Google

Friday, June 23, 2006

Once again the New York Times chooses to weaken our ability to wage war against our Islamofascist enemies, with this story revealing a classified program that sifts through international financial transaction data to try and cut off the money supply to the terrorists. While there are many folks commenting on this in the blogosphere, Andrew C. McCarthy has it right in this piece on the National Review website. This will not stop, he says, until the leakers and the reporters who help them are PROSECUTED. If the administration was fighting this war like a real war, instead of relying on rhetoric, they might actually start playing hardball with those who are undermining our national security.

But this is all part of the same pattern I have written about repeatedly. After 9/11 President Bush created the proper intellectual framework with which to understand this new war. He declared that it was, in fact, a war, and not a matter for the criminal justice system. He said that those who aided and abetted the terrorists would be treated the same as the terrorists, and that we would use all the resources available to us to defeat them. Then, of course, he refused to follow the logic of his own position. He refused to ask Congress for a declaration of war. He refused to re-instate the draft, or even expand the size of the volunteer military. He did not ask Congress for authority to censor the press regarding war news, nor did he create a propaganda bureau to help bolster American morale and demoralize the enemy. He refused to take strong action against the Saudis and other so-called "allies" who have been funding the ideology of our enemies. In short, he talked about treating 9/11 as an act of war, made some great speeches crafting the framework for that policy, then failed to follow through. As a consequence, we are now stuck in a grey area, somewhere between the politics of peace and normality, and the politics of war and emergency. This has created the confusion that has led to the President's low approval numbers, and to the belief by so many Americans that we are not really at war and, therefore, we can engage in business as usual.

Perhaps, after the nuclear 9/11, we will start taking those steps one would expect of a nation fighting for its way of life and even its very existence.

2 Comments:

At 3:09 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is kind of silly. Our way of life is not threatened by terrorists, but by a government that would take advantage of a fearful populace to limit civil liberties and to trash the first amendment.

Seriously, this country was based on freedom, not on an imaginary "safety."

To put it into perspective, we Americans have always traded safety for convenience. This is why the speed limit was raised from 55 to 65 mph - despite the additional 5,000 deaths per year that result from the increased speeds (in other words, more extra people are killed - per year - in car crashes because of our need for speed than were killed in the terrorist attacks on 9/11/01).

 
At 12:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

T.J. :
The speed limit was repealed because it was a ridiculous government idea that didn't work. It's like when States raise taxes on cigarettes then wonder why the revenues are going down. Your "safety" depends on you and not your government. Governments protect Nations not individuals. I would feel comfortable driving 150mph in a Ferrari on the Autobahn while you may feel scared driving 5mph over the posted limit in your Hybrid. Then again, driving that small car on a street crowded with SUV's could be considered risk taking. Thanks for the statistical analysis on traffic vs. 9-11. Trivializing the latter seems to be a common liberal theme......awwww look at the cute little terrorist....he didn't mean to crash the big plane....

Bill in Maine

 

Post a Comment

<< Home