National security sloganeering
Joe Biden versus Dick Cheney, facts versus falsehoods
National security sloganeering
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
It's no mystery why the White House sent Joe Biden to the Sunday shows. The Republicans have spent the past seven weeks sloganeering against President Obama on national security - cranking out bumper-sticker simplicities that boil down to HE WEAK! WE STRONG! - and the administration apparently felt it was time to rebut visceral falsehoods with empirical facts, difficult as that task might be in a world where the credulous swallow whoppers as if they were candy.
Starring for the Republicans was their avatar of deception, Dick Cheney; he's probably not the ideal Sunday talk show representative, given the fact that a January AP poll pegged his national favorability rating at 38 percent, but he is a former veep, after all, and most of what he intones these days is consistent with the general GOP patter.
Indeed, during his ABC appearance yesterday morning, Cheney served up the usual dependable fare, talking about the new administration's supposedly wimpy "mindset," grousing that "it is clear once again that President Obama is trying to pretend that we are not at war," and that this White House "still insists on thinking of terror attacks against the United States as criminal acts" - as opposed to the previous White House, which, in his view, treated terrorist behavior as "acts of war."
Cheney was referring, of course, to the Obama team's recent decision to process the failed underwear bomber through the criminal courts, as opposed to the military courts. The general GOP argument, apparently, is that our collective cognitive memories should be cleansed of anything that happened in real life prior to Inauguration Day 2009. If such a mind-purge were possible, we would not be compelled to remember that the Bush administration, rather than treating terrorist behavior as "acts of war," actually processed failed shoe-bomber Richard Reid through the criminal courts, and processed 9/11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui through the criminal courts. And that was just for starters, as Joe Biden accurately pointed out yesterday on NBC:
"The Christmas Day bomber was treated the exact way that...the shoe bomber was treated, absolutely the same way. Under the Bush administration, there were three trials in military courts. Two of those people are now walking the streets; they are free. There were 300 (criminal) trials of so-called terrorists and those who had engaged in terror against the United States of America who are in federal prison and have not seen the light of day, prosecuted under the last administration."
Biden was referring to a Justice Department budget document that laid out the empircal facts: The Bush administration, using the criminal justice system, obtained 319 convictions in "terrorism or terrorist-related cases" - indeed, it obtained criminal convictions in 90 percent of its cases - and a separate study by the Center on Law and Security, based at New York University, has determined that the average sentence in those convictions runs for 16 years. (How odd. I don't ever recall the congressional Republicans wailing about the Bush team's "mindset" of treating suspected terrorists as criminals.)
Cheney was challenged on some of these points by ABC News' Jonathan Karl - who posed this question: "So was it a mistake when your administration took on the Richard Reid case? This is very similar (to the underpants bomber case). This was somebody that was trying to blow up an airliner with a shoe bomb, and he was - within five minutes of getting taken off that plane - read his Miranda rights. Four times, in fact, in 48 hours, and tried through the civilian system. Was that a mistake?"
Cheney: "Well, first of all, I believe he was not tried. He pled guilty. They never did end up having a trial."
That response didn't even qualify as deceptive sleight of hand. Cheney didn't even try to rebut the fact that Reid was repeatedly read his Miranda rights, because it can't rebutted. He tried to parry the question by pointing out that Reid pled guilty, which is irrelevent; the bottom line was, Bush's prosecutors put Reid into the criminal justice system before there was any plea at all.
Cheney then tried to argue that Reid had been placed in the criminal justice system because "we were not yet operational with the military commissions." Karl didn't buy that one; as he quickly noted, "You still had an option to put him into military custody." To which Cheney had no choice but to say, "Well, we could have put him into military custody. I don't - I don't question that."
Cheney was then confronted with some Bush administration statistics, compiled in 2005, that documented hundreds of terrorist prosecutions via the criminal courts. Cheney then offered this revealing reply:
"Well, we didn't all agree with that. We had - I can remember a meeting in the Roosevelt Room in the West Wing of the White House where we had a major shootout over how this was going to be handled between the Justice Department, that advocated that approach, and many of the rest of us, who wanted to treat it as an intelligence matter, as an act of war with military commissions. We never clearly or totally resolved those issues. These are tough questions, no doubt about it...And I do get very nervous and very upset when (criminal prosecution) is the dominant approach - as it was sometimes in the Bush administration, or certainly would appear to be at times in the new Obama administration."
Translation: Cheney admitted yesterday, arguably for the first time, that many of the Bush people were just as committed to the criminal prosecution option as many of the Obama people are today. As Cheney himself acknowledged, "These are tough questions, no doubt about it." If the Republicans really want to be honest about national security, perhaps they'll put that remark on their bumper sticker.
Meanwhile, on NBC, Biden sought to trump Cheney with this observation about the Obama administration's conduct of the war on terror: "By the way, we're pursuing that war with a vigor like it's never been seen before. We've eliminated 12 of their top 20 people. We have taken out 100 of their associates. We are making - we've sent them underground. They are, in fact, not able to do anything remotely like they were in the past. They are on the run."
Biden was referring to the administration's sharply increased use of unmanned drones to target and kill terrorists. Surely, Obama's Republican critics have no problem with that policy, right?
Wrong. A former Bush speechwriter named Marc Thiessen has posted a complaint that Obama is killing too many terrorists. I swear I am not making this up. Here's Thiessen:
"To be sure, unmanned drones are criticial in the struggle against al Qaeda...The problem is that Obama is increasingly using drone strikes as a substitute for operations to bring terrorist leaders in alive for questioning - and this is putting the country at risk."
So, to review: Cheney says that Obama is pretending not to be at war, while Thiessen says that Obama is way too much at war. I doubt that Thiessen's message would make an effective Republican bumper sticker (WE STRONG! OBAMA TOO STRONG!), but the election year is young and there's ample time left to sloganeer on national security and make the case that regardless of whether Obama is weak or strong, he's wrong.
Comments (100)
From the 9/7/09 article "Judges siding with detainees in Guantanamo habeas cases" (Carol Roseberg): Fifteen months after the U.S. Supreme Court rebuked the Bush administration by ruling that Guantanamo captives can sue for their freedom, civilian judges have ordered the release of 29 detainees and sided with the Defense Department only seven times." In fact, in 28 of 33 Gitmo detainee cases heard so far, federal judges have found insufficient evidence to support keeping them in prison.— p-diddy- Swedesboro: I feel like I'm trying to debate someone who never owns up to what he's written in the past. You posted a few days ago that you had no problem with the bank bailouts. And I'd like to know where you got a definition of "fascism" that defines it as "ideologically based on a relationship between business and the centralized government, business-and-government control of the market place." By that definition, virtually everyone in this country is "fascist". I'm talking about your willingness to declare prisoners "terrorists" and "enemy combatants" simply because the government has declared them to be so, without due process. That's fascist (dictatorial).— p-diddy
- billreilly: If you work in law enforcement you would know that confessions don't preclude trials - that's pretty basic stuff.— p-diddy
- Polman... why would you write a column about the two worst Vice presidents that this country has ever had, talking about fighting wars. BOTH, and maybe you didn't know, had FIVE deferments from the Vietnam war. Whatever they say carries no weight. Talk to the Military people and then write an informed column. Next you'll be writing a column telling us that Gays are born that way, and cant help their lifestyle. NOT.— Phil Checchia
- Fernando08 - What a incredibly inane comment that you think locking up criminals doesn't slow down the crime rates. Well let's just open up all the prisons and put the criminals into half way houses in your neighborhood and see what happens to the crime rate. Billreilly with your experience in law enforcement what do you think would happen to Fernando if that was done.— Mike Welbourn
- Well, today's news out of Karachi should serve as a huge smackdown for 5-deferment Cheney - Obama's anti-terrorist tactics seem to be working a lot better than the chickensh*t cowboy nonsense Cheney advocates!— Yersinia Pestis
- Still - While I admit there may have been a couple that weren't really terrorist. I think many more lied about not being terrorist. No matter who they are they all have access to counsel in Gitmo. I would say most that are left are either hard core terrorist or ones that we would like to release but can't find anyplace that will take them. Just to stir the global warming pudding. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7236011/UN-global-warming-data-skewed-by-heat-from-planes-and-buildings.html— Mike Welbourn
Comment removed.- Pdiddy- actually you should look up the word fascist. You are mis-using it. Applying the laws of military tribunals to enemy combatents is anything but fascits. Fascism is "A political regime, having totalitarian aspirations, ideologically based on a relationship between business and the centralized government, business-and-government control of the market place".................... Actually sounds eerily similar to Barack Obama control over private business and the left's contempt for the free market.
- The lead actor in the Climategate scam, Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia, has admitted that some of his decades-old weather data was not well enough organized. Presumably he refers to the primary data that he did not destroy in attempts to avoid submitting data in response to Freedom of Information requests. But Still Independent says it's all real so that's all we really need to know. Forget the fact that the data isn't shared, not organized, manipulated, and under analysis from East Anglia is now all insignificant. But, now wait, here is the punchline...... It's close to significant but not significant.
- Probably my favorite line from the East Anglia Professor " The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. "........ So it's insignifigant but close to significant so therefore it's significant. Sort of like " hide the decline " means. " the sky is blue." You warmers are just twisting yourself into a pretzel. Still no comments from Still Independent on Univ. of Penn Proffesor Dr. Giegengack or Dr. Lindzen from MIT. But of course Still Independent will write a 1000 words quibling over the phrase " no signifcant global warming since 1995 "
- http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local-beat/Wisconsin-Billboard-Calls-for-Obamas-Ouster-84376727.html This is good news, one a movement to end this bozo's presidency, second reported by nbc. When the big three start to realize Americans are feed up with the govt and poor reporting. Three Americans are stating their case, our govt needs to start working for us and not taxing us.— Fisher
- Still Independent- you said " Do you know what "statistically significant" actually means in that context? It doesn't mean " a lot"................. Oh I see, so when Professor Jones says "there has been no statisically significant rise in temperatures since 1995" , this now means a lot? Does " no significant " actually mean "significant". You are too much-LMAO.
- Still Indpendent - you said. "Anyway, on the last blog, I asked you several times for examples of "warmers" saying that the recent snow storms were a result of global warming, as YOU asserted they had. You, as usual, provided none"............ AND THAT WOULD BE BLATENTLY FALSE!.......................http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/strategist/2010/02/snowpocalypse.php
- Pdiddy- I will repost Mike Welborn's post. Military tribunals for war criminals is what our country has been about for all of our history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_tribunal When they don't deserve Constitutional or Geneva convention rights (most at Gitmo don't) it's the best way to go. http://www.fbi.gov/libref/historic/famcases/nazi/nazi.htm
- Swedesboro: If you're a libertarian, I'm King Henry VII. You can't seem to wrap your head around the idea that calling someone an "enemy combatant" or a "terrorist" is hearsay. And the problem with suspending the Constitution during a "War on Terror" is that a "war" on a tactic never ends. By your logic, the federal government can imprison anyone they want without presenting any evidence at all, much less granting a prisoner the right to challenge any alleged evidence. That's insane. And I know word "fascist" is thrown around a lot these days, but your view actually IS a fascist view.— p-diddy
- Swedesboro: I don't care what Joe Biden said. Anyone who's been reading the newspaper in the past 3 weeks knows about the devastating bombings that have continued in Iraq. I wouldn't put much stock in a media pis*ing contest between Biden and Cheney. That line about the French not wanting the invasion in order to protect their oil for food program is BS, an O'Reilly Factor talking point. More likely France and Germany simply knew the intelligence wasn't very strong; British intelligence didn't seem to think much of it.— p-diddy
The mafia here and internationally has bombed entire crowds to get at THE witness, one prosecutor, one union president, whoever got in their way. The Al-Queda network is not a nation state, not physically HQ'd in any one location, has no overt command and control staff. We kill the #2 guy at least 7 times a year since 2002. The entire discussion is one of semantics, a criminal vs a combatant. A civilian trial vs a military commission. Creating a political issue that draws time and attention away from running the country, so what, the republicans can get voted in just in time for something bad to happen when they are in office, so they can be blamed? Or the democrats retaining office, so when something bad happens, they can be blamed? Tens of thousands of people have been murdered for decades across this country by organized crime and not so organized crime, with democrats and republicans in power or out of power at different points in time. It does not seem to make a difference. A new third party would not make a difference. It will take a lot more political, economic and social progress, the materially improving quality of life that will let most people act like human beings. The $707billion we spend on the military will not protect us against Al Queda or the drug cartels or the child molesters or the mafias. All of the millions we lock up in prison does not slow down the crime. All of the poorly reasoned arguments and ridiculous partisan insults will not stop the shootings in and around the city. This guy will be tried and found guilty. The world will judge us by how we handle it, like a kangaroo court or justice served.- Mike Welbourn: I sort of agree with you, at least on a visceral level. But what of those that were thrown in Gitmo that weren't terrorists? There was a lot of settling avendetta, collecting a bounty, etc. Some of those prisoners were only set free after getting counsel. How do you tell the terrorists (granted, the vast majority of current detainess at this point) from those that aren't? At least without granting them some basic rights? It's easy to say "You can't make an omlet..." when you're not the egg. I always harken back to the Atlanta Olympic Park bombing. The FBI (and the public) KNEW that Richard Jewel did it. We were sure of it. Suppose he had no access to counsel?— still_independent
- Five Deferments Dick deserves to be waterboarded. I would be happy to administer it to the coward. He's just like Moe the Stooge - "I'll fight to the last drop of his blood!" (i.e., someone else's blood).— johngilb
- STILL: Conse 'Pubs start with the desired outcome, craft their argument to fit, and then they look for anything to savage in any opinion that questions their flawless conclusion.— Talvenada
- So they are just criminals. They are just like the guy that boosts a car, robs a 7/11, or Bernie Madoff. They are not soldiers or criminals. They are a breed of their own. They are terrorist who do not deserve the honor of being given the rights of our Constitution.— Mike Welbourn
- swedesboromike: I know you'll stay satisfied with your article since it aligns with your general philosophy, no matter how incorrect it is, but here's the actual interview... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm And not that it matters, but here's the best primer for statistical significance I could find.... http://www.surveysystem.com/signif.htm— still_independent
- swedesboromike: Let's be honest, that was pretty much a rhetorical question. Your article starts out like this "Now that Climategate ringleader Phil Jones has admitted that there has been no global warming (man-made or otherwise) since at least 1995, and that the world was warmer in medieval times than now, ...Sound pretty bad - except none of it's true. I have put the link below to the actual interview that your article is relying upon. Q: "Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?" A: "Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods." The question wasn't "was there any warming". The reason it's hard to achieve statistical significance is because 1995-2009 is only 15 data points. As for "the world was warmer in medieval times than now"? I can't answer that, because it's not in there. It just isn't. He is asked about the medieval warming. He is questioned that IF it were warmer then, would that bring in to question modern day warming. The part of his answer I THINK they're referring to? "Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented. " He answered a hypothetical question. At no point was there any speculation at all as to whether or not it was warmer then.... Now I ask you, who's in denial? You posted a garbage article that is just flat out wrong. Worse yet, intentionally wrong. I have provided the source material to show that. YOU will ignore this, and claim that you provided "evidence" of data manipulation.— still_independent
- swedesboromike : and as for your Phil Jones quote, I ask a serious question. Do you know what "statistically significant" actually means in that context? It doesn't mean " a lot".— still_independent
- swedesboromike : skipped our meds again, I see. Anyway, on the last blog, I asked you several times for examples of "warmers" saying that the recent snow storms were a result of global warming, as YOU asserted they had. You, as usual, provided none. Finally, after the third time I asked you, you provided a link. Unfortunately, it was a link to a very conservative website. As usual, when you look at what was actually said, shockingly, it was different. Ratigan was arguing that VA GOP ads stating that the recent snow was evidence of no global warming were ridiculous. In his own words "I do not believe this storm is proof of climate change," "My point very simply was that strong winter storms ... do not by any stretch of the imagination rule out climate change." Finally, now, several days later, you have provided a link - to some anonymous blogger. Fine, I will concede the point. You managed, after several days and a couple of tries, to find some anonymous blogger that apparently represents all "warmers", who actually wrote that the recent snow is a result of global warming. Congrats. Now back to your postings. Nurse Ratched will be by soon.— still_independent
- p-diddy:when Obama has bankrupted the country and will go down as the worst president ever. He blames everyone else and bull rushes bills with no details. His knowledge in expanding an over expanded govt for no reason but take liberity away. He claims transparency, but yet none has occurred.— Fisher
- Comment removed.
- As for due process and habeas corpus to be "liberal" positions. In the last 100 years who were the worst offenders of those right to U.S. citizens? Liberal (progressive) presidents FDR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment and Woodrow Wilson http://www.energyofanation.org/0a1f3a52-9026-40aa-8d8b-ce88fecf1607.html?NodeId=— Mike Welbourn
- Military tribunals for war criminals is what our country has been about for all of our history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_tribunal When they don't deserve Constitutional or Geneva convention rights (most at Gitmo don't) it's the best way to go. http://www.fbi.gov/libref/historic/famcases/nazi/nazi.htm— Mike Welbourn
- Pretty bad day for the Democratic party. Evan Bayh will not be running again? Your party is being hijacked by left wing ideologues. Extremists who have more in common with Mao or Castro than JFK. What a difference a year makes. That seat will easily swing Republican now.
- I hear pitchers and catchers are reporting in Clearwater. ...................http://bullwinkle.toonzone.net/knowall.wav— Alvenada
- Nigel- you said " Due process is what our country has been all about for most of our history. Your hatred and fear "............. Yes for American citizens. Fine. The left acts as if these people are garden variety criminals. Liked they just robbed the 7-11. I have no hatred or fear whatsoever. For you to jump to that conclusion is blissful ignorance and fits a common narrative that the left has about conservatives. I love my country as I am sure you do and I recognize we are at war. We don't try the enemy in our civilian court system. KSM was caught overseas and was the mastermind of 9-11. Even the Obama admin. is backtracking from giving KSM his " due process". A Military Tribunal was in order until Obama stopped it.
- NIGEL: Spin didn't just turn into an extremist, and I'm surprised that he doesn't condemn Obama for having any trial with his we-cannot-afford-it mantra. We cannot afford trials or confinement would seem to fit his thinking.— Talvenada
- Nigel- You have derided the drone attacks and the civilian casualties but only when brought to your attention. We barely hear a chirp from the code pink crowd now. Occasional you can get them to admit that Obama is carry out many of the same policies as Bush but they seemed to have lost the vitriol. I think it's hypocrasy at its worst. Amusing that now that Democrat is President their not as anti war as the used to be.
- SPIN BORO MIKE: It's easy to see with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see.— Talvenada
- Nigel- you said " Yikes, Mike, you've turned out to be an extremist. Your statements sometimes frighten me. You don't want due process for those you consider terrorists. You just want them executed,"........................Apparantly Obama's Press secretary would like to see terrorists executed. Robert Gibs said "KSM will be “tried, convicted, and likely executed,” will “meet his maker””......... Any defense attorney would argue to dismiss the KSM case due to a tainted jury pool.
- SMike, re your 5:41 post: where do you come up with this stuff? You said, and I quote: "But now the left could care less about civilian deaths, drone attacks, bombs falling from the sky, etc." I can hardly count how many times I've said on this site that I am appalled by drones and the civilian casualties they cause. On a later post you indicated that those of us on the left try to hide our positions. I certainly don't. I'm proud to have the positions I hold. Otherwise, I wouldn't have them. I think maybe you hold liberals in such disdain that you assume we wouldn't want anyone to know what we think about issues. Yikes, Mike, you've turned out to be an extremist. Your statements sometimes frighten me. You don't want due process for those you consider terrorists. You just want them executed, presumably without proof of their actions. Due process is what our country has been all about for most of our history. Your hatred and fear -- or whatever -- wants for us to turn our back on that basic tenet? Seriously, that's scary. Go there, and the next step is that someone like you gets into office, and anyone who disagrees with you is in the same boat. Frightening. Really.— NigeltheMastiff
- JIM R: Firstly, I'm a Mod Dem. Secondly, if you didn't understand my last post, it states that Conse 'Pubs--like SPIN--are for The UN resolutions to go to war, but against The UN saying that wouldn't approve The Iraq War. Ergo, CONTRADICTION!!!— Talvenada
- P diddy- Vice President Joe Biden said Iraq "could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You're going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You're going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government."................mmmmmm? Thank you President Bush!
- Smike, First and foremost - you don't know me.My posts in opposition to liberal posters are ususlly regarding abortion. Most times I am limited by my interest in the topic or time, a limit you don't seem to have (20+% most days!!) Who are the regulars libs here ? Tal? I can't figure out what he saying most of the time. Besides, I don't share your definition of what a lib is on this board.— JimR
- pdiddy- again a sophmoric approach. The french were cheating on the Un Sanctions and were making miillions circumventing the UN For Food program.
- P diddy- No, we just believe that we are at war and that we should not process our enemy combatents in our civilian courts.
- http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-phil-jones-finally-proves-al-gore-right-—-the-debate-is-over/....................... What is Al Gore going to be doing now. Any chance they will strip him of the Nobel Peace Prize?
- But I think it's frightening that many on the right consider support for due process and habeas corpus to be "liberal" positions.— p-diddy
- Even British intelligence thought the U.S. was inflating the case for Iraqi WMD's. And it's pretty clear now, given all the people who were familiar with the intelligence and the decision-making who now say the White House wanted a particular intelligence conclusion about Iraq. You mentioned Bush's image in 20 years, I think he'll be remembered as one of the worst presidents, I really do.— p-diddy
- The U.S. and its allies could have presented a resolution for invasion before the U.N. but chose not to do so, because they knew it would have been vetoed (in fact, they were told by the French delegation and others that it would be vetoed), so the U.S. went ahead and took unilateral action. The Secretary General of the U.N. himself said the U.S. invasion was a breach of U.N. charter.— p-diddy
- DIDDY DO: This is what Spin ignored about those UN resolutions. ................... Posted 08:03 PM, 02/11/2010 Talvenada SPIN BORO MIKE: Bush deserves ALL the credit for getting us into Iraq, but the resolution from The UN? Is that the same UN that you could knock down 12 floors, and it would make no difference? The same UN that Bush didn't care what they had to say about our attacking Iraq? The same UN that was against the The Iraq War? The same UN that found no WMD? The same UN that Conse 'Pubs dissed with disdain, and did NOT respect?— Talvenada
- Jimr- Oh please. Do you ever challenge a liberal poster? Not very often if at all. It's fine dude. That's just the game they left tries to play to hide who they truly are. I know you( LOL) You are all moderates, independents, former GOpers and the such.
- Smike, I didn't say I wasn't on the left - you just keep making assertions that I am, my support for using military tribunals and not closing Gitmo in direct response to your previous rants having been disregarded. I'm OK with your decision.— JimR
- Well JimR, we don't know if this radical cleriq is dead or alive. What we do know is that we fired missiles at his suspected location from a drone. In case you don't remember this is the cleriq that the Ft Hood terrorists contacted before pulling off his terrorist attack.. Perhaps you remember this incident. Obama told us it was just an " isolated incident". I thin that was before they did their research............http://pibillwarner.wordpress.com/2009/12/24/muslim-cleric-anwar-al-awlaki-killed-in-yemen-drone-attack-along-with-30-other-al-qaeda-dirtbags-as-they-worked-on-suicide-vests-merry-christmas-usa/
- Smike, so divergent views on the conservative side are just "..two different people" but any views by some who disagree with you are the voice for an entire group. OK. --"...we never know if we got the bad guys or not." Wow, that's the argument that was used against unlimited, uncharged detention at Gitmo. You have really gone soft on us.— JimR
- Pdiddy- That is a very somphormic view of Iraq. They violated 17 UN Resolutions including the 1991 cease fire agreement. They were a state sponsor of terrorism. ...... see link..........http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/html/final/eng/eng_n/saddam.htm............................. The war was authorized with bipartisan congressional approval and the warrent of popular accpetance. Husseins regmine had packed over 300,000 people into mass graves. see link......http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/pdf/iraq_mass_graves.pdf.......... used chemical weapons in warfare, started two wars, never came clean with UN weapons inspectors, and Al Qaeda was present in Iraq before the 2003 invasion. see link.........http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1986706/posts..............
- Swedes: You only call them "terrorists" because our government said they were. The Supreme Court is on my side of this argument, by the way.— p-diddy
- Swedesboro: First off, there is solid evidence at this point that the U.S. government chose to inflate Iraq's WMD capability. The fact that you bring up a $2,000 bounty given out by the Iraqi government for suicide bombings makes you look silly. And if armed aggression against a nation's neighbor is the criteria, we ought to be at war with many, many nations (including Israel). This is old hat.— p-diddy
- Pdiddy- I have no problem with our government not giving these punks trials. They are terrorists and deserve to be promptly executed. If Obama were to concede a smidge and say " yea know what, I disagree with Bush on many issues but on the war on terror and the war on Iraq, maybe he had it right ".... I would have a lot more respect for Obama if he would do that.
- JimR- you said " Smike, "Cheney says that Obama is pretending not to be at war, while Thiessen says that Obama is way too much at war." You can't have it both ways here. Which narrative is it?"................ First of all they are two different people. Thiessen's point is that if we captured the terrorists we could get more intelligence. Like we did with KSM. Firing hell fire missiles from 4000 feet may or may not kill the terrorists. Sometimes it just ends up killing civilians and we never know if we got the bad guys or not. Bush employed both tactics. Bottom line is that you can't come crying to us about being labled weak on terror when your side ( and please spare me that you aren't on the left) renames the war on terror the " overseas contigency operations " or calls terrorism " man caused disasters" or gives a man who was going to plead guilty at a military tribunal a " show trial " in NYC. Silly us for labeling you weak on defense.
- Swedesboro: It's not a question of choosing a narrative. The fact is they (neither Obama or Bush) are not giving many prisoners (ahem, I mean "detainees") trials. The government can't pick and choose who will receive a trial based on the likelihood of obtaining a conviction.— p-diddy
- JimR- Still Independent was telling me that none of the climate changers were saying the snow is proof of global warming. I was posting articles written in the last week that show that is precisely what the " warmers" are now telling us. It is all rather comical to watch. What ever the weather does it's proof of glbal warming. But If I were to point out it snowed in Georgia in South Carolina this past weekend the "warmers" would tell me that is just "climate. "
- Dick Polman: I noticed "irrelevant" misspelled as "irrelevent". Just sayin'.— p-diddy
- The climate hoaxers are slowing coming clean. East Anglia professor Phil Jones now says " for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming."..................... Tell us something we don't know professor. I can hear Still Independent getting all fired up as a write this. He'll be on here in short order telling me this direct quote ins't what the professor said. No one wants to admit they have been duped but it is funny watching Still Independent cling to this hoax.
- Smike, life has been getting in the way lately and I'm not keeping up. Your link (5:08) makes a point against a position that you normally hold. What am I missing?— JimR
- Smike, "Cheney says that Obama is pretending not to be at war, while Thiessen says that Obama is way too much at war." You can't have it both ways here. Which narrative is it?— JimR
- pdiddy- you said " Consider the ramifications for our Constitution and liberty. If our government can imprison people without charges, deny them a trial, declare any U.S. citizen an "enemy combatant" without evidence (via the Military Commissions Act), can spy on us without obtaining a warrant, and tortures prisoners...geez, wake up!"................. apparantly you didn't read Polman's column. Bush tried terrorists in our courts. You did read it right? You can't have it both ways here. Which narrative is it?
- Pdiddy- you said " here isn't a "war on terror" (if it is, why did we attack Iraq?).............. That is about as oblivious to the facts as one can get. Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism. There wasn't any doubt about Hussein giving the family of any suicide bomber in Israel a nice big check for $ 20,000. And here is the legacy of terror that was the Sadaam Husein regime. ............... http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/pdf/iraq_mass_graves.pdf
- pete137: Nice straw man argument. I hadn't heard that liberals were overlooking civilian deaths when it came to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.— p-diddy
- Wow! It is hilarious how the narratives have changed on war on terror. To hear the left tell it now, the Bush Admin. treated everyone in our criminal courts and never strayed outside our civilian justice system. But for the past 8 years it twas the left that had the opposite narrative about Bush's handling of terrorists. Oh, how they told us it was wrong to put them in Gitmo and try them in military tribunals. Oh how we were killing innocent civilians in the dead of night. But now the left could care less about civilian deaths, drone attacks, bombs falling from the sky, etc. Now the Obama admin. is claiming credit for the fledging democracy in Iraq. No thanks to anyone on the left other than Lieberman for sure. Soon to be private citizen Reid declared the " war is lost ". Obama said the surge was a " double down on failure". No the left in all there phony spirit of caring and concern would have allowed the killing fields of Hussein to continue. Thank god Bush had the courage of conviction because the useful idiots on the left will have much egg on their face when we look back on this 20 years from now. Columns like Polman's annoy me to no end. It tells half the story and completly revises the arguments the left made for the past 8 years.
- There isn't a "war on terror" (if it is, why did we attack Iraq?). Terrorism is a tactic. And consider the ramifications if this is a "war" in the real sense - this means that our government can permanently assume war powers (because a tactic can never be defeated). Consider the ramifications for our Constitution and liberty. If our government can imprison people without charges, deny them a trial, declare any U.S. citizen an "enemy combatant" without evidence (via the Military Commissions Act), can spy on us without obtaining a warrant, and tortures prisoners...geez, wake up!— p-diddy
- CD75: How do you know as person is a terrorist if the we won't grant them fair trials? Yours is a fascist mindset. I don't mean that as hyperbole. It actually IS a fascist mindset.— p-diddy
- Still Independent- From the previous blog. These types of stories were all over the place the past week. ..... The warmers are trying to spin it, that the snow is because of global warming............. Once again Still " Independent " you have proven my point that you just blatently cast the proof out of hand. You respond to half of it and remain silent on the rest. Case in point Dr Geigengack from U of Penn. and Dr Lindzen of MIT. It is amazing. If I told you the snow is white you tell me its black. There are no bounds to your utter denial of facts...... anyway here is the link .................http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/strategist/2010/02/snowpocalypse.php
- The 300 terror convictions is a little high. When the New York University's Center on Law and Security broke down the convictions into categories " There are probably less than a dozen cases against people in the Islamic jihadist framework who have been convicted in federal court of serious terrorism-related crimes comparable to many of the Guantanamo detainees" http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/feb/12/barack-obama/obama-claims-bush-administration-got-190-terrorism/— Mike Welbourn
- Polman - The drone attacks do not indicate strength. Rather they indicate weakness. Instead of actively engaging the terrorists, which would be more risky for our soldiers, but would return valuable intelligence, we are sending safe, indiscriminate drone attacks out, and taking out a few terrorists...along with the intel that they possess and a bunch of civilians. If Bush were using this tactic, there would surely be outrage among liberals that he was killing too many civilians. Its funny how liberals' opinions on collateral damage change drastically when a democrat is in office.— pete317
- I think it is a little bit of puffery for either administration to call Iraq a success. If we are honest, we will all admit that we did not go there to install democracy but for resource reasons. Where is the ROI? Because let's not forget that this war has a substantial price tag. You know, the one we cut taxes to fund. I'm still waiting for the powers that be to show me the money here (the money that didn't go straight into the coffers of those fortunate enough to be in bed with the previous administration). I hope to see more tangible assets than being assured "safety" from mushroom clouds and yellow cake. Time will tell, I guess, but it is too early for any gushing from Biden or Cheney.— puttinonthefoil
- CONSE 'PUBS: Why didn't Bush listen to Cheney in the last 2 or so years? If Bush played the Iran war card of Palin, Palin would be VP now.— Talvenada
- tom et al, where is your reponse that this adminstration had grabbed more terrorists than your heroes? And why do you folks keep repeating the lies that Obama never mentions "war" or terrorists?" How about you go back and listen to the SOTU speech or his speech before the repub congressional group. Count the many times he used those words, if you can count that high. None of you had any problem with the way the shoe bomber and moussoaui were prosecuted. Only because it is Obama is there a problem. Despite giuliani's faux history,the bushies did not keep us safe. They were warned and smuggly disregarded the info because it came from Clinton holdovers. Their actions promoted more terrorists throughout the world. Stop being hypocrites and admit the truth for once.— mike l
- Rauol : while I tend to, well to be frank, despise Dick Cheney, you are overstating the Plame affair. While it was highly unethical to do what he had his staff do, it wasn't illegal. If nothing else, the statute is written so as to make it extremely difficult to get a conviction.— still_independent
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- "We are one terror attack away from President Cheney. Liz Cheney." THAT would BE a terrorist attck.— Abbey_Robe
- How can Biden claim Iraq as an Obama succeess story? He was kidding right? That is a big reach. And for Biden to say the Iraqi War wasn't worth the terrible price after he voted for it and spoke out about getting rid of Saddam is the real rewriting of history:) Also, when you stop calling it a 'war on terror', when your own AG's former law firm defended terrorists pro bono, when you propose trying enemy combatants in criminal court when they were about to plead guilty, when you speak of closing gitmo before you have a plan, when you keep saying it is isolated incidents & when you mirandize a terrorist 50 minutes after he was captured you make our country less safe, imho.— NEPhilly
- Today, Polman. Tomorrow, Will Bunch. Later this week the Editorial Board will weigh in as will stacked letters to the editor. eventually every liberal opinion writer in America will weigh in, all on the side of treating terrorists as gently as possible. And they will all side against Cheney, even though Obama will do everything Cheney tells him to do.— tr88
- Mark Thiessen was Jesse Helms' longtime foreign polioy advisor.— anonymous
- tom: I responded to you on the prior blog. I appologize for using turbo tax for my taxes. Say what you want about the stimulus, but I did a clunkers deal AND got to write off the sales tax.— still_independent
- Comment removed.
- Man, tom. You couldn't wait to jump in with the Republican radio talking points, eh? SHEEP!— HandNik
- Funny how Polman does not mention the fact that the military commission process was not established when either Ried or Moussaoui were arrested/captured; that Moussaoui had been read his mirand rights BEFORE 9/11 even happened; that the Moussaoui trial had given Al Qaeda some of our intelligence gathering methods (i.e. the fact we had been able to intercept Bin Laden's cell phone calls; they found documents give to Moussaoui's attorney in an Al Qaeda safe house; etc.). It's also great how Biden on Larry King called Iraq the greatest achievement of the Obama administration. Perhaps he is not the best person to have out there touting foreign policy either. Final note....bye bye Bayh.— tom - wilmington, de
- We are one terror attack away from President Cheney. Liz Cheney.— tr88
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- and on the flip side, i didn't see many Dems commend the Bush Admin for trying those "criminals" in court. Military tribunals are for the hardened terrorists. The American prison system isn't going to reform those terrorists.— palmyra21
- There are safeguards in Federal Criminal trials to keep classified information secure. We sure as hell don't want to do ANYTHING in the Cheney way whre OUR rights are stomped on. Quite a few things came out - the listening in on the telephone calls which was much more expansive than just suspected terrorists was my favorite. The Bush unilateralist approach was a failure - let's make sure we don't make that mistake twice !!!— FormerGOPer
- Comment removed.
- "Trying the shoe bomber was a mistake." Why? did he go free? I think going with the process that gives you a 90% chance of conviction rather than a 33% chance of conviction is the correct thing to do. Plus, where is the evidence that getting mirandized stopped the underwear bomber from giving us intel? According to the head of the FBI he is currently cooperating and we are getting intelligence. One reason for that is we got help from his family. Help we would not have gotten if we disappeared him in Gitmo. Look, it would be one thing to argue that all a-rabs are guilty and we should throw them all in the dungeon and torture them if you could show some effectiveness to that method, but no one has shown that those actions give us good actionable intel. There is a reason that the military, the FBI and many members of the Bush administration were against those tactics, they don't work.— kathy in blue bell
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Trying the shoe bomber was a mistake. Why make the same mistake twice?— Comrade Noodlehead
- Obama says: 1) there is no "war on terror", 2) mirandizes terrorists and pays for them to have a lawyers, 3) wants to close Gitmo, 4) wants to try CIA agents, 4) makes apologies for America defending itself, 5) took a vacation for three days before he spoke about the Detroit bomber. Obama is more concerned about pushing his commie health plan then protecting America.— Comrade Noodlehead
- Another example of GOP intellectual deceit. The fact Cheney receives any credibility at all amazes me.Whats next-Cheney saying he was against the war before he was for it?— DerfT
- Obama is weak, and his record shows it. Yes, actions do speak louder than words for this so-callled President. Obama never saw a terrorist he did not want to mirandize.— CD75
The difference between the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber is that there is now precedent and a legal framework/justification for a military commission. We did not have that with Richard Reid. Another big issue is trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in Federal Court - does that mean he gets access to the same intel being used to try him? That doesn't sound smart. And what's worse, the group that is supposed to have "interviewed" the underwear bomber DOESN'T EXIST: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/28/AR2010012803511.html
1
Popular Posts
About this blog
Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.
ARCHIVES
All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.
Search this blog:
Blog Roll
- American Spectator
- David Limbaugh
- Free Republic
- Glenn Reynolds
- Hugh Hewitt
- Human Events
- John Hawkins
- Matt Lewis
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Opinion Journal
- Power Line
- Red State
- The Brody File
- The Daily Caller
- Town Hall
- Weekly Standard
- Center for American Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos
- David Corn
- Huffington Post
- Media Matters
- Mojoblog (Mother Jones)
- Open Left
- Political Animal
- Salon's War Room
- Talking Points Memo
- Tapped
- The Democratic Strategist
- The Grey Matter
- Unclaimed Territory
- Andrew Sullivan
- Attytood
- Chi Tribune's The Swamp
- CJR's Campaign Desk
- CNN's Political Ticker
- CQ Politics
- FactCheck.org
- Gail Collins
- Howard Kurtz
- Mickey Kaus
- NBC's First Read
- Obit
- Political Wire
- Politico
- Politics Daily
- Pollster.com
- Real Clear Politics
- The Atlantic Wire
- The Fix
- The Moderate Voice
- The Plank
- USA Today On Politics
- Wonkette
Classifieds:
Site Services:
Partners: