"...an utterly corrupt new religion called environmentalism..."
If the history of this planet's climate over millions of years is any guide, we are about to enter a new ice age.
CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper indicated in a 1993 interview with the Minneapolis Star Tribune that he wants to see the United States become a Muslim country.
Preempting The Media: What Went Wrong With This Administration?
By Gary Krasner (03/20/06)
I tend to share the view of some conservatives that this Bush Administration is politically too moderate, or caves to political correctness. For me, that assessment was affirmed last week when the President's National Security Advisor, Stephen Hadley spoke at the Institute of Peace. He was there to discuss the just released National Security Report, for which the media and press made sure to highlight the portion that reaffirmed the doctrine of preemption to prevent Islamist terrorist attacks.
For example, Mr. Hadley didn't have to accept the prevailing view that using military force against Iran would constitute a preemptive act. Iran had already declared war against the U.S. when it attacked our embassy and held our diplomats hostage over a quarter century ago. Their radical Muslim regime has been funding, organizing, training, and recruiting jihadist terrorists to kill U.S. citizens and attack U.S. foreign interests (Israel mostly) for all the years since.
Hadley had at least six opportunities during the extensive Q&A session to point out to the assembled liberal eggheads and journalists at the Institute that in light of Iran's ongoing war against the U.S. through terrorism, using military force merely to destroy the capacity of Iran to produce fissionable materials should instead be construed as a very belated and proportional U.S. response. And oh yes, it would also "preempt" a repressive regime from building a nuclear device to fulfill its threat to annihilate Israel.
Bush's refusal to have direct talks with the Iranian regime was also raised a few times. Hadley's milquetoast response would have made Ronald Reagan retch. He should have said very simply:
"Public diplomacy with outlaw regimes is a lose-lose strategy. For example, high profile discussions with Yasser Arafat led to the empowerment of a corrupt and repressive regime that stole over a billion dollars, thwarted every opportunity for peace, which caused a public backlash that ultimately led to an election victory for Muslim radicals (Hamas). Therefore, no senior official in this administration will sit down and negotiate one-on-one with outlaws. They already know what we stand for and what free nations want. It's up to them to comply."
When Did Administration Mistakes Begin?
The talk today is all about mistakes being made by an exhausted White House staff entering its second term. I think the roots of the current problems that hampers this Administration can be traced to its fumbling in public relations from the very beginning. Throughout this administration, the failure to speak plainly and smartly rebut attacks has allowed idiotic criticism to gain credibility. Last week for example, Clay Bennett, President of the Assoc of Editorial cartoonists, stated on CSPAN's Morning Journal that the detainees at Gitmo have still not been charged with any crimes. He showed one of his cartoons indicating that. Then he said that they're being held indefinitely and not being afforded the protections of the Geneva convention.
Bennett must be under the impression that captured soldiers from the Axis powers, or the North Koreans, or the north Vietnamese---who were all given Geneva protections as POWs---had been charged with crimes. He must think that after the fighting, our forces collected evidence on the battlefield, performed forensics, logged in the evidence, and swore affidavits on the chain of custody, so that prosecutors could charge the enemy soldiers with attempted homicide, or maybe conspiracy to commit murder. POWs representing the Axis powers were also held for indefinite periods, and released on the condition---pursuant to rules of war---that the POWS would be deactivated by the sovereign nations that commissioned them. Who would take responsibility for Al Qaeda combattants if we release them today? Ossama bin Laden?
There are dozens of legal and Constitutional points in defense of the Bush policy, but as ludicrous as Bennett's criticism is, it happens to be among other similar attacks that have become common and deemed justifiable by the mainstream. The reason it has become so is because the Administration was never prepared with an efficient public relations campaign to immediately confront the sort of attacks which it had to have known would flow from Democrats, the liberal establishment, and their friends in the media. I'm not even referring to spin in this instance. Just basic information to educate the public would have sufficed: Defining the varying degrees of due process and habeas corpus, or describing the long and distinguished history of military tribunals and how they're fair and appropriate for these detainees.
Who Is Responsible?
Knowing the inability of the President himself to be knowledgeable and articulate enough for the task, there should have been officials in place to do it. Making the situation worse were misstatements by the President which clouded the nature of this conflict, and adversely affected the prosecution of this war, and the national security reforms that were so urgently needed. These misstatements have confused the public and other nations into thinking that the U.S. is engaged in criminal prosecutions of lawbreakers, and not a war against an external and existential enemy.
First, this is not a "War on Terrorism". Terrorism is used by many groups and nations primarily to instill fear, often through the indiscriminate killing of noncombatants. Rather, it's a tactic, as are fixed flying formations and outflanking an enemy position. Nations don't declare war on tactics. We're at war against adherents to a radical, militant sect of Islam. The casus belli for this war were their attacks on U.S. property, assets and interests throughout the last dozen years, and culminating on Sept. 11, 2001.
Second, President Bush should never have begun the rhetoric that refers to the capture or killing of individuals engaged in terrorism. We are at war against militant Islamist organizations; not individual perpetrators. Sure, like most Americans, I was inspired when Bush said, "whether we bring these people to justice, or justice is brought to them, justice will be done." It sounded great. But it set the huge machinery of government and public comprehension of this endeavor towards ambiguity.
Because during times of peace, our creed is to permit ten guilty men to go free than mistakenly penalize one innocent man. Conversely, during war, we are excused if we kill 10 innocent men in the process of targeting one enemy combatant. An entire town can be bombed during war. But never during peace. Following the attack on Pearl Harbor, imagine President Roosevelt declaring that U.S. forces will track down and prosecute in crminal court every Japanese pilot that participated in the attack!
Whatever efficacy the faulty and vague rhetoric may have had at the outset, the Administration is now reaping the results: Hampered on it's classification and treatment of detainees; resistance against the Patriot Act and reform of law enforcement and immigration matters; the restrictive manner the international community classifies the "enemy"; and the close scrutiny in prosecuting the "war", right down to rules of engagement on the respective battlefields.
Concluding Remarks
Currently, the President in under attack for warrantless surveillance, despite superior legal and Constitutional rationale for it. How could this be? As I was typing out this essay, I heard journalist Juan Williams on Fox News state that "the NY Times gave the President a whole year before it disclosed the NSA program to the public". (He added that the Times withheld it that long out of patriotism.) The newspaper gave him that amount of time to do what exactly? To disclose the necessarily secret program on his own?! To let our enemies know the nature of the program and be mindful that they're being surveilled?! What gives an intelligent journalist like Williams license to make such a foolish statement?
At the risk of sounding like the chorus of Bush critics, it was Bush's own fault. I think President Bush was not mindful that he was heading into a war not just with Jihadism, but also with liberals and the status quo. President Bush understood the nature and tactics of this new enemy posed novel problems, requiring the U.S. to make consequent adjustments from what had been the norm. Clearly defining and communicating this challenge to the public was essential. But he failed in that department. As Chauncey Depew wrote, "The first step towards getting somewhere is to decide that you are not going to stay where you are." And Bush knew we couldn't remain where we were.
I'm not saying that effective advocacy is easy. In many instances, the Administration is faced with inconsistent or self-contradictory attacks---such as the claim that our enemies oppose our occupation and want our forces to leave Iraq now, while other critics claim that our enemies want our forces to remain there to sustain U.S. casualties and keep us bogged down like another Vietnam.
But the administration should have at least made the effort. If the President is unable to speak effectively for himself, then he'd better get someone in his administration who can. Because conservative political pundits alone cannot steal the thunder from of the prevailing anti-Bush hysteria, kept afloat by the liberal mainstream media.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Gary Krasner
Gary Krasner grew up in the Bronx in the 50's through the 70's. He moved to Queens in 1975 after obtaining a B.S. degree in Psychology from CCNY. Today, Mr. Krasner works as a computer graphics artist by day. By night he runs Coalition For Informed Choice, a non-partisan organization that promotes personal freedom of choice in decisions involving our health.
Send Feedback To Gary Krasner
Site: http://www.cfic.us/
UPSSA
United Progressive Socialist States of America
|
"Mexico, Canada partnership underway with no authorization from Congress"
The United States Is Being Overthrown By Our Politicians - "A silent but all-reaching coup is taking place within the
United States. This coup is not being directed by bomb-laden Muslim terrorists, nor will it ever be covered by the mainstream media.
The seditious act is being carried out by our very own elected officials, with President Bush leading the insurrection."
"The FDA has conveniently used the excuse of looking out for consumer safety to increase their perverse regulatory power,
undermine free speech, disrupt commerce, and generally get in the way of helping people improve their health. The "half-truth" of
the safety issue is used as a ploy to reduce the rights of Americans, one freedom at a time. Once again, the FDA is seeking more
police power to intimidate supplement companies. This is one step in an overall FDA master plan to eliminate therapeutic nutritional
supplements from the free market. Those who lose are the American public." The FDA - A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing
|
|
