Topic: Torture
Thanks For Nothing, Mr. President But while there is much to revile or admire about what has happened during the Bush years, little attention is paid to what didn't happen. Namely, no major terror attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11.by Matthew Bastian
(conservative)
Sunday, January 11, 2009
As the clock winds down on the presidency of George W. Bush, the pundits are beginning to ask the usual question of outgoing commanders-in-chief: how will history judge his eight years in office?
For those on the left there is an irresistible urge to forgo the usual grace period; a few years to let the dust settle and allow us view the Bush years through the prism of hindsight. Ronald Reagan is widely credited with bringing about the end of the Cold War but nobody could have made that claim at the end of his second term, in January of 1989. It took several years for Reagan’s policies to bear fruit and reshape the old Eastern Bloc. In a similar vein, it would have been unfair to judge Bill Clinton in January 2001, with questionable pardons, a slowing economy, and the Elian Gonzalez scandal all still fresh in our minds.
Never make an important decision when angry, as the conventional wisdom goes.
For hardcore liberals, however, the verdict is already in: Bush will fall somewhere between Richard Nixon and Merkin Muffley from Dr. Strangelove in terms of lawlessness and general ineptitude.
Several of Bush’s notable stumbles, of course, hurt his own case. His personal response to the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina bordered on tone deaf. The Iraq War was terribly mismanaged until the defeat in the 2006 mid-term elections forced Bush to sack Donald Rumsfeld and institute the surge. On his right flank, Bush lost support by signing on to abominations such as McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform and amnesty for illegal immigrants.
On the positive side, the president has done more for African aid, specifically HIV and AIDS relief, than any of his predecessors. Only the most rabid and intellectually dishonest Bush-bashers would not acknowledge that.
But while there is much to revile or admire about what has happened during the Bush years, little attention is paid to what didn’t happen. Namely, no major terror attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11.
For all the hyperventilating at The New York Times and in other circles over The Patriot Act and wiretapping without warrants, the tangible impact on civil liberties never quite lived up to the hysteria. No librarians were dragged off in the middle of the night for refusing to hand over their records, nor was anyone listening in on a random Thanksgiving Day phone call to Aunt Mildred. Indeed, the only people who ever had to worry a knock on their door in the middle of the night were men like Iyman Faris, who was busted in his apartment with plans to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge. As for the Feds listening in on phone calls, you were probably safe unless you were using your Anytime Minutes on three-way conversations between Waziristan and Damascus.
With his appointment of Leon Panetta to head the Central Intelligence Agency, President-elect Obama has made a worrisome choice. By most accounts a capable manager with keen political instincts, Panetta also has very little direct experience in the world of foreign intelligence. The Obama camp defended the nomination by pointing out that Panetta, as Clinton’s chief-of-staff, sat in on regular intelligence briefings - a qualification slightly more impressive than if he were to boast of having seen all of the Jason Bourne movies.
Assuming that Obama is truly the pragmatist he portrayed during the campaign, one hopes that Panetta will lean heavily on his lieutenants while he focuses on steadying the ship at the CIA and maintaining an active dialogue with the president-elect. In the past, effective heads of the agency have included policy wonks and administrative types, while career "spooks" have failed in the role.
The concern, of course, is that the Panetta move is motivated by ideology. A noted opponent of any use of torture, Panetta would likely bring the rules of the U.S. Army Field Manual, which allow for less rigorous interrogation tactics, to the world of counter-terrorism. The practice of rendition, or moving detainees to countries where harsh interrogation methods are more acceptable, might be stopped. Depending on his zeal and instructions from the Obama White House, Panetta might investigate or punish CIA officers who were involved in questionable intelligence practices.
But it would be foolish to unwind current anti-terror measures simply because they bear the stamp of George Bush or, even worse, to seek praise from the editorial boards of foreign newspapers. In the post-9/11 world, our safety depends on shady characters doing questionable things, some at the limits of the law or that we would rather not know about, to get the bad guys to talk. It was the waterboarding of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, as well as an intercepted phone call, that led the FBI to Mr. Faris. Obama could very easily carry the "I’m-not-like-the-old-guy" routine too far, and with dangerous consequences.
"Restoring our image" in the international community, a theme Obama harped on throughout the campaign, may not be a bad thing. Hopefully, though, he understands that it’s a secondary part, at best, of his new job description. The troubling aspect of the Panetta appointment is that it could be the first step in a global popularity contest that the United States has no business entering.
Because in a dangerous world, it’s clear that being liked and being safe will too often be mutually exclusive. To his credit and despite his other flaws, the outgoing president realized that.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 8 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Matthew Bastian only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Matthew Bastian is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
"On the positive side, the president has done more for African aid, specifically HIV and AIDS relief, than any of his predecessors. Only the most rabid and intellectually dishonest Bush-bashers would not acknowledge that. "
He will most definetly be remembered for this.
The rest will depend on armagedon and when and how it arrives
Hi Matthew, I have to say, I would rate Bush as "worse" than Nixon. I would have to review Nixon, but probably much worse. It is true that no terror attacks have occurred in the United States since 9/11. But that date, 9/11 did fall on Bush's watch. So the logic has to be, either these attacks are random and unpreventable and Bush shouldn't take any blame for 9/11 or any credit for the following years/ or he must take the blame and then the ensuing credit for safety in the years following. Can't have it both ways.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2009-01-12 06:30:39
No, there have been no major foreign terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11. On the other hand, there were no major terrorist attacks on U.S. soil in the previous seven years (six of them under Clinton, who was President when we suffered the only other major foreign terrorist attack on U.S. soil). I suppose that means we also owe Clinton a debt of gratitude?
If you were more honest about it, you would realize that the lack of major international terrorist attack since 9/11 has precious little to do with Bush and a whole lot more to do with the logistics, time, and especially money involved in preparing such attacks here.
There's also every reason to believe that the new levels of tyranny established by Bush have increased the likelihood of an Oklahoma City style domestically rather than internationally originating attack at some point in the future.
Gene - The Kenya bombings and the USS Cole bombings were direct tests of the US resolve after being attacked. Osama Bin Laden planned them after seeing Clinton pull out of Somalia in defeat. Clinton had 8 years to show something to deter OBL and he didn't. Bush had 8 months to figure out what to do about it. More should have been done, but the guy to do it was Clinton. Post 9/11 the Lackawana 6, the Dirty Bomber, Fort Dix murder plotters, and plenty of others we don't even know about have been smoked out and stopped. Whether OBL was involved in any of them or not (probably not for the ones I mention) it still proves that it's been safer in this country post-9/11 than pre-9/11. So much so that OBL has moved on to other soft targets like a train in Spain or a bus in London.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2009-01-12 07:59:59
Tom, that's nonsense, for the same reasons I cited to Matthew. Why are you not similarly willing to thank President Clinton for preventing terrorist attacks during his administration after 1994's attack on the WTC? And since the first attack on the WTC occurred near the beginning of Clinton's presidency, why aren't you willing to place the blame for that attack at the footsteps of the first Bush presidency?
You and Matthew are engaging in partisan Bush praising....not even-handed analysis.
Re: Walt Theissen: "If you were more honest about it, you would realize that the lack of major international terrorist attack since 9/11 has precious little to do with Bush and a whole lot more to do with the logistics, time, and especially money involved in preparing such attacks here."
Ummm....Walt? Put the bong down and read your comment again. After 9/11, Bush aggressively pursued all aspects of the terror networks that threaten us and severely limited their ability to maneuver and plan attacks. At the same time he was able to devastate most of the existing funding pipelines these organizations were utilizing. Do you honestly believe there hasn't been an attack against us, or our interests, in over 7 years because of random chance??? I am not a huge Bush fan and certainly liked Clinton more, but Clinton's response to terror attacks against our navy and our embassies was to fire off pot shots at training camps in the desert using long range tomahawk missiles. The Bush administration developed and orchestrated a multi-faceted, comprehensive plan to crush terrorism completely from scratch. To deny this played an integral part in keeping us from being attacked is tantamount to denying the holocaust took place. I suppose the terrorists simply decided to leave us alone for awhile just as the Jews decided to congregate at various camps in Europe to take advantage of the efficient diet and exercise regimens that were being offered.
As for the "...tyranny established by Bush..." it seems you may have been away for a while, since we held free and fair elections a couple months ago. That tyrant, George Bush. He's our version of Stalin and, as such, will certainly never relinquish....wait, what? Apparently, Bush is actively participating in a peaceful and organized exchange of power. Oh, the humanity.
I blame Bush for a slow Katrina response, bad Iraq policy post-invasion and pre-surge, not doing enough to check congressional spending (republican and democrat) and not fighting Chris Dodd and Barney Frank harder for Fannie and Freddie reform. His administration knew it was trouble.
I praise Bush for taking the fight to the enemy and protecting us for the last 7-8 years.
I praise Clinton for NAFTA, Welfare Reform and a good economy despite being based dot com bubble.
I blame him for sending lawyers everytime someone attacked a US interest in the world.
9/11, the worst attack on continental American soil occurred on Bush's watch. premptive war on Iraq, a nation with no ties to terrorists, in fact an enemy of most of the terrorists states, with a half million deaths was created by the bush administration under the deception of "possession of weapons of mass destruction". seven year no progress war in afgan against who? a mockery of what is supposed to be a "free market system" with possible collaspe and certain unending debt. a non response to a terrible natural disaster where some of the poorest, mostly african american people of our country live, new orleans. a dismantling of personal liberties and freedoms under the guise of "security". one of the most hideous prisons outside of nazi germany that held who? detainees, many who weren't even accused of anything. an utter disregard for the common person of America and the World............how nice of him to peaceably hand over power!
Neurotics, full of self-delusion and the thinnest of intellectual insight, crawl out of even the cracks of Nolan Chart. Don't worry, they'll scamper away like the cockroaches they are when we flash a little light on them.
Run away, bugs! You waste everyone's time! And, there's no apology for not responding to points that have been made as pathetically as yours. Only a moron would argue with an intellectual cripple. It's like pounding on a wall ~ there's nothing to gain but pain, and nothing to share but ignorance.
After 9/11 we saw nothing but a power grab in the guise of "protecting America" by both Bush and Congress. There was no reason for the Federal Government to create new tools to catch foreign and domestic Terrorists. The Federal Government had those tools in its possession but they we asleep at the switch and was able to convince the public and congress that they didn't have those tools and needed more.
Conservative fears of Obama dismantling these unnecessary powers should've been put to rest after Obama voted for the FISA bill this past summer. None of the front runner Democrats showed no signs of nixing any of these tools that Bush was able to get. Gravel and Kucinich were probably the only ones that have enough stones to say in public that they would have gotten rid of the Patriot Act if they were elected. The fact that Conservatives widely support this increase in government while at the same time they believe in smaller government and more freedom has always baffled me. I'm curious what would Barry Goldwater say to these people.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2009-01-12 15:45:58
Eric, I haven't even seen a bong in over 30 years. Like Master C who deplores addressing the issue and prefers to tear down and belittle people instead, I see that you prefer witty, sardonic style over substance. I never suggested that the lack of an attack was due to random chance. To the contrary, I was very specific as to what I thought was lacking...time, money, and logistics. So how do you draw the fallacious conclusion that I think it was random chance?
Nor do I disagree that Bush has done some things right. Sure he has. It's almost impossible for anyone to do everything wrong. Even Master C gets some things right. But if you believe that the only thing standing between an attack and us is Mr. Bush, you have successfully deluded yourself.
Bin Laden succeeded, actually. He and his cohorts will never have to launch another terrorist attack again. This country will, inevitably, collapse under the economic strain caused by the measures taken to fight shadows on the wall.
"Fighting shadows on the wall" is a perfect description of the fear and endless hysteria that the Bush administration lived off. Their only boast is that nothing happened. No elephant stampedes, either. Wonder if that was their doing, too?
Walt ~
I don't ever feel a need to explain myself or to discuss issues that others raise. I make my points, and they are mine alone. Those of you who think you need support for your assertions are just too unsure of yourselves to rest on your own beliefs and observations.
To quote someone else is to try to attach yourself to their ideas and their work. I prefer to do my own. If you need Rothbard and Ron Paul to lay things out for you, then you're just not doing enough thinking of your own.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2009-01-13 07:16:59
Master C -- LOL! You really think that my call to respond to the issue raised rather than demeaning others is about a personal need for some sort of validation? You really are out of touch with reality. In case you hadn't noticed, this website is about debating the issues. You can choose to avoid real debate all you want to, but that doesn't mean that the rest of us are doing that. Nor does it mean that we need to hear others validate what we're saying. Get a grip!
I'm afraid that your notion of "debating" starts with misquoting, distorting, and mischaracterizing people. That isn't debate as much as it is manipulation.
Debate is when you state YOUR case, not when you malign someone else's. I think if you read ANYTHING I've written ~ except for those times when you or Republicae have forced me to respond in kind to your nitpicking and quibbling over the most irrelevant issues ~ that I've made powerful, accurate, and very clear points about my view of an issue.
I think your greatest challenge is to learn the word CONTROL when you begin to respond to someone with whom you disagree. I'm afraid your petticoats get ruffled and you start swingin' like a girl! Just swatting away at whatever you can.
Focus, poise, and articulation are the ONLY merits of the debater that matter. The pedantic retreat to historical statistics and conclusions about historical circumstances that are affected by THOUSANDS of variables, then asserting that it's just MONEY, or whatever, that's causing it is as deceptive, misleading, false, and nearsighted as Mr. Magoo!
Believe me, "debating" issues is something that is NEVER done on this website. Harrassment, complaining, commisseration, self-congratulations, and the idolatry of a SINGLE viewpoint (Libertarian) is the only offering I've seen. That's why MINE is the only opposing voice on this website that has some standing with the HOUNDS who patrol these articles because I'm not terrorized by them. I can turn their infantile bantering into a mirror that shows them the disgracefulness and self-pity of their attacks.
Saying that I "demean" people shows how little you seem to understand the word. It isn't "demeaning" to tell someone the truth about themselves ~ whether it involves mocking some antiquated belief of theirs, deploring some inarticulate writing, or interjecting some light into the darkness of their bigotry.
Of course, the terrorists didn't have to make any more attacks on American soil after 9-11! Because we sent our troops over to THEIR soil instead, making it EASIER for them to kill Americans, not harder. By that looney logic, should we keep our troops in the Middle East forever, as more and more of them continue to die in battle just so we never have any more terrorist attacks on American soil? How idiotic!
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
