Archive for category foreign policy
How Ostensibly Patriotic Americans Help Al Qaeda Win the War on Terror
Posted by Lance Haley in 9/11, Conservatives, Politics, Sarah Palin, War in Afghanistan, War on Terror, al Qaida, foreign policy on March 11th, 2010
The very nature of terror is best explained by the various elements of it’s definition: a state of intense fear, often intentionally induced in a population by the actions of others for political purposes.
The present War on Terror, as it has come to be labeled, was initiated by Al Qaeda with the first bombings of the World Trade Center in 1993, and culminated in the final attacks and destruction of those buildings on 9/11. The ends of those attacks were achieved in that Americans have now lived in a state of persistent and intense fear going on for nine consecutive years.
The subsequent failures to complete additional terrorists attacks on the United States since 9/11 are not near as important as the mere affect that those attempts have on the psyche of the American public. After all, the achievement of the singular objective of creating terror does not require that anyone be killed or maimed. To the contrary. In fact, it is simply the capacity to maintain a steady level of an intense feeling that the potential for harm is always present in our minds that determines the success of Al Qaeda. In that sense, they have certainly surpassed their expectations.
Even more important to the goals of Al Qaeda is the general breakdown of the civil, political and economic fabric of America. To the extent that those elements of our social structure begin to crumble and dissolve into complete turmoil as a result of the fear that has been instilled in us, the greater the degree of success the terrorists will have achieved in reaching those goals. Once again, on that basis, the terrorists are achieving their objectives.
As we bear witness to the daily political and psychological assaults on our fellow Americans by others who pretend that they are somehow more patriotic and superior because of their personal philosophies, we should stop and ask ourselves these questions:
First - to what extent do these unwarranted criticisms of the patriotism of other Americans merely increase our fear of terrorism?
Second – to what degree do these personal attacks on other Americans tear at the fabric of our social and political structure, thereby inadvertently facilitating the goals of the terrorists?
Finally – does wrapping oneself in the American Flag make you anymore American than others?
I think most of us know the answer.
Can Liz Cheney Really Keep America Safe?
Posted by Lance Haley in 9/11, Conservatives, Crime & Punishment, Dick Cheney, Fox News, Legal & Justice, Media & Communication, National Security, Politics, War in Afghanistan, War on Terror, al Qaida, foreign policy on March 11th, 2010
ATTICUS FINCH (Gregory Peck) in “TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD”
Hardly!
Why? Because she advocates the use of fear that rises to the level of McCarthyism, as demonstrated in the recent video released by her political organization, Keep America Safe.
A significant number of well-respected Conservatives have deeply criticized the video’s characterization of current Justice Department lawyers as Un-American because of their previous legal representation of suspected terrorist detainees. One of the greatest callings in the American legal system is defending both the unpopular and the guilty. This role is epitomized by the lawyer Atticus Finch in the movie “To Kill a Mockingbird“, rated as the best courtroom movie of all time by the American Film Institute.
Liz Cheney is a lawyer. If she attended her classes in law school, she should have a basic understanding of the Constitution and U.S. Supreme Court precedent, as well as the principles of American Jurisprudence, all of which ensure due process for everyone who is charged with a violation of the laws of the United States, regardless of citizenship. Her failure to grasp those most fundamental principles of the American justice system only further undermines any semblance of credibility regarding her legal or political opinion.
One of her former law professors, the esteemed Richard A. Epstein, of the University of Chicago School of Law. said it best: “There’s something truly bizarre about this.” Which only begs the question: Is she a moron, or just pathologically shameless and void of any conscience? Maybe it runs in the family?
Most importantly, however, is the real reason why Liz Cheney cannot “Keep America Safe”.
If she relies on the argument that America was much safer from an attack by terrorists during her father’s tenure with the Bush Administration, one need look no further than the Presidential Daily Brief of August 6, 2001, titled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.”, in order to completely discredit this notion. Her father publicly admitted in May of 2002 on Fox News that he read the brief, and then attempted in vain to dismiss it’s warnings as inconclusive, while simultanously advocating that the brief not be released for public disclosure. Interesting . . .
As this author has pointed out in the post titled “Failing to Connect the Dots: The Lights Were Blinking Red“, that evidence is the most damning indictment of Dick Cheney’s part in the collective negligence of the Bush Administration’s failure to prevent the attacks on 9/11. No wonder he did not want you to read it’s contents. To compound matters even further was their colossal failure to capture or kill Osama bin Laden at the battle of Tora Bora, Afghanistan in December of 2001. Simply put, Dick Cheney obviously has no valid standing to criticize the Obama Administration’s policies regarding terrorism and the prosecution of terrorists.
By extension, as well as by her own volition, neither does Liz Cheney.
Case closed.
Memo To Dick Cheney: Me Thinks Thou Doth Protest Too Much
Posted by Lance Haley in 9/11, Conservatives, Dick Cheney, Politics, War in Afghanistan, War on Terror, al Qaida, foreign policy on February 14th, 2010
Shoe Bomber Richard Reid – Poster Child for Dick Cheney’s Hypocrisy
This morning on NBC’s Meet the Press, Vice President Joe Biden responded to former Vice President Dick Cheney’s attacks on the Obama Administration’s handling of accused Christmas Day terrorist bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. As Biden accurately stated, Cheney is “”not entitled to rewrite history. He’s not entitled to his own facts“, correctly pointing out that the Bush Administration also prosecuted shoe bomber Richard Reid in a civilian court. This author just commented this past week on the duplicity with which you and other Republicans are terrorizing the American people over this nonsense, after your Administration tried over 150 terrorists in civilians courts – including one of the 9/11 co-conspirators.
This blog contains a number of entries addressing Cheney’s constant attacks on the current Administration, and why he has absolutely no standing to criticize Obama; particularly because of the hypocrisy pertaining to the decisions and policies of the Bush Administration – specifically, their failure to prevent the terrorist attacks on 9/11, and the subsequent blunder that led to Osama bin Laden’s escape from Tora Bora, Afghanistan ninety days later.
Playing armchair psychologist is fraught with dangers of misdiagnosis, as well as the tendency towards over-generalization of certain symptoms as definitive indicators of a specific pathology. Nevertheless, and admittedly at the risk of the cognitive dissonance in ignoring my own advice to the contrary, I will venture a psychological explanation on why Dick Cheney’s persistent revisionist history reveals the depth of his pathological dissonance. Which may be why Cheney is rated the most unpopular Vice President in modern history – even surpassing Dan Quayle (say it ain’t so Dick).
“If an action has been completed and cannot be undone, then the after-the-fact dissonance compels us to change our beliefs.” What most often occurs in the aftermath of undeniable factual evidence of an action that betrays our personal beliefs or opinions is a growing increase in dissonance in direct relationship to “the importance of the subject to us, how strongly the dissonant thoughts conflict, and our inability to rationalize and explain away the conflict.
In other words, when we cannot reconcile our beliefs and opinions with the undeniable existence of facts that contradicts them, we defend our position even more zealously. Denial of the Holocaust by people like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – who ironically may be Jewish - is a stark example of this behavior.
It is William Shakespeare’s often misquoted poetic commentary [as in the body of the subject line of this entry] that is the most famous historical observation on this human condition:
“The lady doth protest too much, me thinks.”
Homer Simpson Republicans Terrorize U.S. Over Terrorists’ Trials
Posted by Lance Haley in 9/11, Conservatives, Dick Cheney, How and Why We Get Screwed, Politics, Sarah Palin, War on Terror, al Qaida, foreign policy on February 7th, 2010
Terrorism is about creating fear.
Republicans are now clearly trying to create fear in the minds of the American public about the Obama Administration’s prosecution of terrorists in civilian courts. They are insinuating several things: one, that terrorists are “enemy combatants”, and therefore should be tried in military courts; two, that allowing them to be tried in civilian courts will only invite another attack on U.S. soil; third that these defendants are not entitled to any constitutional rights; and finally, that Obama is soft on terrorism.
These constitutional law geniuses include half-term Governor Sarah Palin (R-Alaska), Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), former Vice President Dick Cheney (Chief Republican Hypocrite – Washington, D.C.), and Chief Conservative spokesman Rush Limbaugh (former drug addict, and college drop-out).
Amazing how incensed these Conservatives are about this “recent” decision to take accused terrorists to trial in civilian courts, particularly after the Bush Administration tried over ONE HUNDRED FIFTY terrorists in the same federal courts, including such high-profile cases as 9/11 co-conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui and shoe bomber Richard Reid.
Just in case any of you other hypocrites out there have also conveniently forgotten, Reid was going to blow up a plane on an international flight bound for the U.S.
“D’oh“!
P.S. Since yesterday, when this was posted, Senator Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) has proposed cutting off federal funding for terrorists trials in civil court. Add his name to the rapidly growing list of Homer Simpson constitutional law geniuses and conservative hypocrites.
Fighting both the Islamic Terrorists, as well as the Financial Terrorists with Terror
Posted by Lance Haley in 9/11, Bailouts, Banking, Business and Money, Capitalism, Credit Card Industry, Economics, Financial Crisis, Government, How and Why We Get Screwed, National Security, Politics, United States, Wall Street, War in Afghanistan, War on Terror, Wealth Disparity & the Ultra Rich, al Qaida, financial industry, foreign policy on January 15th, 2010
Al Qaida and Wall Street understand how to use terror!
First, you place American citizens in deep fear of some unimaginable catastrophe by destroying two very tall skyscrapers full of people, or by sending the global economy into an almost irreversible tailspin. Second, you continually remind them through repetitive conditioning (suicide bombers on planes or wide-spread bankruptcies and unemployment) that it could happen again tomorrow. Finally, you then reap the results of their irrational behavior from the resulting Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD): 1) two debt-laden wars, with the associated horrific physical deaths and wounding of tens of thousands of innocent young soldiers; 2) financial system-breaking bailouts, with huge profits for a select group of well-connected banks, as well as obscene bonuses for the well-heeled financial terrorist executives who reside at the top of those businesses.
The answer to the problem?
Well on the first front, President Obama and his advisers seem to understand that General McChrystal’s “urge to surge” in Afghanistan was only an appeasement to military strategists, and simply moves more targets (soldiers) into closer proximity for the Islamic terrorists to attack. More importantly, Obama and company also understand that terrorizing the Islamic Terrorists is a far more effective and efficient use of resources.
This strategy was first articulated in Obama’s campaign for President, wherein he declared that he would not hesitate to send large numbers of drones into the Afghanistan-Pakistan border area to bring the fight to our enemies in their own backyard. Guess what? It is working.
As one resident of the region was recently quoted, “[w]e have become used to the drone attacks, but now people are scared as they are coming every night.” Israr Khan Dawar, a 17-year-old student in Mir Ali, a town in the North Waziristan region of Pakistan which is controlled by Islamic militants, said “more noise means they are flying lower, and that means an attack is more likely.” Sadly, these civilians are collateral damage in an unfortunate war that they have been drawn into as a result of the reckless behavior of those around them.
As for the second front (the Financial Terrorists), we need a scorched-earth strategy like Colonel Kurtz employed in the movie Apocalypse Now, and not some lame federal “banking fee“. Obama should temporarily nationalize the ten largest U.S. banks, starting with Goldman Sachs, throw their management out, replacing them with people who will act without reckless abandon in search of profits and then make money the old-fashioned way – loaning it out at reasonable rates of interest.
Now THAT would sufficiently terrorize Wall Street.
Unfortunately, it is likely far too late. The time to have moved on this would have been one year ago, when they were at the mercy of the Feds. They won that war, and now we ARE screwed.
P.S. For all you “Capitalists” out there who would label such a drastic measure as “Socialism” – that’s what we have been doing for the past year - you better find a more cogent response. Besides, as Nouriel Roubini (”Dr. Doom”)suggested in the Wall Street Journal inteview, we would only ”nationalize” this sector of our financial system temporarily. It would seem prudent at that point to break up these banks into smaller entities, impose moderate regulations on them (especially with usury rates of 18% on credit cards), and spin off the trading and investment side of the firms - regulating them in move inventive ways. We would have then re-privatized them all within twelve months.
President Obama, that would have sufficiently vanquished the Financial Terrorists, and further given pause to Wall Street’s minions, forcing them to rethink how they are going to conduct business going forward.
Obama’s Answer to Battling Terrorism – Terrorist Profiling?
Posted by Lance Haley in Conservatives, Cultural Issues, Dick Cheney, National Security, Race, War on Terror, al Qaida, foreign policy on January 7th, 2010
Today President Obama is addressing the security lapses that occurred regarding the attempted terrorist bombing on Christmas Day in order to ensure the American public that his Administration is taking the proper steps to review and remedy the procedures that led to inaction on the information that was provided to security agencies, as well as silence his critics. Johnathan Alter of Newsweek even went so far as to suggest that the President needs to negotiate with Dick Cheney in order to get him to stop criticizing the Administration on it’s War on Terror.
That is utter nonsense. Dick Cheney is a hypocrite, as Alter himself acknowledges, and thereby irrelevant in his lame attempts to critique this Administration.
More to the point is Howard Fineman’s intelligent and inciteful essay in Newsweek noting that President Obama has several options to battle terrorism, suggesting one that I have long been philosophically opposed to on the principle of protecting the constitutional rights of individuals: profiling terrorists. Why, you might ask would I oppose this tactic? Before you prejudge my reasoning – “oh, this is just more Liberal gobbly-gook” - try reading clear to the end of this post. You just might be surprised by my conclusions.
The reason for my opposition to any type of profiling is the overwhelming evidence that there is a significant and unwarranted risk that it will ultimately result in few arrests and too many innocent people being wrongfully detained or otherwise unfairly targeted by security and law enforcement, and which has been scientifically proven to be both ineffective, as well as a waste of precious time and resources. That does not even speak to the “human cost” of targeting innocent people.
Moreover, law enforcement officials are widely known to rely on a multitude of nonsensical reasons under the guise of “reasonable suspicion” – which is not ironically the legal standard for a lawful search and seizure – as a legal basis for stopping someone because the officer thinks they may be involved in a crime. Many people would say, “well, so what . . . we have to sacrifice the emotional security of a few for the personal security of the many.”
This argument has been forwarded for over a century subsequent to a long line of U.S. Supreme Court decisions upholding individuals 4th Amendment right to be free from unlawful search and seizure. Very few Americans have any real indepth knowledge as to the historical basis for this fundamental right recognized by our founding fathers, as well as a comprehensive understanding of the evolution of case law protecting us from unwarranted and excessive intrusions upon our privacy by agents of the government.
But I digress from the central point of the issue of terrorist profiling.
Although I will always remain highly skeptical of law enforcement offficer’s motivations and justifications as a result of my professional experience (I have caught too many of them lying in court, while under oath), there just might be a reasoned and measured manner for accomplishing our national security objectives with a modicum of protection for the innocent. On the other hand, no one should pretend that profiling will easily identify and stop those who intend to kill innocent people and terrorize us. There are no simplistic solutions to this difficult and contentious issue.
The deeds of evil men are rarely so apparent until after they are completed.
Dick Cheney: Have You Even Read the 9/11 Commission Report?
Posted by Lance Haley in Conservatives, Dick Cheney, How and Why We Get Screwed, Politics, Uncategorized, War in Afghanistan, War on Terror, al Qaida, foreign policy on January 1st, 2010
Dick Cheney, you were given fair warning to “quit ditherting, and just fade away.” And just like taking candy from a baby, every time you open your mouth to criticize President Obama, you make it so easyto keep pointing out your transparent hypocrisy, as well as the abject failures of your administration.
So now you say President Obama is “trying to pretend we are not at war“?
Dick Cheney, read this chapter of the 9/11 Commission Report - and specifically the Presidential Daily Brief given on August 6, 2001 , from the National Security Archives – then let’s talk about who was trying to pretend we were not at war. In case you cannot count, that would be just 35 days before 9/11.
Memo To Obama’s Critics Regarding Afghanistan . . .
Posted by Lance Haley in Government, Uncategorized, War in Afghanistan, War on Terror, al Qaida, foreign policy on January 1st, 2010
If anyone on the Right thinks you have a basis to criticize President Obama’s policy in Afghanistan, you are about to have your arse handed back to you on a paper plate.
An official report from the U.S. Army’s Combat Study Institute titled “A Different Kind of War“, is due to be published this Spring. The study reveals that the failed strategy in Afghanistan was evident as early as 2003, and was due in part to the fact that significant resources were being drawn away to support the war in Iraq. It should come as no surprise to any well-informed American that the planning for the invasion of Iraq commenced immediately after 9/11, and combat operations began in March of 2003.
The correlations are beyond damning.
The Battle of Tora Bora, Afghanistan in 2001 – the Ghost that Keeps on Haunting the U.S.
Posted by Lance Haley in Media & Communication, Uncategorized, War in Afghanistan, foreign policy on December 11th, 2009
Where is the outrage?!?
If this blogs’ coverage of what happened in Tora Bora seems to be getting redundant, there will be no apologies. New information about the single worst foreign policy decision in American history is not something to sweep under the carpet when so many U.S. military soldiers have sacrificed their lives because of this blunder. The American press can ignore this . . . I refuse to let this go until someone is finally taken to the proverbial woodshed over this disaster.
And the hits on Dick Cheney’s credibility just keep on getting handed out on a silver platter . . .
Finally, after eight long years, somebody finally affirms what I have been saying all that time. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, U.S. commander of forces in Afghanistan, and the man who “urged the surge” that President Obama just accommodated, testified before Congress this week, stating that capturing Osama bin Laden is the lynchpin to defeating the al – Qaida terror network.
OK, one more time. Remember, Bush stood on the smouldering ruins of the World Trade Center on 9/12, proclaiming through his bullhorn that ”the men who brought down these towers would be brought to justice”, and days later said he “wanted bin Laden, dead or alive.” Yet, it was Bush’s own Secretary of Defense – Donald Rumsfeld – who created the strategy that enabled bin Laden to escape from Tora Bora in December 2001.
Dick Cheney later downplayed the importance of capturing bin Laden in 2006, and his own outgoing Army Chief of Staff at the Pentagon, Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, echoed that same sentiment in 2007, stating that “I don’t know that it’s all that important, frankly.” It should be noted that Shoomaker was previously the head of U.S. Special Operations Command – the unit that was searching for the previous six years for bin Laden after he escaped into the mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan in the Battle of Tora Bora. They never found him.
Finally, the biggest indictment of the failure of these men, and a rebuke of these impotent attempts to veil their incompetence by dismissing the primary objective of the U.S. military in Afghanistan , is the report by the U.S. Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee. Before you blame this current Adminstration for ANYTHING that occurs in Afghanistan – have a nice fat plate of crow.
The War in Afghanistan could have been over – you know, “Mission Accomplished” – in December 2001. If it were not for so many lost U.S. lives, one could laugh at the irony. Now there will be more lives lost in pursuit of an objective that was within the grasp of our political and military leaders (I use the term loosely) eight years ago.
How pathetic and unconscionable.
The Seminal Moment of the War in Afghanistan
Posted by Lance Haley in Government, How and Why We Get Screwed, Politics, War in Afghanistan, War on Terror, foreign policy on December 1st, 2009
If you really want to understand the truth as to what happened in the war in Afghanistan shortly after 9/11, please watch this Youtube video clip from a PBS Frontline documentary and read the report released yesterday from the Foreign Relations Committee of the U.S. Senate.
As citizens of the United States, we owe it to ourselves, the men and women who place themselves in danger each day, and most importantly to those who have sacrificed their lives in the line of duty these past eight years.