WH: Some Critics 'Serving the Goals of al Qaeda'*

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/02/wh-some-critics-serving-the-goals-of-al-qaeda.html

WH: Some Critics 'Serving the Goals of al Qaeda'*

In an oped in USA Today, John Brennan -- Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism -- responds to critics of the Obama administration's counterterrorism policies by saying "Politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering only serve the goals of al-Qaeda."

Brennan writes that, "Terrorists are not 100-feet tall. Nor do they deserve the abject fear they seek to instill."

In the oped, titled "'We need no lectures': Administration disrupts terrorists’ plots, takes fight to them abroad," Brennan writes that politics "should never get in the way of national security. But too many in Washington are now misrepresenting the facts to score political points, instead of coming together to keep us safe."

The administration op-ed is in response to a USA Today editorial entitled "National security team fails to inspire confidence; Officials’ handling of Christmas Day attack looks like amateur hour."

(more at the link)

 

Too bad you figured this out now. It was just as serving of Al Qaeda's goals over the past few years when certain people were calling the Iraq war "unjust" or "illegal" or (quoting Obama) "wrong war, wrong time."

Sucks when you have to govern instead of taking potshots.

 

Once we were there, talking it down did no good and certainly extended things longer than they would have.

 

First, (since I wasn't around for Vietnam), do you feel as if the populace feels the same way about Iraq 2009/10 as Vietnam 1971/2?

Second, what part of courage means you go "make some noise"? In my book, courage is knowing there are two wars going on, that people are coming back in bodybags, and still going to the sound of the guns. Not standing outside a building in a WTO-level protest and making themselves look like clowns. But to each his own.

I understand that "in general" you think that Americans care little about their country or countrymen. There is a group of people who go out with our country's flag on their shoulder every day in order to do their part to make sure that their countrymen don't get blown up. Yet they're reviled by you and called "spineless pussies". I don't quite get that.

 

I was around for Vietnam and the Iraq war protest paled in comparison. In the 1960s, protesters were everywhere and all the time. There were a couple thousand standing outside the White House continuously. The kids didn't want to be drafted to go fight, and it was rather amazing that a tiny country (backed by China however) could hold their own against us - except we didn't try to win.

It certainly did take courage to protest back then. Well, some things. You were likely to take a night stick across the head and spend time in jail for protesting. Kids were shot at Kent State during a protest. It didn't take courage to throw baggies of urine at the cops or spit on the enlisted men as they returned.

The protesters then were also traitors. Jane Fonda and outfits like Students for a Democratic Society literally went to North Vietnam and gave aid and comfort to the enemy and recorded propaganda that was broadcast to our troops. This time around, they simply uttered the "support the troops" mantra but undermined the effort at every opportunity.

I have huge respect for you and your service. Serving the country in the military is a noble career.

Regards

 

I'm actually not sure about the meaning of "going to the sound of the guns". Is that military-speak for "Charge!"?

If so, I'd agree that is courage (or stupidity, depending on the situation). But it's not a sort of courage that the average American can express (except with our charge cards).

Well, yes. If you define courage as something that only the military can exhibit, the rest of us won't be courageous.

You think by "in general" he meant specifically "the military"? I think he was speaking of the average American, and the average American is not in the military.

barfo

 

I think the protesters have no convictions. Their intent wasn't to stop the wars or change policy, but were politically motivated to drag down Bush's presidency.

In the process, they were as helpful to our enemies as Fonda and her ilk were to the North Vietnamese. It gave them propaganda, and it gave them a certain knowledge that all they had to do was wait it out and we'd tuck tail and leave.

They were certainly heard. The Democrats took over congress in 2006 promising to end the wars and bring the troops home. If they were true to their words, they would have stopped the funding. It's a lot easier to stop these things than it is to get things passed, especially when you have a majority, even more so when you have a majority in the House.

To be concise, I am convinced that the protests were to drag down Bush (who had much higher approval ratings than Obama ever did), not caring if comforting the enemy was one of the effects.

 

Wow, you sure live in a black and white world today.

I am convinced that you are assigning motives to thousands of people you don't know.

barfo

 

People say and do things. Not necessarily the same things. I assign motives to thousands of people I don't know because of what they do.

 

Or based on your own biases, it seems.

I would be willing to bet that there are a wide variety of reasons people protested the war. Some, I'm sure, did indeed want to bring down Bush. Some believe war is morally wrong. Some thought this was a stupid, unprovoked war. Some just wanted an excuse to protest. Probably a bunch of other things I'm not thinking of right now.

You conclude they all have no convictions because that's what you want to believe, not because there is any rational basis for that belief.

barfo

 

It has nothing to do with biases, it has everything to do with peoples' actions.

If they had convictions, they'd have picketed outside the white house 24/7/365 in large numbers.

If they had convictions, there wouldn't have been the "we support the troops" mantra, since the troops weren't drafted and volunteered in big numbers to go and fight in those wars.

Then there's the whole adopting cindy sheehan (who's both nuts and stupid) thing.

 

Why aren't you outside the white house 24/7/365? Is it because you lack convictions?

Moderation is ok. It's ok to be anti-war and not hate soldiers.

And that shows people don't have convictions?

barfo

 

Conviction by proxy is no conviction.

I voted for a guy who'd have brought the troops home in 2004. I suspect you voted for a guy who promised to increase the size of the military. Who has convictions?

 

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/was...update-larry-king-iraq-obama-sarah-palin.html

Joe Biden update: Iraq one of Obama's 'great achievements'

Who knew?

Thank goodness, Vice President Joe Biden went on CNN to chat with Larry King Wednesday night. So many think things are not going so well for the Democrat administration, as The Ticket chronicled here.

Many Americans recall the ex-Sen. Biden's Democratic primary plans to give in to Iraq's fractious factions and carve the country into three territories. And even more probably recall Biden's boss' plan to halt the Iraq war years ago. As long as it got started anyway without the permission of the then state senator.

Plus, of course, the vehement opposition of the Nobel Prize winner to the 2007 American troop surge of you-know-who from Texas that Obama knew for certain was only going to worsen sectarian strife there. (See 2007 video here.)....

[video=youtube;P_igpyewuzQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_igpyewuzQ&feature=player_embedded[/video]

Well, of course, it didn't turn out that way, thanks in large measure to the brave service of hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops who served in that war-torn land and helped peace to break out despite the loud political acrimony back home over their role.

Now, the Obama-Biden pair that opposed the Iraq war and its tactics and predicted their failure is prepared to accept credit for its success.
It seems that Biden, who's from Delaware when he's in Delaware and Pennsylvania when in Pennsylvania, is certain now that Iraq will turn out to be one of the Obama-Biden administration's greatest achievements.

No, really.

Here's how Biden put it to Lar:

I am very optimistic about -- about Iraq. I mean, this 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.

I spent -- I've been there 17 times now. I go about every two months -- three months. I know every one of the major players in all the segments of that society. It's impressed me. I've been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences.

Biden did not elaborate on what all the administration's other "great achievements" were so far.

No doubt, Iraqis too are very thankful for that 2008 U.S. election. (Full King transcript here.)

-- Andrew Malcolm