in the United States including hijacking planes, terrorizing innocent people and shedding blood, constitute a form of injustice that cannot be tolerated by Islam, which views them as gross crimes and sinful acts. Secondly: any Muslim who is aware of the teachings of his religion and who adheres to the directives of the Holy Qur’an and the sunnah (the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad) will never involve himself in such acts, because they will invoke the anger of God Almighty and lead to harm and corruption on earth.”
0.2001-SEP-27: Shaykh Yusuf Qaradawi, Qatar; Tariq Bishri, Egypt; Muhammad S. Awwa, Egypt; Fahmi Huwaydi, Egypt; Haytham Khayyat, Syria; Shaykh Taha Jabir al-Alwani, U.S.: ”All Muslims ought to be united against all those who terrorize the innocents, and those who permit the killing of non-combatants without a justifiable reason. Islam has declared the spilling of blood and the destruction of property as absolute prohibitions until the Day of Judgment. … [It is] necessary to apprehend the true perpetrators of these crimes, as well as those who aid and abet them through incitement, financing or other support. They must be brought to justice in an impartial court of law and [punished] appropriately. … [It is] a duty of Muslims to participate in this effort with all possible means.”
0.2002-SEP-09: 57 leaders of North American Islamic organizations, 77 intellectuals, and dozens of concerned citizens: ”As American Muslims and scholars of Islam, we wish to restate our conviction that peace and justice constitute the basic principles of the Muslim faith. We wish again to state unequivocally that neither the al-Qaeda organization nor Usama bin Laden represents Islam or reflects Muslim beliefs and practice. Rather, groups like al-Qaeda have misused and abused Islam in order to fit their own radical and indeed anti-Islamic agenda. Usama bin Laden and al-Qaeda’s actions are criminal, misguided and counter to the true teachings of Islam.”
0.2003-JUN-30: Dr. Sayed G. Safavi, Iranian religious scholar and director of the Institute of Islamic Studies, London, England: “The targeting of innocent persons cannot be allowed. Islam is against any form of terrorism, whether it be carried out by an individual, a group or a state. … For Muslims to kill civilians unconnected with any attack on them is a crime. The principal law of Islam is: don’t attack civilians. This includes civilians of any faith, whether Jewish, Muslim or Christian. According to Islam, all people are the family of God. The target of religion is peace.”
0.2005-MAR-17: Islamic Commission of Spain: “Text of the Fatwa Declared Against Osama Bin Laden:” ”Muslims, therefore, are not only forbidden from committing crimes against innocent people, but are responsible before God to stop those people who have the intention to do so, since these people ‘are planting the seeds of corruption on Earth’…. The perpetration of terrorist acts supposes a rupture of such magnitude with Islamic teaching that it allows to affirm that the individuals or groups who have perpetrated them have stopped being Muslim and have put themselves outside the sphere of Islam.”
0.2005-JUL-18: Fatwa signed by more than 500 British Muslim scholars, clerics, and imams: ”Islam strictly, strongly and severely condemns the use of violence and the destruction of innocent lives. There is neither place nor justification in Islam for extremism, fanaticism or terrorism. Suicide bombings, which killed and injured innocent people in London, are HARAAM – vehemently prohibited in Islam, and those who committed these barbaric acts in London [on 2005-JUL-07] are criminals not martyrs. Such acts, as perpetrated in London, are crimes against all of humanity and contrary to the teachings of Islam. … The Holy Quran declares: ‘Whoever kills a human being… then it is as though he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a human life, it is as though he had saved all mankind.’ (Quran, Surah al-Maidah (5), verse 32) Islam’s position is clear and unequivocal: Murder of one soul is the murder of the whole of humanity; he who shows no respect for human life is an enemy of humanity.”
0.2005-JUL-25: Fiqh Council of North America, an association of 18 Muslim legal scholars. The fatwa was endorsed by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Muslim American Society (MAS), the Association of Muslim Social Scientists (AMSS), the Association of Muslim Scientists and Engineers (AMSE), the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), and more than 130 Muslim organizations, mosques and leaders in the United States: ”We have consistently condemned terrorism and extremism in all forms and under all circumstances, and we reiterate this unequivocal position. Islam strictly condemns religious extremism and the use of violence against innocent lives. There is no justification in Islam for extremism or terrorism. Targeting civilians’ life and property through suicide bombings or any other method of attack is haram – prohibited in Islam – and those who commit these barbaric acts are criminals, not ‘martyrs.'”
0.2005-DEC-09: Organization of the Islamic Conference, Summit Conference: ”We are determined to fight terrorism in all its forms. … Islam is the religion of moderation. It rejects extremism and isolation. There is a need to confront deviant ideology where it appears, including in school curricula. Islam is the religion of diversity and tolerance.”
0.2007-JUL-10: Islamic Society of North America: ”The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) condemns in the strongest terms the recent acts of terrorism in Glasgow, London and Yemen. We reaffirm our long-standing, unqualified condemnation of all acts of terrorism and all acts of violence committed against the innocent, and our denunciation of religious extremism and particularly the use of Islam to justify terrorism in any of its forms. We sympathize with the victims of these senseless attacks and offer our heart-felt condolences to the families who have lost their dear ones.”
Do you need more?
Again: http://www.religioustolerance.org/islfatwa4.htm
Don: great job on the lists. It will take me a while but I plan to cross-check all of these and try to determine: 1 – their significance in the world of Islam; 2- if they issued actual Fatwas and; and 3 – What date they did so. My recollection is that for the months and early years after 9-11 very few leaders of Islam were publically denouncing the attacks. More of them continued to enflame their followers toward hatred of the West… mostly meaning hatred of America.
[i]”I’d be happy to provide you with countless examples of terrorist acts by the KKK, aryan groups, and anti-abortion zealots”[/i]
When you get the time, I would very much like to see that list so that I can compare its currency and size to the list of “terrorism” by the environmental wacko groups (which, again, is de minimis by comparison to the mountain of carnage created by global terrorism from Islamic extremists.)
[i]”Religious zealotry is a common source of extreme beliefs and behaviors. No one religion has a monopoly on that.”[/i]
To what do you attribute the actions of the Save the Earth and Save the Animals terrorists if not religious zealotry? Again, it is that Christian-hating tone that resonates here. The percent of Christian wackos that resort to terrorism is very, very small in comparison to just about any other group of terrorists that I can think of. Yet, you seem fixated on them.
It is interesting to me that you have substantially broadened the definition of terrorism to somewhat conveniently capture these more minor events. From this perspective the union-teacher occupation of the Minnesota capitol building must also be considered terrorism. It seems maybe you are getting activism and terrorism confused.
[i] It will take me a while but I plan to cross-check all of these[/i]
I’ll save you the trouble. It took me about 30 seconds to copy and paste the dates from what I posted above.
2001-SEP-13
2001-SEP-14
2001-SEP-13
2001-SEP-15
2001-SEP-27
2002-SEP-09
2003-JUN-30
2005-MAR-17
2005-JUL-18
2005-JUL-25
2005-DEC-09
[i]When you get the time, I would very much like to see that list[/i]
No, at this point you can do your own research. Again: the Anti-Defamation League is a useful resource. The Southern Poverty Law Center also maintains a database (http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/hate-map). Each group has its own biases (especially the SPLC), but it is helpful that they collect data.
[i]My recollection is that for the months and early years after 9-11 very few leaders of Islam were publically denouncing the attacks.[/i]
Provably and proven false. Again and again.
[i]To what do you attribute the actions of the Save the Earth and Save the Animals terrorists if not religious zealotry?[/i] Ideological extremism, which is not unique to religion.
[i]that Christian-hating tone[/i]
What is ‘hating’ about pointing out extremist actions done in the name of a particular religion? I don’t believe all, or most, or even a substantial minority of Christians — or Muslims, or Jews, or Hindu — are defined by the actions of those who commit terrorist acts in the name of those particular religions.
The main point I would make is that “Islamic terrorist” (and “Christian terrorist”) are misnomers. As Juan Cole says, ” ‘Islamic’ refers to the essentials of the religion, and it forbids terrorism (hirabah).” And the term lumps together disparate groups who have little common agenda or identity. They are Muslims who happen to use terror to try to achieve different ends. Some are pan-Arab; some aren’t Arab at all. Sometimes they work together, sometimes not. Muslim Chechen separatists have little in common with Al-Qaeda, nor is the Manmasi National Christian Army in India linked to the Irish Republican Army.
Don: [i]”Muslim Chechen separatists have little in common with Al-Qaeda”[/i]
[url]”http://articles.cnn.com/2011-05-04/world/russia.al.qaeda.killed_1_chechen-rebels-north-caucasus-russian-security-forces?_s=PM:WORLD”[/url]
[url]http://www.longwarjournal.org/threat-matrix/archives/2010/08/isaf_continues_to_id_foreign_f.php[/url]
Places on the globe where AL Qeada are known to be operating:
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-13296443[/url]
From Robert Spencer:
[quote]“{PBS’s Travis} Smiley, {like so many other American liberals sympathetic to radical Islam and hostile towards Christianity}, points to events in the US but is ignorant of or indifferent to the key distinction: that neither the Columbine killers nor any other mass murderer that he could invoke, even if they come from a Christian background, were motivated to kill by Christian texts and teachings.
Islamic jihadists, in contrast, invoke Islamic texts and teachings both to justify their actions and make recruits among peaceful Muslims. What’s more, while Islamic authorities worldwide have condemned “terrorism,” they have generally done so in wordings so full of loopholes as to amount to no condemnation at all. For example, the Fiqh Council of North America, an assembly of top Islamic scholars, condemned attacks on “innocent civilians.”
That sounds great until you realize that it is common in Islamic theology to condemn all non-Muslims as guilty for their rejection of the Koran and Muhammad. Islamic clerics have said openly that no non-Muslim is innocent. So a condemnation of the killing of “innocent civilians” does nothing to deter jihadists from killing non-Muslims.”[/quote]
Jeff, you don’t need to prove to me that Robert Spencer is a bigot. I already knew that.
[i]”Jeff, you don’t need to prove to me that Robert Spencer is a bigot”[/i]
Don: By comparison to the liberal bias of PBS (the “Palestinian-supporters Broadcast Network”), even your opinions can seem bigoted. Do you suppose Neville Chamberlain considered Winston Churchill a bigot?
My favorite Chamberlain quotes that seem to match the sentiments of the American left today:
[quote] “How horrible, fantastic, incredible, it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas-masks here because of a quarrel in a faraway country between people of whom we know nothing.”
“However much we may sympathize with a small nation confronted by a big and powerful neighbours, we cannot in all circumstances undertake to involve the whole British Empire in a war simply on her account.”
“We should seek by all means in our power to avoid war, by analysing possible causes, by trying to remove them, by discussion in a spirit of collaboration and good will.”
“This is a sad day for all of us, and to none is it sadder than to me. Everything that I have worked for, everything that I have believed in during my public life, has crashed into ruins. There is only one thing left for me to do: That is, to devote what strength and powers I have to forwarding the victory of the cause for which we have to sacrifice so much… I trust I may live to see the day when Hitlerism has been destroyed and a liberated Europe has been re-established.” [/quote]
I can’t but help seeing your arguments being similar to other historical examples of misplaced empathy and denial that were the catalyst of peaceful nation’s indecision and delays that lead to copious misery and death of millions. Failure to recognize the existence, origins, scope and intent of an enemy can result in dire consequences (sort of like we saw on 9-11-2001).
I hope I am wrong and you are right that “all terrorists can be treated equally”. Because my fear of “Christian terrorists” is so minute that the percentage of 1.6 billion Muslins subscribing to jihad should barely register a blip of concern.
J. Boone,
Of all the issues, including those contained within my comment you quoted last, you focused on just the “us” and “them” matter?
I feel like you refuse to respond to many of the issues and questions I’ve brought up. You still have not addressed the connection made by you that “the left” is hypocritical because they were opposed to torture and supportive of the Obama administration’s successful mission to capture/kill BL. For what is, I believe, the third time…please explain.
Seems like a lot gets diverted with your responses and many lack substance (ie the oft use of broad sweeping generalizations: “it seems to support that Fox News story that those with left-leaning political tendencies hate Christians.”… “By comparison to the liberal bias of PBS (the “Palestinian-supporters Broadcast Network” etc, etc, etc). You sound like all the trite talking heads on “the right.”
You could have also focused on the fact that, in response to the quote from the Bee in which Sen. McCain said, after getting the facts from Panetta… “In fact, not only did the use of ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed not provide us with key leads on bin Laden’s courier, Abu Ahmed; it actually produced false and misleading information.”
You then quoted something, not sure where you got that from, which had quotes from Panetta’s interview on NBC. I came away from that interview, in all honesty, not sure if torture was or was not responsible, even in the smallest of ways, for the successful mission that killed BL. I could not draw any conclusions from that. However, you seemed to have…
JB wrote, “Last I checked, Panetta was the CIA chief and John McCain was not. But you go on believing what you want to believe.”
You sound somewhat definitive here…that torture was responsible in some way for the successful mission and that I am believing some spin put out there by the Obama administration only to be ran with by the media. So am I believing what I want to believe or are you? Again, I was just presenting what McCain called the “facts” as told to him by Panetta in a letter.
It seems clearer now, after reading about Panetta’s “facts,” that perhaps you were believing what you wanted to believe or were parroting what you’ve heard on one of those tv/radio shows and from all the quick to justify torture in light of BL’s death former Bush administration officials. Where did that quote, which did not solely consist of quotations from that interview from what I can tell, come from?
Anyone else notice how many former Bush officials made the big tv shows and Sunday shows, as opposed to Obama administration officials? Just another anecdote re: how liberal the media is.
“the difference being we can use enhanced interrogation techniques to prevent them from snuffing out the lives of others not subscribing to their beliefs.
Please provide me with an example of this being the case: torture is the sole or even primary reason why American deaths were prevented.
SM: [i]”I feel like you refuse to respond to many of the issues and questions I’ve brought up. You still have not addressed the connection made by you that “the left” is hypocritical because they were opposed to torture and supportive of the Obama administration’s successful mission to capture/kill BL. For what is, I believe, the third time…please explain.”[/i]
Go back and read the quotes I provide and Elaine Musser provided from Nancy Pelosi – one of three supreme leaders of the left. It is pure hypocrisy that she would publically skewer President Bush over enhanced interrogation techniques of terrorists (while lying that she was not briefed by the CIA on this), then publically congratulate President Obama for shooting and unarmed terrorist. I can’t help you if you can’t get the blatant hypocrisy of this… during a time of war… from a woman would was two steps from being President.
[i]”Seems like a lot gets diverted with your responses and many lack substance (ie the oft use of broad sweeping generalizations: “it seems to support that Fox News story that those with left-leaning political tendencies hate Christians.”… “By comparison to the liberal bias of PBS (the “Palestinian-supporters Broadcast Network” etc, etc, etc). You sound like all the trite talking heads on “the right.”[/i]
Unlike a lot of people with left ideological views, I don’t always feel the need to work so hard trying to convince others that my views are completely balanced, when they obviously are not. I dislike the politics of PBS much less than I dislike the politics of Fox News. I maybe trite, but I’m honest.
[i]”You then quoted something, not sure where you got that from, which had quotes from Panetta’s interview on NBC. I came away from that interview, in all honesty, not sure if torture was or was not responsible, even in the smallest of ways, for the successful mission that killed BL. I could not draw any conclusions from that. However, you seemed to have… [/i]
[url]http://www.nbcuniversal.presscentre.com/content/detail.aspx?ReleaseID=4722 [/url]
[quote]•BRIAN WILLIAMS: Can you confirm that it was as a result of water boarding that we learned what we needed to learn to go after Bin Laden?
•LEON PANETTA: Brian, in the intelligence business you work from a lot of sources of information and that was true here… It’s a little difficult to say it was due just to one source of information that we got… I think some of the detainees clearly were, you know, they used these enhanced interrogation techniques against some of these detainees. But I’m also saying that, you know, the debate about whether we would have gotten the same information through other approaches I think is always going to be an open question.
•BRIAN WILLIAMS: So finer point, one final time, enhanced interrogation techniques — which has always been kind of a handy euphemism in these post-9/11 years — that includes water boarding?
•LEON PANETTA: That’s correct.[/quote]
[i] Again, I was just presenting what McCain called the “facts” as told to him by Panetta in a letter. [/i]
See above. So are you giving Panetta – the CIA chief, and the person most responsible and most likely to know this information – a pass for making a mistake or lying?
[i]”Anyone else notice how many former Bush officials made the big tv shows and Sunday shows, as opposed to Obama administration officials? Just another anecdote re: how liberal the media is.” [/i]
I don’t get your point here. Every GOPer and right-leaning talking head has congratulated and supported Obama for killing OSB. But thankfully you are joining me in wearing your partisan views on your sleeve. I admire it when people are honest about their bias.
[i]”Please provide me with an example of this being the case: torture is the sole or even primary reason why American deaths were prevented.”[/i]
“Sole” reason or “primary” reason? Who said that? It has contributed to keeping Americans safer by providing information that our military uses to hunt down terrorists. Look at it this way… due to the lack of actionable support from insiders (i.e., other Muslims) we have to resort to these unorthodox ways to gain information. There is enough solidarity within the global Muslim community to protect someone like OSB (obviously, given his ability to live in Pakistan mansion for five years). He was a hero, and now he is a martyr, to far too many of them. It would be wonderful if more Muslims would provide information and take up arms against the terrorists; then the need for enhanced interrogation would melt away. Instead, all we get is words not matching their deeds.
J. Boone,
“Go back and read the quotes I provide and Elaine Musser provided from Nancy Pelosi – one of three supreme leaders of the left. It is pure hypocrisy that she would publically skewer President Bush over enhanced interrogation techniques of terrorists (while lying that she was not briefed by the CIA on this), then publically congratulate President Obama for shooting and unarmed terrorist. I can’t help you if you can’t get the blatant hypocrisy of this… during a time of war… from a woman would was two steps from being President.”
You never explained how it is that the two are comparable, so much in fact that not supporting one and supporting the other constitutes hypocrisy…neither did ERM. You and she just said the left (or Pelosi) were vehemently opposed to torture but congratulate Obama on the successful mission…what hypocrisy.
I get that there are people who strongly opposed torture and support the decision by Obama to execute the military mission to capture/kill BL…for I am one of them.
How are the torture of prisoners in the custody of the US military and the mission, which resulted in the death of BL, so much alike that one can’t oppose the former but support the latter without being a hypocrite, in your opinion?
Re: shooting of an unarmed BL, FWIW, the AP reported that he had weapons, including an AK47, in the room, I believe. I don’t think we have really learned the official story and/or all the details there, have we…enough for you to conclude something?
“I don’t always feel the need to work so hard trying to convince others that my views are completely balanced, when they obviously are not.”
I’m just trying to make sense of your arguments and stances, beyond the superficial stuff you say. I was seeking substance, not necessarily balance.
“So are you giving Panetta – the CIA chief, and the person most responsible and most likely to know this information – a pass for making a mistake or lying?”
As I previously wrote, based on that interview and Panetta’s vague response, I had no idea in what way “enhanced interrogation techniques” played in the capture/killing of BL. In lieu of what Panetta reportedly wrote to McCain, in what way could it be claimed that he made mistake or lied in that interview, as you seem to suggest above?
His wording was so incredibly vague, I have no idea what he was trying to convey. From what you presented, Panetta did say “I think some of the detainees clearly were, you know, they used these enhanced interrogation techniques against some of these detainees.”
I don’t think he said none of the detainees were subjected to those techniques ever in his letter to McCain. I believe he say, however, this produced false information about the courier’s whereabouts/his current role and the following:
“All we learned about Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti through the use of waterboarding and other ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was the confirmation of the already known fact that the courier existed and used an alias.”
“I don’t get your point here. Every GOPer and right-leaning talking head has congratulated and supported Obama for killing OSB. But thankfully you are joining me in wearing your partisan views on your sleeve. I admire it when people are honest about their bias.”
Had you in mind as you responded to the Bee quote-McCain’s speech based on the facts he received from Panetta- I posted with “The Obama administration has proven that all they have to do is say something else and the media and the left forgets and moves on.”
That was interesting because that had nothing to do with the Obama admin saying “something else and the media and the left forgets and moves on.” Rather, it was what Panetta told McCain were the facts. So, I found it telling that you would jump there and, anecdotally, that I seem to recall seeing many Bush officials on the shows and not so many Obama officials. Also interesting, there are several people on “the right”/Bush officials claiming/suggesting the road to BL began with torture despite the facts, according to Panetta’s letter, stating otherwise so…
There really was nothing partisan about that observation.
JB wrote: “the difference being we can use enhanced interrogation techniques to prevent them from snuffing out the lives of others not subscribing to their beliefs.”
In what way can you know that this has kept us safe when conventional interrogation techniques/intelligence gathering could not? Why does torture have to be used?
“It has contributed to keeping Americans safer by providing information that our military uses to hunt down terrorists.”
Can you provide some verifiable facts that it has and, in case you didn’t respond above, why anything but the use of torture tactics would have been futile in achieving the same end?
Intersting contrast:
George W. Bush speech after capture of Saddam:
[quote]”The success of yesterday’s mission is a tribute to [b]our men and women now serving in Iraq[/b]. The operation was based on the [b]superb work of intelligence analysts[/b] who found the dictator’s footprints in a vast country. The operation was carried out with skill and precision by [b]a brave fighting force. Our servicemen and women and our coalition and allies [/b] have faced many dangers in the hunt for members of the fallen regime, and in [b]their effort[/b] to bring hope and freedom to the Iraqi people. [b]Their work[/b] continues, and so do the risks. Today, on behalf of the nation, [b]I thank the members of our Armed Forces[/b] and I congratulate ’em.”[/quote]
Barack Obama speech after killing of bin Laden:
[quote]”And so shortly after taking office, [b]I directed[/b] Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority of our war against al Qaeda, even as we continued our broader efforts to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat his network. Then, last August, after years of painstaking work by our intelligence community, [b]I was briefed[/b] on a possible lead to bin Laden. It was far from certain, and it took many months to run this thread to ground. [b]I met repeatedly[/b] with my national security team as we developed more information about the possibility that we had located bin Laden hiding within a compound deep inside of Pakistan. And finally, last week, [b]I determined[/b] that we had enough intelligence to take action, and I authorized an operation to get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice. Today, at [b]my direction[/b], the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan.”[/quote]
I assume you’re posting an email that has been making the rounds. Here’s a response to it.
[url]http://medievalmind.blogspot.com/2011/06/my-response-comparing-obamas-speech-to.html[/url]
Don: [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SY9pkFTF3G0&feature=player_embedded#at=19[/url]
I am aware that conservatives believe President Obama is a narcissist. I don’t agree with them, and don’t believe the use of first-person narrative somehow indicates a massive ego. If he starts talking in the third-person, we can get concerned.
I don’t believe he is more narcissistic than many politicians, but he is absolutely more so than Bush. Mostly I believe Obama is an inexperienced and incompetent leader… and prone to continually campaign as a natural response to his own justified insecurities. But despite this, he is given a perpetual pass from the left, the timid, and the members of his chosen race.
JB, approximately three weeks later you return to compare two excerpts from the two presidents’ speeches, only to draw what possible conclusion, now? The Pres has insequrities so it’s all about I, Me and Mine for this guy? Yet, no responses to the questions posed to you or requests for verification.
Did you think to read through both speeches entirely before posting those excerpts, which you found depict an “interesting contrast” between the two? In just reading the Obama quote you (or whoever cut, pasted and circulated this among like-minded folks) provided, it seemed to me that there were more references to “we” and “our,” as opposed to the singular “me” and “I.” Seems that the link Don posted made similar observations.
I will again refer you to my question some posts ago…could it be that, just as the left gobbles up whatever bull**** fed to them by Dem leadership, punditry, etc…that you are no different, with the difference only being that you’re inclined to believe a particular brand of bull**** that falls within your personal beliefs and aids you in justifying you stances, pretenses, etc.?
Seriously, where did you get this nonsense you posted? I mean, even just looking at these two excerpts, in juxtaposition, it’s meaningless.
JB,
“prone to continually campaign as a natural response to his own justified insecurities.”
Continuous campaigning you say? What insecurities have you determined he has, in your trained professional opinion? Please give your psychological assessment of the President.
“But despite this, he is given a perpetual pass from the left, the timid, and the members of his chosen race.”
Given a pass, by his supporters…who hope to have Obama as their leader for another four years b/c they have only one other option (Republican candidate) whose policies and world views may differ greatly from their own? Why do you think they would continue to support Obama, then?
FWIW, I know/have heard plenty of people who have supported Obama and will do so again the next time around, yet are highly critical and disappointed with some of his policy decisions (in real life and on TV). The left is generally taking up for their chosen leader is not something so novel or unique to one side of the political spectrum, so I don’t know why you continue to speak of it as such (at least that’s why I think you continue to bring it up).
I don’t know what you mean by “his chosen race.” Can you explain?
[i] “his chosen race.” [/i]
He is half white, but claims he is a black man.
Obama never stopped campaigning against the GOP and conservative principles. It is unprecedented in American politics. A president after being elected is everyone’s president. But, according to Obama, I cling to my guns and religion and believe in free market capitalism and strong family values and protected borders and and people with those beliefs are responsible for all the problems he has been unable to solve.
He has been a huge failure as a president based on all rational measures, yet Democrats still defend him and will probably come out in droves to relect him. Is is because of white guilt combined with reverse racism combined with presidential afirmative action? Seems like it.
JB,
I see you have taken just this one question and avoided some of the others. So did you read through both speeches before you continued to circulate that insight-lacking juxtaposition of selected excerpts?
“He is half white, but claims he is a black man.”
Is he not? I don’t see the problem. Has he denied being half-white? Even if he only has talked, re: his racial makeup, about being black, why do you care? Does he not emphasize his whiteness enough for you?
How do you think people in general viewed him, in terms of race, throughout his life? As a white boy, adolescent and man? A half white and half black boy, adolescent and man? Or a black boy, adolescent and man? Moreover, I wonder if the way in which one is perceived, racially, by his peers, friends, neighbors, society, etc. in some way would effect which race a mixed-race child “chooses” to identify with.
“according to Obama, I cling to my guns and religion and believe in free market capitalism and strong family values and protected borders and and people with those beliefs are responsible for all the problems he has been unable to solve.”
Okay…
“He has been a huge failure as a president based on all rational measures, yet Democrats still defend him and will probably come out in droves to relect him.”
To what degree his presidency has been successful is clearly debatable. I do wonder how objective and rational the measures/information by which you gauge this president, a lot. As to Dems defending their guy, well…I don’t know how many different ways to explain the two-party democratic system. Sure you’ll get some fence sitters who will fall to the right the next election, but the dems aren’t going to jump ship for a Republican. Has it occurred to you that they don’t see his presidency as a dismal failure?
“Is is because of white guilt combined with reverse racism combined with presidential afirmative action? Seems like it.”
Of course, that must be it! What an incredibly ignorant statement. When W. Bush was up for reelection, there were quite a few people who were impressed with his incompetence and failures. Most seemed to think Bush’s supporters were stupid, ignorant or highly susceptible to fear mongering. He was white, so the race issue was never brought up as a reason, but why on earth one would want to reelect Bush was unfathomable to many on the other side, just as it is for you and many others on the other side of the spectrum.
Now, do you think all those people who voted for Bush were stupid, ignorant, etc? I bet you they had many reasons why they supported Bush in 2004? What do you think? For some reason, though, people on the left just didn’t get it.
[i]”Even if he only has talked, re: his racial makeup, about being black, why do you care?”[/i]
I don’t. He apparently does. I think it helps him win the black vote. I would vote for a purple-skinned alien from planet X if hes/she/it matched my ideas for what this country needs. I don’t give a crap what a person’s skin tone or racial origin is unless it appears to influence and distort their views and objectivity.
Superfluous Man, today Obama has a 46% approval rating. However, over the course of this past year, Obama has averaged a job approval rating of 88 percent among Democrats and just 23 percent among Republicans. He is the most polarizing president ever. My point about Democrats giving him a pass for other reasons has to do with the fact that he is the only president to every get 88% Democrat approval ratings with a 9%+ unemployment rate and so many other problems with the economy.
I don’t care that he is a black man, but I think his supporters do. I think many of them are afraid to be critical of him because then they could not use the race card against the GOP.