Carol Platt Liebau: Who's Serious in the War on Terror

Thursday, July 13, 2006

Who's Serious in the War on Terror

This piece in the LA Times reveals yet more about which party is serious about the war on terror -- and which party isn't.

The issue, of course, is what protections suspected and/or captured terrorists are entitled to when it comes time for them to be prosecuted. As the article points out:

The [Bush administration] lawyers said the government must be able to use evidence and testimony gathered through coercion and hearsay and did not want to provide captives with lawyers before interrogating them for intelligence purposes.

And that's really the nub of the issue. After all, do we really want every terrorist that comes to trial to be given access to US secrets -- like Jose Padilla is (because he, at least, is an American citizen)?

Showcasing their customary lack of seriousness about the issue, Democrats responded as follows:

Democrats called such evidentiary concerns "red herrings," insisting that no member of Congress had suggested imposing police-like duties on soldiers in battle, such as reading detainees their Miranda rights.

How ridiculous. How unserious. For having to offer Miranda warnings and saddling soldiers with police-like duties is, indeed, a logical reductio ad absurdum of the issue, but it's not the nub of the problem (which focuses both on how to procure evidence to prosecute terrorists, and how to prosecute without revealing to the accused our military secrets). The fact that Democrats seize on the most absurd scenario to undermine a debate about a very serious and troublesome issue shows that they're not engaging in an effort to figure out how best to win the war on terror. They're simply trying to score political points.

What a surprise.


Blogger Dittohead said...

I guess Carol is saying if you're not rubber stamping what Bush wants, you're weak and a traitor.

10:07 PM  
Blogger Greg said...

No. Carol is simply pointing out the obvious. Since shortly after 9/11 the Democrats have placed a higher priority on their own political advantage than on winning the war against an enemy that seriously wants to destroy us.

5:26 AM  
Blogger Dittohead said...


Bush isn't making America or the world safer and he cut and ran from the enemy Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. Certainly the Dems should point out that Bush is a failure.

6:38 AM  
Blogger dodger said...

Suppose I were to attempt to gain converts to my religion of love my neighbor. I would be attempting to convert the converted. But I need to generate some serious money from my converts. Crisis sells, serenity sleeps.

So I gin up the hate America crowd. The money and the hate pours in.

That's why Islam sells hate. That's why sells hate. That's why Sarah Brady sells hate. She doesn't hate guns. She loves money.

Thank goodness there are more of us who love serenity than love money.

7:13 AM  
Blogger Cliff said...

"Thank goodness there are more of us who love serenity than love money."
And, if I may add, desire to do the right thing, even if it isn't currently popular.

7:18 AM  
Blogger Greg said...

I would argue, Ditto, that President Bush IS making America AND the world safer.

Some simply can't tolerate the difficult work it takes to accomplish the task. Others cannot stand for anyone other than themselves to get credit for getting the job done.

Actually, I'll ammend that sentiment. Bush only has a couple of years left in his administration. It's not likely he will still be in office when the job gets done. But he is getting the job started - It's about time! It will take other administrations to complete the task.

That's why it's critically important to keep the Democrats out of power for the next several administrations. They have proven themselves unwilling and/or unable to take national defense seriously.

8:10 AM  
Blogger Dittohead said...


Bush ran right into bin Laden's trap like the fool that he is. bin Laden uses Bush to recruit jihadists and Iraq has become their training grounds. Bush and the Republican's use bin Laden to get elected and for their cronies to make war profits.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 or bin Laden. Now it is in a civil war and a living h*ll on earth. It may spread throughout the Middle East.

Bush dismantled everything in Iraq and left a power vacum. He refused to send enough troops to control the country. Now he can't even control one city.

Bush cut and ran from Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and now the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are stronger then in 2001.

The longer an occupier is in a country the more the people hate them.

Just look at Bush's father who had the world's support while his son insisted the US could do everything on it's own as the world super power. The son has proven to be totally incompetent.

8:47 AM  
Blogger Cliff said...

Ditto, when you hate, you hate with a firey vengance,
don't you?

9:01 AM  
Blogger eLarson said...

recruit jihadists and Iraq has become their training grounds.

Also their burial ground.

Out of curiosity, how many US troops are still in Afghanistan?

9:07 AM  
Blogger The Ayatollah said...

Democrats care more for terrorists than they do US Marines, and they will undermine the war on terror in a heartbeat to gain political advantage.

9:11 AM  
Blogger suek said...

Some people here might find this article interesting. It's long, but worthwhile.

9:11 AM  
Blogger eLarson said...

(I'll answer my own question from above: more than 18,000.)

9:19 AM  
Blogger Dittohead said...


18,000 wasn't enough. Taliban and Al-Qaeda are stronger now than in 2001.

9:46 AM  
Blogger Dittohead said...


I've never been one who is easy on those you act incompetently and pretend they didn't goof-up. The country began with a president who couldn't tell a lie and now we have a president that can not tell the truth.

Bush was told how many troops were needed to secure Iraq and he only sent half the amount.

The buck doesn't land on Cindy Sheehan's desk as Carol likes to pretend. It lands on the president's desk.

10:07 AM  
Blogger Greg said...


Great article!


Your posts are the answer to Carol's question:

Blind hatred for the existing U.S. administration.

Lack of understanding and respect for the difficulties of war.

Fast and loose handling of the facts.

The characteristics of your posts epitomize the Democratic Party since shortly after 9/11.

11:09 AM  
Blogger Dittohead said...


Have you ever made a fact based comment here. NO!

11:30 AM  
Blogger Dittohead said...


Who is J.R. Dunn?

11:40 AM  
Blogger dodger said...

Should i act on my beliefs? Or on the beliefs of others? Much of what our government does requires us to decide, as voters, how our representatives will, in turn, answer that question.

For example, some believe second hand smoke causes harm. Others don't believe second hand smoke causes harm.

Our government representatives then decide whose beliefs they will act on.

Even though those on both sides have nothing to back up their beliefs but...their beliefs, notwithstanding this study, that study, again a compendium of beliefs.

The lesson? A small minority of anti-smoker zealots succeeded in having their beliefs made into law.

How did they do it? I submit, the power of hate. Hate for smokers got them a forum, got them intimidation power, got them control.

Why not ride the same concept, hate, to power and control over the majority beliefs regarding the war against terror?

I ask that rhetorically because that is exactly the tactic of the left. to make those of who are against terror the aggressors, the hated. Witness Israel.

12:08 PM  
Blogger suek said...

JR Dunn was the editor of the International Military Encyclopedia for twelve years.

2:14 PM  
Blogger eLarson said...

18,000 wasn't enough. Taliban and Al-Qaeda are stronger now than in 2001.

Exactly how are they stronger? Do you mean numerically? Or some other metric?

They once were the government of Afghanistan... and now they are not.

4:52 PM  
Blogger Dittohead said...


Here is some info

5:20 PM  
Blogger eLarson said...

The poppy crop is nothing new. Michael Yon's had some articles about it over at his place, too.

The 20-to-1 kill ratio sounds about what I'd expect. Should they continue to mass in greater numbers, it makes them juicier targets for AC-130s and such, though, which will drive that ratio higher still.

McCaffery's presumption that the Taliban are planning to wait us out is not surprising. I imagine that is what any number of Baath-party holdovers or Muqtada al-Sadr might be hoping in Iraq, too.

7:26 PM  
Blogger Dittohead said...


And for everyone that you kill, they recruit 20 more jihadists. So unless Bush policies and strategies change, this is endless killing and America is going bankrupt. This is exactly what bin Laden wanted and Bush fell into his trap.

11:34 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home