Posted on 09/14/2001 4:11:52 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
With smoke still billowing like a funeral pyre from the ruins of the World Trade Center, cries could be heard for vengeance against an unseen and unknown enemy who left no return address. Hunting down and punishing the "folks" who did these things will test the nation's patience, although it is far more important to be careful than to be quick. The thousands of innocent dead deserve justice, which tempers rage with reason. Should reliable information emerge proving the culpability of Osama bin-Laden and his protectors in the Taliban, the United States is fully capable of dealing with them.
In the days to come, we will hear much speculation about who is to blame for this atrocity, and fingers are likely to be pointed not only abroad but at home. The airwaves may soon be filled with torrents of nonsense rhetoric from politicians attributing fault to their partisan adversaries, speaking as if they knew how such an attack could have been prevented. They didn't, and they don't.
For the moment-and probably for some weeks to come-the appropriate attitude for citizens is to support the efforts of government officials at all levels to cope with the bloody consequences. If past American responses to acts of terrorism and war are any guide, the President can expect an upsurge of patriotic support; let us hope he uses that enhanced authority wisely.
Wisdom, in the wake of a momentous disaster, means the questioning of prior assumptions, prejudices and policies. Clearly, we will have to find ways to enhance the security of our society that don't destroy the liberty we seek to defend. But there are other issues to be considered. For George W. Bush and his administration, the ideas and initiatives that must now be reconsidered can be described as unilateralism. The notion of the United States as an impregnable fortress, with little need for treaties and allies, has become outdated again in a single day.
The most conspicuous symbol of unilateralism is the missile shield, or national missile defense, whose irrelevance to the present international realities has suddenly been revealed amid blood and fire. The so-called shield is, as one critic has said, "a weapon that won't work against a threat that doesn't exist." What happened on Sept. 11 demonstrated irrefutably that any enemy determined to inflict mass destruction upon America can do so without ballistic missiles. To insist on that proposal-at a projected cost of $100 billion-would be to waste time, money and scientific talent, when all those resources would be better spent on effective domestic and international security measures.
The apparent capacity of terrorists to penetrate our airports and airspace forces us to think about the unthinkable. If an enemy can bring down the World Trade Center and destroy a substantial part of the Pentagon, why would we assume that they could not someday drop a nuclear device on the doorstep of the White House? Attack by such low-tech means, instead of a high-tech rocket, would elude the missile shield. The only plausible defense against terrorist use of atomic weapons is to secure nuclear materials around the globe from those who might misuse them.
Yet so far, the Bush administration has shown little interest in the programs created for that purpose, notably in the former Soviet Union. Federal officials ignored recommendations by a bipartisan panel to sharply increase funding of those efforts, and even considered cutting them. For a tiny fraction of the price of the useless missile shield, the unguarded weapons and fissionable elements in Russia could be removed from danger.
Unfortunately, international cooperation has not been the outstanding characteristic of foreign policy in this administration or among its supporters in Congress, to say the least. Their contrarian viewpoint has been expressed in contempt for American obligations under the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, as well as for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty that was so carefully designed to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. Treaties and alliances, they appear to believe, are for weaklings and dreamers, when in fact such agreements are essential to our own future security. Preventing proliferation ought to be the paramount objective of American policy, and anything that destabilizes or deflects that aim must be avoided.
If we are really determined to safeguard our cities and citizenry, maintenance of our overseas alliances is the strongest shield. A jetliner could just as easily be hijacked from a foreign airport, and then flown into an American target, as from Logan or Dulles. Rather than aggravating our differences with allies in Europe and elsewhere, the administration should consider ways to strengthen those ties. Many of those nations have considerably more experience with terror on their soil than we do; their assistance in combating what may become a continuing assault is vital.
Improved relations with our traditional allies may also help us to convince them that a more aggressive approach to terrorist organizations is both realistic and necessary. The likelihood of success against the forces responsible for this extraordinarily well-executed crime will be considerably greater if civilized nations are coordinated with equal precision. The ability of the United States to lead depends entirely upon the confidence with which other nations regard us.
These suggestions scarcely reflect the present philosophy of the Bush administration-with the possible exception of Secretary of State Colin Powell, whose influence has been waning since the day he was appointed. But Mr. Bush wouldn't be the first Republican President to change course when confronted with previously misunderstood realities. His father's administration at first coddled Saddam Hussein, and then led an allied expedition against Iraqi aggression. Ronald Reagan vowed to build an even more ambitious version of the missile defense, to the horror of our allies, and then abandoned that mirage to negotiate historic agreements with the Soviet Union.
In this tragic moment, Mr. Bush too can seize an opportunity to correct his administration's course. All Americans should wish him the wisdom to do so.
You may reach Joe Conason via email at: jconason@observer.com.
Bump!
The gist of it was that this is all Bush's fault. Quotes:
"If it turns out to have been orchestrated by a Middle Eastern source, it may have grave things to say about U.S. foreign policy - especially that of the Bush administration."
"The administration is seen as tilting too much toward Israel and as caring too little about the Palestinians."
"When a recent poll revealed President Bush's unpopularity in Europe, the American media brushed it off, but that was the wrong attitude."
"...these attacks would be used in Congress to promote jingoist foreign policies and a missile defense initiative - even though missile defense wouldn't have been relevant in the attack."
And on and on. Between reading that and seeing Clinton on teevee in New York hugging and kissing weeping people on the street, I was so furious I could not fall asleep last night. I laid awake for hours fuming at this stupidity. Also, I attend graduate school at a Big 10 university and at a research team meeting yesterday, one of my professors actually said that she suspected that their WAS intelligence available about the attacks but that the Bush administration allowed them to proceed in order to shore up their budget requests for more military and CIA funding. I was speechless. Of course, she has admitted that she is a Marxist, so what else can you expect.
Even worse, she knows I am a Republican, and made a point of walking up to me during a break asking if I thought there may be problems between any of the doctoral students who are Americans and the several Middle Eastern students we have in the program. Her message was clear, she probably thought I was going to send them hateful emails or something. The truth is, we have 3 students from Jordon and 1 from Pakistan. They are all good friends of mine - her statements were ridiculous and insulting. Is the liberal mind REALLY that stupid???? Their belief in the worst stereotype of conservatives must be pervasive and deep. It's something we need to take seriously.
Of course he understands it. He's a liar who will say anything to win a political point.
The Next Attack
If the terrorists had missiles, can we doubt they'd use them?Friday, September 14, 2001 12:04 a.m. EDT
Can anyone doubt that if the terrorists behind Tuesday's attacks had had access to a ballistic missile, they would have used it? Why settle for toppling the World Trade Center if you can destroy all of New York in an instant, without having to go to the trouble of sneaking a crew over the border and arranging for pilot training in Florida?
It's hard to believe, but there are some people who think the main lesson of Tuesday's attack is that we don't need national missile defense. Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy looked at the carnage and noted that "today our threat is not a threat of somebody launching a nuclear missile against us." So because we couldn't defend against hijacked airplanes that kill thousands, we aren't supposed to defend ourselves against threats that could kill millions.
Do we still need missile defense? You better believe it. (Wall Street Journal; E-mail registration required; no fee).
Find your voice and you'll sleep better tonight. You have my prayers.
Star wars is not only a shield, but also an offensive device, where you can explode a nuke at a laser site, take this energy and direct it with a laser light capacitor to pin point accuracy against enemy bunkers.
At this point in time of war (whether congress votes for it or not, we are at war, it is a fact that political assumptions cannot overcome, even if blind about it), offense is the only thing we can do. No shield can protect us from the enemy, that is clear. However an offensive laser system would be extremely valuable. After all, a laser is a sword, not a shield.
The President's plan for missile defense ought to go forward with all speed. It's a realistic blueprint to develop and deploy a layered defense against ballistic missiles in all three phases of their trajectory--boost, mid-course and terminal--and builds on promising research and already-deployed theater missile technology. If anything, and in Tuesday's wake, it may be too modest. [End Excerpt]
As James Baker and former President GHW Bush said, it requires things that "poltie people" do not like to talk about.
I think it is time to vote every socialist democrat and RINO out of office.
Conason is a pathetic, bubba butt-lickin' idiot.
Your trying to score partisan political points as the bodies decay in the Manhattan noonday sun, makes me wonder if the world might not have been a little brighter and better, had you been on floor 93, South Tower on Tusday morning.
His concern for political points over the bodies strewn, the lives shattered, the buildings ruined.....
..... speaks volumes. He is a very twisted, very evil little man. If he had the misfortune to have been born in Iran, he would have been a member of Hammas, no question in my mind.
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.