Gambling With OUR Lives

Bonnie

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2004
Messages
9,476
Reaction score
669
Points
48
Location
Wherever
By Felicia (Fee) Benamon (09/20/2006)
http://americandaily.com/article/15643
How many times will the American people witness their government taking the easy way out to dealing with terror? President Bush pushes and advocates that we must be on the offense in dealing with our enemies. But our Senate, and other government agencies are not operating that way. They are too mired in politics, in the proper rules of engagement.

The Path to 911, ABC's docudrama which aired Sept. 10th and 11th recently, exposed serious flaws in our government to quickly act upon important leads that would take down our enemy. Now, we are busy playing catch up...or are we? Because it seems as if everything is the same.

Both administrations, Clinton and George W. Bush, were at fault for not acting quickly to take down terror suspects that loudly proclaimed to be a danger to America. America had even the help of the Minister of Defense of the Northern Alliance, Ahmed Shah Massoud (as The Path to 911 program revealed) who worked with the U.S., giving specific intelligence that would have taken out Osama Bin Laden. But we failed to take him out.

Ahmed Shah Massoud died in a suicide attack by Arabs who posed as journalists, claiming to be from Morocco. He died September 9, 2001, two days before America was attacked on 911. Before he died, Massoud warned the U.S. that Osama Bin Laden was planning something huge inside America.

I consider him to be a friend of America who had the guts to risk his safety to save the lives of others. We don't honor his memory and those who have died fighting terror in whatever form if we do not act as bravely and take risks as they did.

It was recently reported that an unmanned but armed Predator drone used by the Army for reconnaissance missions, shot photos of senior level Taliban fighters, apparently gathered for a funeral. The order was not given to fire, and many people like me, are wondering why we made such a disastrous decision. The decision was a no-go due to the military rules of engagement, which do not allow any strikes on a cemetery or religious sites. The Taliban was clearly in the open, and the chance to attack was a perfect one.

We are fighting a new kind of enemy. We must adapt and allow the full strength of our military forces to defeat them. Taliban activity has increased this summer, and our response should be to take action to eliminate a threat before we suffer from it later on.

Terrorists do not care where they attack. Weddings, funerals, mosques...it does not matter. Just as long as the "infidel" is crushed.

Just three days after the U.S. observed the 5th anniversary of September 11, 2001, the argument over how we interrogate terrorists in U.S. custody broke. A few Republican Senators on the Senate Armed Services Committee expressed their opposition to President Bush over current interrogation methods.

Another vocal opponent, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) raised the question what would happen if one of our own were caught in Iran, were tried, but not be given any information which proved any crimes were committed.

"We would go nuts! We would say that secret trial violates the Geneva Convention standards for trying people," the Senator mentioned.

Another potential attack on our own soil and people by terrorists should be incentive enough to do what is necessary to fully commit to thwarting any terrorist operations by using interrogation methods to extract vital information from those in our custody. Who do we care about the most, the American people or terrorists?

After suffering the most devastating attack on our country, the partisan politics has yet to stand down when it comes to the defense issue. Americans want to know that efforts are being made to protect the people, not that our government is still in confusion about how to conduct this current war.

The reason we should look back on the past in regards to how the U.S. has dealt with terrorism is not to exclusively point fingers, but to make sure that we don't continue to make the same mistakes over and over. We seem to not have learned. There are those who are DETERMINED to bring us down, we must be as equally determined to stop them, no matter what. And redefining the rules under the Geneva Conventions isn't the answer.

I hope we take up the fortitude and bravery that our brave soldiers exhibited during WWII and apply that in the War on Terror that we are fighting now? We cannot afford to be politically correct, worrying about prisoners' rights, and how we should engage the enemy when our enemy wants to wipe us out no matter what.

It will be our demise if we continue to look at the war as a big game, and with an attitude that, "We will triumph no matter what because we are the USA, the protector of freedom." Well that will not be the case unless the U.S. gets its act together and engage our enemy with fierceness. We were once known for that "fierceness." We have lost it.

We are certainly gambling with our lives when we do not take the opportune moment to strike our enemies when we can. The bickering, the politicking, the poor decision making will not win us this war. We need the insight, the boldness, and the guts of our fathers/grandfathers before us, to win.

The full might of the Eagle has yet to be unleashed.

Pray for our leaders that they may have the wisdom and direction to help us in this War on Terror.
 
OP
B

Bonnie

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2004
Messages
9,476
Reaction score
669
Points
48
Location
Wherever
The Moral Exhibitionism of John McCain
September 20th, 2006

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5873

If a team of geniuses sat down to design a man who should never be President of the United States they would come up with John McCain. Fortunately the character flaws that make him unfit for the Oval Office also put that office well beyond his reach. Sometimes the universe really does unfold as it should.

McCain considers himself a conservative and any number of his apologists are eager to cite his support for military action in our “war on terror” and his predominantly pro-life and conservative voting record. Nevertheless, many conservative Republicans loathe him and there’s a reason for this antipathy.

McCain is a moral exhibitionist. The principal goal of all his public acts is to showcase his exquisite decency. His only apparent ideology is sanctimonious self-congratulation. Consider, for example, his approach to the two defining issues of his career, campaign finance “reform,” and the al Qaeda bill of rights.
McCain repaired his reputation after the “Keating Five” scandal by crusading for the regulation of political speech. This was the cause that built his reputation as a “maverick” and a man of conscience. The solutions for which McCain fought tirelessly never responded to any problem in the real world. They were designed to restrict political freedom and protect incumbents from attack, not to suppress corruption. They have operated within design parameters.

Ironically the McCain-Feingold campaign finance “reform” bill was the most corrupt piece of legislation Congress has passed in modern times. In a democracy there is nothing more corrupt or corrupting that incumbents manipulating the law to protect their own electoral interests.

There was never any prospect that legislation could “get the money out of politics.” Unless you abolish both electoral politics and private property, money and power will find each other. Campaign finance “reform” is a downward spiral of regulation followed by disappointment followed by more regulation. That spiral leads nowhere that any sane person wants to go.

John McCain had to know all this when he built his “reform” bandwagon. He knew and he didn’t care. Fulfilling his oath to the Constitution didn’t matter to him. What did matter to him was looking good.

McCain struck an unholy bargain with the press. They helped him erase the stain of influence-peddling and build a gleaming new image; he cooperated with them to promote legislation that would extend their influence at the same time it sheltered incumbents from criticism.

To anyone who cares about political ideas and the expression thereof, this bargain was nauseating. To John McCain it was an irresistible opportunity to posture and preen. He took full advantage of the opportunity.

Flash forward to the present. The nation is at war and John McCain is doing whatever he can to disable our defenses.

According to the Arizona Senator, if we try terrorists we have to give them access to all evidence against them even if it is top secret. It isn’t good enough to share secret evidence with dedicated military defense lawyers who have the appropriate security clearance. We have to share it with the defendants themselves. Senator McCain’s sense of propriety demands no less.

Never mind that we have learned from experience that detainees can communicate with their fellow terrorists around the world under cover of attorney/client privilege by using treasonous or gullible private attorneys. This means that any secret information shared with a detainee is compromised. But what is national security when weighed in the balance against John McCain’s moral vanity?
The same calculus mandates that we expose CIA interrogators to liability for using any interrogation technique the “international community” might deem degrading. It isn’t good enough for interrogators to stop short of torture and McCain doesn’t want to decide what is good enough. He doesn’t want Congress to define by statute what Americans understand to be the limits of acceptable interrogation.

Those limits have to be as vague as possible so anti-Americans at home and abroad have every opportunity to claim we have violated them. We need to be sure that our officials can be hauled before the bar of justice to answer for the crime of trying hard and successfully to protect us. This may cost a few people their jobs, their savings, their reputations and even their freedom.

But John McCain will look virtuous and that’s what counts.

The stated justification for McCain’s exaggerated concern with terrorist rights is incandescently idiotic and impossible to take seriously. McCain and his merry band tell anyone who will listen that we have to adhere strictly to the most expansive interpretations of the Geneva Conventions because if we fail to do so our soldiers will be abused when they fall captive.

This defies rational response. McCain might as well be arguing that if we follow the course he proposes the Easter Bunny will bring us lots of treats. There is no Easter Bunny and we neither have nor ever will have any enemies that will be affected in the slightest by the finer points of our policies regarding detainees. Just what exactly will today’s enemies do differently if John McCain gets his way? Will they make sure the knife is sharp before they set it to an American neck? Will they make sure the spirit has departed before they desecrate and display a soldier’s body?

McCain offers one other argument in favor of letting the EUnicks and the other anti-Americans of the “international community” define our obligations under the Geneva Conventions. He says this is necessary for us to keep “the moral high ground.”

Here he moves beyond stupid into the realm of insult.

We have the moral high ground and we will keep it even if every resident of the Gitmo Club Fed mysteriously commits suicide by shooting himself in the back of the head while handcuffed to a chair. No other nation in the history of the world would have wasted any time worrying about the treatment of unlawful combatants who were unfortunate enough to be captured. Who has moral standing to criticize us? The British after South Africa, India and Palestine? The French after Algeria? The Germans? Our position at the apex of the moral pyramid in this fallen world is secure.

America’s characteristic concern with morality does us credit but it has to have limits. We all need to remember that the goal is to protect us from the terrorists not the other way around. Life isn’t a morality contest and purity makes a poor shield.

By opposing all vigorous interrogation McCain is seeking to discard a valuable source of intelligence at a time when intelligence is the key to our defense. This would put us all in increased danger but, no matter. It gives McCain a chance to remind everyone of his years as a POW which are the source of his only genuine claim to distinction. It lets him indulge his passion for preening. It makes him look good.

Time and again McCain has cheerfully traded virtue for the appearance of it. There doesn’t seem to be any depth of foolishness he won’t plumb if it gets him a kind word from the New York Times. This is chronic moral exhibitionism and it would be disabling for a President.

It is also disqualifying for a Republican presidential candidate. Moral exhibitionism is a characteristic disease of the left. Conservatives are accustomed to ridiculing leftists for their hollow self-congratulation in connection with issues as diverse as minimum wage laws and hate crimes legislation. They associate moral exhibitionism with their political enemies and they won’t accept it in a presidential candidate.

Without more conservative support than he is likely to get, McCain will sink without a trace in the Republican primaries. With a little help from his opponents, Republican voters will remember that McCain is the guy who had no problem compromising their safety and freedom for the sake of good press coverage. They will turn away from him in droves.

And it will be beautiful to watch.
 

Hobbit

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2004
Messages
5,099
Reaction score
421
Points
48
Location
Near Atlanta, GA
230 years ago, our brave ancestores defied the rules of engagement to set this country free from oppression. Now, we won't defy the rules of engagement to save it from annihilation by an enemy which ignores not only the rules of engagement, but the rules of being a human being. 250 years ago, it was considered 'proper' to line up, fire a few vollies, march down the field, and then have a melee. We hit in the bushes and shot while movie, preventing the enemy vollies from being effective, and preventing the melee from happening. Now, the rules of engagement say that we are all nice to our enemies and give them good food and a lot of leeway. The also say that we can'ts shoot at cemeteries or any other religious site. Our enemies defy these rules left and right, but we won't take even one step. Why not?
 

CSM

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2004
Messages
6,907
Reaction score
708
Points
48
Location
Northeast US
230 years ago, our brave ancestores defied the rules of engagement to set this country free from oppression. Now, we won't defy the rules of engagement to save it from annihilation by an enemy which ignores not only the rules of engagement, but the rules of being a human being. 250 years ago, it was considered 'proper' to line up, fire a few vollies, march down the field, and then have a melee. We hit in the bushes and shot while movie, preventing the enemy vollies from being effective, and preventing the melee from happening. Now, the rules of engagement say that we are all nice to our enemies and give them good food and a lot of leeway. The also say that we can'ts shoot at cemeteries or any other religious site. Our enemies defy these rules left and right, but we won't take even one step. Why not?
Pure arrogance, that's why not.

There are many that think having the moral high ground is more important than winning the war even though losing will be the end of life as they know it. There are many who think their stance on religion (or not) will save them from a beheading; who think that if you close your eyes REALLY tight the bad men will go away. There ae many who WANT the bad guys to win just so they can say "See??? We told you so!". There are many more concerned for their own quest for power than for what is best for the country and its people. Finally, there are many, many who believe that no matter what happens, nothing will change in their life one way or the other so why bother sending troops or spending money on something that they think has NO direct impact on them. Those same people will be the ones that end up praying towards Mecca five times a day out of fear and muttering under their breath "Why didn't somebody do something?"
 

ErikViking

VIP Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2006
Messages
1,359
Reaction score
129
Points
85
Location
Stockholm - Sweden
Pure arrogance, that's why not.

There are many that think having the moral high ground is more important than winning the war even though losing will be the end of life as they know it. There are many who think their stance on religion (or not) will save them from a beheading; who think that if you close your eyes REALLY tight the bad men will go away. There ae many who WANT the bad guys to win just so they can say "See??? We told you so!". There are many more concerned for their own quest for power than for what is best for the country and its people. Finally, there are many, many who believe that no matter what happens, nothing will change in their life one way or the other so why bother sending troops or spending money on something that they think has NO direct impact on them. Those same people will be the ones that end up praying towards Mecca five times a day out of fear and muttering under their breath "Why didn't somebody do something?"
I like the idea of doing something or something being done, do you have a practical suggestion? There has been some ideas in the thread called "Next Step?" - you have additional ideas?
 

CSM

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2004
Messages
6,907
Reaction score
708
Points
48
Location
Northeast US
I like the idea of doing something or something being done, do you have a practical suggestion? There has been some ideas in the thread called "Next Step?" - you have additional ideas?
I have bunches of ideas...none of them PC or socially acceptable.
 

ErikViking

VIP Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2006
Messages
1,359
Reaction score
129
Points
85
Location
Stockholm - Sweden
I have bunches of ideas...none of them PC or socially acceptable.
Okay... but this messageboard isn't very PC, is it? As far as gathering suggestions about how to go on I think any idea between everyone converts to be muslim to nuke the whole world at least can be listed.
 

CSM

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2004
Messages
6,907
Reaction score
708
Points
48
Location
Northeast US
Okay... but this messageboard isn't very PC, is it? As far as gathering suggestions about how to go on I think any idea between everyone converts to be muslim to nuke the whole world at least can be listed.
I guess you nailed the extremes down pretty well.

I suspect that there are more efficient and effective ways to deal with things. Like hand over Europe to the Muslims (since things appear to be going that way) to satisfy the appeasement bunch whiile at the same time bombing every stinking mosque in the Middle East should appeal to the blood thirsty baby killer crowd.

Withdraw all US troops from everywhere on the planet and line them up on the US borders with all the weaponry, body armor, and USO shows they can use would go a long way towards solving the immigration problem and shut the "hate American imperialism" crowd.

Make any petroleum product illegal and all "recreational" drugs legal wont really solve anything but nobody will care so it works out. Legalize prostitution, child molestation/abuse and ban religion in any form. 110% income tax on anyone making anything more than minimum wage should simplify the tax code and reduce the national debt.

Withdraw the US from the UN and move the UN to Venezuala sounded like a GREAT plan to me...while we are at it, stop ALL foreign aid to ALL foreign countries. Close all ports/airports, ban travel into and out of the US and limit domestic travel to a 3 mile radius of ones domecile. Ban the internet, cell phones, guns, fishing, hunting, meat, sex, television, writing, public debate and of course, make original thought punishable by exile to Canada. Disband all prisons, police forces, and schools.

Tha's all I can think of off the top of my head.






Sarcasm, folks.....
 

trobinett

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2004
Messages
1,832
Reaction score
162
Points
48
Location
Arkansas, The Ozarks
I guess you nailed the extremes down pretty well.

I suspect that there are more efficient and effective ways to deal with things. Like hand over Europe to the Muslims (since things appear to be going that way) to satisfy the appeasement bunch whiile at the same time bombing every stinking mosque in the Middle East should appeal to the blood thirsty baby killer crowd.

Withdraw all US troops from everywhere on the planet and line them up on the US borders with all the weaponry, body armor, and USO shows they can use would go a long way towards solving the immigration problem and shut the "hate American imperialism" crowd.

Make any petroleum product illegal and all "recreational" drugs legal wont really solve anything but nobody will care so it works out. Legalize prostitution, child molestation/abuse and ban religion in any form. 110% income tax on anyone making anything more than minimum wage should simplify the tax code and reduce the national debt.

Withdraw the US from the UN and move the UN to Venezuala sounded like a GREAT plan to me...while we are at it, stop ALL foreign aid to ALL foreign countries. Close all ports/airports, ban travel into and out of the US and limit domestic travel to a 3 mile radius of ones domecile. Ban the internet, cell phones, guns, fishing, hunting, meat, sex, television, writing, public debate and of course, make original thought punishable by exile to Canada. Disband all prisons, police forces, and schools.

Tha's all I can think of off the top of my head.






Sarcasm, folks.....
But the scary part, seems we're heading in just such a direction.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top