Even before Chris Wallace had his
ass handed to him by President Clinton, and even before the airing of the ABC/Disney Smear-umentary "Path to 9-11", Ann Coulter got smacked down by guest Host Kirsten Powers on Hannity and Colmes as she tried to claim...
"As for catching Osama, it’s irrelevant. Things are going swimmingly in Afghanistan.”
Further as I
previously posted In her August 23 column -- "http://townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=what_part_of_the_war_on_terrorism_do_they_support&ns=AnnCoulter&dt=08/23/2006&page=full&comments=true">What Part of the War on Terrorism Do They Support" -- Coulter repeated the false claims that Democrats "oppose the National Security Agency listening to people who are calling specific phone numbers found on al-Qaida cell phones and computers" and "oppose the Patriot Act." Introducing Coulter on Your World, Buttner stated: "You do a great job in your editorial of ... listing it all out, and when you do, it's very interesting to see -- they're really good at saying what they're against, aren't they?" Buttner later appeared to concur with Coulter's false assertion that Democrats are "against every part of the war on terror," saying: "You've said it well. The problem is that the administration doesn't always go out there and sell this. It doesn't always go out there and say, 'What are the Democrats for in this war on terror?' " Buttner then asked Coulter: "Do you think the getting out there and selling themselves and fighting against the Democrats -- that finally we're going to get the Republicans out there to fight?"
President Clinton called it a "Disinformation Campaign" - and he was precisely correct. Republicans are desperate to hang their hat on the meme that Democrats are "Weak on Terror?", but during the critical time prior to 9-11 where were they?
As
Washington Monthly and
William Rivers Pitt pointed out in August - they were standing in the way on nearly every initiative that then-President Clinton attempted to implement against growing Global Terrorism.
-- Republicans blocked 1995 bill provisions to allow swifter deportations and court viewing of sensitive evidence
-- Republican controlled congress blocked roving wire taps and new powers to monitor money laundering; Phil Gramm and others lead the effort
-- John Ashcroft and others rejected initiatives to tighten controls on encryption software (encryption used by 1993 bombers and 2001 terrorists)
-- Clinton created the FBI Counter terrorism Center and increased the counterterrorism budget from $78 million to $609 million in four years
-- Clinton signed a National Security Directive in 1998 to destroy al-Quada and seize or assassinate Bin Laden. Multiple assassination attempts were made
-- Clinton's CIA al-Quada unit thwarted bombing attempts in Los Angeles, New York, the UN, and the Israeli embassy in Washington DC. They also neutralized dozens of al-Queda cells overseas -- all of this without any fanfare, then or post 9/11.
-- Clinton was labeled by the Right's Robert Oakely as having an "obsession with Osama". Yet now Republicans attempt to claim Clinton, not Bush Jr, was soft on terrorism and ultimately responsible for 9/11
They find it so easy to declare that America doesn't need to abide by the Geneva Conventions, even though it doesn't produce
accurate information, makes it far more dangerous for our troops - and inspires the enemy to
keep fighting rather than surrender, making the war more difficult to win. They find it so easy to ignore the courts when it comes to protecting the privacy of Americans -- "All Wiretaps require a court order" (except when they don't feel like asking for one).
Opposing these methods is
NOT opposing victory in the War on Terror. This far more of a War of ideologies - than of military might - of competiting theories about the nature and direction of civilization. What Democrats need to do is highlight that difference rather than cower from it. We represent a higher vision of how to fight this war. Using Fact, Logic and doing so
within the confines of the Law, the Constitution and our Conscience.
Just as he did prior to the Iraq War, President Bush continues to ignore and dismiss what his own Intelligence Agencies tell him. According to the
New York Times, the latest National Intelligence Estimate (which collects the view of 16 different agencies) stated:
he American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks. The report “says that the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse,” said one American intelligence official.
But
According to Bush...
You know, I’ve heard this theory about everything was just fine until we arrived, and kind of “we’re going to stir up the hornet’s nest” theory. It just doesn’t hold water, as far as I’m concerned. The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East.
Even though the latest
Senate Intelligence Report (PDF) clearly stated that Saddam had tried to Capture Zarqawi - and there was no connection between him and Al Qaeda - Bush Officials continue to claim the
exact opposite.
And Bush himself tries to duck and cover by claiming he never said there was an "operational relationship" between Saddam and Zarqawi -
except that he did.
The Truth is: Saddam Hussein did not attack us. He was not armed with WMD's, didn't have programs in place to create either WMD's or Nuclear weapons - and certain was not about to hand any of these weapons over to terrorists.
But they simply
refuse to believe the truth. They can not accept that torture doesn't work, that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, that our occupation of that nation is sending more young muslim men into the open arms of Al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas then ever before.
The Truth: WE. ARE. LOSING. THIS. WAR.
Iraq is falling apart. Afghanistan is going to hell and a hand granade.
Do Democrats have a strategy to win? Well, yeah - the first thing to do is for America to Stop LYING TO itself.
We fucked up. Big time. Bush shouldn't have been given the authority to invade Iraq in the first place. They should have let the UN Inspectors finish their job first. (Once it was made clear that Saddam was already disarmed,
he might have become the one with the insurgency problem - not us) They should have used more troops to maintain the peace after the initial attack was over. They shouldn't have let Katie O'Biern's husband hire inexperienced political partisans to oversee (and consquently fuck up) the
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/16/AR2006091600193_pf.html">Iraq Reconstruction Effort, not to mention let $8.8 Billion disappear into the thin air between their ears.
They should have caught or killed Osama Bin Laden at
Tora Bora.
Coulda. Shoulda. Woulda. Ok, What do we do now?
Again as President Clinton has recently stated, Iraq is in a state much like that of Bosnia and Kosovo. Three distinct ethnic groups are commiting violence against each other, vying for control of the country and it's natural resources. The Loyaties of the Iraqi Army are questionable - but Clinton, with the support of both Russia and Europe was able to bring together a consensus that ended the violence in Bosnia, stopped the ethnic cleansing and brought Slobodon Milosevic to justice.
The same came be done in Iraq, if we reach out and seek help from our allies while insisting that the Iraq People take thier country back from those who would rip it apart. They can't expect us to take the bullet for them forever.
Unfortunately none of that is going to happen under this Administration. But with a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President - it just might.
And
that's what the Neo-Cons are truly afraid of. They have to maintain this Deliberate Disinformation Campaign, because that's the only way they'll be able to hold on to power. They don't mind losing to Al-Qaeda, or losing to the insurgents in Iraq. They don't mind destorying out national integrity in the process. None of it matters because they can simply spin another set of lies to make it seem like it's someone elses (Clinton's) fault. The way to really get under their skin is to make sure they lose - big time - in November. And then again in '08. It's the only way to bring a little
factiness back into our Government.
Win the War at the Ballot Box, then we can end the War on Common Sense.
Vyan
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(990 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
