Former White House and Pentagon official Douglas MacKinnon, Baltimore Sun:
As the candidates and the chattering class point fingers of blame with regard to the financial meltdown and whose economic plan will be better for “Joe the plumber,” Pakistan – with its nuclear arsenal – is on the verge of implosion. Beyond that, a secret report detailed in a London newspaper this month warned that the terrorist threat facing Britain from homegrown al-Qaida agents is higher that at any time since Sept. 11, 2001.
Two major developments involving terrorism and national security and nary a peep from anyone. Why?
Of the two, the Pakistan story is by far the more chilling. According to a report first published by the McClatchy News Service, a top-secret National Intelligence Estimate portrays the situation in Pakistan as “very bad,” with one U.S. official saying it was “very bleak” and that Pakistan was “on the edge.” The report further detailed that the Pakistani military was less and less willing to confront Islamist militants operating in the tribal areas bordering Afghanistan and thought to house Osama bin Laden’s terrorist hierarchy.
While some in both parties and both campaigns may say otherwise, terrorism is not a partisan issue. The first World Trade Center attack happened during the first days of the Bill Clinton presidency but was planned during the closing months of the administration of George H.W. Bush. While the second World Trade Center attack happened less than eight months into the George W. Bush administration, it was planned during the waning months of the Clinton administration. Intelligence experts who study al-Qaida and its offshoots will tell you that these terrorists don’t care if you are liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat. If you are an American, you are the enemy.
During Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s first major interview as Senator McCain’s running mate, Charles Gibson of ABC News raised a topic that has been brought to my attention repeatedly by some Pentagon officials and some of my former Pentagon colleagues. They wonder and worry about what happens to the much-maligned “Bush Doctrine” – which basically amounts to (in conjunction with our allies) destroying these terrorists and their cells where they eat, sleep and plan – should Senator Obama win in November. These officials – a number of whom are not fond of Mr. Bush – worry that if a President Obama drastically scales back or seeks to repeal the Patriot Act, outlaws electronic eavesdropping, extends habeas corpus rights to terrorism suspects and deems aspects of the Bush Doctrine to be criminal, how long before the terrorists reconstitute themselves and hit the U.S. homeland again? It’s a legitimate concern that has been all but ignored by debate moderators, the candidates and the media.
In terms of complacency, these officials feel our nation is mentally back to Sept. 10, 2001. One hopes that after the election, when politics is largely out of the way, we can restore terrorism to the “flavor of the present” – and our coming future.
If not, a financial meltdown may be the least of our problems.
Well, but at least we can then all sit down with Ward Churchill and Obama and discuss the “root causes” that brought about such violence.
Of course, one of the “root causes” for a successful attack that you can almost bet will be “bracketed” will be the scaling back of protections established in the wake of the 911 attacks.
Because such measures are so mechanical. And real intellectuals are more interested in the sociological — because it is from such soft science that one gets a slew of papers published, and tenure granted.
The further irony, naturally, is that the suddenly quiet Joe Biden has very clearly signaled to us that he expects — nay, guarantees — that Obama will be tested by such enemies.
Which raises the question, how soon will he act to repeal the protections that he and his progressive followers (some of whom have posed as “civil libertarians”) have demonized? Or, providing he’s more sensible and pragmatic, what excuses will he offer his supporters, looking for their quid pro quo, when he walks back his earlier “concerns” over the programs now protecting us?
I thought that was lame that the debates never pressed on terrorism policy. They didn’t even ask about America’s relationship with the United Nations. The debates were really a lot the suck I think. I would be embarrassed if I had moderator for the 2008 presidential debates on my resume. Me, I did that. Yay me. Nope. Not something anybody distinguished themselves doing this year.
Please, once you cede power, you are not getting it back, amigo. The president can now spy on designated “enemies” without court review. So you should develop some code for your phone conversations very soon. Maybe “Zomg, the feds are in my front yard!! They will have to take my guns from my cold, dead hands.” should be changed to “Britney Spears flashed her cooze again today.” Which will mobilize your compatriots to come to your aid, or set themselves ablaze – whatever you prefer.
Just sayin…
That’s the really bad part of the press being in the tank and such. If we are attacked during the reign of Baracky the Beneficent after he repeals the Patriot Act, goes along with B. Frank’s 25% decrease in military spending, among other things, they will simply say “Bush created this problem by starting a war, fostered more terrorism, etc.” Fucking socialist doublethink Orwellian scum is what the press has become and Baracky will lead them to the gates of hell.
“The president can now spy on designated “enemies†without court review.”
O goody, enemies in scare quotes. We don’t have any enemies. NPR says so.
I’m not Baracky’s enemy. I’m not even Jewish.
well, no. because I don’t make international calls.
Look at the bright side, Jeff: Since the non-existant “terrorists” (I can use scare quotes too) will try to get the most bang for the buck (or is that bodies for the bang, they’ll prolly nuke a few
Liberal HavensMajor Cities; meaning that the majority of the US will once again be Conservative….… so, win-win and all….
what excuses will he offer his supporters, looking for their quid pro quo, when he walks back his earlier “concerns†over the programs now protecting us?
Either way, don’t you know it will be because of George Bush?
If he makes changes, and we are attacked, it will be because of the Bush policies, and the anger of the world they created. This will work for the full length of the Obama administration.
His excuse otherwise will be that Bush has things so screwed up, he will need to phase the offending policies out incrementally. Then it will be promptly forgotten by everyone concerned. After all, just as Clinton had the revelation that it was now his military, and therefore no longer evil, I’m sure the left will have a similar attitude towards the Patriot Act.
Of course the easiest way to place a nuke for DC is to install it in a piece of dungeon furniture and sell it to Barney Fwank.
The president can now spy on designated “enemies†without court review.
Lisa, every government asserts the right to inspect any item or communication which crosses its borders. That’s not something new that Bush made up.
Me, I’m a little more concerned that Obama has his lawyers sending intimidating letters to student journalists.
Challeron: They always nuke liberal havens. They don’t even know where Idaho or Missouri are. Do you think New York and Washington, DC were bastions of conservatism on September 11, 2001?
When the inevitable sequel comes, it will come to a big, blue city – again.
Woops, I mean they always “hit” liberal havens (thankfully, no nukes have been introduced thus far).
“When the inevitable sequel comes..”
Why is it inevitable? More like self-fulfilling prophecy.
I think bioterror is next really. Something involving lots of puss and inappropriate bleedings. Either that or some devastating but not as exciting agriculture one. They worry about that a lot is my understanding.
Shit, haven’t they (they being the mysterious “officials” that leak shit that scares the crap out of the public at regular intervals) been yapping about how “its not if, but when” for years now?
I’m less concerned with some kind of large scale nuclear type strike than with a more economically targeted attack.
With our economy in the crap shredder the lure of a large scale economic style attack is great. How about a couple of dirty bombs (chemical or radioactive) simultaneously at the ports of Houston and LA? Or, even easier, a coordinated attack on our refining capacity in 2 to four places (Houston, Philadelphia, New Jersey, etc.) The economic impacts of either would be far more devastating than 9/11 and far more practical in it’s damage, if not on a casualty basis. That’s why the due diligence so important and requires a long term commitment and a proactive, constantly evolving strategy.
Lisa, I love you, babe, but the wire tapping is limited to International calls from specific countries and/or individuals and are eventually subject to FISA court review in the relatively rare circumstances that require gaining information without a preexisting warrant. I’m not the least bit concerned that my frequent ravings about stocking ammo and roasting spotted owls and polar bears will result in me being frog marched to a Gitmo.
Fear generated by some political campaign orgnization for the sake of a political advantage is one thing. Fear in the precincts of the men and women charged with monitoring genuine threats to the nation is another.
Biden’s intemperate remarks (in two locations) two weekends ago that resulted in his temporary disappearance from the hustings haven’t helped our national conversation in a number of ways.
1)He injured his own candidate in the first instance. Making us wonder further how we will fare should he come to office and worse, should he ever have to serve as President.
2)He may have injured national security in the second, depending on the extent to which his out-of-the-blue remarks were based on classified briefings to which he and the other candidates are privy and the consequent extent to which our enemies may have been alerted to our knowledge of their plans.
3)He needlessly complicated our own ability to discuss potential national security threats without the time-wasting disentangling we must do to separate Obama specific difficulties from general “state of the world” national security threats which would be present no matter who may be elected President in Nov. These are particularly relevant to us when we face the very rare economic events we do today, economic dislocations which will certainly result in much material suffering all over the world, in advanced economies and in poor economies alike, though where the worst suffering will surely be in the latter. In such times we will find ourselves worrying eventually, I think, not just about our current crop of enemies in Islamic Extremist form, but from sources not now being thought of by our people at large. World War II didn’t happen in an economic vacuum.
And the survivors will vote for the politicians whose solution to terrorism is to do nothing about it — again.
BJ Okay I stand corrected.
But I am turning you in to the Ministry of Love for that Rosemary Stuffed Spotted Owl and the Polar Bear Pâté.
Miniluv unagency. Further refs border crimethink. Bellyfeel Minipax speedwise.
SBP, that you are able to write that scares me. That I am able to understand it scares me more.
Amsoc bellyfeel doubleplusgood. Miniluv Oldspeak name is “Department of Homeland Security”.
The president can now spy on designated “enemies†without court review.
Apparently this principle also applies to every department of the State of Ohio, but I don’t hear you crying out for good old Joe.
Now why is that?