Well, Keyes recently posted a very unflattering article about President Bush, written by that nut Charles Baldwin (the same article that was too much for FreeRepublic and pulled here, by the way), on his Renew America website...so it would seem Maya isn't the only one who can be critical of "a sitting President in time of war".
Howdy, Daughter--I found the article you are talking about. I guess you missed the disclaimer.
Since Alan Keyes' opinions are so important to you, I'm sure you will recall the Iraq war was a major point of difference between Keyes and the anti-war Barack Hussein Obama.
ANDERSON: Ambassador Keyes, the U.S. has armed forces in Iraq. How long will they stay there, and when should they get out, and how should we get them out?You might also recall this:ALAN KEYES, (R) ILLINOIS U.S. SENATE CANDIDATE: I think they stay there until they get the job done. I know that John Kerry is preoccupied with an exit strategy, but as I've been telling folks lately, if you get into a battle and the only thing you're thinking about is how to get out, I think we have a word for you--and it's not very complimentary.
We are engaged in a war . . .
MODERATOR: What is the word?
KEYES: We are engaged in a war against terror that was started by the terrorists, that claimed the lives of thousands of Americans, that involves a global infrastructure of insidious individuals. We have seen the work they do, in Russia and elsewhere, against innocent lives in the most bestial fashion possible.
To fight that war, as I learned in my experience when I was on the National Security Council staff working directly on the problem of terrorism, it is not sufficient to have rhetoric, it is not sufficient to react after the fact. You have got to preemptively move against their bases, against their sources of supply, against their training camps, against the states the provide them with safe haven and infrastructure. If you do not, then they will simply prepare for further attacks.
And in a world where we have weapons of mass destruction, it's not good enough to say that, "Well, if there's a 50% chance that they could use them, I will act"--because once one such attack succeeds, we could end up losing tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people.
I think that G.W. Bush has done the correct thing. He has moved preemptively in Afghanistan, he moved preemptively in Iraq--acting not on the wisdom of hindsight but on the foresight that is required in order to make sure that the American people will not again suffer even worse damage from this kind of insidious attack. And I think we ought to stay there until our national security purposes are served.
One point. We ought to understand that the national security objective is different than the political objective. It is up to the people of Iraq, and we can work with other countries, internationally, to help them establish a regime that will be more respectful of human rights, that will never again become a base for terror or involved in the infrastructure of terror. But our main objective in which we have to act, whether we have cooperation or not, is to defend the security and lives of our people.
...
MODERATOR: Ambassador Keyes, isn't there a distinction, as Senator Obama draws, between Afghanistan and Iraq and our military incursions into both places?
KEYES: As a matter of fact, I think there is not. I think one of the problems with folks who haven't really had much experience in dealing with terror is that they don't understand that we are in fact faced with a global infrastructure.
Saddam Hussein was providing, for instance, payments to the families of suicide bombers who were moving against the Israelis. Al Qaeda, when it acted against the United States and brought down the World Trade Center, Osama Bin Laden made it very clear that he was doing so on behalf of, he said, the Palestinians and their cause.
All of this suggests what is the reality: that we are not dealing with discrete elements here. We are dealing with a single war that has a front in Afghanistan, a front in Iraq, that has a covert series of fronts that we don't hear much about, but in which our people are presumably going after the cadre of terror, that has a financial front and other fronts.
To deal with this as if we're dealing with discrete little episodes is to show that you have no real understanding of the danger that we face. And I think the administration has acted comprehensively against a comprehensive threat.
The other thing that I think that naiveté neglects is that, in the face of the attack that we had on September 11th, it was absolutely essential to send a clear message to the entire terror network that we were not going to allow safe havens, that we were not going to allow states that aided and abetted the terrorists off the hook. This has had its desired effect, by the way, with the Libyans backing away from their commitment, with Syria now talking as if it wants to reach an accommodation.
So, I think it's a failure of strategic understanding if one isolates the Iraqi situation and does not see it in the context of what must be the larger mission of the United States to deal with the entire global infrastructure of terror. We have also, of course, created for ourselves a clear base of operations in the Middle East, that will then have further implications for others, including Iran, that might want to stir up trouble in the future.
So, I think we have to be persistent, we have to deal first and foremost with the national security challenge, we must work with others when it comes to the political arrangements for Iraq--but we must put first the safety of the people of the United States as we deal with the insidious threat of terror.
....
OBAMA: Well, I think that this administration has not been very good at what's been called the exercise of "soft power." You know, all of us recognize and reserve the right of the United States to exercise its military power in the national interest and for our national security--but we also have to recognize that a lot of our power comes from our ideals, our belief in freedom, our belief in democracy, our belief in the ability to work things through in a manner that comports with whatever frameworks of international law that have been shaped. And I think that, unfortunately, this administration has tended to be dismissive of any international efforts--and in his campaign, I think you witness it with a general disdain for, quote unquote, "globalism." In some cases, this is just a function of us trying to have conversations with our allies so that we can move more effectively.
KEYES: See, I think the great problem is that you cannot give a soft response to a hard threat. It would be kind of like trying to meet a bayonet with a spaghetti noodle. And it's not going to help the people of this country to survive.
After 9-11, we were faced with a hard threat. We had lost thousands of people, and we had to move aggressively. The belief that Afghanistan was enough is a belief based on a failure to understand the global infrastructure of terror--so that you deal with the threat that has hit you instead of with the threats that will hit you later if you neglect to preemptively move against their bases of support.
It is precisely in order to create a situation in which maybe people who would be otherwise supportive of this bloodthirsty threat will respond a little better to your overtures that you move with decision against regimes like the Iraqi regime that had shown itself disposed to support terror, to fund terror, to be part gleefully of the global infrastructure of terror--and to act against them before they have the opportunity to act against you.
MODERATOR: Gentlemen, I think we've explored your differences on this pretty clearly.
http://renewamerica.us/archives/media/debates/04_10_12irndebate.htm
The problem with John Kerry is he thinks the war on terrorism is optional!The problem with John Kerry is that he forgets we did not choose this war, but we must be determined to prevail in it!
I thank God Almighty that we have had in the White House somebody who doesn't rely on the wisdom of hindsight to make his decisions. I'll tell you something: the wisdom of hindsight isn't of much use when you're dealing with people who are planning and plotting the devastating kinds of attacks we saw on September 11th. What's needed to meet those enemies is the courage of foresight, the courage to take the tough decisions, not on the information you'll get, but on the information you have, and to do what is necessary to defend the lives, to defend the future of America. G.W. Bush had that courage, he made those decisions, and he stands by with the courage today!
And I would say this to every American, whatever background, race, creed you may be, as we stand now to confront a common danger, so we must stand behind the leader who, at every moment since that terrible attack, has remembered his obligation to defend us all, has never forgotten that once the blow is struck, it will be too late to care about those whose lives are claimed in it. He understands that in a terrible war such as this, there is a very simple, clear rule: you must get to the enemy before the enemy gets to the innocent people in this country and around the world.
http://renewamerica.us/archives/speeches/04_09_11patriotsday.htm
MODERATOR: The war in Iraq. Is it the right war at the right time, and where and how does it end?KEYES: Well, the truth is, the question is raised as if we have a choice. We either fight the war against terror, or the terrorists kill us. We must fight that war by carrying the war to the enemy.
What President Bush did, in going into Iraq, was take a situation where there was a probability that we were going to be attacked with weapons of mass destruction developed by Saddam Hussein, handed off to the terrorist network that he was part of, for he had provided payments, for instance, to Hamas--they work with Al Qaeda in the training camps, and so forth--all of this, he understood.
What probability was there, when he got that information? Was it fifty percent? Forty percent? Thirty percent? Ten? Well, what probability would you like, that there is going to be a chemical or biological attack against Chicago, that a weapon of mass destruction will go off and destroy the Loop?
What G. W. Bush did was what any responsible president would have to do. He acted in order to reduce that probability to zero, because when you're dealing with the situation we face right now, that is the only chance you want the American people to take.
So I think that we had no choice, and we have no choice now but to confront the terrorists where they live, to attack them before they attack us, to disrupt their lines of supply, their financial lines of supply, their training camps, and to make it clear to state sponsors of terrorism--such as Saddam Hussein was--that we are not going to tolerate their activities, and that none of them are going to be left alone.
It has clearly had an effect. Libya has backed off. Syria is talking a better game. Others are taking the lesson of our resolve, and that lesson is, even now, saving Americans from terrible disaster. It was a necessary decision, and that's what counts.
MAGERS: Thank you very much. Mr. Obama?
OBAMA: The fact of the matter is, is that there were no weapons of mass destruction.....
(Keyes / Obama debate #2: http://renewamerica.us/archives/media/debates/04_10_21debate2.htm)