....LMB: "Mindlessly Anti-Bush"....
June 25, 2003
It's no secret that I hate George W. Bush. But I'd like to think that my desire to get the man out of office (and ideally into a prison cell) does not overwhelm the rest of my faculties and values. But it seems like some lefty-minded folk have let their drive to oust Bush get the better of them.
Here's the story: it appears that before 9-11, Bush had opportunities to kill Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan using the CIA's predator drones, but failed to order the attack. And now some liberals are flogging Bush (or at least his abilities to protect the nation) for this failure.
Well, first let's properly describe the situation.
Bush had the opportunity to order an assassination of bin Laden, and didn't. If he had, such an act would have been illegal. Presidents are prohibited from ordering assassinations.
So... liberals are criticizing the president for following the rules of his office and not assassinating someone. That's not the usual line liberals take.
I also feel the need to point out that assassinating bin Laden would not necessarily have prevented the 9-11 attacks. Sure, it's possible that killing bin Laden might have disrupted Al Qaeda, or that if bin Laden was the one who designed or ordered the 9-11 attacks that those plans and orders never would have come into existence. Or... maybe those terrorists who hijacked the planes would have done the exact same thing.
I also feel fairly certain that if this situation were reversed, if Bill Clinton was under attack for failing to assassinate bin Laden, that the liberals would be defending him by bringing up all the points that I just did.
Partisanship. It ain't pretty.
Of course, we can look at the current scenario objectively. Is it morally acceptable to assassinate someone? Is it acceptable for the president to be able to assassinate people? If not, is Osama bin Laden a special case in which it would have been acceptable? Would this assassination have been the smartest tactic to use? Did the intelligence data at the time suggest that bin Laden was a threat worthy of using this creepy kill power? And probably on most people's minds, would this assassination have protected the Americans who died on September 11? Lots of questions, lots of room for debate, very few answers.
Posted by Jake at
06:53 PM
|
TrackBack (0)
Much as I agree with the spirit of your post, I do have to disagree with one point. See this. Right or wrong (and I think it's wrong) the Administration has crossed over the "assassination" line many times. By merely redefining the term. Before the war, there was a CIA drone in Yemen that killed - I mean assassinated - a bunch of alleged Al Qaeda members...
So the question, I think rightfully so, is why didn't they just do this when the Boogey Man supreme was the target?
As I said, just a minor point. Not meant to disagree with your real point...
Whoops. My link didn't seem to make it into the comment. Here it is: http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/special/terror/front/1108549
I'm very aware that the White House often doesn't play by its own rules (and according to several articles I saw, it is "arguable" whether or not the Executive Order banning assassinations actual bans the president from ordering assassinations.
According to the article I linked to, it was infighting and possibly incompetence that prevented the bin Laden hit. I also have to wonder if the "let's do the opposite of what Clinton did" mindset of the Bush administration had anything to do with it.
What amuses me about this whole concept of what's "morally acceptable" is the fact that everything suddenly becomes "morally acceptable" when GW says so. We're going to go tit for tat on whether or not we should've popped Mr. Osama when we had the chance, but all the while we're flying drones over Iraq targeting every suspicious convoy we can set our sneaky little sights on. What makes that morally acceptable? What's the moral difference between ordering the killing of a dozen people, vice the killing of one person? The more the merrier? Better yet...to ask the big question here, what's the moral difference between ordering the pre-emptive attack of a sovereign nation, killing over 3,000 civilians, and ordering the death of one man? Give me a break. The pooch got screwed.
However, I guarantee you, killing the "boogey man" wouldn't have changed a thing. We place ole Osama up on this mythical pedestal, giving him all the credit, making him out to be this massive evil mind that controls all things terrorist, but the man just provides a little cash and training to an already fanatic group of idealists. They won't stop just because we take him out. Sorry guys, no dice. You want to stop terrorists from taking pot shots at us and our buildings? Try a decade or so of new foreign policy and a serious image makeover via a well-paid Hollywood publicist.
What amuses me about this whole concept of what's "morally acceptable" is the fact that everything suddenly becomes "morally acceptable" when GW says so. We're going to go tit for tat on whether or not we should've popped Mr. Osama when we had the chance, but all the while we're flying drones over Iraq targeting every suspicious convoy we can set our sneaky little sights on. What makes that morally acceptable? What's the moral difference between ordering the killing of a dozen people, vice the killing of one person? The more the merrier? Better yet...to ask the big question here, what's the moral difference between ordering the pre-emptive attack of a sovereign nation, killing over 3,000 civilians, and ordering the death of one man? Give me a break. The pooch got screwed.
However, I guarantee you, killing the "boogey man" wouldn't have changed a thing. We place ole Osama up on this mythical pedestal, giving him all the credit, making him out to be this massive evil mind that controls all things terrorist, but the man just provides a little cash and training to an already fanatic group of idealists. They won't stop just because we take him out. Sorry guys, no dice. You want to stop terrorists from taking pot shots at us and our buildings? Try a decade or so of new foreign policy and a serious image makeover via a well-paid Hollywood publicist.
What amuses me about this whole concept of what's "morally acceptable" is the fact that everything suddenly becomes "morally acceptable" when GW says so. We're going to go tit for tat on whether or not we should've popped Mr. Osama when we had the chance, but all the while we're flying drones over Iraq targeting every suspicious convoy we can set our sneaky little sights on. What makes that morally acceptable? What's the moral difference between ordering the killing of a dozen people, vice the killing of one person? The more the merrier? Better yet...to ask the big question here, what's the moral difference between ordering the pre-emptive attack of a sovereign nation, killing over 3,000 civilians, and ordering the death of one man? Give me a break. The pooch got screwed.
However, I guarantee you, killing the "boogey man" wouldn't have changed a thing. We place ole Osama up on this mythical pedestal, giving him all the credit, making him out to be this massive evil mind that controls all things terrorist, but the man just provides a little cash and training to an already fanatic group of idealists. They won't stop just because we take him out. Sorry guys, no dice. You want to stop terrorists from taking pot shots at us and our buildings? Try a decade or so of new foreign policy and a serious image makeover via a well-paid Hollywood publicist.
I am deeply sorry for the trio of posts, browser went haywire for a minute. I assure you I was not THAT hellbent on having my post read as to post it three times.
Have you read Gore Vidal's "Dreaming War"? He believes that the September 11 attacks might have been pre-emptive since the Bush administration was already planning on attacking Afghanistan...for oil interests. Unocal wanted to build a pipeline through there but didn't trust the stability of the Taliban government.
Here's a revealing link:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MAD201A.html
The new Prime Minister of Afghanistan, Karzai, was a consultant for Unocal. Also, the US Special Envoy for Afghanistan, Khalilzad, was also a consultant for Unocal. The Bush administration is brazen with it's schemes for oil, and yet our press turns a blind eye to it. Unless you think these guys links to Unocal are just a coincidence.
My point is that Bush didn't go with the Clinton plan because he had a plan of his own. Why go with a drone and get one man, when you can go with full scale war and control of a country?
That's new, innovative, unique! Wow! America is the 'root-cause' of the terrorist attacks... now why didn't I think of that?
Maybe I got distracted by the religious leaders of Islam, weekly fanning hatred for technological advance, equality of men and women, individual rights, freedom of speech, and the Great Satan nation which encourages those, daily...
"America gets full control of a country..." Hey, just goes to show how STUPID those earlier presidents were, giving whole countries BACK TO the Germans, the Italians and the Japanese... Think what those would be worth TODAY?
Well I, for one, am glad that you have and exhibit in plain view your strength of character, in your courageous enquiry into ISSUES, despite (Mr Pres or Whoever). I find it refreshing and encouraging.
Now to find some similar on the OTHER end of the spectrum...
