Posted on 09/15/2014 3:20:50 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
What is the enduring lesson of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, when the Bush administration overestimated and, in some cases, exaggerated the threat posed by Saddam Hussein? Some say it's to be skeptical of government officials who are making the case for war.
I say the legacy should be skepticism toward government officials, period—all of them. Their hidden agendas can shade the case for peace as well as war, which might explain why there's no consensus among so-called experts about the threat posed today by ISIS.
On a scale of zero to panic, Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, set the dial on apocalypse when he described the Islamic State as having "end-of-days vision." Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel called ISIS "an imminent threat to every interest we have, whether it's in Iraq or anywhere else."
Less alarming were the likes of Rear Adm. John Kirby, who said ISIS did not have "the capability right now to conduct a major attack on the U.S. homeland." National Counterterrorism Center Director Matthew Olson said that "we have no credible information that [ISIS] is planning to attack the United States."
President Obama initially dismissed the Islamic State as a "JV team" that could be "managed," and more recently called ISIS a threat to the United States that must be eradicated.
What should be made of the contradictions? Some people understandably assume that the U.S. government, aided by a compliant media, is overselling the threat. Appearing on CNN's Reliable Source, The Nation's Katrina vanden Heuvel said there is a "trivialization—a tabloidization of news coverage that has infected and affected" the way global news is presented.
According to this school of thought, evidence of a successful propaganda campaign lies in polls showing that 90 percent of Americans consider ISIS a serious threat.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationaljournal.com ...
I don’t find this administration over selling the
threat at all, they’ve just been sitting on it till
it blows up and they can come in and “save” us.
Have to agree with Ronnie-boy on this one, at least on the headline. I don’t trust anything FedGov says, regardless of the source.
Why does National Review have leftists like this Ron Fournier guy writing for them?
RE: Why does National Review have leftists like this Ron Fournier guy writing for them?
I mis-typed the source of the article. Sorry. It’s the NATIONAL JOURNAL, not the National Review. I apologize.
“... I don’t trust anything FedGov says ...”
-
I agree.
Nothing that comes from any federal agency is believable.
It is all politically driven and non-factual.
All of it.
I see.
You misidentified the source.
You attributed it to National Review in the header.
But it is National Journal.
Why did you do that?
This government is not trustworthy.
Never, ever, believe anything they say. The Obama admin is not capable of telling the truth.
Hit abuse and ask the mods to correct the source.
Short memories.
I learned long ago that government agencies always say and do only those things that will increase their budgets and upper management promotion potential.
Why does anyone believe all of the hysterics about ISIS? They haven’t changed their tactics for two years. Behead a prisoner they have had for almost all of those two years, and the world goes crazy.
No problem.
It was a bit confusing, but I just enjoyed reading a feature ther on Dinesh D’Souza.
Here is what I make of it.
If ISIS were such a threat, neighboring countries and regions would be panicking and they would be joining together to meet the threat with equal force.
They do not appear to be panicking or joining together.
Who are the neighboring countries?
First, of course, Iraq. They are in a dead panic, of course. Syria, also under attack by these guys. What they are doing in Iraq, all the head chopping stuff, we've been reading about from Syria for quite a while.
The Kurds; they are in the fight against them.
Who else? Turkey. Saudi Arabia. Iran.
Iran has sent people in quietly to stiffen Iraq's forces, I believe.
Turkey and Saudi Arabia, I believe, are backing ISIS. Qatar, for sure. So obviously they aren't going to be panicked about what is happening, they are backing it. The Saudis, at least, are concerned about the "optics", so they are helping to organize the force to help manage ISIS. But part of O's plan is to arm another ISIS. So the concern you are talking about isn't going to come from the Turks or the Saudis
Saudia Arabia is on their side. They are funding them.
Turkey I don’t see doing anything but if you have information on that I’d welcome it.
The Kurds are really the only people willing to mount a defense ... but they were already prepared ... as should everyone else in the region have been way before now.
Everyone nearby, as in everyone much much closer than us.
I’ve seen it here, that ISIS enters the theater from Turkish soil and their wounded are treated there.
Of course, a Turkish general is supposedly directing the Syrian rebellion, from whence ISIS has sprung. And the Turks have expressly refused to move against ISIS.
Who are divided between those backing them (Turks, Saudis) and those fighting against them (Iraq, Syria, Kurds, and maybe Iran). So the neighbors are divided between the panicked and the cheering squad.
Which is not our problem. Those who are panicked (or should be) should be getting their sh!t together RIGHT NOW. Including Europe.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.