Eugene Robinson On Fear: Chicken Little Is Way Off Base
If there's one thing we love to do more than anything, It's beating on the MSM. Eugene Robinson, while he might be a smart man, is utterly incompetent. Below is his column from the WaPo today.
Once upon a time we had a great wartime president who told Americans they had nothing to fear but fear itself. Now we have George W. Bush, who uses fear as a tool of executive power and as a political weapon against his opponents.
Stop! World War II didn't start for the world until 1938 when Hitler shot across the Polish border. It didn't start for us until after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. Yet the quote that Mr. Robinson is citing--"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself"--was uttered in 1933 by FDR. And Pres. Bush isn't using fear as a tool. I see nothing in which he has done that provokes images of fear in anyone's head. Maybe Mr. Robinson has seen too many previews for this movie lately.
Franklin D. Roosevelt tried his best to allay his nation's fears in the midst of an epic struggle against fascism. Bush, as he leads the country in a war whose nature he is constantly redefining, keeps fear alive because it has been so useful. His political grand vizier, Karl Rove, was perfectly transparent the other day when he emerged from wherever he's been hiding the past few months -- consulting omens, reading entrails -- and gave the Republican National Committee its positioning statement for the fall elections: Vote for us or die.
Stop the tape! Yes, FDR's fireside chats were nioce, and kept the nation up-to-date on the progress of the war. But the allegation that the president is constantly "redefining" the war is preposterous. Our fight--this war--has always been about terrorism; especially in regard to al Qaeda, and any of their supporters. That is why we went into Afghanistan, and why we went into Iraq. If Mr. Robinson thinks that al Qaeda didn't end up in Iraq until after we invaded, I suggest reading this book, and I note that he is referring to the media-driven myths in his book. The same myths that Mr. Robinson seems so eager to use.
Democrats "have a pre-9/11 worldview" of national security that is "deeply and profoundly and consistently wrong," Rove said. The clear subtext was that Americans would court mortal danger by electing Democrats. Go forth and scare the bejesus out of them, Rove was telling his party, because the more frightened they are, the better our chances.
Well, no offense, but it's the truth. We have the Democrats who feign indignity over the NSA intercept program, and call the president a criminal for using it. Yet, no one called Clinton, Bush (41), Reagan, or Carter a criminal for doing the exact same thing. It is the Democrats who bring up the body armor issue; one that was being taken care of by the Pentagon. It was the Democrats who have routinely accused the administration of prisoner abuses and torture, which is a practice that this administration doesn't condone or engage in. And it's the Democrats who are calling for a removal of our troops from Iraq. Just like they did it in Vietnam, they are doing it again right now. A withdrawal from the field of battle will be seen as a surrender in the eyes of our enemies, and will only serve to embolden them. I can't believe that Mr. Robinson is truly this foolish. So, yes. The Democrats do have a pre-11 September mindset, and unless we want another 11 September to happen, we don't want those people in charge.
To cultivate fear for partisan gain is never a political tactic to be proud of, but Rove's prescription of naked fearmongering is just plain reprehensible when the nation faces a shifting array of genuine, serious threats. This is a moment for ethical politicians -- and, yes, these days that seems like an oxymoron -- to speak honestly about what dangers have receded, what new dangers have emerged, and how the imperatives of liberty and security can be balanced.
Excuse me, Mr. Robinson, but where have your liberties gone? Can you be open and honest for America, please? Have you had your phone's tapped, like Harry Belafonte seems to believe that his are? The president is ethical. His administration is ethical. What is reprehensible is writers like Mr. Robinson, and Mr. Henry, and Mr. Alter, and Mr. Hiltzik, and Mr. Stein that proclaim to be intelligent people, yet fail to show that in their everyday writings; preferring instead to take the latest talking points from the moonbat fringe. We are focusing on the threats that affect this nation. The NSA intercept program is designed to do exactly that by going after foreign agents within this nation communicating with their brethren across to the pond. The president's powers in utilizing such methods have been upheld by the courts. I'd suggest that Mr. Robinson do some research, especially involving United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan which specifically grants the president his power and states that no legislation or regulations may trump that power.
From the likes of Rove, I guess, we shouldn't expect anything more noble than win-at-all-costs. But we do have the right to expect more from the president of the United States, and while Bush gives off none of Rove's Sith-lord menace, he has made the cultivation of fear a hallmark of his governance.
OK Mr. Robinson, put up or shut up time: Elaborate, please. What state of fear has the president put us in? It was the president after 11 September that told everyone in the nation to go back to business as usual. Go to work. Go to school. Do your errands, and don't worry, we'll handle the bad guys. Indeed, it can't be argued that the administration hasn't done that job. Since 11 September, this nation hasn't had one attack on it's soil. The terrorists made good on one attack, and killed nearly 3000 of us. But they haven't succeeded anywhere else. As was evident by bin Laden's recent message where he calls for a "conditional truce," we are beating our enemy like a bongo drum. Much like the same way we beat on fools like Mr. Robinson.
At his news conference yesterday, Bush was asked again about the domestic surveillance he has ordered the National Security Agency to conduct without seeking warrants -- a program that seems to violate the law. In his meandering answer, the president kept throwing in the phrase "to protect the American people." I suspect that's a line that tests well in focus groups, but it doesn't really say anything. The fact that we expect any president to protect us does not obviate the fact that we expect any president to obey the law.
I can see that Mr. Robinson either never went to law school, or he's forgotten what he was taught. The president isn't breaking the law. Once more, with feeling, and from the cheap seats: The AUMF is a declaration of war by Congress. As John Yoo points out in his new book, Congress doesn't need to "declare war" per se, but merely authorizes the use of the military at the request of the president. The words "declare war" don't need to be within that authorization for it to be a declaration of war. Whe the authorization has been given, it activates the president's powers as Commander in chief of the armed forces to conduct whatever actions necessary to protect the nation and it's citizens. This includes the NSA intercept program, which is anything but domestic spying. Words mean things, Mr. Robinson. I suggest you use them within the proper context.
Bush mentioned the new tape from Osama bin Laden that surfaced the other day, calling it a reminder that we face "an enemy that wants to hit us again." That's certainly true, but the warning would carry more gravitas if Bush and his administration didn't brag so much about how thoroughly al Qaeda has been routed and decimated. Is anybody keeping track of how many "No. 3" or "No. 4" al Qaeda lieutenants U.S. forces claim to have eliminated?
As a matter of fact, Mr. Robinson, we are. And several websites are also keeping track of those that have been killed. What he fails to pick up on is not all the leaders we are looking for have been killed. Many have been captured. Al-Libbi, caught last year in Pakistan, and became al Qaeda's number three when we caught Mohammed Atef. Said al-Adel is bin Laden's security chief, and like al Libbi, assumed many of the duties from Atef after his capture. That's something that Mr. Robinson seems to overlook. Our enemy simply doesn't leave a gaping hole when someone is captured or killed. They fill that hole. To use his arguments, senior al -Qaeda leadership will continue to be announced as "dead" or "captured" so long as their are bodies to fill those holes. It falls to the media to inform the public that so-and-so became such-and-such after we killed this guy, or captured that guy. Don't blame the president on the ball being dropped by the media.
And Americans would be better able to measure the threat from bin Laden if Bush and the rest of his administration didn't argue -- when it gives them an edge -- that Iraq is the "central front in the war on terrorism." If Iraq is the main event, then bin Laden, huddled in some cave in northern Pakistan, must be just a sideshow, right? But of course he's not a sideshow, he's the author of the Sept. 11 attacks, so what does that make Iraq? The answer seems to depend on whether, at any given time, Bush believes that cultivating fear of bin Laden or stoking fear of a terrorist spawning ground in Iraq would better help his administration achieve its ends.
Iraq, right now, is the central front on the war. Why is it that the media idiots can't seem to include Iraq in the overall global war, and they are constantly separating it. To take a page from the icon he invoked, did FDR separate World War II into the War on Germany, the War on Italy, and the War on Japan? No, he didn't. He made sure that every American knew the war was an overall effort against all three Axis powers. It's the media and the Left that keep making this distinction. When this war started, our main front was in afghanistan. Knowing what we did about Saddams' ties to terrorists, our invasion of Iraq made it the central front of the war. And contrary to the beliefs og Mr. Robinson and others in his dying trade, terrorists were already in Iraq, including those members of al Qaeda. Again, they'd be wise to refer to the book I cited earlier, which lists exactly the contacts that Saddam Hussein had with al Qaeda, dating back to the mid-to-late 1990s. And we haven't forgotten about bin Laden. In fact, the Hellfire strike on the al Qaeda meeting in Damadola, Pakistan. We thought we had kileld al Zawahiri in that strike, but evidence is slim on that. But we haven't forgotten about bin Laden. If he pops his head up--coward that he is--we're likely to lop it off and hand it back to him.
The thing is, fear works. The administration successfully invoked the fear of "mushroom clouds" to win support, or at least acquiescence, for the invasion of Iraq. By the time it was clear there were no weapons of mass destruction, the fear of losing to terrorists on the "central front" had been given primacy. We stopped hearing the name bin Laden so often -- no need to bring attention to the fact that he remained at large -- until reports emerged of secret CIA prisons, torture and domestic spying.
Did Mr. Robinson completely miss this story yesterday? Gen. Sada's story seems to mesh with the World Tribune report that the UN knew Saddam had smuggled his WMDs into Syria, and with Mr. Miniter's excellent investigative reports showing that we have found WMDs and their components in Iraq. The "there's no WMDs in Iraq" argument is falling apart all over the place. Second, if Mr. Robinson would care to go back over the president's State Of The Union Speech from 2003, prior to his asking Congress for the approval to go into Iraq.
Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.
The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country, and our friends and our allies. The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's legal -- Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempt to hide those weapons from inspectors, and its links to terrorist groups.
Both of the above quotes come directly from the speech. I've highlighted to key points involving terrorist ties. THAT is why we went into Iraq. Indeed, the WMD threat was great enough, but his ties to terrorism--the very possibility that those weapons could be handed off to terrorists--was enough for us. He had to be stopped. He had to be disarmed. And I love how he brings up the topics that might prove to be fatal to the MSM; the NSA intercepts, the rendition flights, and the CIA detainment centers abroad were all classified programs. The MSM will receive no quarter should people be prosecuted for revealing them. Under United States law, what the media did was illegal. These were not declassified programs; all three were current and running clandestine operations being carried out by the US government during a time of war, which only lends to their sensitivity.
Bin Laden does remain a threat. He would hit the United States again if he could. We do expect the president to protect us. But a great wartime leader rallies his citizens by informing them and inspiring them. He certainly doesn't use threats to our national security for political gain. He doesn't just point at a map and say "Boo."
We are kept informed on what we need to know. Mr. Robinson, and a great deal of his colleagues--idiotarians, one and all--within the MSM seem to think that everything our government does needs to be told to the public. There is such a thing as a "need to know" basis, and unless something is illegal, the public doesn't need to know. The MSM seems to think that this stuff is illegal, but being a journalist doesn't make one a lwayer; that being, they have no clue as to what they're talking about.
Mr. Robinson suffers from the same delusion that the MSM suffers from on a daily basis. That is they think they know all, they think they know what's best, and in truth they know next to noithing at all. This editorial piece proves that like his collegaues, Mr. Robinson is a know-nothing hack like all the rest. Were he to mount a serious, sound argument, that would be one thing. But his piece is a mix-mash of irrelevant historical events--of which he continuously misrepresents int he piece--and of innuendo that has no merit. And that lack of merit and intelligence is exactly whart the MSM suffers from today.
Publius II
If there's one thing we love to do more than anything, It's beating on the MSM. Eugene Robinson, while he might be a smart man, is utterly incompetent. Below is his column from the WaPo today.
Once upon a time we had a great wartime president who told Americans they had nothing to fear but fear itself. Now we have George W. Bush, who uses fear as a tool of executive power and as a political weapon against his opponents.
Stop! World War II didn't start for the world until 1938 when Hitler shot across the Polish border. It didn't start for us until after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. Yet the quote that Mr. Robinson is citing--"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself"--was uttered in 1933 by FDR. And Pres. Bush isn't using fear as a tool. I see nothing in which he has done that provokes images of fear in anyone's head. Maybe Mr. Robinson has seen too many previews for this movie lately.
Franklin D. Roosevelt tried his best to allay his nation's fears in the midst of an epic struggle against fascism. Bush, as he leads the country in a war whose nature he is constantly redefining, keeps fear alive because it has been so useful. His political grand vizier, Karl Rove, was perfectly transparent the other day when he emerged from wherever he's been hiding the past few months -- consulting omens, reading entrails -- and gave the Republican National Committee its positioning statement for the fall elections: Vote for us or die.
Stop the tape! Yes, FDR's fireside chats were nioce, and kept the nation up-to-date on the progress of the war. But the allegation that the president is constantly "redefining" the war is preposterous. Our fight--this war--has always been about terrorism; especially in regard to al Qaeda, and any of their supporters. That is why we went into Afghanistan, and why we went into Iraq. If Mr. Robinson thinks that al Qaeda didn't end up in Iraq until after we invaded, I suggest reading this book, and I note that he is referring to the media-driven myths in his book. The same myths that Mr. Robinson seems so eager to use.
Democrats "have a pre-9/11 worldview" of national security that is "deeply and profoundly and consistently wrong," Rove said. The clear subtext was that Americans would court mortal danger by electing Democrats. Go forth and scare the bejesus out of them, Rove was telling his party, because the more frightened they are, the better our chances.
Well, no offense, but it's the truth. We have the Democrats who feign indignity over the NSA intercept program, and call the president a criminal for using it. Yet, no one called Clinton, Bush (41), Reagan, or Carter a criminal for doing the exact same thing. It is the Democrats who bring up the body armor issue; one that was being taken care of by the Pentagon. It was the Democrats who have routinely accused the administration of prisoner abuses and torture, which is a practice that this administration doesn't condone or engage in. And it's the Democrats who are calling for a removal of our troops from Iraq. Just like they did it in Vietnam, they are doing it again right now. A withdrawal from the field of battle will be seen as a surrender in the eyes of our enemies, and will only serve to embolden them. I can't believe that Mr. Robinson is truly this foolish. So, yes. The Democrats do have a pre-11 September mindset, and unless we want another 11 September to happen, we don't want those people in charge.
To cultivate fear for partisan gain is never a political tactic to be proud of, but Rove's prescription of naked fearmongering is just plain reprehensible when the nation faces a shifting array of genuine, serious threats. This is a moment for ethical politicians -- and, yes, these days that seems like an oxymoron -- to speak honestly about what dangers have receded, what new dangers have emerged, and how the imperatives of liberty and security can be balanced.
Excuse me, Mr. Robinson, but where have your liberties gone? Can you be open and honest for America, please? Have you had your phone's tapped, like Harry Belafonte seems to believe that his are? The president is ethical. His administration is ethical. What is reprehensible is writers like Mr. Robinson, and Mr. Henry, and Mr. Alter, and Mr. Hiltzik, and Mr. Stein that proclaim to be intelligent people, yet fail to show that in their everyday writings; preferring instead to take the latest talking points from the moonbat fringe. We are focusing on the threats that affect this nation. The NSA intercept program is designed to do exactly that by going after foreign agents within this nation communicating with their brethren across to the pond. The president's powers in utilizing such methods have been upheld by the courts. I'd suggest that Mr. Robinson do some research, especially involving United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan which specifically grants the president his power and states that no legislation or regulations may trump that power.
From the likes of Rove, I guess, we shouldn't expect anything more noble than win-at-all-costs. But we do have the right to expect more from the president of the United States, and while Bush gives off none of Rove's Sith-lord menace, he has made the cultivation of fear a hallmark of his governance.
OK Mr. Robinson, put up or shut up time: Elaborate, please. What state of fear has the president put us in? It was the president after 11 September that told everyone in the nation to go back to business as usual. Go to work. Go to school. Do your errands, and don't worry, we'll handle the bad guys. Indeed, it can't be argued that the administration hasn't done that job. Since 11 September, this nation hasn't had one attack on it's soil. The terrorists made good on one attack, and killed nearly 3000 of us. But they haven't succeeded anywhere else. As was evident by bin Laden's recent message where he calls for a "conditional truce," we are beating our enemy like a bongo drum. Much like the same way we beat on fools like Mr. Robinson.
At his news conference yesterday, Bush was asked again about the domestic surveillance he has ordered the National Security Agency to conduct without seeking warrants -- a program that seems to violate the law. In his meandering answer, the president kept throwing in the phrase "to protect the American people." I suspect that's a line that tests well in focus groups, but it doesn't really say anything. The fact that we expect any president to protect us does not obviate the fact that we expect any president to obey the law.
I can see that Mr. Robinson either never went to law school, or he's forgotten what he was taught. The president isn't breaking the law. Once more, with feeling, and from the cheap seats: The AUMF is a declaration of war by Congress. As John Yoo points out in his new book, Congress doesn't need to "declare war" per se, but merely authorizes the use of the military at the request of the president. The words "declare war" don't need to be within that authorization for it to be a declaration of war. Whe the authorization has been given, it activates the president's powers as Commander in chief of the armed forces to conduct whatever actions necessary to protect the nation and it's citizens. This includes the NSA intercept program, which is anything but domestic spying. Words mean things, Mr. Robinson. I suggest you use them within the proper context.
Bush mentioned the new tape from Osama bin Laden that surfaced the other day, calling it a reminder that we face "an enemy that wants to hit us again." That's certainly true, but the warning would carry more gravitas if Bush and his administration didn't brag so much about how thoroughly al Qaeda has been routed and decimated. Is anybody keeping track of how many "No. 3" or "No. 4" al Qaeda lieutenants U.S. forces claim to have eliminated?
As a matter of fact, Mr. Robinson, we are. And several websites are also keeping track of those that have been killed. What he fails to pick up on is not all the leaders we are looking for have been killed. Many have been captured. Al-Libbi, caught last year in Pakistan, and became al Qaeda's number three when we caught Mohammed Atef. Said al-Adel is bin Laden's security chief, and like al Libbi, assumed many of the duties from Atef after his capture. That's something that Mr. Robinson seems to overlook. Our enemy simply doesn't leave a gaping hole when someone is captured or killed. They fill that hole. To use his arguments, senior al -Qaeda leadership will continue to be announced as "dead" or "captured" so long as their are bodies to fill those holes. It falls to the media to inform the public that so-and-so became such-and-such after we killed this guy, or captured that guy. Don't blame the president on the ball being dropped by the media.
And Americans would be better able to measure the threat from bin Laden if Bush and the rest of his administration didn't argue -- when it gives them an edge -- that Iraq is the "central front in the war on terrorism." If Iraq is the main event, then bin Laden, huddled in some cave in northern Pakistan, must be just a sideshow, right? But of course he's not a sideshow, he's the author of the Sept. 11 attacks, so what does that make Iraq? The answer seems to depend on whether, at any given time, Bush believes that cultivating fear of bin Laden or stoking fear of a terrorist spawning ground in Iraq would better help his administration achieve its ends.
Iraq, right now, is the central front on the war. Why is it that the media idiots can't seem to include Iraq in the overall global war, and they are constantly separating it. To take a page from the icon he invoked, did FDR separate World War II into the War on Germany, the War on Italy, and the War on Japan? No, he didn't. He made sure that every American knew the war was an overall effort against all three Axis powers. It's the media and the Left that keep making this distinction. When this war started, our main front was in afghanistan. Knowing what we did about Saddams' ties to terrorists, our invasion of Iraq made it the central front of the war. And contrary to the beliefs og Mr. Robinson and others in his dying trade, terrorists were already in Iraq, including those members of al Qaeda. Again, they'd be wise to refer to the book I cited earlier, which lists exactly the contacts that Saddam Hussein had with al Qaeda, dating back to the mid-to-late 1990s. And we haven't forgotten about bin Laden. In fact, the Hellfire strike on the al Qaeda meeting in Damadola, Pakistan. We thought we had kileld al Zawahiri in that strike, but evidence is slim on that. But we haven't forgotten about bin Laden. If he pops his head up--coward that he is--we're likely to lop it off and hand it back to him.
The thing is, fear works. The administration successfully invoked the fear of "mushroom clouds" to win support, or at least acquiescence, for the invasion of Iraq. By the time it was clear there were no weapons of mass destruction, the fear of losing to terrorists on the "central front" had been given primacy. We stopped hearing the name bin Laden so often -- no need to bring attention to the fact that he remained at large -- until reports emerged of secret CIA prisons, torture and domestic spying.
Did Mr. Robinson completely miss this story yesterday? Gen. Sada's story seems to mesh with the World Tribune report that the UN knew Saddam had smuggled his WMDs into Syria, and with Mr. Miniter's excellent investigative reports showing that we have found WMDs and their components in Iraq. The "there's no WMDs in Iraq" argument is falling apart all over the place. Second, if Mr. Robinson would care to go back over the president's State Of The Union Speech from 2003, prior to his asking Congress for the approval to go into Iraq.
Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.
The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country, and our friends and our allies. The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's legal -- Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempt to hide those weapons from inspectors, and its links to terrorist groups.
Both of the above quotes come directly from the speech. I've highlighted to key points involving terrorist ties. THAT is why we went into Iraq. Indeed, the WMD threat was great enough, but his ties to terrorism--the very possibility that those weapons could be handed off to terrorists--was enough for us. He had to be stopped. He had to be disarmed. And I love how he brings up the topics that might prove to be fatal to the MSM; the NSA intercepts, the rendition flights, and the CIA detainment centers abroad were all classified programs. The MSM will receive no quarter should people be prosecuted for revealing them. Under United States law, what the media did was illegal. These were not declassified programs; all three were current and running clandestine operations being carried out by the US government during a time of war, which only lends to their sensitivity.
Bin Laden does remain a threat. He would hit the United States again if he could. We do expect the president to protect us. But a great wartime leader rallies his citizens by informing them and inspiring them. He certainly doesn't use threats to our national security for political gain. He doesn't just point at a map and say "Boo."
We are kept informed on what we need to know. Mr. Robinson, and a great deal of his colleagues--idiotarians, one and all--within the MSM seem to think that everything our government does needs to be told to the public. There is such a thing as a "need to know" basis, and unless something is illegal, the public doesn't need to know. The MSM seems to think that this stuff is illegal, but being a journalist doesn't make one a lwayer; that being, they have no clue as to what they're talking about.
Mr. Robinson suffers from the same delusion that the MSM suffers from on a daily basis. That is they think they know all, they think they know what's best, and in truth they know next to noithing at all. This editorial piece proves that like his collegaues, Mr. Robinson is a know-nothing hack like all the rest. Were he to mount a serious, sound argument, that would be one thing. But his piece is a mix-mash of irrelevant historical events--of which he continuously misrepresents int he piece--and of innuendo that has no merit. And that lack of merit and intelligence is exactly whart the MSM suffers from today.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 1:12 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home