Obama gets to work. The results are not pretty.
Face to face with the worst economic crisis to face our nation in decades, our dedicated public servants are hard at work on our behalf.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is busy launching an online petition for readers to express their outrage at conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh. This, coming on the heels of triumphant Democrats confirming a tax cheat as our new Treasury Secretary, which came on the heels of giddy Democrats spearheading a new bill through Congress that would require camera phones to make a sound when taking a picture.
Six Democrats were busy enjoying a Caribbean junket sponsored by Citigroup after Congress obligingly approved the $700 billion bailout of financial services firms in October, while others were hard at work crafting a $819 billion spending package under the guise of stimulating the economy.
What spending millions of bucks on sexually transmitted diseases and giving billions of our tax dollars to corrupt left-wing groups like ACORN has to do with stimulation has yet to be explained. Instead, we're urged to look at "the larger picture."
OK. I took a look at "the larger picture." What I saw was Father Earth, Algore, testifying before Congress, warning of the imminent demise of the human species because of global warming, the very same day newspapers announced "23 Dead As Snow And Ice Cover 1,400 Miles."
President Obama, meanwhile, continues his honeymoon. In response to news that Iran now has the ability to manufacture a nuclear weapon this year, Obama blithely ordered the closure of Guantanamo and changed the rules governing interrogation of terrorists, in order to assure these prisoners not be made "uncomfortable." No mention was made of the 61 Gitmo inmates who had already been released and found, once again, engaged in jihad.
Obama then followed up by asking the military's Joint Chiefs of Staff to cut the Pentagon's budget request for the fiscal year 2010 by more than 10 percent — about $55 billion.
Obama responded to Republican Congressman and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Peter Hoekstra's comment, "There's no way and no chance to stop the Iranian nuclear program," by penning a "Dear Ahmadinejad" letter to Iran, legitimizing the rogue regime by agreeing to direct talks, something Bush had refused to do.
Iran promptly responded, claiming that Obama's offer signaled that America's policy of "domination" has failed. "This request means Western ideology has become passive, that capitalist thought and the system of domination have failed," Iran gleefully responded.
No fool, he, Obama promptly appointed Gary Samore as our new Weapons of Mass Destruction Czar. And continued with his plan to do away with the military's "Don't ask, Don't tell" policy regarding gays in the military.
Anticipating this new policy, Army Secretary Pete Geren has approved adding legal personnel to help combat sexual assault among soldiers, which he deemed "repugnant to the core values" of the Army.
Meanwhile, our dedicated public servants on the state level are just as busy. New York's Mayor Bloomberg, facing shrinking tax revenues that have turned the $1.3 billion November budget hole into a now $4 billion chasm, took to the microphones and declared a war on — salt. I'm not making this stuff up.
In California, the state was unable to give the taxpayers their tax refunds because, oops, there's no money left. Not to worry, California is counting on being a big winner in the stimulus jackpot as soon as our public servants in D.C. can get rid of the pesky opposition and pass the much touted "stimulus bill," thereby relieving themselves of personal responsibility for the bad decisions of, oh, the last 40 years, that have left the state in default.
Undeterred by lack of funds, California continued doing the people's business by enacting a new law that provides millions of Californians with limited English proficiency the right to an interpreter from their commercial health and dental plans.
This law comes on the heels of another California eco-mandate that requires owners of gas stations to purchase new equipment to reduce vapor emissions at the pump.
In the name of Mother Earth, dozens and potentially hundreds of gas stations, unable to afford the cash to comply with these new mandates, are choosing to shut down. Unfortunately these small businessmen don't have the promise of "stimulus" money to pay the piper so, poof, they're green toast.
With foreign money fleeing the US at record rates, with a 2009 deficit already at $1.2 trillion (your share is $175,000), and a 16-year high unemployment rate, states respond by continuing to spend money at boom-time rates, despite shrinking revenues.
Governors across the nation are reacting by making plans to levy higher taxes next year on clothes, soft drinks, gasoline, auto licenses and other items that likely will hit low- and middle-income families.
Joe six-pack will just have to cough up more dough. Obama has called on all of us to make sacrifices, and it's our patriotic duty.
Noticeable only by its total absence, is any call for the one solution that would solve the economic crisis. Cutting taxes. Not only do ordinary Joes get to keep and spend more of their own money, thus doing some actual stimulating to the weak economy, but tax cuts, as shown by history, would also fill depleted government coffers.
But, hey, our public servants are the experts. And fortunately, they're judged on their promises instead of their results. The recent election indicated that this is what Americans want. And now we're getting it.
Soon, the government will own pieces of banks, insurance companies, mortgage companies, car companies, possibly airlines, media etc., etc. By this time next year (if Iran hasn't nuked us), you will be able to walk into any of those businesses and get the same service you now get from the government-run post office – which by the way, will soon be cutting back on 6-day mail deliveries due to budget problems.
We asked for it, we got it. God bless America.
Great observations, all of them. How do we get this kind of news into the MSM? Only when the misery index gets high enough will the "truth" hit the Obama fans.
The ideas we conservatives must push (non of which are in the "stimulus") are:
o Put the Federal Government on a weight loss plan – fast.
o Invest in nuclear power, off shore drilling, and refinery
infrastructure
o Get our wimpy congress and senate to stand up against the
eco-marxist global war-mongers.
o Fix the universal care we already have that is broken,
namely Social Security Medicare and Medicaid – not just
throwing good money at it but fix it (privatization comes
to mind)
o Push for an investigation into Barney Frank and the
subprime crisis that destroyed many banks and led to
this meltdown.
o Discredit this outdated Keynesian stimulus package
o Remind the Democrats, that the Repbulicans are the
the party with the good record on Race, i.e. MLK, Lincoln
o Remind the Democrats that Socialism doesn't work – just
look at the EU – its a shambles compared to the US.
o Keep exposing Obama for the radical leftist he is
o Push for tougher stance against state sponsors of terror,
not coddling them – peace comes through strength.
We Conservatives only have ourselves to blame.
By allowing the Republican party to run amock over the last 8 years.
Spending like drunken fools
K street which showed (our?) lack of integrity
Invading Iraq and the mismanaging the war for so long
A total lack of effective communication with the public
Mcain/Palin Ticket
We asked for it and we got it, God Bless America
Excellent article, but I agree with jprairie. Republicans blew it. Although I do approve of cutting taxes, we can't allow government spending to balloon like a toxic mushroom cloud at the same time. This is why I prefer Ron Paul to Rush. Lowering taxes will bring in more money, but if you allow the government to expand at an even faster rate you've blown it. Republicans have blown it and the Dems will destroy us.
efalicp,
I don't think any of us question Ron Paul's government-trimming goals; including Rush Limbaugh. What we question is his 'electability'. Many of us also don’t agree with him on fighting terrorism/jihadism and thwarting Islamic global ambitions.
It does no good having the right program if you can't get your foot in the door to implement it or, having gotten in the door, garner the necessary Congressional support to pass legislation enabling you to do the things you want. Despite Republican rhetoric, there aren't more than a handful of elected legislators and governors (and unelected officials) serious about downsizing government; and, until that changes, having a willing President does little actual good. That being the case, we are better off keeping Paul exactly where he is – opposing Congressional spending.
At least for this election run, Paul failed to rally sufficient party support and threatened to run as an independent. Unlike McCain, he's a real maverick who yields to almost no one. That independence cost him any chance of being taken seriously, and not just by party gatekeepers. His anti-war stance also works poorly other than for a socialist/Democrat candidate; at least while the potential for another 9/11 remains. Had he, by some miracle, won the Republican ticket, I have no doubt most conservatives would have rallied to him and his cause, overlooking his pacifism in the conviction his being in the hot-seat would bring him around to our way of thinking (he’s not some monomaniac Democrat dunce, after all). Yet, that still would not have resulted in a conservative victory anymore than McCain.
Try to understand neither Paul nor McCain are what we need or were looking for; nor are either of them sufficiently enticing to unaligned voters to overcome the current anti-Bush, anti-Republican sentiment. I realized early last year 2008 was going to be a Democrat year, and only a truly conservative movement (one that addresses threats, shrinks government, and restores personal liberties) led by an inspired conservative could have taken that from them. In this situation, I doubt even a Reagan could have pulled it off. Remember, Reagan only took it away from the Democrats when they were failing and in disarray. It was only in his third presidential campaign that his leadership was fully appreciated. Paul is no more a second Reagan than is McCain, so don’t over-state the ‘lost opportunity’. There was scant chance we’d win this one, no matter who ran. I just wish we’d given them a harder time.
Bob, thanks for your comments. I suspect Ron Paul will begin to be taken far more seriously when our massive deficits produce the specter of either run away inflation and/or virtual bankruptcy. Of course the government can never truly go bankrupt because it controls the printing presses, but as I said either inflation comes or foreigners can no longer, or no longer want to buy our T-bills and then our financing costs create deficits and interest rates that can no longer be ignored.
On his anti-war stance, the looming financial catastrophe may also begin to change people's ideas about the size and scope of the military. I am hardly a Democrat or a socialist (can't stand either one of 'em), but I believe that empire building blowback has cost us both in the propaganda and the financial sense. Why keep a military presence all over the world that we cannot afford? Some will argue not that we're engaged in a war for oil, but that we have to protect oil. I understand this position. However, look at Iran, look at Chavez. They hate us, but they still sell oil. Even two bit dictators and Islamic radicalists want the money that oil brings. I'm not afraid that they will stop pumping and take the world economy down.
Afghanistan ruined the USSR. What are we going to accomplish there when we won't even use tactics that the Ruskies would? Is it because Al Qaeda trains there? Come on folks… are you telling me that terrorists can't find places to practice anywhere else??
I believe our military (which I support and I do contribute to military charities) should be here protecting us, not giving the Muslim world propaganda tapes for Al-Jazeera. I believe our military is honorable, but why was Ron Paul's most concentrated support from the troops? Think about it! If he has convinced the troops to support him, can't small government advocates understand the reasons and analyze the big picture?
Republican have failed the small government advocates among us. They have been nearly as responsible as the Democtrats for massive deficits and ever expanding government. Neither party can be trusted to do what has to be done. I believe a third party will rise and I hope that third party is libertarian in nature rather than fascist.
efalicp,
As to Republican complicity in the orgy of spending, I totally agree. However, there are legitimate and illegitimate ends to spending just as there are legitimate and illegitimate objects of governance. This war was thrust on us, so choosing to stay ‘safe’ at home only leaves to our enemies the choosing of our capitulation. You can fall for all the lame 'empire' arguments and throw in the "Iraq wasn't part of the terror deal" you want, but these are distractions from the real problem. Iraq was complicit in doing all it could to abet terrorists, and is part and parcel of Islamic imperialism (you should read Walid Pharse ( http://www.amazon.com/Future-Jihad-Terrorist-Strategies-Against/dp/B001OLRN6I/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1233620662&sr=8-2 ) has to say about Iraq and its support. There are different components to the Islamist threat, and the Iraqi and Syrian Baathist represent one component. This is not a single enemy confined to a single country, and that is by design because it basically the guerilla tactic common to physically weaker but determined enemies. I am not one of those who chooses leaving the advantage to people who want me dead or enslaved.
As to the 'affordability of war' and “empire building”, I direct you to my comments last Friday in response to Ivan Eland's "We Can No Longer Afford the Empire” article ( http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2009/01/24/we-can-no-longer-afford-the-empire/#comments , see comment #1). There is no reason we cannot both look to our extra-territorial defenses and shrink government at the same time. Yet, if the best I could do (as President) was see to our defenses even if that meant conceding some growth to pork-spenders, I would do that. What we can't afford is Eland and those like him who can't see beyond the dollar-cost of defending ourselves and putting a stake through the heart of this particular demon while we still can. All the money in the world won't help us if they succeed in bringing us down the way they intend.
Next, as to Iran and Chavez hating us, they do anyway and ‘disrespect us in the morning for being so easy’ into the bargain. Don’t you remember how these scumbags behaved when the doormat Carter was in charge? It makes little difference whether or not we meet with their approval, so why not focus on measuring up to our own standards of behavior – and let them keep up with us for a change? Assuaging "their fear, loathing and suspicion of us" is just our enemies way of making us chase our own tail.
Finally, as to “… why was Ron Paul’s most concentrated support from the troops?”; I'll answer you with an equally valid retort: Why did McCain’s most concentrated support come from the troops? Both men got high marks from the troops because both supported ideas our troops generally approve. In Paul’s case, fiscal conservatism; in McCain’s case, because he was one of them and because he supports the mission. We can make the same argument for all the Republicans up to the primaries. Only the democrat candidates got poor marks from the military (though the media did one heck of a job keeping it quiet) because most folks in the military see through their posturing to resent the game they play of ‘supporting the troops’ while dissing the mission. Don't be fooled thinking the mission is less important to military people than is fiscal-responsibility. Both are important, but these are people who believe enough in what they (and we) have been doing in Afghanistan and Iraq to volunteer time and time again. In fact, nothing is more important to them than a 'successful' outcome. I can't emphasize this enough, so I will say it again – these are people (a few of whom will be fooled by democrats of Obama's ilk or are unhappy with the mission, but, who in the main strongly approve what they have accomplished and will be very upset by us undoing all their hard work. Otherwise, their sacrifice goes for nothing. Therefore, if it came down to Paul v. McCain, Paul would have been blown away in a 'military only' contest.
Hi Bob… I will check out the article you mentioned. I appreciate the fact that libertarians and conservatives can converse without the name-calling, cliched rants and hackneyed drivel that fills left-wing sites. More tomorrow…
Bob- I read your article. In my eyes, there are some legitimate points and some evasion. First off, let's agree that "empire" is far too strong a word for what the U.S. has been up to. Let's agree that this is not the Roman Empire enslaving captured populations. However, to demonstrate that this is not classic empire building and imply that his basic argument is therefore totally invalid is a bit of sophistry.
I believe that we have a large military presence all over the globe for which we pay for and which not only don't we need, but it generates bad publicity for us. You can say, screw the money aspect and ignore the bad publicity. (I used to be in that camp).
More on the economics. I think his comparison of our share of GDP to our share of military spending while not conclusive, does indicate a potential problem or an imbalance. I also suspect (but have not researched it) that your percentage of GDP figures do not take into account the "emergency appropriations" that are not part of regular military funding.
In the end though, I see it this way, The Arabs cannot even seriously damage Israel, a tiny country which they completey surround, share borders with and outnumber by hundreds of millions. Yet am I supposed to believe that despite this, hordes of Muslims are going to get over here (in military planes they don't have or in military boats they don't have) or launch ICBMs they don't have? Am I worried that an Islamic Army will overrun Des Moines later this year with camnels?
Now I know some will say but what about 9/11? Legitimate question. However, keep in mind that they used our technology (planes)along with unlocked cockpits to pull this off. Despicable?…infinitely so. However, my point is that having our military over there is not an effective means of protecting us here (and again, it generates anti-American feeling every time an innocent is killed by accident). Our troops are heroes, but don't expect all the locals to view it that way when there sister/daughter/mother etc is killed by a smart bomb sent to the wrong target.
Why hasn't there been another attack here since 9/11 you've asked. Frankly, I don't know, but again, I remain totally unconvinced that we've got them so engaged over there, that another crew of six terrorists couldn't pull off an incident over here. In my eyes, one has nothing to do with the other. In fact if I were a terrorist I'd think to myself, "things aren't going all that well here, these U.S. Armed Forces are tough SOBs, but we have plenty of new recruits all the time.. Khalid, why don't you take six guys with you to the U.S. and blow up a building, a bridge or a dam. It should be much easier than close combat with their troops and the publicity will be a hundred time more potent than our killing a few of their troops here in Iraq.
In short, what exactly is it you fear, and how is keeping our wonderful troops (and I mean that seriously) over there going to protect us more than having them back here where terrorists can really harm us? If we're not over there they cannot kill our troops over there. If our troops are here, they will be far less likely to hurt us here as they would be dealing with a huge indigenous hostile population over here. If we think taking on Iraq with the world's greatest army is difficult,why should I shudder in fear that they'll attempt a prolonged. concentrated assault against a hostile population protected by police and the miltary and far more sophisticated defensive and offensive weapons?
Well efalicp, national security is the main reason for government, which means a strong military establishment. Lest we forget, our military costs so much because we are attempting to surgically kill enemies not civilians. We could save billions of dollars by throwing away the laser and TV guided missiles. So before we complain about the cost lets recognize why the cost exists. All the domestic entitlement programs are what needs to be cut and cut drastically but that won't happen with a socialist in the chair.
Secondly how does our military create a bad publicity for us? They are simply soldiers, while certainly newsworthy events of individual crime by soldiers has occurred it is no where near the level of civilian crime. Abu Gharid was a MSM inflated mockery of reporting that was borne on the wings of BDS. I care not one whit what the euroweenies think of us or our military and they encompass most of the "world" you inferred too. Their way of life is going up into a mushroom cloud of entitlement programs as their giant ponzi scheme detonates around them. Soon they will not have the energy to complain about America, either because they are scrabbling around for food in a garbage dump or we've joined them at their level of misery thanks to B Hussein Obama.
JayGee- I'll try and rephrase. I'm not particularly interested in what the Europeans think of us either. What I have been trying to point out is that we have a military presence (Lefties use the code words we are "occupiers")in way too many foreign countries. In Korea, the students and trade unions use our presence there to score local political points, same used to be in Taiwan, Phillipines etc. Most crucial, is our mega presence in the Middle East. This presence allows those who wish us ill to use our presence to rally others to their radical cause. I believe if we were not there, they'd actually have to start looking inward to find out who is to blame for the fact that they live in the 3rd century as it's not our fault.
The "bad publicity" you asked about is created , as I stated, when a smart bomb kills a wedding party. Now civilian casualties may be tens of degrees lower than Dresden to exaggerate, but even one death caused by our troops gets shown on TV there endlessly and inspires hatred. The fact that out troops try at all costs to avoid civilian deaths, doesn't prevent the fact that they happen and keep in mind that we are seen by occupiers as many over there (not all, but many).
Even Guantanamo for instance. Personally I think it's a country club. But the talking points it provides for the left far outweigh the benefit of keeping prisoners there. They can spread lies about torture etc and three quarters of the world believes it. Again, bad publicity.
More importantly, someone has yet to address my points above about what our real fear is here and why having a military stationed outside our country (which again creates propaganda points for every two bit dictator that wants to blame their troubles on us instead of their own miserable policies)serves us well. As I said, Islamic troops, ships, bombers and troops on camels are not about to invade us. Not going to happen!! Thanks for listening…
efalicp, I cannot say I know the exact reason why military is stationed outside the country, but if I had to fathom a guess, it would be the communist threat following World War II. Then, after the end of the Cold War, it was as if the government had gotten accustomed to its military stations outside the US and kept them.
Bob, you mention electability but it really seems like its a useless word. McCain was chosen in the primaries due to his "electability", since he was the most detached from the Republican brand and the only thing he has proven is how not to run a campaign. Kerry was chosen on his electability in 2004 because, quite frankly, none of their candidates were worth a dime, so they went with the most "electable" one and put the second most electable as the VP. Finally, the most "electable" Democrat in the primaries had to be Clinton. Name recognition, Senator from New York, woman, etc. She pretty much fit the bill better than a first term Senator from Chicago with an Islamic-sounding name. I hope this election will be a lesson to the GOP: in the primaries, go with the guy who represents you, not who you think has the best chance of winning an election!
Unfortunately, the government gets accustomed to every expense once it begins. It's like a ratchet wrench that only goes in one direction and once it passes each ratchet, it's locked at that point and cannot be backed up. Although I admire the military I have to believe some of the same philosophy is at work.
efalicp, removing our military presence may do what you describe, but it also makes us look weak. Look! we made the big bad USA run away, there is no winning this PR contest you envision is occurring which I argue is just a convenient facade to aim their anger at.
We are hated because of who we are, a free country, prosperous (well least till Obama gets a few more bills passed), able to worship who we want, the list goes on. Projection of strength has been a concept of power since time immemorial and the 21st century is no different. If some country wants to play Hilteresque the first thing they are going to figure out is 1) Our response 2) How quickly can we mobilize to stop it.
efalicp,
I apologize for being so long answering you, but I’ve been busy and wanted to answer you properly.
In comment #7, you commend me for conversing with you “without the name-calling, clichéd rant and hackneyed drivel” only to accuse me in #8 of “evasion”, “sophistry”, erroneous information, cowardice, and put words in my mouth I never uttered. From there, you go on to indulge your own brand of ‘sophistry’, answering statements of fact with admittedly unsupported supposition parading as fact. By your own mouth, you “believe” and give us no reason to think that you researched your opinions so much as took the word of jihad-apologists the threat is overstated. We’ll, I have researched this stuff, have been paying attention since 9/11 got my attention, and do get my information from better sources than just the MSM, Sean Hannity, and/or wahibi compromised apologists. Also, you mistake me as favoring profligate spending in pursuit of war.
- Sophistry: subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation
- Sophism: an argument seeming correct in form but actually invalid; especially an argument intended to deceive.
You call my remarks regarding the misuse of ‘empire’ sophistry. Quite the opposite is true as I was demolishing your own sophistry; the sophistry of torturing language to make an invalid point. In effect, when you accuse me of sophistry you are calling me decieving. Were I trying to deceive you, believe me I would never be so obvious. First, I’d sound you out to learn your opinions, next convince you we’re on the same side, and, only then, subtly persuade you black is white. Personally, I don’t indulge in such games and tell it as I see it. Clearly, I make no pretense of being on the same side as you on this issue, therefore your accusation of 'sophistry' falls as flat as did your prescription of 'empire'. I assume what you really meant to accuse me of is ‘pedantry’; but words, if they are to have meaning, ought to be used properly and not continually tortured to fit every object. Because we misuse words so freely, communication becomes so impossible we end up endlessly explaining we do not mean what we say. Either that or we’re deliberately misleading with misused, misapplied words (aka, ‘sophistry’; back in your court).
What I said regarding defense spending was: we can simultaneously a) reduce overall government spending and b) effectively address our defense objectives; and that reducing defense spending as a means to economic recovery is of lesser concern and questionable value when the real profligacy is in social spending and spending our way out of recessions (you might care to read the article I just posted at IC on this very topic http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2009/02/03/new-deal-redux-resurrecting-the-myth-of-the-great-man/ ). I do not exclude military-spending from this judgment.
However, the time to spend is when the object expensed is necessary or justifiable by tangible results. Thus, I am neither for nor against defense-spending or war-spending, per se. I am for or against a particular war on its own merits (aka, necessity), and do believe our security takes precedence over personal comfort or continued good fortune. Thus, to me, it a matter of contending priorities, not one of it is okay to promote war or spend on defense whatever is demanded. Prove to me the threat is chimerical or has been adequately addressed, and I will join the chorus against further spending, but, so far, all you’ve given me is platitudes and suppositions and a blanket animus toward spending in all its forms (regardless the need or intent). In so doing, you take the choice to spend or not spend out of our hands as something ‘non-negotiable’ on the sole criteria it is (to you) an ‘unassailable article of revealed truth’, i.e., ‘spending = evil’ and, perhaps, that defense-spending is especially evil. We’ll, okay, war is an evil (though sometimes necessary), and war-profits do beget some corruption and blood-stained dainties, and all the best intentions of mice & men do get out of whack, and our past policies very likely did help put us where we are today (though rarely for the reasons talking-heads give us), and so on and so forth, yaddi-yadda-yadda; but these hardly constitute a reason to support or withhold support from what we do now. At each stage, we need to reevaluate what has been accomplished and what still needs doing before going on or breaking it off.
You said of my spending figures “… your percentage of GDP figures do not take into account the "emergency appropriations" that are not part of regular military funding…” Wrong. They do include the emergency component (see http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy08/pdf/budget/defense.pdf , 2008 base defense budget was $481.4bn or 3.3% of GDP, total budget including WoT + Surge was $ 623.1bn or 4.3% of GDP, GDP for 2008 was $14.33-trillion per CIA World Fact-book – see also https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html ) and were accurate. So, again, you have accused me of ‘sophistry’ without checking first it is you who indulge in it. I don’t cite figures without checking, and ought to be offended you’d presume I would; knowing nothing of me other than I am ‘conservative. I will, however, overlook the double rudeness for now.
Do you seriously believe the enemies we face today are just a bunch of incompetent nutcases incapable of any real harm (or, alternatively, they have been sufficiently suppressed and can be safely forgotten)? I don’t ridicule your belief as you did mine as I understand you might think so given you’ve never taken the time to research this methodically. Most people don’t and, normally, there is little reason they should. But, this is not a ‘reasonable’ situation or an enemy that conforms to our way of thinking. You also deem the constant hammering of Israel as ineffectual. In both of these you could not be more wrong, but I also understand you have been conditioned to ignore events taking place around you (all of us have), while accepting the slight distortions of a media meant to alternately pacify and incite. I commend you once again to read Mr. Phares excellent book on this subject. I could name a dozen more titles to enlighten you to the implacable, resourceful, and malicious enemy facing us, but this one is sufficient and specific.
Not all threats have to be on the order of annihilation to warrant a large and effective response. Some are blatant and distracting, while others are more subtle and insidious. It is sufficient these people mean to butcher as many of us as they can until we yield to their subjugation. Failing sufficient force, they fall back on misdirection, infiltration and pressure. Subjugation does not even have to be in the form of armed invasion, and is taking place even now in the form of steady colonization with an ultimate object of dominating our political life. This colonization is well along in Europe (read Eurabia, by Bat Ye'Or http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=Eurabia ) where local communities have come under steady pressure and assault to replace liberal with Muslim (sharia) laws and values. Europeans are waking up to countries and cultures very different from those of their grandparents, cultures in which Muslims and sharia are accorded protected legal standing. This is the program determined for us also.
I know this all sounds highly exaggerated; even ‘conspiratorial’ and theatrical, but don’t take my word for it. Read the ‘English edition’ of al Jazeera and other Muslim mainstream media. Read the history and ideology of the wahabi and salafi movements from their own sources. Research the history of Islam (that much praised ‘religion of peace’) going back to mad-mullah Mohammed. The history of Islam is one of 14-centuries of incessant aggression, expansion, and subjugation; interrupted only in times of relative Muslim weakness and fragmentation (read Andrew G. Bostom’s “The Legacy of Jihad” http://www.amazon.com/Legacy-Jihad-Islamic-Holy-Non-Muslims/dp/1591026024/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1234039871&sr=8-1 ). Most versions accessible to us are sanitized, to be sure, but enough of the loathing and aggression leaks through that you can’t miss the intent. Read what moderate Muslims write of these people and their grand design for restoring the grand caliphate and of converting the rest of us by hook or crook.
Since 2001, there have been something like 10,000 incidences of Muslim-terrorist attack worldwide (see http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks ); not counting the high-visibility 9/11, London subway, Madrid train, military base, and large-scale intifada type attacks. Between September 2001 and November 2007 there were 19 determined attacks made against the U.S. alone, and the only reason these failed was because we did a better job of interception. One of the big problems complained of in all reports before March 2002 was the lack of human-intelligence assets in terrorists-harboring countries, and the inability by Western agencies to penetrate these. Human-intelligence throughout the middle-east was cited as the most serious problem facing us in preventing attacks on U.S. soil and remains at the forefront of agency concerns as our largest weakness. The State Department, civilian and military intelligence agencies all admit our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan are to be credited, therefore, with improving our H.I. in the region and, at least, some (if not most) of the gains we’ve made in stopping domestic attacks. The other component of successful interdiction has been electronic-surveillance; which however, is generally opposed as an abuse of power. Assuming the only means of stopping these attacks is between provenly effective overseas disruptions versus questionably effective domestic surveillance in the hope of last-minute intervention, which might you choose as the lesser evil? As both of these are opposed and none of us wants another 9/11, what is your alternative? I am open to any proposal with at least as much chance of success as these have had at demonstrably lower costs in either lives or money.
Force comparisons:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/israel/index.html
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/index.html
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/syria/index.html
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/egypt/index.html
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/gulf/index.html
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/hizballah.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/news/2008/04/ – the threat
http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/report/2008/c-rprt-terrorism_2007-04.htm
Scan through the lists and assessments of weapons at Global Security. These undermine your argument terrorists lack the requisite assets to cause serious harm. Al Qaeda did not need direct possession of assets to topple two of the worlds largest buildings, damage the Pentagon, and kill 3,000 Americans in a single strike. They did that using ‘borrowed’ assets. Consider what they could achieve should some of the more portable weaponry belonging to one of the above sympathetic countries ‘mysteriously’ fall into their hands. Iran has both biological and chemical weapons, and has made threats of using them. Properly handled, either al Qaeda or Hezbollah could and would happily serve as proxy leaving Iran free to declare its innocence. But, even that is unnecessary. A small cadre (20-30) heavily armed (with assault weapons) determined and suicidal terrorists in our midst would be enough to take out a hundred times that many and blow up a few buildings before they could be suppressed. We know they have the numbers and commitment to do this.
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/65489.pdf – U.S. State Dept. disagrees with you the threat is exaggerated
http://gsn.nti.org/gsn/nw_20090206_4106.php – as does Leon Panetta, soon to become CIA director – Panetta regards Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda “our worst enemy.”
http://gsn.nationaljournal.com/gsn/ts_20090202_6118.php – National Security experts may disagree what has prevented another 9/11, but most credit some combination of domestic surveillance, militarily crippling the enemy, and interrogation
[Note, I don’t agree with everything in this report. For example, that “the Iraq war further radicalized the Muslim world and produced numerous new terrorist recruits” is bogus and has been an idea floating around since well before the operation began (self-fulfilling prophecy). Those militants who reacted to our presence were already fully radicalized before we got there, who then take our presence as pretext for venting a long-distilled, deliberately fostered-rage. The lag between U.S. presence and reaction was predictable as they got organized and learned how and where to attack us. However, the response of the Iraqi people to their ‘liberation’ and to the immense improvement in personal lives has been generally positive, especially since the surge and before the reprisals. Reports from both the Pentagon and returning veterans provides a very different picture from that of our own media, which prefers the ‘ugly-American’ narrative that sells papers to the unvarnished ‘we are appreciated’ version coming from our troops which doesn’t. That pretty much negates the whole argument “our military presence radicalizes Muslims”.]
However, what the article does show is strong agreement between Democrat and Republican analysts that jihadists are not merely a threat but a major ‘domestic threat’ that needs to be taken seriously. The fact Americans are not dying in our streets today does not prove they cannot die here tomorrow should jihadists hit on a new formula that works; or, we let our guard down. Nations, more than individuals, have inertia; making for significant delays between appraisal and response. The main failure in our defenses on 9/11 was an inertia working against timely appraisal of the threat and taking action appropriate to stopping it on the ground. The same can be true in reverse, that we get locked into threat-mode where everything seems a threat and spend too much thwarting each. Where we are now is probably as close to balanced as we are likely to get, but it wouldn’t take much to put us back to sleep. Already, many people would like us to just shut up and forget 9/11 ever happened.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,487024,00.html – bits and pieces of information keep surfacing Iraq did, in fact, abet terrorism; individually, these never seem like much but accumulatively they amount to some state sponsorship
+ 9/11 attacks killed ~3,000 Americans, destroyed both main WTC buildings, and caused extensive damage to the Pentagon – suggests had passengers not acted to stop the 4th plane it is likely the White House or U.S. Capital would also have been taken out also.
+ bombings of the U.S.S. Cole, Oklahoma City, WTC in 1993, and the U.S. embassies in Kenya & Tanzania
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/6558.pdf – Terrorism, the Future, and U.S. Foreign Policy, Nov. 2001 – terrorism as we understood it post 9/11; interestingly the threat assessment isn’t all that different today, even though the response is questioned
Threat of terrorism on U.S. Soil:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/HomelandSecurity/bg2219.cfm – “…the increasing lethality of terrorist strikes has been achieved not with weapons of mass destruction, but with the instruments of armed assault … Criticisms of post-9/11 efforts to protect the United States from attack range from claims that America is more vulnerable than ever to the conten¬tion that the transnational terrorist danger is vastly overhyped. A review of publicly available informa¬tion about at least 19 terrorist conspiracies thwarted by U.S. law enforcement suggests that the truth lies somewhere between these two arguments.”
http://americanaffairs.suite101.com/article.cfm/terrorism_threats_to_the_united_states
http://www.rms.com/Publications/RMS_Terrorism_Risk_Briefing_Jan_2009.pdf
“The phased withdrawal of United States-led coalition forces from Iraq will create greater instability in Iraq and beyond.”
and
“The Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism… warns … a major CBRN [i.e., Chemical-Biological, Radiological, or Nuclear] attacks in the United States or overseas within the next five years, December 3, 2008. … the risk of such attacks is growing because Al Qaeda and other terrorists have shown continued strong interest in using such weapons … and could … hire rogue scientists to achieve this aim … more likely to use biological weapons such as anthrax rather than nuclear weapons.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/26/us-judges-5-year-threat-of-terrorism/ “The threat of terrorism and the threat of extremist ideologies has not abated” – Michael Chertoff, DHS Secretary 12/26/08
http://www.fbi.gov/publications.htm – too many to list separately
http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20070717_release.pdf – FBI: The Terrorist Threat to U.S. Homeland “We assess that al-Qa’ida’s Homeland plotting is likely to continue to focus on prominent political, economic, and infrastructure targets with the goal of producing mass casualties, visually dramatic destruction, significant economic aftershocks, and/or fear among the US population. The group is proficient with conventional small arms and improvised explosive devices, and is innovative in creating new capabilities and overcoming security obstacles. ”
http://www.fbi.gov/publications/terror/terrorism2002_2005.pdf
• May 20, 2005, Ronald Allen Grecula … presented his design for a bomb, which he understood would be used by al-Qa’ida to kill Americans … intended to build and sell a bomb to a terrorist organi¬zation for use against the United States.
• July 5, 2005, Torrance Cali¬fornia police arrested Levar Washington and Gregory Patterson during an armed gas station robbery. Their arrest and FBI investiga¬tion revealed they were conducting the robberies to raise money for an alleged terrorist plot targeting U.S. military facilities, Israeli government facilities, and Jewish synagogues in the greater Los Angeles area. FBI investigation deter¬mined Washington and Patterson were part of a Muslim convert organization, Jam’iyyat Ul-Islam Is-Sa¬heeh (“Authentic Assembly of Islam”), or JIS, allegedly founded in prison by inmate Kevin James in 1997. The FBI identified James, Washington, Patterson (all U.S. citizens) and Hammad Samana, a Permanent Resident Alien of Pakistani origin, as the primary members of JIS. Samana was arrested on August 1, 2005. … [they] were indicted … on charges of conspiracy to levy war against the U.S. government through terrorism and conspiracy to possess and discharge firearms in furtherance of crimes of violence … also charged with conspiracy to kill members of the U.S. government uniformed services and conspiracy to kill foreign officials.
• December 5, 2005, Michael Reynolds was arrested after arranging to meet a purported al-Qa’ida contact. Reynolds offered to assist al-Qa’ida in engaging in acts of terrorism within the United States by identifying targets, planning terror¬ist attacks, and describing bomb-making methods. Reyn¬olds sought to carry out violent attacks against pipeline systems and energy facilities in an effort to reduce energy reserves, create environmental hazards, and increase anxiety. Reynolds sought payment for supplying his assistance and continuing work on behalf of al-Qa’ida. Reynolds has been charged with attempting to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization.
These are just the incidents DHS has been able to avert in 2005. At the rate of 3-4 serious attempts to murder Americans on U.S. soil and cause as much damage as possible per year, how can anyone argue the threat is overstated or over? These people mean to kill us – plain and simple.
Finally, as to your question “… what is it you fear …”; nothing personally though I don’t relish the idea of some jihadist lopping my head off while broadcasting it live as they did that journalist and some others. My fear is for what these people mean and can to do my country, our children and grandchildren, and to our way of life. They may or may not be able to topple us as they imagine, but they sure are giving it their best shot. They have already caused immense havoc throughout Europe, and it looks like they are there to stay. Even if all they achieve is another 9/11, subway-bombing, riot, or computer-net take-down it is too much; and I want their nonsense stopped and held in contempt for all time.