Security Moms and the Election
By Michele Catalano Posted in User Blogs — Comments (34) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Promoted from Diaries.
As most of you know by now (this is what happens when I go to bed early; I miss the breaking blogger news), a reader of Powerline did a bit of research and discovered the name of the band that was on Annie Jacobsen's flight. Clint Taylor writes:
Anyway, this is good news. Nour Mehana's band might have acted like jerks on the plane, but it appears safe to say they were not casing Northwest Airlines for a suicidal assault, and we can quit worrying about this being a "dry run" or an aborted attack. And if Jacobsen was wondering why one man in a dark suit and sunglasses sat in first class while everyone else flew coach, well, it seems pretty clear that this was the Big Mehana himself.
Which is definitely not the same as saying Jacobsen was wrong to worry. The proven existence of this band confirms one of the last details of her story, and her story confirms some of our worst fears about airline security. The mindset of passengers, of the crew, and even of the law-enforcement personnel (Jacobsen said a flight attendant reassured her husband by pointing out that air marshals were on the flight), and decision makers higher up the ladder was reactive, not proactive.
I stated in my first post on this subject that there were parts of Annie's story that read like fiction to me. I still think the story has been somewhat embellished. Did Annie really think the man who had been so nice to her pre-boarding had turned and glared at her when they were on the plane? Or was she just remembering details that didn't exactly occur, but were more like dramatic flair?
But that's really neither here nor there, is it? What we have here seems, on its face, to be an ending, a conclusion, the closing statement on a now legendary (in internet terms) story.
Or is it?The real story here is one of security.
June 29 was no ordinary day in the skies. That day, Department of Homeland Security officials issued an "unusually specific internal warning," urging customs officials to watch out for Pakistanis with physical signs of rough training in the al Qaeda training camps. The warning specifically mentioned Detroit and Los Angeles's LAX airports, the origin and terminus of NWA flight 327.
That means that our air-traffic system was expecting trouble. But rather than land the plane in Las Vegas or Omaha, it was allowed to continue on to Los Angeles without interruption, as if everything were hunky-dory on board. It certainly wasn't. If this had been the real thing, and the musicians had instead been terrorists, nothing was stopping them from taking control of the plane or assembling a bomb in the restroom. Given the information they were working with at the time, almost everyone should have reacted differently than they did.
Jacobson's fears turned out to be, thankfully, unfounded (though she still maintains that the Wayne Newton look-alike singer and his traveling band are not the people she saw on the plane). And now we delve once again into the land of what ifs; what if her fears were not unfounded? What if these guys were terrorists on a dry run? Given the circumstances of the day, that should have been a real fear. Perhaps Annie Jacobsen overreacted and, in my eyes at least, retold the story in a way that was a little too over-the-top in the drama department, but the pilots and the air marshals that were supposedly on board should have reacted differently considering what the warning of the day was.
Today, splashed all over your news, we see stills from the video of four 9/11 hijackers at Dulles Airport. It's chilling to look a these pictures because we know what comes next. It's like watching a horror movie you've seen ten times already, but you still want to scream at the screen at a certain point: don't go in the basement! But they always do. And no matter how many times you look at these pictures and you want to say don't let them in! the scene has been acted, directed and wrapped. You can't change it.
You can leave a theater after seeing a slasher film laughing in the knowledge that even though you just watched fifteen people die, it wasn't real. You look at the pictures of the hijackers entering the airport, you look at pictures of the burning WTC, and you wish it wasn't real. And sometimes there's a part of your brain that still can't grasp the reality of it and you look with kind of a disconnect, much like you do with movies.
Unlike the movies, where fifteen more horror films will make their way to your local theater and the dumb girl will go into the basement/closet/dark room every single time, we have the power to make sure that what we see on the Dulles surveillance tape never happens again.
That's my issue this election year and it's my only issue. My vote will be selfish. My vote will be about me and my family and nothing else. I will admit right here that I am not considering social security, spending, health care, taxes, gay marriage, education reform or any other issues of 2004. They are all secondary to me. What is the use of all those wonderful things like health care and the right to marry whom you want if we're not safe? First things first. Make this country safe for me. Win the war on terrorism. Make sure that we never have to scrutinize surveillance tapes or have a commission figure out where we went wrong ever agin. Then we'll talk about everything else.
See, I am a security mom. Michelle Malkin speaks for me when she describes what makes her a security mom:
Nothing matters more to me right now than the safety of my home and the survival of my homeland. I believe in the right to defend myself, and in America's right to defend itself against its enemies. I am a citizen of the United States, not the United Nations.
I want a president who is of one mind, not two, about what must be done to protect our freedom and our borders. I don't care about the hair on his head or the wrinkles in his forehead. I am not awed by his ability to ride a snowboard or fly a plane. Nor does it matter much to me whether his wife speaks four languages or bakes good cookies.
What I want is a commander in chief who will stop pandering to political correctness and People magazine editors, and start pandering to me...
I have a place this election. I have a stand to make. Remember soccer moms? I never understood that phrase nor did I understand what made the soccer moms such an appealing part of the constituency. What did they stand for? Better soccer fields? Nicer SUVs? More after school programs? It was disingenuous to describe young, suburban mothers in that way and frankly, it pissed me off. I felt it was an insult, that we were being thought of as no more than the appendage to the family, the cheerleader for the husband and kids. Looking at me in that light was no way to get my vote. I really don't remember anyone liking the soccer mom label. It labeled us as passive observers to the political arena whose vote could be had by offering us free coupons for diapers. Condescending.
But, security mom. Now there's a label I can sink my teeth into. It means something. It shows what I stand for. It shows where my vote is going and why. Security moms are not passive. We are knowledgeable. We are aware. We are active. Most of us were thrust into this role after 9/11 and we accepted it gladly.
I probably do myself - and others like me - a disservice by saying my vote is a selfish one. Just because I am not putting your right to marry or your education concerns first does not mean I don't care about those things, or you. National security is for all of us. I care about this country and its future. I care about your family, your children, your safety.
Somehow, our national security has become little more than a platform of partisan bickering. The release today of the 9/11 commission's report (speaking of partisan) will relieve both Clinton and Bush of any outright blame for what happened in September of 2001. Mostly, that's a good thing. Our presidents were doing all they could to protect us, right? The problems can be fixed and future terrorist attacks can be prevented.
Administration officials familiar with the report told reporters late Wednesday that "neither President Bush nor President Clinton would be blamed for failing to act." They said the panel would include an appendix praising the Bush administration for its actions since the 2001 attacks that had made the nation.
The report will also debunk several "myths" that have built up around the terrorist strikes that killed nearly 3,000 people in New York City, Washington and Pennsylvania, the officials said.
According to the report, they said:
* The Saudi government did not fund the 19 hijackers.
* Relatives of al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden were not allowed to fly out of the country until after air traffic was allowed to move freely after it was grounded following the attacks. Moreover, those family members had no connection to the terrorist plot.
* Bush did not know about the specific threat beforehand, and there was little more that he could to prevent it.
However:
Still, the report is expected to provide fodder for arguments in the presidential campaign.Advisers to the Democratic candidate, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, have said they hope to use the report to show that the Bush administration was inattentive in the summer of 2001 to threats of a possible attack.
Well, damn. The report is good. What a shame for the Kerry campaign. Instead of saying, look, we did all we could, let's not place blame, let's look forward, Kerry's advisers are disappointed that they can't blame Bush for everything. They're hoping to get political mileage out of it.
That shows me that Kerry is not pandering to me, other security moms or anyone who cares about the future security of this country. He is pandering to the people who think Bush made it happen or let it happen (MIHOP or LIHOP for those who swim the dark waters of Democratic Underground). He is pandering to those who believe Michael Moore's fallacies. His people think that security is an issue to be used to be divisive, to drive a wedge between the Kerry supporters and the Bush supporters. He should be embracing the findings of the report and telling his supporters - and his rival's supporters - what he will do to ensure that he follows up on those findings by making this country a more secure place.
Here's a man who had as his security advisor a guy - Sandy Berger - who was, by the admission of his own friends and collages, a bumbling, error-prone, careless man. And obviously a man who didn't know much about the man who was advising him on security matters:
John Kerry to Tom Brokaw tonight:
Brokaw: "Did you know that [Berger] was under investigation?"
Kerry: "I didn't have a clue, not a clue."
Brokaw: "He didn't share that with you?
Kerry: "I didn't have a clue."
Not very comforting.
I am a security mom. It's a label I wear with pride. It's the reason I am voting the way I am in November. I don't think a man who is disappointed in the findings of a committee that says our president and our recent past president were doing all they could would make a good president. I don't think a man who knows so little about the people in his entourage would make a good president. And, if I can be frank here, I think John Kerry would be the worst thing to happen to national security since Jimmy Carter. Instead of pandering to me, to the people who are worried about the future of this nation, to the people who want protection and the people who want their safety concerns addressed, he panders to the far left liberals who think making up with France is a priority.
I am a one issue voter this year. I find nothing wrong with that because it's an issue that directly relates to every single other issue. Without a good national security, without a strong president who will not cave in to terrorists, without a president who will stand down the antiquated machine of the UN, we will likely be looking at pictures just like this some day and asking why.
One only has to look at Kerry's record in the senate to see what he would do as president, setting aside any panders he will inevitably throw to the dreck he terms "the heart and soul" of America.
While much is made of his vote against the appropriation to fund operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, just three months after saying that such a vote would be "irresponsible", little is said of his noxious record in the Gulf War.
While US troops were flowing into Saudi Arabia in October 1990 Kerry voted against appropriating money for the M-1 Abrams tank, the M-2/M-3 Bradley Fighting Vehicle, and voted against buying cruise missiles. All key weapons in winning that war. In his defense, he at least voted against this war. And at least he is consistent in trying to ensure a military defeat for America.
When you couple this with his support of the Soviet fronted Nuclear Freeze movement, his support of a communist dictatorship in Nicaragua, and his moronic statement that fighting terrorism is a police function the picture becomes brilliantly clear.
Kerry could really give a rip about national security.
people can disagree over how best to represent the country's national security interests. some may even be incorrect.
but to constantly suggest that people who disagree with you actually do not care about national security is asinine, and is quite poisonous to debate.
it is also puerile logic. to assume that anyone who doesn't see things the way you do is deliberately and consciously not seeing them your way, the right way, because they are duplicitous and treasonous, and in short "do not give a rip."
i would think any reasonable person who truly "gave a rip" would invite and indeed demand open honest debate of the issues involved, as it deepens everyone's unerstanding. you'd also think that a debate about national security would accept, welcome, and appreciate opinions from across the nation, not just from one constituency.
It wasn't readily apparent under the blanket of steaming effluvia.
Do us both a favor, don't use playground logic.
I laid out Kerry's record on national security over the course of two decades. And all you can say is that it is "puerile" and "assinine." That is an argument?
It seems that your position is that highlighting Kerry's long standing antipathy to national security, a hostility dating back to the "Winter Soldier" psychotic episode, isn't very germane to the discussion.
Are you saying that Kerry has championed our national security? Like by voting for the Torricelli amendment that would have made a CIA agent a felon if he/she had recruited an member of the Taliban as an agent?
Are you saying he didn't visit with Ortega or sign any of Jim Wright's infamous "Dear Commandante" letters? Or are you saying Ortega was neither communist nor a dictator? Are you saying he was against Nuclear Freeze movement? Or that despite East Bloc security archival evidence that the Nuclear Freeze movement wasn't heavily influenced by the KGB and its sister services? Are you saying that he did vote to equip troops during the Gulf War? Or that he did vote to fund operations in Iraq and Afghanistan? Did he vote for the money afer he had voted against it?
What is your point besides hurling infantile insults?
Leaving aside the fact that the emergence of freaked-out "security moms" is precisely the outcome 9/11 was intended for, I think that a lot of Kerry's "flip-flops" are still widely misunderstood. Any deeper look into the bills he voted for or against reveal a man of character, who isn't going to vote by the title of a bill, but against its content.
Let's look at a sample smear that GW's campaign has been actively spreading around the media: Kerry's supposed vote against body armor for our troops. As Factcheck.org points out, body armor amounted to 1/3 of 1% of the bill Kerry voted against, and was not provided to the troops even after the bill did pass; and as Kerry pointed out, he voted for one version of the spending bill and also sponsored a substitute bill. So when he says, "I voted for this bill before I voted against it", he's saying: I voted for the version of the bill that did not pass. Certainly he wanted the troops to have body armor, he just didn't like the version of how that body armor would be payed for. Body armor the troops never got anyway.
See? Do a little digging and don't let the mass repetition of Rove's talking points make something sound more true than it really is. For instance, many of the military spending cuts Kerry supported were in excess of what the military actually requested; it was the pork-addicted Republicans who were more interested in getting contracts to their special interests in the defense-contracting industry who were voting for these unecessary expenditures ($1000 toilet seats, etc.) that the Pentagon said they really didn't need. Ironically, those who are most effective at cutting wasteful spending -- even in the defense industry, which everyone should realize has a lot of waste -- seem to flip-flop on their fiscal conservatism when it comes to this stuff because they have these knee-jerk reactions to military spending, whic results in the equation: more money to the Pentagon = safer country.
Yeah, whatever. The Pentagon asks for 1000 Abrams tanks. Republicans in Congress want to give them 2000, for some oh-so mysterious reason. Kerry votes to limit the bill to 1000, and ten years later he's accused of being weak of defense for giving military professionals more say than politicians. It really is this simple; go look it up sometime -- hopefully before November. I'd provide some links, but I do believe most people here are familiar with the www.google.com search engine, so I'll just wish you away to that site. Not that I expect anyone to do anything but listen to talking points repeated ad nauseum and take them to heart as if they were anything than GOP-fed media memes.
And don't jump the gun on accusing Kerry of politicizing the war on terror when Bush is about to hold his party's convention right next to ground zero just days before the anniversary of 9/11. Disgraceful.
Again, I will leave aside how much "security moms" are playing right into the terror bin Laden wanted us to feel. But if there's one thing that we should all be doing our very best right now to overcome, it's fear itself: that is why Kerry, and his "no fear" campaign, gives me hope for the future.
To borrow a cliche: if you're afraid, the terrorists have won. Just dwell on that for a moment, and as Bush starts ramping up his war-on-Iran rhetoric in the next few weeks, maybe dwell on it a little more. Fearlessness is the only proper responce to terrorism.
The facts are the all troops in combat units in Iraq and Afghanistan had body armor with chickenplates on the day they crossed the LD. The issue was the older vests issued to rear echelon troops. So the troops did get vests.
Now as to the appropriation. This is going to come as a real shock but companies that make things really like to get paid. The body armor, that Kerry did vote against, couldn't start to be manufactured until after the appropriations bill was signed. To do so violates the Anti-Deficiency Act. So regardless of the reason and regardless of the percentage devoted to body armor Kerry voted against it. The bill also included reconstruction money. It also included money for fuel, spare parts, ammunition, and major end items. Not just to directly equip the troops in threater but to build up depleted stocks.
But even using the relentlessly accurate factcheck.org the undeniable fact remains that Kerry voted against an appropriation for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq when in October he, himself, said that a vote against the bill would be irresponsible.
I've never heard of a $1000 toilet seat this side of Terry McAuliffe's townhouse. It would be interesting to see the reference for that. I'm sure fac
In the 1990 appropriation at issue the the Dems controlled both houses of Congress. Kerry voted against the appropriation negotiated approved by his own party. At the time I was in War Plans Division of the Army Staff an I can tell you that this vote was not a vote against waste. At the time Jesse Jackson was mewling about 40,000 body bags while we, using the Yom Kippur War as a model, were anticipating losing several hundred armored vehicles. So that vote was irresponsible as well.
BTW, no one ever buys more tanks than the Army wants. Or more trucks. They are just too cheap. More ships, subs, and aircraft? Yes. Tanks, artillery and ammunition? No. Check "factcheck" for the legislative history on that.
I don't see what the big deal is with 9-11. FDR used Pearl Harbor relentlessly. Eisenhower campaigned on the Korean War. Lincoln and McClellan both campaigned on the Civil War. If Kerry thinks he can make a case for his candidacy by showing video of the twin towers collapsing more power to him. I don't think it will which is why the left mau-maus anyone who brings up the subject.
To borrow a cliche from the Ranger regiment: If you're afraid you're still alive.
Assuming that Sandy Berger didn't volunteer to Kerry that he was under investigation for his incomprehensible mistreatment of classified materials, how exactly was Kerry to know, and why do you hold his failure to know against him?
If someone on the 9/11 Commission had warned Kerry, wouldn't that have been a breach of confidentiality? (One that I have little doubt you would criticize the Democrats on the committee for.)
If someone in the Justice Department had warned Kerry, wouldn't that have been a breach of confidentiality?
Apparently members of the White House staff knew, but is Kerry to blame for failing to find out from them? Why ever would they tell him?
So what is the vector for transmission of the information? (Note: this is separate from whether Kerry showed poor judgment in advisers, based on his alleged bumbling, which I must say I didn't see in evidence in the Clinton years.)
If and when some member of the WH staff is indicted over the Plame affair, can we expect a snark post "George Bush didn't know much about the man who was (whatever)", and do you promise to hold it against Bush in the election? If so, I retract any criticism implied in this comment.
Fearlessness? Bush gets all this criticism for acting like a cowboy and you talk about the need for fearlessness?
Courage is the complement of fear. A man who is fearless cannot be courageous. (He is also a fool.)
Robert Heinlein
IMHO I don't think Kerry is against American national security. IMO, he's just 100% wrong on the ways of achieving it. His quotes that the US must go before the UN in "real humility", that terrorism should be more a law enforcement issue rather than a military one, and his demonstrated antipathy towards a US military bespeaks a turn-back to a Jimmy Carter ethos that Americans should strive to be 'average,' that morality and happiness lies in a worldwide movement of institutionalized "Harrison Bergeron"
I'm not ashamed to be an American, and I am not ashamed that to secure this nation for my children and my grandchildren means acting in American interests, not against them. Right now Vicente Fox is in Chicago talking about the "rights" of almost 10% of HIS countrymen in THIS country illegally. I have to listen to members of CAIR equivocate and apologize for Islamist terrorism and threaten everyone within reach with lawsuits for even breathing "Islamist" and "terrorist" in the same breath. I have to witness the sheer idiocy of a policy that demands a strip search of a Norwegian grandma for every two young men from Arab totalitarian regimes.
Kerry is a fool with a "no fear" campaign. That's the best that can be said for it. Fear is the emotion that alerts you to possible danger and gets you to act prudently for your own survival. Not one decorated hero has ever claimed they were unafraid during their acts of heroism.
As a mother, as a grandmother, each day brings elements of fear when I contemplate what the future may hold for my kids. That alone should give warning to anyone foolish enough to try and hurt or threaten my kids. Don't fool with me. I don't make idle warnings.
While Kerry is "clueless", Billy Jeff is claiming he and his cronies have known for months and are yukking it up over this.
Now, you'd think Clinton, as former Dem Pres and national party leader he just might have clued Kerry in when Clinton's own NSA head was on Kerry's team?? Wassup with that?
Plots within plots, eh?
"blanket of steaming effluvia."
yes. i guess i am hurling "infantile insults" aren't I?
first, it's asinine. if you must quote me, please spell correctly.
secondly, if you had read what i wrote, you would see that i plainly stated that people in this country have different viewpoints on national security and that some may even be mistaken.
the point was that it is indeed "assinine" (sic) to suggest that people who disagree with your analysis of the situation actually do not care about or even actively work against national security.
to suggest that someone running for president actually doesn't care about national security is truly an insane proposition. you may think that person is misguided, mistaken, deluded, even dangerously incorrect. but to constantly just impugn patriotism and question the national security interests of huge numbers of your fellow countrymen and women (and their proxy candidate), you do a massive disservice to democracy, and reasoned debate.
but i forget, that's just hurling playground insults, right?
i guess i must hate america too.
i can't wait for your way of responding with more euphemised vulgarity. please don't stay up too late figuring it out.
Yeah, I'll call Bush "fearless" when he sends his daughters to Iraq to fight this vital war.
BTW, the term cowboy is usually used to denote "bravado" and "recklessness" more than "fearlessness". And if you were paying attention, I was talking about voters, not leaders: after all, Americans have no leaders but themselves, it's a system called "democracy". I for one will bravely sacrifice my life and my family's for the sake of this country, insofar as I'm willing to take my chances with terrorists at home while my government hunts them down ruthlessly, like the good enforcers they should be, rather than allow my country to turn into a (un-American) police state. Yes, we need security, but no, we're not going to give up our freedom for it: it's like that old motto of ours, "live free or die". I'll take "die" before I give the police the right to frisk me without due cause, to lock me up indefinitely just because they have declared me an "enemy combatent", or allow cameras to be placed on every street camera. That's not America, that's . . . well, it's not communist, of course, but it really sounds like the Soviet Union, or worse.
Just remember that those in authority can never be trusted (the root of America's political philosophy if there ever was one), cowboy or otherwise. The current cowboy seems to enjoy his "war powers" just a bit too much for me to regard his psychological status as too incredibly sound; say what you will about Kerry, at least he's "all there". Bush has been steadily losing it over the past year; I certainly would give the GOP in general strong consideration this Fall, but not this man. I will, however, thanks to RedState, be checking my local listings for non-Democratic candidates, and looking at them well. We need more bi-partisanship in WA, after all. (But I digress . . .)
Most of this is tired hash (in an all-volunteer army, Bush can't "send" his daughters into combat unless they volunteer), but I loved this howler:
That's not America, that's . . . well, it's not communist, of course, but it really sounds like the Soviet Union, or worse.
(1) That you could, within a paragraph, reach this point, while trying to make a reasonable argument, should probably worry you.
(1a) That you could compare even the far-fetched situation you describe to the Soviet Union -- could suggest that it's worse -- is either hyperbole run amok, or a pronounced lack of historical perspective.
1:
Why should it worry me? You are very unclear, but I suppose I might have a general idea of where you stand on this (and correct me if I'm wrong). The essense, I take it, of your counter-argument would be: reducing civil freedoms in the name of safety is the American thing to do; it's the opposite of what the Soviets did. Which isn't the case, as we all know the Soviets removed many of their people's rights in the name of making them safer. So at least your stance on the issue is clear: you'd rather lose your rights but live, wheras I'd rather die before losing my rights.
1a:
The reason I consider the situation worse is that the Soviets were at least consistent in their philosophy: they said, "our citizens' safety comes before their freedoms". This at least gives their opponents something clear to fight against (opressions) and for (freedom). But when a so-called democratic leader like Bush says (essentially) that in order to protect our freedoms we must remove some of them, his vagueness is just too sinister for words.
Think of the old phrase, "fascism in America is called 'anti-fascism'" and you'll get an idea of what I'm talking about. When, in the name of fighting for freedom and liberty, we restrict freedom and liberty, what then are we truly fighting for?
Granted, in all likelihood most people do not have to worry about being labelled "enemy combatants", but given that there are Americans being held as such who may have actually not done anything wrong, and that the scale of injustice is not a relevant concern when analyzing injustice itself (it doesn't matter if it's one innocent American held without his rights or a million), all I can say is that I'm suprised to hear from those who likely believe "government is the problem" to then turn around and start expressing implicit trust in authority and allegience to politicians above those they claim to represent. Yes, government is the problem, don't ever forget it. It's a slippery slope from where we are now to where we might not want to be . . .
IMO, he's just 100% wrong on the ways of achieving it. His quotes that the US must go before the UN in "real humility", that terrorism should be more a law enforcement issue rather than a military one, and his demonstrated antipathy towards a US military bespeaks a turn-back to a Jimmy Carter ethos that Americans should strive to be 'average,' that morality and happiness lies in a worldwide movement of institutionalized "Harrison Bergeron"
I wouldn't consider it so much a question of "miltary vs. law enforcement", but a question of how one perceives the fundamental root of the conflict (or "war") we are in now. One side sees it as "good vs. evil", the other sees it as "law vs. chaos". I've always founds vague emotional notions of what "good" and "evil" were to be entirely simple-minded; it's like reading a movie review where the reviewer just says it's "good" or "bad" -- not much to go on with that. Law and chaos, on the other hand, is easy to perceive: America, in Kerry's idiom, is not merely a force for "good" (an extremely foggy concept, open to way too many interpretations), but for "law" (a very concise concept, lending no doubt as to whether one is in violations of its precepts). Certainly laws should be based on ideas like right and wrong, but right and wrong are not ideas that we can judge others on; we can only judge them on whether or not they obey the law.
Thus, in my opinion (and I believe Kerry's and many others on this side of the fence) is that to wage war as a matter of good and evil is self-defeating, as you often have to resort to "evil" methods (i.e. killing people) to result in a "good" outcome, thus invalidating (or at least muddying) the status of oneself (or one's country) as "good". But cold, dispassionate LAW leaves nothing up to the imagination: killing civilians results in you yourself being killed, therefore those who attacked us on 9/11 must be killed. It's not because they're "bad" or "evil", but because they fulfilled their part of a bargain in which our part requires, whether we like it or not, that we in turn kill them.
Thus, those proposing that we "wage war" on terrorists are essentially shooting themselves in the foot: the terrorists think they are good, we think we are good, and as this will never change, we will be embroiled in an endless battle (as George Bush certainly suspects, though I'm not sure if he's really thought it through this far). But one thing that terrorists, no matter who they are or what stupid religious notions they've come up with, can say is that they are on the side of law and order -- at least, man's law and man's order. Seeing as those are really the only laws and orders that we can all accept as universal, those are what we have to go on. Moral and religous notions of good, evil, right, wrong, may work on an emotional level to help gague who you are and how you want to proceed, but they in no way provide justification for anything.
This is the fundament of democracy: that law, as agreed upon by the people, is the sole arbitrator of what one can do and what one can't do. Once you leave that behind and start working on a level of "good vs. evil", you have left behind your rationality and, thus, your best means for survival. Bush's brand of vigilantism and his sense of unilateral my-way-or-the-highway bravado is in no uncertain terms making our country more dangerous; al-Qaeda's ranks are growing by the thousands, our ports, chemical plants, and nuclear facilities have been offered little more than lip service (though they should get some attention now, after three years, since the 9/11 commission has come up with recommendations that should have been rapidly introduced beginning 9/12/01, if not sooner), and the only way in which we can garner the vital international coordination that fighting terrorism demands has largely been left in the dust as we left behind the universal notions of law vs. chaos and reduced it to subjective, irrational notions of good vs. evil.
This is all assuming, as you well know, that "law enforcement" requires just as many tanks, battleships, soldiers, etc., as "war". It's more of a question about whether ascribing to order or ascribing to chaos will make the world, and thus America (as a dependent of the world), safer. It's about one is best defended by cold rationalilty or heated emotionality. I know which way I'm voting. Do you?
good and evil, you reject common sense. In discussing the importance of law, it is important to know how to arrive at right and wrong, and thus be able to distinguish bewteen the law of good & the law of right. You speak of law but do not mention that Saddam was in flagrant violation of it, that Bush did get approval from Congress to go to war, and that the UN refused to enforce its resolutions which had been publicly flouted for a decade. It is just idle speculation to assume that increased international cooperation would have lead to sudden compliance by Saddam. A gov't based on one man can not be trusted to follow the laws, especially those involving such a serious matter as WMD's.
Well, I generally DO reject the value of "common sense" -- the more thought that goes into a topic, the better the result. Reason, and reason alone, is the root of human achievement; "folk wisdom", "cultural values", "mainstream ideas", and, yes, "common sense" generally do nothing but hold us back from thinking things through as rationally as possible, and, as per the elder Huxley's dictum, letting that reason lead us wherever it leads us -- not where our ancestors, our culture, or our preconceptions lead us. But I digress.
That they may find their actions "good" is as relevant as the wife-beater who excuses his behavior with "she sassed me, she deserved the beating." Or the rapist who says "she was wearing a short skirt, she deserved it."
Let me repeat myself, what the terrorists think of themselve is irrelevant. I find your basic misunderstanding of the law breathtaking.
The Law (Western style) is based on the concept of the minimalist code or statutes necessary to secure the rights of citizens, settle disputes and banish violence/force as a private means of dealing with issues. Your neighbor busts down your down and makes off with the stereo? You don't grab a bat and beat him about the head and shoulders in his back yard..you call the police and let the courts handle it.
The military is charged with protecting the citizens as a nation, securing our rights and settling the hash of those that would usurp them. When Islamofascists grabbed planes and slammed them into the WTC and Pentagon on 9/11 their reasons were/are irrelevant. They commited an act of war against this country and demonstrated their intentions to subvert this country and its citizens. This act is the province of the military, just as a 1st time DUI is the province of municipal courts and a 1st degree murder is the province of superior court.
And you also fall prey to the absolutist position that a behavior is inherently good/evil.
you often have to resort to "evil" methods (i.e. killing people) to result in a "good" outcome, thus invalidating (or at least muddying) the status of oneself (or one's country) as "good".
Any particular behavior is morally neutral. It is context that determines whether it is "good" or "bad." If someone breaks into your house and tries to murder your sleeping child and you kill them first, you committed an act of good, not evil.
That you would designate "killing" as automatically evil makes as much sense as saying rape is the same as lovemaking because both acts involve sexual intercourse.
Your moral absolutism is at odds with your professed dedication to "rationality." You have a strange idea of "rationality." I suggest you re-examine it.
Anyone comparing the United States to the Soviet Union is profoundly ignorant of both. In my experience, this condition isn't curable. Perhaps he could spend some time curled up with the Black Book of Communism or any of Robert Conquest's works on the subject, but that would at best only alleviate symptoms of the underlying condition.
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --I. Montoya
Moral absolutism describes the philosophical position that there exists an objective moral standard--i.e. there is such a thing as right and wrong. The opposite position is that no such objective moral standard exists (moral relativism), and "right" and "wrong" are merely culturally defined placeholders for preferred or unpreferred behavior.
Bergman's ramblings are a perfect example of post-modern moral relativism. You are quite right to question his rationality, but, bluntly, you've got your terms backwards.
and generally, you are correct. However, "moral absolutism" does include the stance (even if it is a minority opinion) that certain behaviors are "immoral" regardless of circumstance, and even if they are done for "good" reasons. Pacifists, for example, who won't kill another even in self-defense. (or Gandhi who demanded that Jews and Brits not lift a finger in violence against Hitler, better they demonstrate their "moral goodness" by dieing at Hitler's hands to "shame" him.)
This ideology is easily found in most public schools which practice "zero tolerance." The mischief that moral absolutism has created is well documented.
apropos of "objective standard of morality"
Sin lies only in hurting other people unnecessarily. All other 'sins' are invented nonsense.(Hurting yourself is not sinful - just stupid).
;-)
Well, yes, "Thou shalt not kill" is also a possible objective standard of morality (although a stupid one--if we're talking Ten Commandments, "Thou shalt not commit murder" is both a better translation and an excellent moral standard). There are many possible objective standards of morality that are dumb. "Pink things are evil" could be an objective moral standard. This does not, however, implicate all possible objective moral standards.
My point was simply that Bergman was more guilty of simple moral relativism than wrong-headed moral absolutism.
that reason lead us wherever it leads us -- not where our ancestors, our culture, or our preconceptions lead us. But I digress.
Such wholesale rejection of tradition stands completely opposite to the central tenets of conservatism. And this is a conservative site, so that arguement just ain't gonna fly.
Such wholesale rejection of tradition stands completely opposite to the central tenets of conservatism.
Well, duh. Just making my point. I'm just curious to see who's on the side of reason and who's not. Now I know.
Well, you'd better care what terrorists think, because that's the only way to defeat them. If they think they are waging a "good" war, then we have to show Muslims that they are, in fact, evil, and our job is much easier. Fighting terrorism demands keen insight into the psychology of one's enemy. This is not in some way dignifying your enemy, it's just good sense: know thy enemy. The "war paradigm" that is tossed up so easily by many who want to eradicate terrorists miss this crucial detail; being "tough" on terrorists is the easy part, but toughness alone will not solve the problem.
Terrorism is primarily a symptom of technology: as technology advances, the ability of the average human to kill more and more other humans increases. Imagine a day when any single person could get their hands on a nuclear device for, say $100, then think of what it will take to fight terrorism. "Toughness" doesn't mean squat in that context. No, we're not in that context now, but think of where we are in relation to that: terrorists can easily destroy millions of people and we can't do a thing about it, militarily speaking. What we can do is make them not want to kill us, and that is what we should be doing. How? Addressing Islam head-on is one way. Showing people that they are killing innocents, and not "Satanic Americans", for example. Showing that we are, indeed, innocent of the crimes Islam holds us accountable for (and we are, despite PR fubars like Abu Grhaib). But showing them that we are willing to in turn kill innocents to promote our agenda, as we are doing in Iraq, is so self-defeating as to be absurd as a means of countering terrorism. (Oh, and ending our hypocritical support of Israeli "apartheid" would be a good first step, too)
You can't just sit there and think, simply, "terrorists are evil, we must wipe them out by any means necessary". That is called being "weak" on terrorism -- intelligence, nuance, resourcefulness, and patience all come before forcefulness in terms of effective counter-terrorism. Just ask the UK and how they handled the IRA; don't ask Israel and how they (mis)handled the PLO. Islam is the problem, and until that is fixed, Islamic terrorism will continue to be a threat, no matter how much of a security "lock-down" we have here in the States. So the question becomes: how do we address Islam's problems? What is your answer? If you have none, then I suggest you have nothing to add to the discussion.
Bergman's ramblings are a perfect example of post-modern moral relativism.
Right on both counts: I'm rambling, and I'm a moral relativist. Morality is absurd; what matters is ethics. Law should be provided for only on ethical grounds: it doesn't matter that killing someone is immoral, what matters is that it is unethical. Thus, if someone breaks into my home to kill my child, morality is simply not a factor; it doesn't matter whether it is good or evil to kill that person, as good and evil are simply meaningly cultural baggage. What matters is that it is ethical, regardless of what culture I live in, and I would do it with no further thought than that.
The thing is, there is no way to objectively prove whether or not something something is moral, but ethicality is easily verifiable regardless of who you are or whether you grew up in NYC or Papau New Guinea. And law should be based on ethics, as applied to the society they are harbored in. Culture does matter, but culture should not be the root of justice; that is tyranny, pure and simple. As America is a pluralist nation (i.e., there is no one culture here), only ethics -- rationality -- should be relied upon when drafting our laws and deciding what behavior is healthy and what is not. It's an 18th-century concept, maybe a little old fashioned, but that's how the founders wanted it, and I for one wholeheartedly agree with them.
America is a pluralist nation (i.e., there is no one culture here)
E Pluribus Unum. Wonder what that means...
The founders did not want rationality alone, witness the great George Washington speak:
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports...Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
You compare the US at present to the Soviet state, and now you say "we are willing to in turn kill innocents to promote our agenda, as we are doing in Iraq." In light of the safeguards our soldiers take to not harm innocents, and in light of the fact that it is the terrorists blowing up hospitals and beheading innocents, I can see that you are clearly not arguing anything in your posts based on fact but on your distorted perceptions and logical inconsistency. You said in an earlier post "State sponsorship of terrorist is the least of our concerns." Do you fail to see that when the State is an Islamic theocracy, as it is throughout the MidEast, then their sponsorship of terrorism is the greatest of our concerns?
So, George Bush spoke for ALL of the founders? What about Jefferson, the Christian atheist?
No, I didn't compare the "US at prestent" to the Soviets, I compared the tactics that are leading us forward as comparable. Any glance around you would show that the US at present is NOTHING like the Soviet Empire, but thanks for putting words in my mouth.
when the State is an Islamic theocracy, as it is throughout the MidEast
Which is why, perhaps, we've taken out a secular fascist like Saddam and are leaving theocratic fascists like the Saudis alone -- indeed, using them as allies? I'm looking for some consistency here, but I don't see any. Once again.
Look, I'm all for changing ANY country from a theocratic/monarchic regime to a democratic regime. It's just a matter of how best to do it -- and violently is usually the most self-defeating way of doing it.
And it doesn't matter if our "safeguards" against killing innocents reduce our monthly total from 1,000 to 100; we are stil killing innocents. It may not matter so much to people here in the states, but it sure as heck matters to Iraqis, the ones who rebuilding Iraq depends on. Obviously they blame most of the death on the insurgents, but they feel that our presence alone is responsible for that: insurgents are viewed as freedom fighters (by them, not us, naturally) and innocents killed by them are "collateral", wheras innocents killed by us are almost seen as outright targets. Seeing as we've been having sons raped in front of their mothers so that the mothers can go home and turn in the fathers -- a situation that has been widely-reported among Iraqis long before its revelation in the domestic US press, which is forthcoming (though hinted at by Rumsfield and Hersch) -- I can't exactly see how we can easily defend ourselves as the "good guys" in this conflict if such behavior is tolerated as it has been. Not that it's not already too late to do anything about that bad PR.
And try as I might, the raping of children just isn't ethically justifiable no matter what one's rational is.
George BUSH? I said Washington. And yeah our 1st president and leader of the revolution carries some pretty hefty weight. Jefferson a christian atheist? What?!? I'm not sure how it's possible to be a christian atheist, I think you post here just to disagree for disagreement's sake. I'm all for devil's advocates, but this is ridiculous...
My bad, I meant Washington. Freudian slip? We all know that G.W. should be up there on Mt. Rushmore, after all . . .
Jefferson's beliefs were that Jesus Christ was a mortal man, perfect in every way except not the son of God; he believed that worshipping and following Christ was the way to salvation, but not in a supernatural sense; when you die, you die, and following Jesus was a way to cause positive effects in the here and now. He even went so far as to rewrite the Bible in such a way as to elminate any reference to Jesus as a "deity" -- leaving out any mention of God, which he felt was put into the New Testament as a way of co-opting Jesus into the Roman power structure. Certainly some of the finer points of his beliefs are still up for debate, but certainly he did rewrite the bible and believed that Jesus was to be worshipped as anything but the "Son of God". Any cursory reading of Jefferson's biography will illustrate this.
Let's not forget that Washington was a Deist, not a Christian, either. There were reasons for leaving organized religion out of the Constitution; our founders were all over the map on the subject, and felt strongly that their descendants would be (and should be) too, so worked on our legal framework not as a matter of morality but a matter of rational ethical beliefs.
Do you really understand what "pandering" means? Pandering is not a desirable quality. It means he'll tell you what you want to hear, regardless of whether he intends to follow through or not. Is that really what you want? A president who pays lip service to security but may or may not have any actual plan to deal with it?
I say, if the safety of you and your family is important to you, quit this kind of fretting over what candidates say and look at what they actually intend to do. Don't really on soundbites from the idiot media to tell you who's better. Go to their websites. Look at their plans. Find transcripts of speeches they make on the issues. Don't get suckered by flowery rhetoric though; keep up with the news to see if they follow through. It's a hard job, and MSNBC sure as heck isn't up to it.
If you're serious about being safe, great, let's be serious. No one's going to fault you for wanting to keep your family safe. But this diary is not a good start - it shows you wanting to use security as a political weapon, and little else.