Buzzing

Politico's Ben Smith with a key observation on Barack Obama's terrorism speech:

Also absent from the speech is any reference to "Islamic terrorism," "Islamism," or "Islamofacism" -- the buzzwords of those who see a global conflict between the West and a specifically Muslim insurgency.

Right. Smith also notes (as does an aggrevied Katherine Jean-Lopez) that Obama didn't use the phrase "war on terror." Obviously, on this score it's John Edwards who got the ball rolling and deserve credit for breaking the taboo, but it's good to see further forward progress on this front, especially since Obama gave a speech that could hardly be accused of ignoring the reality of terrorism, as opposed to the right's conceptual terrorism-related mirages.

Comments

I don't want to be an asshole about it, but is it kind of sad that, here in 2007, we're praising our candidates for making extremely small gestures towards a position that's been obvious to everyone with half a functioning brain since ... well, ever?

Posted by strannix | August 1, 2007 4:52 PM

True enough, strannix, and one group who's been opposed to it from the word go is military professionals. You can't fight a "war on terrorism" anymore than you can fight a "war on strategic bombing." It's not a group or even an ideology, it's a tactic, and one that's quite slippery to define.

You know, when Bush beat Gore, I thought that the silver lining was that a GOP administration would restructure the military so that the Guard and Reserves weren't so overused.

Because the GOP is so serious about national security.

My bad.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | August 1, 2007 4:56 PM

This just proves my point: Obama-Osama, muslim madrassah, ipso facto terroristico.

Posted by Ayn Kultur | August 1, 2007 5:08 PM

But he did use "Caliphate".

Anyway, I very much liked the speech overall. The Iraq issue and the talking-to-Iran issue are all situated inside a clear, vigorous and pro-active agenda. Getting out of Iraq is just part of fighting the right fight; the talking to Iran issue is just part of a broader plan for aggressive public and government-level diplomacy. And the whole thing is wrapped up in an affecting vision of restoring the US to its true nature - to "what we are" - and putting the Bush perversions behind us. I liked the kid and the helicopter motif.

I personally loved the emphasis on improving US relations with the Islamic world across the board: the president himself speaking to major Islamic forum; sending young Americans abroad to speak about America to people in the Islamic world - and listen to them; and encouraging language study and cultural exchange.

Posted by Dan Kervick | August 1, 2007 5:11 PM

You're excited because he said the terrorists are at war with us, and we're at war with the terrorists, and not that we're at war with terror? Er, OK.

What about this "I'll invade Pakistan" stuff? Now that's exciting. As is the idea that we need more democracy in Pakistan--that's the neocon mindset all over again, isn't it? Or is this the new, improved version?

And when Obama says he'll "capture or kill" the "tens of thousands" of terrorists who threaten the US, what authority will he rely on for the "capture or kill" piece?

While Obama is busy safeguarding nuclear stockpiles around the world, what's going to happen to the stockpiles in Pakistan? Will we secure those when we invade?

Posted by Thomas | August 1, 2007 5:12 PM

I've been toying with the phrase "The Global War on Terror is neither Global, nor a War, nor on Terror" as a pithy descriptor of the state of that phrase, but I don't feel fully confident that it's a defensible pithy phrase.

Posted by Andrew Edwards | August 1, 2007 5:18 PM

Obama presented the terrorism issue as in large part an ongoing problem of global criminality, and proposed a formal international project for a coordinated global attack on the problem. This is just right.

Posted by Dan Kervick | August 1, 2007 5:21 PM

Obama Steals Bidens Al Qaeda Afganistan/Pakistan Plan

The Biden for President Campaign today congratulated Sen. Barack Obama for arriving at a number of Sen. Biden's long-held views on combating Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Much of what Senator Obama has proposed Senator Biden has already initiated or accomplished.

As part of the 9/11 bill that passed Congress last week, Senator Biden and Representative Lantos wrote the law that conditions aid to Pakistan on its cooperation with the United States in combating Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Before writing the law, Biden wrote to President Musharraf and Secretary Rice making clear his intent to do so.

Starting in January, Senator Biden has repeatedly called for surging more forces out of Iraq and into Afghanistan.

At a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on January 30th, 2007, Sen. Biden discussed the need for a surge in Afghanistan at Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing.

At this same hearing, Sen. Obama asked two questions - he did not address Afghanistan or Al Qaeda or Taliban. The first was on the topic of Iran; the second was on an issue that he admitted "seems somewhat parochial, but I think, as you'll see, is of concern across the world." Obama discussed the "stunning level of mercury in fish" and asked about a proposal for the U.S. adopt a ban on mercury sales abroad?

http://www.joebiden.com/home

Posted by JoeCHI | August 1, 2007 5:24 PM

Clean, articulate and larcenous, I see!

Posted by Gregorio | August 1, 2007 5:29 PM

absent from the speech is any reference to "Islamic terrorism," "Islamism," or "Islamofacism"

Those terrorists are out there motivated by... nothing, according to Obama.

Posted by Al | August 1, 2007 5:31 PM

If only Obama had said "war on terror," then his otherwise excellent speech would have received KLo's full endorsement. What a shame.

If only these deeply unserious Democrat candidates would realize that this election is all about the buzzwords, and not about the substance of any speeches or policy positions.

Posted by ed | August 1, 2007 5:36 PM

Those terrorists are out there motivated by... nothing, according to Obama.

Jesus, that's dumb. Usually you're better than that, Al.

Posted by strannix | August 1, 2007 5:40 PM

Fuck what the terrorists are motivated by; the moderates out there are motivated by the US's egregiously lopsided and arrogant foreign policy, destructive interventionism, penchant for carelessly condemnatory rhetoric... the lsit goes on. The more moderates we make enemies of, the harder it's going to be to drive out the fringe radicals who do violence in the name of god or country.

Posted by Gregorio | August 1, 2007 5:41 PM

Yeah, it would have been so much more useful to fight the Civil War while banishing the term "Rebels" or WWII while banishing the term "Nazis".

The reality is, the people we are fighting are radical islamists. The other reality is that a scary proportion of the Islamic world sympathizes with them.

Why do you think it's an act of courage to use euphemisms and pretend that the enemy is less definable?

Posted by James Robertson | August 1, 2007 5:51 PM

What a bunch of babies. All the wingers care about is empty symbolism. "Freedom fries" "war on terror" and words that begin with "Islam". It's like they're casting effing magical spells.

And mercury in food is nothing to joke about.

Posted by Chris | August 1, 2007 6:05 PM

A "scary" proportion of the Muslim world sympathizes with Islamic extremists precisely because a scary proportion of the Western world is led by Christian Extremists; they respond to leaders who speak out vociferously against the arrogant rhetoric and military presence/incursions of the Christian Extremists. How religious a Cheney or Ahmed-inejad actually is in practice matters not: they have picked up the banner for its usefulness and broad appeal. The Politics of the Lowest Common Denominator march on, with the most vicious and opportunistic at the helm.

Why is America waging a Global War on Sovereignty and Self-Determination? Why do the American people not rise up and turn out these Christo-fascists? The menace of Interventionism must be stopped at all costs!

Replace certain words and welcome to Bushspeak.

Posted by Gregorio | August 1, 2007 6:16 PM

You know, you really can't make up a word and then get pissy if people choose not to use it.

Posted by Gabriel | August 1, 2007 6:38 PM

Gregorio, remember that Obama is in favor of continuing the war on sovereignty and self-determination; he'd wage it against Pakistan instead of Iraq.

Posted by Thomas | August 1, 2007 6:44 PM

As long as we can all agree on the rhetorical bankruptcy of such phrases as Global War on Terror, I concede that Mainstream Democrat Capitalist stooges will continue arrogantly charging (or threatening to charge) into ill-advised wars to appease their rapacious creditors in the Military-Industrial complex.

Posted by Gregorio | August 1, 2007 6:52 PM

A Bush in the hand is worse than any Dem nominee in the bush, even Killary.

Posted by Gregorio | August 1, 2007 6:54 PM

Smith also notes (as does an aggrevied Katherine Jean-Lopez) that Obama didn't use the phrase "war on terror."

Talk about political correctness. Now there are phrases you have to use!

Posted by Jinchi | August 1, 2007 7:03 PM

Political correctness is one of those slippery, amorphous phrases which, like war on terror, mean whatever the speaker want them to mean.

GOPthink:
Condoleezza Rice is grossly unqualified=racism.
Condoleeza Rice is African American=political correctness.

Posted by Gregorio | August 1, 2007 7:22 PM

As for what motivates (some of, I'm sure) the terrorists...before we fight religious fundamentalism abroad, I'd like to fight it here, first. I've always laughed at how the conservatives are pushing for a moderate and secular government in Iraq, while doing the exact opposite here...

Posted by Nobody Important | August 1, 2007 7:56 PM

How long until "terror-mongering" enters the lexicon?

Posted by Tyrone Slothrop | August 1, 2007 8:32 PM

Matt, can I ask why you always hyphenate her name as "Katherine Jean-Lopez"? She doesn't use a hyphen in her name at The Corner. Also, Jean's probably her middle name or confirmation name, so it wouldn't make sense to combine it with her last name.

I know it's trivial, but it seems worth mentioning, since she shows up in your posts frequently enough.

Posted by Brittain33 | August 1, 2007 8:48 PM

Robertson - Yeah, it would have been so much more useful to fight the Civil War while banishing the term "Rebels" or WWII while banishing the term "Nazis".

The reality is, the people we are fighting are radical islamists. The other reality is that a scary proportion of the Islamic world sympathizes with them.

Agree.

The Moderate Muslims, like the "moderate Germans" of 1938 or "moderate communists of the Stalinst era Soviet Union appear to be a distinct minority, and a very quiet one in the terror-breeding nations of the Ummah..

And we never hestitated to rip into the Nazis or Communist butchers for fear of "offending" the moderates into joining the death camp and Gulag fun.. Nor did we indulge much in Lefty Defeatism that we couldn't HOPE to take on 300 million people under fascist rule, or 1.5 billion under Communist rule - the way the Left constantly bleats that it is impossible. just impossible to confront or defeat 1.3 billion Muslims.

From the Pew polls, it looks like 250-300 million Muslims are Salafi, Wahabists, radical Shiites - or who agree with them. Terrorists or death squads are just the tip of their spear. There are over 60 radical Islamist groups. Al Qaeda is just one of them, and not yet in the league of the 12 deadliest Islamic Jihad groups...

Just as calling it a "war on terrorism" is stupid, it is also exceptionally stupid to treat this violent ideological movement flaring up and down the last 1400 years as simply a criminal justice matter where if we can only try and get convictions of a few handfuls of the "actual operatives conducting Jihadi operations" and their supposed "CEO" that clueless people believe is bin Laden on trial - everything will just be back in multiculti harmony and bliss again....

It won't.

This has slowly been heating up since the 1920s after the Caliphate fell and the 1st modern Islamist extremist groups like Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and the Saudis committed to export Wahabbi extremism.

Posted by Chris Ford | August 1, 2007 9:10 PM

Those terrorists are out there motivated by... nothing, according to Obama.

When's the last time you questioned what the U.S. was motivated by?

Posted by Bill | August 1, 2007 9:12 PM

There 60 radical Islamist groups. Al Qaeda is just one of them, and not yet in the league of the 12 deadliest Islamic Jihad groups...

What, did you just buy a copy the 2007 Zagat Radical Islamist Group Guide?

Posted by C.L. | August 1, 2007 9:46 PM

Every so often it is advisable to remind the so-called cognoscenti about the origins of al-queada and other so-called "radical Islamist" organizations. I want everyone here to go read "Charlie Wilson's War."

http://www.amazon.ca/Charlie-Wilsons-War-Extraordinary-Operation/dp/0802141242

There you will see how all this so-called "Islamist radical" poo got started. We--the United States--started it in order to gin up a fighting force to fight the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. It wasn't for nothing that the US chose Saudi Arabia as a base for operations against the Soviet Union in the 1980's and 1990's.

This has become "blowback" of the highest order. Now there is a possibility that this misjudgement may reach a critical mass, and further misjudgements will occur.

We would do very well to pack up our things and quietly leave the Middle East. There is absolutely nothing positive that can happen by our continued presence there.

James Hogan

Posted by james hogan | August 1, 2007 10:47 PM

Al Qaeda is just one of them, and not yet in the league of the 12 deadliest Islamic Jihad groups...

I like the pregnant pause there. Spooky! Anyway, I've got the bacon and booze stashed for when your Islamic overlords arive and I'll look forward to your help beating them back after our inevitable defeat once we quit pissing around in the ashes of Iraq.

Posted by Ed Marshall | August 2, 2007 12:53 AM

Hogan is incorrect. The roots of the small, but deadly radical Islamist "team" of Al Qaeda goes back to the 1920s, sharing the Brotherhood's inspiration with more deadly Islamists like Jammu al-Lakshir which started killing in the 1948 Partition Wars and who have accounted for butchering 4 million Hindis, mostly in the orginal then the Bangladesh partions of 1971.

Al Qaeda's most prominent theorist was Sayyid Qutb, who formulated what sort of Islam needed to be conducted in the modern world and how opponents and unbelievers needed to die. Qutb was executed by Nasser, but his disciples taught both bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. Qutb also inspired the megadeaths of the Algerian colonialist struggle, the Algerian civil war, and the 12 or so radical Islamist groups that have a far bigger death toll than Al Qaeda.

Hogan may hate America, and so blames us for creating radical Islam and his ensuing tunnel vision that Al Qaeda is the only problem - but that is only because Hogan is ignorant of history and the other radical Islamist groups, AQ roots in the Egypt actions, the Yemen civil war. The 59 oother groups that have used terror to kill many millions in the 20th century and which threaten us as Al Qaeda does. And you can't go to the Chinese with nearly a million deaths of overseas Chinese by Muslims, India with nearly 4 million butchered since 1948, black Africa with some 5 million Christians and animists killed by Muslim terrorists and tell them to join in common cause against just Al Qaeda because they killed several thousand Americans and ignore the radical Islamist that killed tens, hundreds of thousands, even millions of their people.

That is stupidly Americanocentric.

Posted by Chris Ford | August 2, 2007 1:21 AM

There used to be a Croatian fascist that hung out at another forum who would play the same game you are playing with Jews instead of Muslims. At least his games were more fun because they were more inventive than pretending any nominal Muslim involved in any conflict anywhere was part of a religious conspiracy.

You people scared me back when Bush and Iraq was popular because I didn't know how many of you were out there, now you are just a crank.

Posted by Ed Marshall | August 2, 2007 1:27 AM

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | August 1, 2007 4:56 PM:"You can't fight a "war on terrorism" anymore than you can fight a "war on strategic bombing." It's not a group or even an ideology, it's a tactic, and one that's quite slippery to define."

It is only slippery to define if you hate the West and want to justify the murder of Westerners. In morality and law terrorism is easy to define - private individuals have no right to kill other people for political ends.

As for a War on Terrorism, terrorism is clearly more than a tactic. It is only found among some political groups. Communists do it. Liberal Democrats do not. That is not to say that Liberal Democrats might not want to, or at time might not try, it is just that it cannot be reconciled with their ideology and they do it very badly and soon stop. The only two groups in the world of any significance who conduct real terror campaigns are Marxists and Islamists. One has been consigned to the garbage bin of history. When the other one is too, the world will be more or less terror-free. Al Gore may have won the popular vote but there was no way on Earth that he and his followers were going to take to the forests of Massachusetts with gun in hand to resist the Supreme Court. Just as Bush and the Neo-Cons would not be hiding in the mountains of Carolina planting bombs in malls had t6he decision gone the other way. Terrorism is NOT a tactic that just anyone can pick up.

Posted by james hogan | August 1, 2007 10:47 PM:"There you will see how all this so-called "Islamist radical" poo got started. We--the United States--started it in order to gin up a fighting force to fight the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. It wasn't for nothing that the US chose Saudi Arabia as a base for operations against the Soviet Union in the 1980's and 1990's."

How does one put this nicely? This sort of self-flagellation is not only factually wrong, it is also morally vacuous. "We" have done nothing. "We" did not start Islamic radicalism. As someone else pointed out, Sayyid Qutb was preaching this crap in the 1950s when he was a student in the decadent immoral Mid-West. He was executed in 1966. Even some of the Afghans jihadis, like Ahmad Shah Masood, were fighting the Communists before the Soviet invasion and before Carter started to get involved. The US did not choose Saudi Arabia as a base of operations, nor was it ever such. Where do you get this nonsense from?

As for the morally specious part, even if all your claims were true, helping the Afghans does not justify terrorism and it is sad that you would try to make that argument.

Posted by james hogan | August 1, 2007 10:47 PM:"This has become "blowback" of the highest order. Now there is a possibility that this misjudgement may reach a critical mass, and further misjudgements will occur."

I assume this is just wishful thinking. The world is fully of strange people. They have their own agendas. That is not blowback. It is a consequence of living in the real world.

Posted by james hogan | August 1, 2007 10:47 PM:"We would do very well to pack up our things and quietly leave the Middle East. There is absolutely nothing positive that can happen by our continued presence there."

Defeatism is never pretty. The problem, as France and the Russians have found, is that we can't leave the Middle East. They are here now. Remember 9-11? Russia left Chechnya, they came to Moscow. Globalization means we all live next to each other now and New York is a cheap flight away. Ultimately we have no choice but to fight and to win.

Posted by HeiGou | August 2, 2007 5:40 AM

Sigh. I really don't know why I bother responding to HeiGou -- from our past discussion on Iran,etc I know he's dumber than a coal bucket. But I'll try.

1) Re his comment "How does one put this nicely? This sort of self-flagellation is not only factually wrong, it is also morally vacuous. "We" have done nothing. "We" did not start Islamic radicalism. "
is bullshit.

He willfully IGNORES the death, destruction, deep poverty and misery the US government has inflicted on the Islamic world for DECADES in the service of Big Oil, Big Defense, and the Israel Lobby. Actions that have NOT been in the interest of the American People -- which is the only valid criteria.

2) Re his comment about critics " hate the West and want to justify the murder of Westerners", I suggest the he go fuck himself with a wooden stake. The time is long past when WHORES for wealthy interests who are hurting America get to disguise their deceit by waving the American Flag.
Whores who attack defenders of the NATIONAL INTEREST as unpatriotic.

Their racist propaganda against Muslims is similar to the racist propaganda the Nazis made up about Jews in the 1930s -- and arises from the same source. WHen you can't be honest about your goals and actions, you have to make up the Big Lie.

3) That's why George Bush had to promote his BIG LIE after Sept 11. That the attack occurred "because they hate our freedom".

In spite of the fact that the grievances that Bin Laden was using to recruit for Al Qaeda were WELL KNOWN -- had been recounted in Bin Laden interviews with US TV networks back in 1997-98:
a) US support for Israeli killing of Muslim Palestinians (b) US support and protection of dictatorships in Saudi Arabia , Kuwait, and UAE -- kleptocracies that give the oil wealth of those lands to US oil companies and pass the oil royalties on to the whores of Monte Carlo, while leaving the common citizens Nothing. (c) The deaths of 600,000 children in Iraq due to diseases -- the result of US bombing water plants and then blocking the import of water purification chemicals. Forcing people in a desert to drink polluted water -- a nasty way of encouraging a revolt against Saddam.

4) What was in the AMERICAN interest was for Bush to isolate Al Qaeda within the Islamic world by addressing the real grievances so that Muslims would tell us where Al Qaeda cadre are hiding. But Bush was too corrupt -- too totally owned by rich men to do that. Instead, he and his followers have gone out of their way to infuriate
the Muslim world -- to create an unnecessary war --because that allows him to use our military in the service of PRIVATE INTERESTS. To grab the oil deposits of Iraq and the Caspian Sea. To suck up to the billionaire backers of the Israel Lobby by attacking the enemies of Israel.

Posted by Don Williams | August 2, 2007 9:42 AM

Re HeiGou's comment "In morality and law terrorism is easy to define - private individuals have no right to kill other people for political ends."
----------
This from a supporter of war criminal George Bush.

Newsflash to HeiGou -- International Law and Article 51 of the UN Charter says that national governments have no right to kill other people for economic ends. That Government A does not get to invade a country B on the other side of the world and kill 150,000+ civilians when country B does not pose an imminent threat to Government A.

Posted by Don Williams | August 2, 2007 9:49 AM

Re "As for a War on Terrorism, terrorism is clearly more than a tactic. It is only found among some political groups."
--------
Yes. Like the "freedom fighters" Ronald Reagan and the Republicans were supporting in Nicaragua and other central American countries in decades past.

The appointment of Republican Porter Goss to be Director of Central Intelligence -- to fight a "war on terrorists" probably provoked loud laughter at a certain bar in McLean Virginia.

Anyone ever hear of "Operation 40"??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_40

Posted by Don Williams | August 2, 2007 9:57 AM

Posted by Don Williams | August 2, 2007 9:42 AM:"He willfully IGNORES the death, destruction, deep poverty and misery the US government has inflicted on the Islamic world for DECADES in the service of Big Oil, Big Defense, and the Israel Lobby. Actions that have NOT been in the interest of the American People -- which is the only valid criteria."

Your comment is, of course, irrelevant. Second, I do not ignore it because it does not exist. In "the service of Big Oil", America has made the Middle East vastly wealthy. It is probably the largest single transfer of wealth in the history of the human race. Now America could take the oil, but it does not. It pays for it. Oil that is worthless in the Middle East, but that the Western economies turn into even more wealth. Whether this has been in the interests of the American people is a no-brainer.

Posted by Don Williams | August 2, 2007 9:42 AM:"Their racist propaganda against Muslims is similar to the racist propaganda the Nazis made up about Jews in the 1930s -- and arises from the same source. WHen you can't be honest about your goals and actions, you have to make up the Big Lie."

It is hard to take any of this seriously, because it only exists inside your fantasy world. I have not said anything much about Muslims and as Islam is a religion, not a race, it is obviously not racist. So keep trying to use the Big Lie. It won't work for you.

Posted by Don Williams | August 2, 2007 9:42 AM:"3) That's why George Bush had to promote his BIG LIE after Sept 11. That the attack occurred "because they hate our freedom"."

Sayyid Qutb became radicalized at the State College of Education in Greeley, Colorado. A town that remained "dry" until 1972. Yet Qutb found it a hotbed of debauchery, promiscuity and sex mingling. They hate something. Greeley suggests that Bush may not be entirely wrong.

Posted by Don Williams | August 2, 2007 9:42 AM:"In spite of the fact that the grievances that Bin Laden was using to recruit for Al Qaeda were WELL KNOWN -- had been recounted in Bin Laden interviews with US TV networks back in 1997-98:
a) US support for Israeli killing of Muslim Palestinians (b) US support and protection of dictatorships in Saudi Arabia , Kuwait, and UAE -- kleptocracies that give the oil wealth of those lands to US oil companies and pass the oil royalties on to the whores of Monte Carlo, while leaving the common citizens Nothing."

US support for Saudi Arabia? Would this be the same Saudi Arabia that OBL offered to defend from Saddam Hussein? His complaint was actually the presence of kafirs in the Holy Land of Arabia. That is an interesting distortion you have there. Why do you believe it? What evidence is there that OBL has a problem with dictatorships in general?

He did say the thing about Israel, the Temple Mount and killing Muslims - but not of course Christians.

Here is his complaint:

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/980223-fatwa.htm

Posted by Don Williams | August 2, 2007 9:42 AM:"(c) The deaths of 600,000 children in Iraq due to diseases -- the result of US bombing water plants and then blocking the import of water purification chemicals. Forcing people in a desert to drink polluted water -- a nasty way of encouraging a revolt against Saddam."

Well this is a series of distortions and lies. Where did Bin Laden explain why he objected to the bombing of water plants? It is also not true of course. Those sanctions were the work of the UN, not just the US. There was nothing preventing Saddam using the proceeds from the Oil-for-Food program to repair the water treatment plants. Or feed those children even. Saddam chose not to and to let them die. That is hardly America's fault. Your fantasy about encouraging a revolt is, of course, a fantasy - why would they leave all their sources of water to die in the desert?

Posted by Don Williams | August 2, 2007 9:42 AM:"4) What was in the AMERICAN interest was for Bush to isolate Al Qaeda within the Islamic world by addressing the real grievances so that Muslims would tell us where Al Qaeda cadre are hiding. But Bush was too corrupt -- too totally owned by rich men to do that. Instead, he and his followers have gone out of their way to infuriate
the Muslim world -- to create an unnecessary war --because that allows him to use our military in the service of PRIVATE INTERESTS. To grab the oil deposits of Iraq and the Caspian Sea. To suck up to the billionaire backers of the Israel Lobby by attacking the enemies of Israel."

Riiiight.

Posted by Don Williams | August 2, 2007 9:49 AM:"International Law and Article 51 of the UN Charter says that national governments have no right to kill other people for economic ends. That Government A does not get to invade a country B on the other side of the world and kill 150,000+ civilians when country B does not pose an imminent threat to Government A."

Another irrelevant post. What Article 51 does not do is say that any private individual can kill any other weaker individual because they don't like the policy of some government who may or may not have a link with said government.

What Bush has done is not illegal in international law and no one outside the Moonbat Left thinks so.

Posted by HeiGou | August 2, 2007 10:08 AM

Re HeiGou's comment "What Bush has done is not illegal in international law and no one outside the Moonbat Left thinks so."
--------
I'm relieved to discover that the Moonbat Left includes Ronald Reagan's Commandant of the Marine Corps and a lawyer employed in Ronald Reagan's WHite House.

From their recent editorial in the Washington Post:

"It is firmly established in international law that treaties are to be interpreted in "good faith" in accordance with the ordinary meaning of their words and in light of their purpose.

It is clear to us that the language in the executive order [issued by President Bush on July 20 2007] cannot even arguably be reconciled with America's clear duty under Common Article 3 to treat all detainees humanely and to avoid any acts of violence against their person.

...The Geneva Conventions provide important protections to our own military forces when we send them into harm's way. Our troops deserve those protections, and we betray their interests when we gratuitously "interpret" key provisions of the conventions in a manner likely to undermine their effectiveness. Policymakers should also keep in mind that violations of Common Article 3 are "war crimes" for which everyone involved -- potentially up to and including the president of the United States -- may be tried in any of the other 193 countries that are parties to the conventions."

Ref: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/25/AR2007072501881.html

Posted by Don Williams | August 2, 2007 4:31 PM

I won't even bother to cut and paste the comments from Chris Ford and HeiGou from above. Obviously neither have ever read the book I mentioned, so it is useless to try to reason with either of them about it. Nothing unusual about it, for they both come from a portion of the political spectrum where you're either with them or against them. No room for dissent in their world, for they both think they know everything, and no one else could possibly see anything differently.
*****

Now as to the anti-American smear leveled by Chris Ford above:

I can trace my ancestry here back to 1633, to the Virginia Bay Colony. My ancestors fought in the Revolutionary War. Grandfathers from both sides of my family fought on both sides of the Civil War. Other relatives fought in WWII and in Korea. My late brother and I were both Marines, and we both are combat veterans of Vietnam.

Maybe it is because I have actually been in a war, and know first-hand what war is really about that I am so sensitive to various machinations of the political elite to position themselves for more war. War is all about killing people and destroying things. I think there's a much better use for the productive capacities of human beings than killing each other.

So far in Iraq, the US--my country--has squandered over $500 billion dollars, with the very real prospect that the cost could easily exceed $1 TRILLION before much longer. In the process, the Bush Administration has squandered the good faith that much of the world held for America--my country. This really pisses me off.

When this war first started back in 2003, I wrote a letter-to-the-editor of my local paper, the Atlanta Journal Constitution stating that this invasion of Iraq was a major error. The response would put the reaction of you two maggots to shame; I was UnAmerican, I was Stupid, I was an Ignorant person, etc, etc, etc.

Now here we are in the 5th year of this debacle, and those critics have slithered back under their rocks, and here I am, still standing tall.

That is because I sought the Truth, found the Truth, and told the Truth.

Truth is the only thing that endures. Find it, tell it, live it.

James Hogan

Posted by James Hogan | August 2, 2007 11:43 PM