Article

2007-08-30 Home Front: WoT

The National Intelligence Director Explains Why Bush's Critics Have Blood on Their Hands

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by mcsegeek1 2007-08-30 00:51|| || Front Page|| [7 views ] Top

#1 Franklin spent most of the American Revolution in France.

Posted by Fordesque 2007-08-30 01:22|| 2007-08-30 01:22|| Front Page Top

#2 McConnell is trying to frighten Americans into supporting President Bush's anti-terrorism policies. Worse, he is charging critics of those policies with complicity in murder.

If common sense and good judgement fails to work effectively, fear is a damn good motivator.

Posted by Besoeker 2007-08-30 01:27|| 2007-08-30 01:27|| Front Page Top

#3 Franklin didn't live in a time where a single person could kill tens of thousands people.

Posted by JFM">JFM 2007-08-30 02:12|| 2007-08-30 02:12|| Front Page Top

#4 See also FREEREPUBLIC > GETTING VIETNAM RIGHT.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2007-08-30 03:49|| 2007-08-30 03:49|| Front Page Top

#5 Don't overlook the modifiers in Franlin's quote ("essential," "little," and "temporary.")

Posted by Glenmore">Glenmore 2007-08-30 08:30|| 2007-08-30 08:30|| Front Page Top

#6 McConnell is trying to frighten Americans into supporting President Bush's anti-terrorism policies. Worse, he is charging critics of those policies with complicity in murder.

The bureaucrats in the FBI who failed to act upon warnings, the staffers who built the wall in information sharing, and those who failed to carry through with charged tasks to hunt Benny should have faced accessory charges in 9/11. Just as at Abu Ghrib the command chain paid for their pathetic supervision, instead of handing out rewards and decorations, those bureaucrats should have been hammered, publicly and harshly. As the French would say, pour encourager les autres. The 'critics' can reside in the next circle of hell. Although there may be a specific circle awaiting the operators and owners of the NYT.

Posted by Procopius2k 2007-08-30 10:48|| 2007-08-30 10:48|| Front Page Top

#7 McConnell wants to have it both ways: Terrorists are so sophisticated that the government needs broad surveillance powers to thwart them, yet they are too stupid to realize someone might be listening to their phone calls or reading their e-mails. Evidently the possibility occurred to them only after they read about it in the newspaper.

Well, it might occur to them that *someone* could be listening, but now they know. Spot the difference?

Posted by The Doctor 2007-08-30 13:07|| 2007-08-30 13:07|| Front Page Top

#8 Last I heard, Gonzo fired 9 prosecutors, while Janet Reno canned 93. Guess who received the worst publicity?

Posted by McZoid 2007-08-30 19:54|| 2007-08-30 19:54|| Front Page Top

#9 McConnell wants to have it both ways: Terrorists are so sophisticated that the government needs broad surveillance powers to thwart them, yet they are too stupid to realize someone might be listening to their phone calls or reading their e-mails. Evidently the possibility occurred to them only after they read about it in the newspaper.

I suppose it never occurred to the author how there are so many terrorists that monitoring them requires more effort than simple manpower can economically provide. Ergo, "broad surveillance" is most certainly warranted. So far, terrorists have also shown a distinct immunity to common sense that continues to justify such surveillance methodologies. Finally, concealed language, code, cryptography or whatever still does not fully obscure the chain of physical, telecom or Internet addresses that then provide physical links in connecting up these aspiring mass murderers.

While direct military intervention is much more effective, without that option being fully employed this sort of monitoring is vital in the extreme.

Franklin didn't live in a time where a single person could kill tens of thousands people.

This goes to the heart of other discussions I have had with friends. One of them maintained that America's Founding Fathers simply could not have anticipated the advent of such a monstrous evil as Nazism and therefore it was well worth considering a constitutional ban on all forms of it.

I will venture that the exact same may apply to Islam as well. Both ideologies entertain a vast catalog of undeniable human rights violations and both of them aspire to violent world domination via genocide and military conquest.

There is absolutely no reasonable explanation for why it is important that either concept be granted credibility or legal protections. Either one would just as quickly abolish constitutional law and the unalienable rights of free men. Permitting such inimical forces to permeate our society serves no useful purpose. Much as there are constraints upon conspiracy to commit mass murder, overthrow of government and similar criminal acts, Nazism and Islam both qualify for similar proscriptions.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-08-30 22:29|| 2007-08-30 22:29|| Front Page Top

23:54 Old Patriot
23:46 McZoid
22:56 Zenster
22:52 Zenster
22:29 Zenster
22:21 mcsegeek1
22:20 JosephMendiola
22:18 mcsegeek1
22:17 trailing wife
21:28 Mullah Larry
21:18 BA
21:15 Broadhead6
21:08 Nimble Spemble
20:40 trailing wife
20:35 Zenster
20:35 JosephMendiola
20:32 JosephMendiola
20:30 jpal
20:30 tu3031
20:28 tu3031
20:24 M. Murcek
20:22 no mo uro
20:22 trailing wife
20:21 ed