skip to main |
skip to sidebar
On Fox News Sunday today:We ask those people to do some very difficult things. Sometimes, that put their own lives at risk. They do so at the direction of the president, and they do so with the -- in this case, we had specific legal authority from the Justice Department. And if they are now going to be subject to being investigated and prosecuted by the next administration, nobody's going to sign up for those kinds of missions. It's a very, very devastating, I think, effect that it has on morale inside the intelligence community. If they assume that they're going to have to be dealing with the political consequences — and it's clearly a political move. I mean, there's no other rationale for why they're doing this — then they'll be very reluctant in the future to do that. ...
We had the president of the United States, President Obama, tell us a few months ago there wouldn't be any investigation like this, that there would not be any look back at CIA personnel who were carrying out the policies of the prior administration. Now they get a little heat from the left wing of the Democratic Party, and they're reversing course on that....
The fact of the matter is the lawyers in the Justice Department who gave us those opinions had every right to give us the opinions they did. Now you get a new administration and they say, well, we didn't like those opinions, we're going to go investigate those lawyers and perhaps have them disbarred. I just think it's an outrageous precedent to set, to have this kind of, I think, intensely partisan, politicized look back at the prior administration.
I guess the other thing that offends the hell out of me, frankly, Chris, is we had a track record now of eight years of defending the nation against any further mass casualty attacks from Al Qaeda. The approach of the Obama administration should be to come to those people who were involved in that policy and say, how did you do it? What were the keys to keeping this country safe over that period of time?
ADDED:
John McCain on "Face the Nation":"I believe that the president was right when he said we ought to go forward and not back. I worry about the morale and effectiveness of the CIA. I worry about this thing getting out of control," the Arizona senator said....
McCain admitted that he was "radically opposed" to the interrogation techniques of the former administration and said, "I think it harmed us."...
"I think these interrogations once publicized helped al-Qaeda recruit. I got that from an al Qaeda operative in a prison camp in Iraq," McCain said. "I think the ability to work with our allies was harmed."
পোস্টগুলি
২১০টি মন্তব্য:
«সবচেয়ে পুরাতন ‹পুরাতন 210 এর 201 – থেকে 210... the War on Terror was declared
Declaring war on terror is goofy on its face, because "Terror" is an emotion, a concept. A war on terror is no more winnable than Nixon's war on drugs or LBJ's war on poverty.
"Hmmm. Where do they speak Muslim? I tried to find it on the list of Rosetta Stone CDs and couldn't find it."
That's because Rosetta Stone doesn't make CDs for assholes who conflate between "Arab Muslim" and "Muslim".
I'm not even sure you disagree with the statement (that the part of the world in question is less open to modern knowledge and culture and that this impacts your ability to influence it). But whatever makes you opportunistically attempt to look better. You're not even debating arguments any more - just doing stupid playground stuff.
"As soon as the Christians of the past watched those abuses on MSNBC, they should have fired off a horrified, outraged email to, um to .... To whom? The Pope? The king? Pizarro? Their Congressman?"
Right. Because you make no distinction between finding an effective outlet for voicing one's outrage and simply being outraged, which is the point.
How much distortion do you have to do in order to have a point?
Stop torturing the arguments. This isn't some dialectical Abu Ghraib.
Declaring war on terror is goofy on its face, because “Terror” is an emotion, a concept. A war on terror is no more winnable than Nixon's war on drugs or LBJ's war on poverty.
Leftists love this meme, but it's quite incorrect. The term “War on Terror” is perhaps unfortunate — adopted for political reasons, to avoid saying “War on Islamist Jihadism” — but it's quite winnable; just like the “War on Piracy,” waged by the British and American navies during the 18th and 19th centuries, was winnable (despite piracy being a “tactic” like terrorism), and was in fact won (at least until developed nations discarded the legal basis and lost will to wage it).
That's because Rosetta Stone doesn't make CDs for assholes who conflate between "Arab Muslim" and "Muslim".
Ah there you go again projecting there MUL. Oh well, it always comes back to race, or culture since you realize you can't win on the actual problem, which is a particular religion that's been co-opted by a bunch of 11th century assholes who think beheading infidels and nuking Tel Aviv would be a great way to start the day.
I'm not even sure you disagree with the statement (that the part of the world in question is less open to modern knowledge and culture and that this impacts your ability to influence it)
Well I don't disagree at all. In fact, you pretty much put your finger on the pulse of the problem. I mean lets put it this way, if that part of the world wants to live in a medieval society and stay closed to modern knowledge and culture bully for them. I really don't care as long as they keep it there. I just get a bit antsy when they start doing things like hi-jacking planes and crashing them into buildings. Or tossing crippled Jewish guys over cruise ships or blowing up a marketplace in Dehli or oh well, pick one.
You're not even debating arguments any more - just doing stupid playground stuff.
Oh please, you were debating? Well then why not start with what you call an intellectual argument? Basically your argument seems to boil down that it's stupid of me ask expect that part of the world that isn't open to modern knowledge and culture to grow up. If I somehow misinterpreted that sentiment, by all means let me know so we can set the record straight. Because Allah knows I don't want to engage in playground antics.
Pompous Montanus wrote: Right. Because you make no distinction between finding an effective outlet for voicing one's outrage and simply being outraged, which is the point.
I do have that distinction. I also recognize that if there is no effective outlet for voicing one's outrage, it will not be apparent to others. Consequently, you are as clueless about the outrage, or lack thereof, of historical Christians as you are about the attitudes of modern Muslims.
You are unable to offer facts or reason in support of your assertions. Your insults directed at those of us who notice will not obscure that.
Hoosier, allow me to clarify:
Basically your argument seems to boil down that it's stupid of me ask expect that part of the world that isn't open to modern knowledge and culture to grow up. If I somehow misinterpreted that sentiment, by all means let me know so we can set the record straight. Because Allah knows I don't want to engage in playground antics.
Hoosier, we agree that a certain part of the world has been closed off from modernity and has a problem conforming to and/or enforcing ethical standards that Westerners and perhaps many others in the Middle East approve of.
Where we seem to disagree is in the relative utility of moral indignation alone.
I don't have any problem with a Westerner voicing whatever moral indignation they feel over the state of affairs in the Middle East regarding respect for individual rights, respect for minorities, etc.
What I do feel is that ethical will not precede intellectual progress. i.e. While the Arab world remains closed off from a large portion of the human knowledge available to the rest of the world, while the Arab world remains closed off from the norms of rational discourse that Western societies are practiced in - ethical progress will remain elusive.
So in the meantime you can yell about the horrors of the Middle East all you want. I just don't see how that will do a lick of good compared to what an open society will do.
Rational discourse allows one to address ethical matters in a way that can facilitate agreement and progress. Simply spewing moral indignation, OTOH, is no more comprehensive a method than cutting off someone's head. I'm sure many heads have been cut off all over the world with no more justification for it than the assertion that it was the right and proper (and morally superior) thing to do.
Of course, you're free to disagree. But at least you and I have the resources, as opposed to those in other parts of the world, to disagree civilly. And I can hope that we at least have the proper intellectual resources to support our positions. You should feel lucky for this.
"McCain's comments form a part of the historical record and, as such, do constitute evidence. It's not primary evidence,..."
Late to the party but I just wanted to nit here...
McCain's comments are not only NOT primary evidence, they are not even a secondary source of data. His comments are a secondary *anecdote* and not from someone who can be assumed to be telling the truth.
This is evidence the equivalent of a Bigfoot hunter repeating that she met someone who said he personally saw Bigfoot.
McCain's comments might constitute a *thesis*. Maybe.
The biggest problem, however, with the claim that reports of mistreatment of US prisoners loses "hearts and minds" or is useful to recruit people for the enemy is not whether or not the young Syrians or Saudis who flocked to Iraq would have stayed home otherwise or just how *many* of them would have stayed home otherwise, but that this *process* is only ever supposed to apply to the actions of the United States.
Thus the argument goes... we must at all costs (and costs here is American soldiers dead) avoid offending by attacking a Mosque used as a fire base... but somehow *using* a Mosque as a fire base is irrelevant.
So... if we lock up prisoners and a report gets out that someone flushed a Koran, *our* disrespect is the cause of several dead human beings in the riots that follow... but we never even consider that it's *possible* that killing people in riots is going to discourage anyone or *harm* terrorist recruiting.
The internal evidence to the arguments themselves suggest that in all likelihood the recruiting or lack of recruiting has absolutely nothing to do with actual behavior... not of anyone.
Oh, certainly, it *does* make a difference. After 9-11 a whole lot of people walked into recruiters offices or called to see what they needed to do to get back to active duty. 9-11 helped recruiting in the US, at least for a while. And the excesses of Al Qaida eventually overwhelmed distrust of the US in Iraq *even if* the more bizarre stories aren't true, and by bizarre I mean baby-eating, we have film and documentation of massacres of livestock, "judicial" killings in towns were AQ took over, executions of locals and forced marriages of the daughters of tribal cheifs to local AQ war leaders.
Eventually the "nice" guys do win... so long as the "nice" guys can convince the locals that there is NO chance of a reversal of fortune... that they really *are* badder asses than the sadistic tyrants they are displacing.
We can not and do not and *will* not be successful at this if we are clearly more worried about appearing effete than we are about destroying bad guys. And yes, as someone mentioned, trying to get the Iraqi Army or local authorities in joint operations not to beat the living sh*t out of captives is near impossible.
Which brings us to our next point.
When the *expected* treatment of any prisoner in Iraq or Afghanistan is so incredibly, spectacularly, worse than even the worst treatment *alleged* to be done by the US... the fuss about it has got to be opportunistic. And also clearly, an opportunity would be found no matter what. It's an unwinnable game. I've seen pictures of Iraqi children, supposedly drowned or otherwise killed by the horrible US Army, laid out in a row in a hallway, and pretty clearly NOT dead despite the gory caption provided by some local "stringer" in Iraq and faithfully transmitted by our own media.
If sleeping children can be used as recruiting tools... anything can.
"It sure is fun watching poor old Dick Cheney stumbling all over the right wing airwaves, desperately trying to poison the jury pool and dodge a VERY long stretch in a federal prison."
When you can tell me why it is *right* that Charlie Rangel is not arrested and behind bars right now (in general terms, why Senators and Congresspersons can not be arrested while they serve) we could have a conversation about why, perhaps, it's not a good idea to call for the persecution of those in high public office or who leave high public office.
And if that doesn't get you there, please move to your nearest banana republic and ask the local presidente-for-life how long he'd survive if he tried to retire.
(I'm generally an optimistic person but there are times when the smug superiority of those who display the possession of not a single solitary clue as to WHY the US has peaceful transitions of power astounds and dismays me.)
It's the same answer as to why the commanders of armies in the bad old days used to be treated well and returned to the bosoms of their loving families unharmed instead of tried for war crimes and executed.
You don't have to agree... just tell me WHY.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন