The American Spectator

Spicy Joker| 11.28.08 @ 1:45PM

According to the media, we still don't know who carried out these attacks.

WendyG| 11.28.08 @ 1:52PM

More savagery perpetrated by the sub-humans.

George W. Bush is looking pretty good today. That good man, so maligned, has kept us safe since 9-11. I wager I am not the only one thinking about that in the wake of this abominatiom.

Robert Stacy McCain| 11.28.08 @ 5:21PM

"According to the media, we still don't know who carried out these attacks."

Militant Methodists? Rogue Lutherans? A splinter of the Episcopalian Liberation Front?

Crusader| 11.28.08 @ 6:41PM

I'm sure Bob will be here to blame this on social conservatives.

Spicy Joker| 11.29.08 @ 12:30AM

I was thinking the IRA...

ruth| 11.29.08 @ 2:24AM

Bob will blame this on Sarah Palin.

WendyG| 11.29.08 @ 9:28AM

I've been reading the Times of India this morning. We in the US have been so protected since 9-11 we take it for granted. It breaks one's heart to hear how lax and disorganized India is vis a vis terrorism. The heroes in this event are the regular folks, the hotel workers, the cops, etc. The Indian govt. has been MIA in regard to safeguarding the citizens. If they need a guide, they should look to Israel. You can't get into Israel without being substantially vetted. There are cops everywhere, in uniform and out. Israel and India are allies now. Maybe the Israelis can teach the Indians about security.

When these things have happened overseas in recent years I have taken heart because I knew we had a strong leader in the WH. It is with trepidation that I view Obama in this regard. Will he do what must be done to keep us safe??? That is an unknown, and it makes me fearful.

A Bard| 11.29.08 @ 12:42PM

What we now need is Lanny Davis to make the rounds explaining the point of view of these brave, mysterious freedom fighters of India. Eric Holder can be the second guest explaining how sufficient study reveals there is actually no illegality here.

Jeremiah| 11.29.08 @ 2:32PM

Wendy and Ruth --

Have you ever heard of the logical fallacy "post hoc ergo propter hoc"? It means "after this, therefore because of this."

Here's your reasoning:

George Bush said "I will do x, y, and z to protect America against terrorist attack."

Bush does x, y, and z. No terrorist attack occurs.

Ergo, x, y, and z protected us against terrorist attack.

This is not a logical conclusion, and it's a perfect example of the kind of thinking (by both Democrats and Republicans) that lead to 9.11 in the first place. (E.g. They've never hit us before; therefore, whatever it is we're doing now is working.")

There are any number of explanations for why we haven't been hit.

Imagining that terrorism is only happening "over there" (India, Europe, etc.) is so foolish it seems incredible that any adult could think that way in the wake of 9.11. A terrorist attack of this magnitude anywhere means terrorism is still a very real threat to us.

ruth| 11.29.08 @ 5:01PM

Okay, Jeremiah, I'll bite. Go ahead and spit out all those myriad of reasons why terroists haven't hit us since 9/11. Come on, I'm waiting.....yeah, that's what I thought. You've got nada, because you liberals don't have a clue as how to protect this country! You just try to obfuscate the truth with your x, y and z baloney. That's why so many conservatives are worried about an Obama presidency. Clueless, like you.

ruth| 11.29.08 @ 5:03PM

Ha ha!! Where's Bob? He's embarassed because we are joking on him.

Jeremiah| 11.30.08 @ 1:47PM

Ruth --
Actually, there are literally endless reasons why they have not hit -- again, it starts bordering on a logical impossibility to prove why Al Quaeda has not hit us.
There is no question that fighting the Taliban and Al Quaeda in Afghanistan slowed them down. On the other hand, an attack like 9.11 takes years of planning and training. Al Quaeda targets people all over the world as well (not that you would care, but yes, it's true, other countries have experienced terrorism).
One thing we have going for us is the same thing we've always had going for us: geographic distance and borders.
That's for starters, but like I said, it's pretty difficult to know where to stop.

Jeremiah| 11.30.08 @ 1:49PM

Ruth
And I assure you I wasn't trying to obfuscate anything with "x, y, z baloney." It's just a way to isolate a logical problem with confusing the issue with unnecessary details. I'm sure you understand.

ruth| 11.30.08 @ 3:41PM

Nah, you are trying to obfuscate by using x, y, z baloney. You liberals always do it because you can't win arguments on merit. As for not being hit again by terroists, I think you are in denial big time; you should get that checked out by your friendly neighborhood shrink.

Vanessa Llera| 11.30.08 @ 5:27PM

Hmm Jeremiah, here's a stab in the dark. Alqeida hasn't attacked us because they have had to divert resources and efforts to Iraq. Perhaps our Marines have kept them too busy to have the time and place to plan an attack in the US? Maybe President Bush's policies such as, water boarding these cockroaches, listening in to their phone conversations, retrieving their emails, dare I say Gitmo? Had something to do with our being safe as we see other countries fall victims to the jihadists? Interesting enough these are the same policies which will be taken down by Team Obama, only to prove their effectiveness in that Americans didn't feel any trepidation in placing our security in the hands of Pelosi, Reid, & Obama.

Jeremiah| 11.30.08 @ 5:56PM

Vanessa --

Believe me, I wish the scenario you propose had some purchase on reality, but it does not.

The administration's own intelligence reports have repeatedly belied any such fantasies, and as a matter of fact have gone out of their way to prevent such thinking from getting a foothold. Sean Hannity talks like that, Vanessa, but no one at the CIA or in military intelligence does.

Here's some problems with your "stab in the dark":

The Guantanamo Bay prison has released as unthreatening about 500 people of those originally rounded up. Under 300 are still there and most of those also will soon be sent home (under Bush's own plan). Only 1 was ever prosecuted, and his term of imprisonment is almost up. There will be a few dozen remaining prisoners. Out of a suspected 80 or 90 thousand jihadists in the world, I'm going to take a wild guess and say "Gitmo" has had relatively little to do with protecting the US against attack.

Now, Al Quaeda diverted exactly ZERO resources to Iraq until the last couple of years, and even then it was very, very little. Most so-called "foreign fighters" were inspired but not funded or controlled by Iraq, and most analysts agree that Al Quaeda Mesopotamia, as it's sometimes called, is an entirely different entity from Bin Laden's group.

Water boarding a few people as something that's kept us safe from terrorist attack? If you believe that, you know absolutely nothing about the people we're fighting. Most of these people come from countries where that sort of treatment is routine. The fact that Bush compromised this country's honor by stooping to third world torture tactics did not do anything to help us, nor did it frighten off any terrorists! This last idea is so funny I almost feel ungrateful for saying anything against it.

As for our Marines, you are correct to believe they have served their country well and fought bravely and done whatever they have been asked to do. You'll get no argument from me there. I, unlike you or your chicken hawk friends, served in the military and don't need any lectures for ignoramuses like you about what a good job our soldiers are doing. However, it has little to do with actual terrorist threats against our country. That's just not how terrorism works -- and the fact that seven years after 9.11 a grown woman like you doesn't understand that is evidence of just one more failure on the part of this president, whose JOB it was to teach the American people about the kind of threats we face from terrorism.

But no hard feelings. Reading your post was pretty amusing, for all that.

WendyG| 11.30.08 @ 7:15PM

The Patriot Act alone, I am sure, has saved many lives. As did Bush's insistence on cooperation and intelligence sharing between security organizations (removing the barriers put up by Clintonista Jamie Gorelick.)

Then of course there is GITMO, where terrorists and their allies end up. Perhaps the evildoer wannabe's aren't too excited about ending up there. Isn't it amazing how libs carry on about GITMO, when the evildoers think nothing of gunning down innnocents by the hundreds, or thousands?

Jeremiah| 11.30.08 @ 8:33PM

WendyG

"Evildoers"? What are you, in the seventh grade? Do the evildoers get together at the League of Doom or at Castle Greyskull? Is Lex Luther among them?

Gitmo, as I pointed out in my previous post, can have had little effect on prospective terrorists. They don't fear imprisonment or being water boarded. They come from countries where this sort of thing is routine.

There have been dozens of terrorist attacks on democracies since 9.11. Unfortunately, Al Quaeda's reach is global, and each successful attack makes us less secure. "Us versus Them" thinking -- or, if you prefer, the Good Guys versus the Bad Guys -- hasn't helped much. It has alienated extremely valuable allies in the Islamic world (as Bush himself has on more than one occasion conceded) and generally shown us to be going about fighting terrorism in about as dumb a fashion as is possible.

Why haven't we been hit since 9.11? The real answer folks is this: call it, dumb luck.

ruth| 11.30.08 @ 9:20PM

Wendy, you've got to understand; in Jeremiah's world only Conservatives and unborn children are worthy of contempt and scorn. Jeremiah's 'tolerance' extends only to those who agree with him; disagree and you are demonized. Only an idiot would say we've been safe since 9/11 because of dumb luck. Luck had nothing to do with it, and only a dumb-ass would disagree.

James| 11.30.08 @ 11:50PM

Jeremiah,
You are wrong about Quantanomo. Putting terrorists in Quantanomo takes them out of the game; so clearly it has an effect. My understanding about the terrorists whom continue to be held at Quantanomo is they are the most dangerous. These are the instigators, the leaders, the ones who indoctrinate, plan, train and urge on the foot soldier to continue the jihad. Imprisonment in Quantanomo can be seen as doing double the service.

Another point: keep the argument on America. We are not part of the "dozen of terrorists attacks on democracies." Logically, as more attacks occur around the world on other democracies and they continue to occur in the same place, it seems logical to assume America, or the Federal Government is doing something right since this is not the pattern in America. Which if it was dumb luck an attack would probably have occurred due to odds.

Jeremiah you are right in one area, the idea the Federal Government which failed to stop 9-11 is now able to detect and halt all terrorist attacks; that the huge bureaucracy called the Federal government has streamlined itself, changed it's top priority to protecting American citizens at all cost and have now an ability to communicate across agency missions to prevent terrorist attacks sounds to idealistic and Utopian for any conservative and gives President Bush way to much credit.

In my opinion what we fail to understand is feelings and thinking. This is where I believe President Bush, knowingly or unknowingly, has protected us. By going to the Middle East to attack the terrorists where they were hiding has knocked them back on their heals. The terrorists truly did not believe America would attack, but we did. A great analogy to understanding this thinking could be how officials who had bits of information about the 9-11 attack as it was being planned believed no one would use airplanes in this way. Another analogy: some very intelligent people believed the housing industry was going to continue to grow unabated and the stock market would continue to rise no matter what; I could go on an on with examples of about how sure people were about how other's would react and how the future was supposed to occur and it actually occurred 180% from what they expected. No other country has taken the battle to the terrorists turf like America and I believe this has protected America because like a thief in a shopping mall parking lot a terrorist is going to go where the targets are easiest. Currently America is not an easy target in the terrorists mind. It is not whether we are or are not, it is what the terrorist's think and believe.

My last point is to dispute your idea of "extremely valuable allies," not sure who these allies are? Also how has America alienated these allies? Have they stopped taking our foreign aid, stopped buying and selling with America, not selling their oil are there riots in the streets? The truth is many of the other countries in the area are delighted we have taken on Iraq and gotten rid of a destabilizing dictator and they probably are quietly hoping Iran would be next.

Jeremiah| 12.1.08 @ 12:13AM

James --

You make many points -- and many with which I'd be inclined to disagree. I'll take just a few.

About Guantanamo you're simply misinformed. In fact, you're only repeating some propaganda from three or four years ago. By the administration's own information, made public in the last year, the vast majority of people held in G.B. have been released by the government because no reason was found to detain them further.

Often these people were picked up in the "fog of war." We were purchasing information from poor dirt farmers who were glad to sell rivals and enemies to us. Naturally, we were foolish enough to buy.

There are some dangerous terrorists in GB, no doubt, but their numbers are in the dozens -- certainly less that 100. As of now, there are fewer than 300 being held and most of those are just waiting for some place to go. In many cases, the US government is actually holding them in GB protectively because our (decent, civilized) laws forbid us to send them back to a country where they might be tortured. Nevertheless, GB has not diminished the number of terrorists in the world at all. If anything, it has been yet another recruiting tool for Al Quaeda (as D. Rumsfeld admitted a few years ago).

About Spain, India, Great Britain, and all the other targets of terrorism since 9.11. These count, my friend. Just because they didn't happen in New York doesn't mean they weren't blows against us. You can bet your ass we're trying to prevent those attacks, and when we lose, we lose. The world isn't set up the way it was even a generation ago. Remember that kind of chess Spok plays on Star Trek? Fighting Al Quaeda is like that only fifty times more complicated: think of four dimensional Vulcan speed chess with hand grenades. When India gets hit, it's like we do -- to say nothing of the awful, tragic loss of life.

Now, you people simply need -- you need -- to stop listening to Limbaugh and Hannity and thinking you're getting good information about terrorism. They're entertainers, and there's nothing wrong with that. But they're not security experts, journalists, and people with any kind of special knowledge about the Islamic world or the Middle East.

About Iraq. When you say many of the other countries in the area are delighted we took out Saddam Hussein, you are correct. Think of how happy Iran is that we removed their chief rival in the region and installed a government more sympathetic to them than to us in his place.

Please, tell me more about our brilliant war on terror! Because I want to know...

James| 12.1.08 @ 12:42AM

More for Jeremiah:
The reason terrorists are still in Quantanomo is because President Bush listened to his critics and bowed to their pressure. If this had been FDR during WWII they would have been tried by a military tribunal in secrecy, if convicted, taken out and shot or hung (See history about Nazi spies) in secrecy, but even President Bush bows to pressure from critics and wants to be liked; therefore these terrorists languish. These terrorists are going nowhere. They are not going to be brought to the mainland, they are not going to be released and they are not going to be executed all these decisions would be political destruction. So they will be held for a long time... unless America is attacked again and the proletariat rebel against the elite and tell them to stop getting their legal briefs in a bunch and kill the SOB's.

Another thing I do not understand your comment: "They don't fear imprisonment or being water boarded." So I guess water boarding is not a form of torture since torture by its nature is to create fear in the person being tortured.

James| 12.1.08 @ 1:40AM

Jerimiah,
To your assertion I am mistaken or duped by propaganda about the true nature of the detainees see this link; oh it is not Hannity or Rush it is the New Your Times which I only read when it support my viewpoint. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/03/us/03gitmo.html

It would help if you stopped insulting people about who we choose to read or listen to, I did not do this to you, please don't treat me this way.

Not sure how Guantanomo recruits terrorists. Your logic suggests by having this place, Guantanomo, terrorists are signing up to be part of Al Gueda. By this logic we should be closing prisons all across this nation because it is causing American Citizens to become outraged and take on criminal behavior? Actually the more criminals we put in jail the lower the crime rate. I wonder if this applies to terrorism?

My point about other democracies and comparing them to the U.S. is it is not relevant to the argument as to why America has not been attacked again.

Finally I rather think Iran is probably more fearful than delighted especially since the Iraq cabinet has overwhelming (almost unanimously 27 out of 28 members - Seattle Times) agreed to let the U.S. continue it’s presence in Iraq till 2011. Nothing like having the most powerful military with unprecedented abilities to strike deep into Iran’s territory just over the border based in a neighbors land, when Iran is trying to create nuclear weapons and most nations in the Middle East, most nations in the world are against them having them. It gives one pause.

Jeremiah| 12.1.08 @ 9:27AM

James --

The only people I've insulted are those who make blanket statements about "the terrorists" or the "evildoers" -- as though we were up against a single, monolithic entity. The whole reason fighting terrorism is so difficult is nothing could be further from the truth.

Second, rounding people up virtually at random and holding them in Cuba has done little to help our cause. True, some were dangerous terrorists, and there's really nothing to do but hold them, unfortunately. The majority of people who have been held at GB have been released and returned to their home countries. If you think Bush has been releasing dangerous terrorists to return to their home countries because he's been bowing to pressure from critics, you think less of him than I do.

Diane Rehm did a show this week on (yes, NPR the evil liberal press) on GB which featured as a guest someone from the Bush administration. I'm largely using facts he cited during that case, although I interpret them somewhat differently.

I do understand that capturing a terrorist puts this country in a very difficult position.

We CANNOT torture or abuse him because we are a civilized nation. Our laws are not primarily meant to protect him. They're intended to protect us.

Can't you understand that?

We make laws to constrain government power. We have decided that we do not want a government that can abuse power by abusing prisoners or torturing them. Period.

So what do we do with them? We hold them without much resolution ever. It's one of those things. With luck, they'll start to identify with their captors and forget about loyalty they think they owe Al Quaeda. They'll start to talk. If they truly are terrorists, they'll have useful information. Coercing information out of them risks this long term assistance, risks killing them (as has often happened), but most of all risks getting bad information (like the info we went into Iraq with).

As for Iran, they haven't seemed fearful to me. But I guess that's subjective.

Your first point doesn't deserve refutation, but I will anyway: you say if prisoners don't fear water boarding, then it's not torture and we should use that form of interrogation.

First, I wish to Christ you'd get some information from military people instead of pundits on television never served a day in their lives.

Second, the US and its allies have prosecuted water boarding for decades as a war crime. Whether it's "torture" is a debate that very very smart people have had and failed to resolve. It is abuse. It is degrading and inhuman treatment, and therefore we are obliged by treaty commitments not to use it. Water boarding yields bad information anyway. I know that when you watch 24 on television things work out when they get to torture people, but that's not how it works in real life.

Jeremiah| 12.1.08 @ 9:34AM

James --

A few last words. First, I appreciate your rational approach. I shouldn't use insulting language and I apologize. It's an emotional subject for all of us, and all of us want this country protected from terrorists (all of us that is that don't "pal around" with terrorists in our spare time).

I also appreciate that you offer evidence to support your claims, and that you even risk being crucified or sent to GB yourself by citing the NY Times -- the paper of record. I read that article and think that it supports your point and mine as well. In the end, we're talking about 30 people there plus a few dozen more. According to intelligence estimates, there are somewhere in the neighborhood of 80,000 jihadists in the world. I'm not sure about Al Quaeda's numbers, but according to the CIA chief (current) those numbers are growing, particularly as Afghanistan continues to spiral out of control.