Debra Burlingame, sister of the pilot of Flight 77, which crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11, and co-founder of Keep America Safe and 9/11 Never Forget U.S., eviscerates Attorney General Holder in an op-ed in the New York Daily News. Not surprising, she objects to KSM’s being given a civilian-court trial. But the gravamen of her complaint is Holder’s particularly galling defense of his incomprehensible decision, namely that critics are “afraid” to give KSM a trial. Burlingame lets Holder have it. A portion:
How dare this man, who didn’t have the decency to notify victims’ families of his decision to bring these monsters here, imply that we lack courage. Courage is carrying on after watching your loved ones die, in real time, knowing that they burned to death, were crushed to death, or jumped from 100 flights high. Courage is carrying on, even as we waited, in some cases years, for something of our loved ones to bury. More than 1,100 families still wait.
How dare the attorney general suggest that the firefighters who oppose this trial need to “man up” and let this avowed enemy of America mock their brother firefighters in the country’s most magisterial setting, a federal court.
Nor is she going to let his comment about the “trial of the century” go unaddressed: “Well, Mr. Attorney General, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed has put you on notice. He’s going to give it to you. His trial will be lawyer-assisted jihad in the courtroom.”
Burlingame notes that more than 100,000 people immediately signed her group’s letter of protest to Holder (he apparently has not responded). I suspect she’ll have more before this is through.
Holder’s decision to afford KSM all the constitutional privileges of a criminal defendant was entirely unnecessary and will, I suspect, come back to haunt the administration if not reversed in some fashion. But as bad as the decision was, Holder’s roll-out and defense of it, as Burlingame points out, have been even worse.
Well, duh. Reminds me of the dispute in WWII between England and the US as to the best approach to surrounding and squeezing Germany. Churchill was all for cutting off both Germany and the USSR from the southeast, through the Balkans. He turned out to be right about the consequences of NOT doing that. FDR (and his military advisers) always thought it was a bad idea: too much indirect effort, too much of an obvious blocking move against an ally. Who was “right”? Was anyone “wrong”?
In war, politics, and coalitions there are differences of opinion over the ultimate goal and how best to get there. This fact, per se, is not evidence against any one proposal — unless one has a partisan axe to grind. The leftist opinion media does almost nothing but grind axes these days. Their ignorance, as the sparks fly, is colossal.
“And on, and on, and on.”
Oh my gosh, I think you are stating to get it. The Democratic Party is pervaded with dishonest pacifism. Deep in their guts, they don’t “believe” in military action. This is something that occurs because you failed your academic course in Negotiations 101. If ever a dark skinned citizen of the Third World is angry at the United states—they are always presumed to be an innocent victim upset with our imperialistic policies. War is not a nice thing. You should never be interested in war. Of course, the aggressor will return the favor and also decide not to be interested in war, won’t they?
the first part was clever. it doesn’t bear much close examination, who knows how different things would be in 2008 if we hadn’t invaded iraq but still, very creative.
the rest of the column seems like a better arguemtn AGAINST interventionism than for specific instances of it. invading ANY of these countries was and is a bad idea . they are virtually interchangeable. was iraq really worse than yemen or suadi arabia? for the most part no.
“The arguments will continue to chase the U.S. around the globe, and the U.S. will continue to act prudently, if imperfectly, to marginalize or destroy the enemies of liberal democracy”
we have no money or army left.
So, Lester, if we faced equal threats A, B, C, D, and E, would it make the most sense to ignore them all?
Not a penny, even? Not a single soldier, bomb, or bullet?
In my opinion, the first step in coming up with a sensible strategy is to dispense with hyperbole. The defense budget, including supplemental outlays for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, is at about average historic levels going back to World War 2. If you think that threats are worsening, or that in any event the US should maintain or expand its current commitments, the outlays may be low. If you think the threats are declining or that the US should in any case withdraw from its commitments, then the investment is too high. Either way, we’re nowhere near full mobilization of our financial and human resources.
The last sentence in the top post is the most important one: “The very fact that America prevents the worst threats from materializing is what allows for this silly rhetorical fill-in-the-blanks game to begin with.” At some point, the world may be ready to risk a full-fledged alternative to Pax Americana. Most Americans – even the Democrats, heck, even the Europeans and even many of our posturing enemies – still seem to understand or intuit, or perhaps recall on some very deep level, that for now the alternative to US leadership and the post-WW2 security structure is chaos and worse.
” have no money or army left.
Not a penny, even? Not a single soldier, bomb, or bullet?”
yes we have about one of each.
bob miller – =”So, Lester, if we faced equal threats A, B, C, D, and E, would it make the most sense to ignore them all?”
neither saddams iraq, saudi arabia, or iran wants or ever wanted war with the US. they aren’t threats. so elective wars A BC D and E are equally avoidable.
“the world may be ready to risk a full-fledged alternative to Pax Americana. ”
america is ready. who cares what the world wants.
CK: don’t waste your time trying to debate the troglodyte lester. He can’t remain coherent for two seconds, and facts don’t interest him.
By the way, the Army met its recruitment goal of 80,000 new soldiers for FY2007, just as it did in the fiscal year before that. But we have no army left ….
lester, you seem awfully naive to me. First of all, these countries don’t want war with the US because they they know that we’ll turn them to dust in about 19 seconds. If Afghanistan didn’t want to RISK war with the US, then why did they harbor al-Qaeda and refuse to hand them over after 9/11? If Iran doesn’t want to RISK war with the US, then why are they killing American soldiers through proxies in Iraq and elsewhere? Is the US supposed to go to war only when the enemy signs a declaration permitting it to do so? Under what circumstances would it be permissable for the US to go to war? Was American involvement in WWI or WWII justified? Or were fascist Germany and Imperialist Japan not “threats?”
ritchie- no WW1 cand ww2 were not justified, thuogh ww2 became unavoidable. But it was wilsons and FDR’s statecraft that led us to that point. same as our policies in the middl east led to 9/11. the only jsutified wars in our history were the american revolution and the south’s succesion from the north. countries should offer their peoples liberty and posperity and nothing more. my grandfather dropped bombs on german cities. my dad was in saigon. They wasted years of their lives that could have been spent in their communities and with their families.
the entirety of the 20th century was a mitake as far as i’m concern, at least in terms of the growth of government. federa lreserve, sociali security, the draft. it was enlightened in many respects culturally but very dark for liberty.
Jon s- they are offering huge bonuses and lowering their standards significantly to fill out those ranks. face it, even people who support the war aren’t willing to fight it. every soldier doing more than one tour is a testament to that.
regardless of that, we cannot fairly be said to have a SURPLUS of soldiers. anymore we get will go to afghanistan or Iraq.
it’s not a surrender if we don’t care. i don’t care enough abuot the middle east to want to save it. I’d rather spend the money …not at all. I’d rather keep my paycheck and let the world eat cake.
lol sorry about all the typos. that’s pretty bad even for me
Of course all this has to ignore the fact that the majority of Democrats, believing that Bush knew what he was doing, supported the interventions in both Afghanistan and Iraq. It was only after the American people figured figured out that the policies weren’t working that they turned against it. Contrast this the Republican Party, which opposed Clinton’s intervention in the Balkans on purely partisan grounds.
Saddam Hussein never, ever wanted a war with the US?
It’s more accurate to say that he never expected a war. If he never wanted one he would have abided by the Gulf War sanctions. He wouldn’t have continually slaughtered “his” people. He wouldn’t have continued to shoot at Allied aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones. He wouldn’t have scammed the Oil for Food Program. He would have been open and honest about his WMD programs. He wouldn’t have tried to execute GHW Bush.
Hussein did all of these things (and more) because he never expected the US to take him down. That’s a far cry from not wanting a war.
Iran has never, ever wanted a war with the US? Maybe I’ve misunderstood “Death to the Great Satan!” for the past 29 years.
“He wouldn’t have continually slaughtered “his” people. ”
he didn’t slaughter our people
“Death to the Great Satan!” ”
that doesn’t mean they are going to attack us in a military or any other manner.
them hating us doesn’t mean they want war with us. and their part of the world isn’t productive enough for us to care about.
who cares about the middle east?
And I said I wouldn’t stoop to debate with this pathetic loser. Oh well: little lester can’t have it both ways: if we’re broke, as he said earlier, then how can we afford the bonuses? The Army’s standards have absolutely not been lowered one iota for recruitment, that is total BS. And doing more than one tour of duty isn’t a testament that soldiers aren’t willing to fight, it’s just the opposite! Now go pester your friends on the Mahdi Army’s website instead of trolling here.
Mo Lester is a troll. Don’t feed the troll! All you get is a steaming pile.
Of course, it can be fun kicking him around. It’s a public service.
Yoda,
the “surge” isn’t working? Iraq isn’t a representative Republic? Per capita income there isn’t soaring? The Dinar isn’t rocketing skyward? Business ownership isn’t booming? Agriculture isn’t flourishing? A free media isn’t speaking? Exports haven’t resumed for the first time since Saddam seized power? Immigration figures in the last 4 years hasn’t exceeded the emigration figures of the last 40 years?
I guess the Iraqis and the Coalition aren’t reading the same lies that you feed on.
The Republicans opposed Clinton’s bombing campaign against Serbian civilians because it aided Al Qaeda and the other genocidal muslim terrorists. Why do you have a problem with that?
P.S.,
Star Wars was made for children. That explains your comments.
Ziggy: I might offer the same advice re Yoda that I gave to Richard F (and then didn’t follow with various moonbats here): why bother? But we’ve all been there; sometimes the temptation is too great not to respond, if for no other reason then to educate those readers who may find even a small part of the trolls’ responses factual.
On the Kosovo war, there is a myth that is abroad in the land that Republicans, who controlled Congress at the time, didn’t support Clinton’s little air war. In fact, they did. On March 11, 1999, the first vote on the entire subject in Congress, the House voted 219 to 191 to authorize the prez to send US troops to Kosovo as peacekeepers. Then on March 23, the Senate passed a nonbinding resolution authorizing an air war against Yugoslavia. Then they passed a binding resolution by 58-41 authorizing an air war. Then the House voted in favor, and repeatedly voted to keep the war going, as did the Senate.
And our soon-to-be commander in chief, John McCain, offered a bill that authorized the deployment of US armed forces in Yugoslavia — now that was defeated, b/c the Dems as much as the Republicans at that time wanted a small, clean, limited war with as few casualties as possible. So it’s ludicrous to hold that Republicans opposed Clinton’s bombing campaign; just the opposite: if the president said we needed to go to war, which he did, then the Repubs said okay — and some, like McCain, said ‘fine, but let’s do it right and not just limit it to air strikes.’
Jon S.
Oy. I will heed your commenting advice from this point forward. It took my wife 45 minutes to lift my jaw off the floor after I read Lester the Jester’s reply. (And she was once a champion weight lifter!)
this all just stuff. like lester is a muslim, lester is a troll. it’s not substantial.
“if we’re broke, as he said earlier, then how can we afford the bonuses? ”
we are borrowing the money from the chinese. you can spend and still be broke.
“The Army’s standards have absolutely not been lowered one iota for recruitment, that is total BS.”
prove it.
“And doing more than one tour of duty isn’t a testament that soldiers aren’t willing to fight, it’s just the opposite!”
my poiont wasn’t at all theat the soldiers weren’t willing to fight. my point was we are a country of 300 million. if one small group is doing 3 and 4 tours, it must follow that they are taking the place of people who don’t want to join.
again, there are millions of young men and women who are of age and who support this war. clearly, they don’t support it enough to enlist. so for practical purposes, they DON’T support it.
zoggy “t can be fun kicking him around”
Bush is at 19% approval. gordon chang, john podhertz max boot and ziggy zoggy are the trolls, not lester
john E- is she a socialist? hat would explain her shock at my pro liberty sentiments
jon s- “On the Kosovo war, there is a myth that is abroad in the land that Republicans, who controlled Congress at the time, didn’t support Clinton’s little air war.”
we were all alive then mr S, they absolutely opposed it.
Lester, every one of your points is ridiculous agitprop from your shiite and lefty websites, but I love your charge that Bush is at 19% (try the RCP average of 32%, but if you want to cherrypick one poll, as you clearly did, I’ll throw one out there too — the Hotline poll, hardly a conservative organization — and claim that he’s at 39%).
As for Kosovo, I cited congressional votes during a time WHEN REPUBLICANS CONTROLLED BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS, you moron, that showed Republican support for the war. That some Republicans opposed it doesn’t mean that ALL Republicans did. If they did, then these votes would not have passed, now would they? Try documenting something for once.
any person who believes the south’s succession in support of slavery was more justified than our efforts in ww2 to stop the japanese and germans from taking over the world does not deserve serious response.
jon- “No goal, no objective, not until we have those things and a compelling case is made, then I say, back out of it, because innocent people are going to die for nothing. That’s why I’m against it.” Sean Hannity, Fox News
“Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?” Sean Hannity, Fox News
“You can support the troops but not the president.” Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)
“You think Vietnam was bad? Vietnam is nothing next to Kosovo.” Tony Snow, Fox News
“If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain the y have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy.” Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W Bush”
those are pretty prominent names, even today. It’s safe to say opinion was mixed on this issue. “support” is more than just votes.
but you were right about bush’s poll numbers. They are in the low 30′s not 19%
ilan- the constitution gave them the right to sucede. and again, ww2 became unavoidable, but the statecraft of the 20th century was the disaster, not “evil”.
if there had been no treaty of versailes there would have been no hitler. the state is the enemy.
“government is the negation of liberty” – von mises
Lester: this is the last time, I hope, that I will hopefully feel the need to respond to your uninformed, anecdotal ramblings. Quoting a few people in support of an unwinnable argument is not analysis. It is the antithesis of analysis. You are the moron who told us that Republicans did not support Kosovo; now you’re trying to backpedal and say support was mixed. The votes of Repubicans in Congress at the time of the war say otherwise, and quoting a few people doesn’t change that. Support is more than votes? Not when it comes to going to war; what counts are the votes, twit. Everything else is Monday-morning quarterbacking.
I will say one more thing before the re-shunning of lester begins: he earlier said that soldiers don’t support the war. The most important indicator is not general recruitment, which is right on target anyway, but retention in the field among active-duty and reserve personnel. Here is the latest info from DOD:
“All services met or exceeded recruiting goals for the month of December (below) and have surpassed goals for fiscal 2008 to date.” Broken down by service, they are:
Army: 105% of their goal
Navy: 100% of their goal
Marine Corps: 115% of their goal
Air Force: 100% of their goal
Source: http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=11610
So shove your BS about the troops not supporting the war they’re fighting for your ungrateful freedom, lesterino.
Ooops, I only gave the recruitment numbers above and left out the quote about retention from DOD! Here it is: “Active Duty Retention. The Army, Marine Corps, and Navy have all exceeded their retention goals through December.”
Jon S., et al — I feel you, gentlemen. Poor lester has now perpetrated the von Mises quote as a sovereign riposte, as if von Mises said or even implied that government negates liberty in an absolute sense. Von Mises knew well that his was a relative and particular assertion. Assigning government to wield certain forms of force — rather than leaving that to individuals in a state of anarchy — is how we guarantee RIGHTS, as opposed to merely opposing each other with power, with the strong preying on the weak. The interest of liberty, per se, is served by limiting our definitions of rights, and hence the scope and power we cede to government.
Life is full of competing priorities like liberty and rights. It is no intellectual achievement to point that out. The reason Islamism opposes us, however, is precisely that it holds the essentially adolescent view that life is untenable if there are competing priorities and tradeoffs. This view is silly whether it is being used to justify an anarchic vision or a statist one (like shari’a Islam). Most of us, fortunately, leave it behind by the age of 16 or 17.
Jon, I didn’t know Yoda was reffering to all the Republicans in Congress. I thought he was referring to the ones who did vote against bombing Milosovic and serbia. I guess i was dumb to credit him with that much intelligence.
he actually said “government is essentially the negation of liberty” and was speaking generally.
but the government doesn’t provide order. the people we pay through our taxes do. the government doesn’t build roads, our tax dollars do. so you can be an anarchist and value order, just not entrust the state to provide it.
jon s- i didn’t say the troops don’t support the war. nor did I say the army didn’t meet it’s recruiting goals. I said that the fact that guys are on their third or fourth tour is a testament to the fact that there is not a surpluss of people signing up. if 2 million young men joined the army tomorow would guys be even allowed to do that many tours? of course not and why would they want to? their families are waiting for them.
and the republicans who opposed kosovo, some on principle, some because it was clinton’s war, were right to do it. I was against kosovo and iraq and the gulf war. So I’m not looking to suss out any alleged hypocrities, and in fact you brought up the republicans and kosovo before anyone mentioned it. and democrats and republicans actually sued clinton to end it, led by dennis kucinich if i recall.
Bush said “sucess means an exit strategy” and he was right.