“We will write you a letter, telling you how angry we are.”

Defense Secretary Robert Gates called the North Korean nuclear test “supercilious and jejune,” leading some in diplomatic circles to worry that the U.S. might be running out of appropriate adjectives with which to craft its response.

President Obama attempted to calm those fears, saying that the United States was prepared to “scour the thesaurus” to come up with additional adjectives and was “prepared to use adverbs” if necessary.

There’s no problem a well-placed adverb can’t solve.

Wall St. Journal editorial on the leap of faith required in nearly all of Obama’s policies.  I haven’t seen the particular South Park episode to which he is referring, but the point is rather obvious nonetheless:

This more or less sums up Mr. Obama’s speech last week on Guantanamo, in which the president explained how he intended to dispose of the remaining detainees after both houses of Congress voted overwhelmingly against bringing them to the U.S.

The president’s plan can briefly be described as follows. Phase One: Order Guantanamo closed. Phase Two: ? Phase Three: Close Gitmo!

As described, the same principle can be applied in every area of Obama’s domestic and foreign agenda:  education, healthcare, energy indepedence, Iran, Israel/Palestine, etc.  As implied in the article, it’s phase 2 that’s the most difficult.  Yet, that’s the phase that Obama never seems to explain (either because he doesn’t know how to do it - i.e. relocate Guantanamo Bay’s prisoners - or because he knows that it’s not a politically viable message - i.e. raise taxes on the middle class.) 

Life certainly sounds a whole lot easier when you skip phase 2.  Phase 1:  Get a job.  Phase 2:  ?  Phase 3:  Retire a millionaire.  If it were only that easy.

Now, let’s deal with the other primary claims of the NY Times Editorial board:

• The Bush administration fed the furies of anti-Americanism by not adhering to democratic values.

Surely, some of the symbols of Bush’s War on Terror (Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay in particular) were used as propaganda in the Muslim world and further flamed the fire against the US; however, this had nothing to do with the US not holding to its democratic values.  Those who hate us hate us because of our democratic values (as stated by Cheney).  In all likelihood, they hate Liberals - generally more supportive of lax moral behavior resulting in the social debauchery abhorred in the Muslim world - more than they hate conservatives.  (Although conservatives generally support Israel more than Liberals do, so maybe its a toss-up).  Assuredly, our enemies in this particular fight hate all strands of Americans, but it’s because we don’t force our women to walk around in burkas, we don’t execute homosexuals and we don’t consider non-Muslims as, at best, second-class citizens.  It is certainly not because we poured water in the noses of three individuals plotting against our country.

• The Bush administration strengthened our enemies

The toppling of Saddam certainly strengthened Iran’s position in the Middle East, but who else has been strengthened because of policies espoused by the Bush administration?  By all accounts, al Qaeda has been decimated by losses in Iraq and elsewhere.  Saddam?  Dead.  Taliban?  Not dead, but certainly not ”strengthened” in their position as compared to pre-2001.

One could certainly argue that our traditional nation-state rivals, such as Russia, China, North Korea (and perhaps Venezuela), have enjoyed this period where the US has been pre-occupied with Iraq and Afghanistan, but I do not believe this is what the NY Times Editorial Board is arguing.  (I doubt that the NY Times would refer to those countries as enemies in the first place.)  So, who, exactly, has been strengthened during Bush’s reign of terror?

• The Bush administration has made the nation more vulnerable

How so?  More vulnerable to a terrorist attack?  I don’t think anyone could argue that we are more vulnerable now than we were on September 10, 2001.  We are still - and will always be - vulnerable to some extent due to the nature of terrorism and the openness of our society; however, we are certainly not more vulnerable to that form of strike after George W. Bush.

More vulnerable to a traditional attack?  Perhaps.  As previously stated, with the Bush administration’s focus on Iraq & Afghanistan, our state rivals have certainly had time to achieve military and geopolitical gains while the US focused its attention elsewhere.  And with the toppling of Saddam, Iran has certainly strengthened its position in the Middle East; however, they are not able to directly attack the U.S. and, while I am sure that the NY Times would abhor an Iranian nuclear strike against Israel from a humanitarian perspective, from a strategic perspective, I doubt it would shed any tears over its demise.  If anything, for the Far Left conspiracy theorists who believe that all US foreign policy is controlled by Israel, such new found freedom of movement would no doubt be championed as making America more safe.  So, I repeat, how is the nation more vulnerable now than it was before?

I presume that the NY Times Editorial Board is (as always) putting forth the Liberal talking point that America is less safe because Bush’s policies inflamed the world against us and created terrorists that would otherwise have been happy owning a small business somewhere in Baghdad or Kabul.  I believe this is the main point that undergirds the reasoning of the Left and specifically of the Times’ article at hand.  But where is the proof that it’s true?  Are there enlistment records that show that al Qaeda has increased because of Bush’s policies?

Logically, I understand the argument: if US bombs fall on Afghan villages and kill a large number of civilians, then many of those civilians will become embittered against the US and will actively or passively support terrorism against it; some will even join in the fight directly and join terrorist groups.  However, Clinton bombed various locations in the Muslim world.  Is he guilty of inflaming the world against us and making us less safe?  Or is it simply the US presence in Iraq and Afghanistan that has made us less safe?

I am sure that those in the Muslim world already predisposed to committing terrorism find it easier to strike at the US - albeit indirectly - now that the arm of the US military is in Iraq and Afghanistan.  But has this really caused anyone who wasn’t a terrorist to become a terrorist?

Many in the Muslim world have despised the US for some time now and it’s not because of policy disagreements, legitimate or otherwise.  The Iranian Revolution occurred during a time when Carter, an appeasement-first, diplomacy-only President, was in office.  Numerous attacks against US installations at home and abroad took place in the 1990s when Clinton was President and the US was engaged in conflict (Bosnia and Kosovo) on behalf of Muslims.  If Muslim angst against the US is not tied to our specific policies, then, how will repudiating Bush’s policies lead to our increased safety?

Frankly, I think the NY Times Editorial Board is more upset because the Bush policies run counter to the Liberal establishment, with its capital city in Paris, rather than any firm conviction (or proof) that it has made the nation less safe.

Don’t misunderstand me.  I value diplomacy, soft power and to some degree whether or not we are loved around the world.  But being loved is not as important as being respected, particularly in the Muslim world where respect is the only real currency of power.

Further analysis at Powerline and the Weekly Standard.

Traveling recently in Iraq, Pelosi noted, “If we’re going to have a diminished military presence, we’ll have to have an increased intelligence presence.” This has been the main Democratic argument against the whole idea of the war on terror — that guns and bombs are no substitute for timely information. “This war on terror is far less of a military operation and far more of an intelligence-gathering, law-enforcement operation,” Sen. John Kerry once claimed.

But this object of praise — intelligence-gathering — is again the object of liberal assault.

To what techniques are Democrats referring when they praise intelligence gathering?  It’s certainly not enhanced interrogation.  As we’ve seen with their outrage during the Bush administration, It’s definitely not electronic intercepts.  Presumably that leaves the more direct forms of human intelligence (relying on agents and informants) and imagery intelligence as the only viable options.

But human intelligence is incredibly messy, involving waves of illegalities of which I doubt Democrats would openly endorse should such methods become public.  Furthermore, the CIA - the American agency charged with human intelligence responsibilities - is routinely vilified (unless, of course, your last name is Wilson or Plame and you’re sticking your finger in the eye of the Bush administration), humiliated, and subjected to budget cuts whenever Democrats come to power.  Essentially, Democrats value an incredibly naive approach to human intelligence:  You’ll find out all you need to know if you just go out and talk to reputable people.

Imagery intelligence has its own problems.  1.)  It’s incredibly expensive (and thus affected by Democratic distate for spending money on things other than socialism), 2.)  It’s most effective when used in coordination with other forms of intelligence (human, signals, etc.).  3.)  It only measures capabilities and cannot easily discern intentions.

Ironically, the faulty intelligence assessment in 2003 that Iraq had WMD - the blunt object repeatedly used by the Democratic Party to disfigure the Bush administration - relied on the two forms of intelligence that Democrats herald as the solutions to our problems:  imagery intelligence and legally obtained human intelligence.

In the real world (where Jason Bourne does not live) there’s never a reliable, high-ranking defector with intimate knowledge of all of the enemies’ plans.  Cear, convincing, irrefutable evidence is never gathered from one series of photographs.  The evidence is always convoluted, rarely complete and commonly dependent on sources of ill-repute.

The tools of intelligence are dependent upon one another.  Democrats say that they want to focus on intelligence gathering, but then they condemn the use of tools that makes intelligence gathering actually possible.  (And that’s not even addressing the pervasive attitude on the Left that ”law enforcement”  and “intelligence operations” are one in the same.)

I’m not a fan of the Daily Show.  From my perspective, a sane, reasonable and intelligent world would not designate former D-List actor Jon Stewart as a moderator for any semi-serious discussion.  However, he and a conservative guest, Cliff May, recently engaged in a short debate about “torture.”  It’s worth watching.

The Weekly Standard blog sums it up best:

It comes at about the 5:50 mark. Cliff May asks Stewart whether Truman’s use of the atomic bomb was a war crime, Stewart ruminates and then responds with an unequivocal “yes.” He’s certainly not the only American who would take that view, but it’s a useful reminder that the most vocal and popular criticism of the Bush administration’s war on terror policies comes from people who, if they were being as honest as Stewart, would also judge Lincoln (suspension of habeas), FDR (internment), and Truman (use of nuclear weapons) as war criminals or tyrants or worse.

Stewart repeats the charge again later in the interview, but you have to wonder whether this was one of the rare times that he just got outmaneuvered on his own show. Serious people have debated Truman’s decision for 60 years, but even those who disagree with that decision rarely describe it as “criminal.” And if it was criminal, whatever crimes the left alleges of President Bush seem pretty trivial in comparison.

And for the record, under the Geneva Convention non-uniformed enemy combatants do not qualify as prisoners of war and thus, are not entitled to the provisions laid out in the treaty.  Thus, if you can cut through all the Democratic Party goose-stepping going on in the media, you’ll realize that the Bush Administration bent over backwards to ensure that all of these methods followed the proper, internationally-recognized and morally acceptable (to many at least) avenues on this issue.

Should we still treat terrorists in a moral fashion?  Absolutely!  They are God’s creation, just as much as I am.  But as their tactics are beneath the international standard of what is deemed acceptable in war, then they are not entitled, legally, to the specific protections outlined for prisoners of war in treaties such as the Geneva Convention.  Jon Stewart - and his adoring audience - doesn’t seem to realize that.

Here’s an article in the Economist discussing America’s opinion of Obama’s foreign policy.  This is a great example of liberal media bias and why, in particular, I do not read/trust the Economist.

The article’s implied reasoning:

1. Conservatives don’t want to improve relations with the Middle East
2. Conservatives only want to blacklist enemies
3. Conservatives love nuclear weapons, presumably because they love to use them, and;
4. Hawks are scary, a lunatic fringe; whereas doves are normal (as they are nowhere mentioned)

First, political parties do not always disagree with the ends of foreign policy, it’s the means over which they fight.  The means of the Democratic Party are, generally, to kowtow, talk, encourage the UN and unilaterally disarm (and hope for a better world).  Conservatives simply disagree, not because they hate talking or are even mean-spirited, but because it’s ineffective at best and catastrophically dangerous at worst.

A more close-to-home example:  A gunman absolutely dedicated to running into a crowded mall and killing people cannot be “talked” out of doing that.  Armed guards must be posted at the entrances.  If the police discover beforehand that a person in their area is planning such actions, it will dedicate itself to identifying the criminal and stopping him beforehand, by force if necessary.  The same is true in foreign policy.  Committed gunmen - Hamas, Iran, etc. - cannot simply be “talked” out of achieving their ends.  To the point where talking is effective, it should be done knowing full-well that the mall is protected, should talks “break-down.”

Because the Economist gives no effort to exploring what conservatives want in foreign policy, here is a concise list.  Conservatives want:

1. Effective dialogue:  trust but verify – the purpose of signing agreements and negotiating is not for its own end, but so that U.S. national security objectives are furthered. 
2. Strong defense:  not because we are hawks and warmongers who want to blow up the world, but because we believe that there are people just like that running around out there whom we do not trust.  It’s the same concept as keeping a firearm in the home, another thing liberals do not understand.  You don’t keep the firearm because you want to hurt someone, but because you don’t want someone to hurt your loved ones.  A firearm in the hands of a responsible, able, trained citizen is as much to be feared by society as a rotary saw in the hands of a carpenter.
3. Effective use of all the instruments of power:  economy, public diplomacy, political warfare, etc.

The argument should not be between diplomacy alone or military force alone.  Both are necessary, but even those two alone are inadequate.  The effective use of the other instruments of power must also be pushed.

Here’s a NYT op-ed on the report from the Department of Homeland Security that ring-wing groups, including veterans, constitute an emerging threat to national security.  His main argument:

[The conservative] argument seeks to suppress and subjugate two rather unfortunate facts: while only a tiny number of conservatives and veterans are members of hate groups, nearly all hate groups do indeed follow far-right ideology. And they covet members with military experience.

His first presumption is absolutely false.  The far right wing does not have a monopoly on hate (see the left wing during presidency of Bush, George W. as exhibit A and the left wing during the candidacy of Palin, Sarah as exhibit B.). This presupposes that:

1. Communism, the extreme left, is intrinsically benevolent, and;
   
2. Fascism (supposedly the extreme right) and communism (the extreme left) are polar opposites.

History has adequately disproven the first point.  However, the second has not received enough attention and still leads to much confusion/disinformation.  The idea that communism and fascism are polar opposites was a lie perpetrated by the Soviets when they were competing (politically) with Hitler in the 1930s, made all the more intense when Hitler invaded the USSR in 1941.  How best to get the sons of the fatherland to fight then to paint the enemy as enemies of the revolution.

Communism and fascism (along with Social Democracy) are all members of the Left.  In the case of the more extreme versions (fascism and communism), they use the same tactics to similar results, albeit for different goals.  In the case of communism, all human action, economic, religious or political, is subjugated to the authority of the revolution.  In the case of fascism, most human action is subjugated to the authority of the “master” race or the desired national empire (eg. the Third Reich, the New Roman Empire or Imperial Japan).  The modern fascism embodied by radical Muslims is still a part of the extreme left wing as it wants to subjugate all human action to the authority of Sharia Law and usher in the worldwide caliphate. Tell me, what’s the difference between that and communism?  Both are political-religious-economic worldviews intent on worldwide subjugation.  Perhaps the Iranians and terrorists worldwide are more worried about producing moral behavior in the end, but that was a large part of Communism as well (thus homosexuals and other moral undesirables were routinely executed).

The extreme right-wing is not fascism, but anarchy – which also produces lots of hate – where the state has absolutely no control over the individual.  The extreme left-wing is communism or authoritarianism where the state has absolute control over the individual.  There’s certainly plenty of hate to go around on all sides of the political spectrum.  It’s quite obvious which side the New York Times is on when it believes that hate is only espoused on the Right.

(Note:  The left-wing/right-wing debate isn’t exactly ideal to begin with because it relies on the linear political spectrum, which is somewhat inaccurate.  More reflective of reality is the political quadrant, explained here.)

Sane perspective from the Wall St. Journal on the “torture” issue versus an insane perspective on torture from the NYT.

The latter compares the CIA’s proposition to use a caterpillar against one individual known to be terrified of insects to terrorists bringing a disease that’s worse than West Nile Virus to the US.  Um… what?  There’s a slight difference in degree there.  The CIA didn’t threaten the Arab world with the spread of Malaria, it used a harmless bug to try to scare a guy, something every five year old boy in the world has done to his female classmates and/or siblings.  I agree that bugs can be used as weapons of physical and psychological war, but in this case the CIA was depending on the man’s illogical fear of bugs, rather than the inherent viciousness of the caterpillar.  Get real people.

The Left decries that the Right supports torture.  This is not true.  The Right is against torture as well.  The question is what constitutes torture?  I think depriving someone of sleep is not torture.  For casual John Q. Citizen, a night where you are woken up (by a baby or dog) might be described as “torturous” as hyperbole, but in the legal and moral sense of the word, it is not torturous; it’s simply a bad night.  Putting someone on the rack is torture.  Pulling off fingernails is torture.  Anything that causes lasting physical or, within reason, psychological harm should be considered torture.  In my opinion, making someone think they are drowning (when they are not actually drowning) for 20-40 seconds when precautions are taken to ensure that water never enters the lungs and should that occur, medical professionals are present, is not torture. Uncomfortable?  Yes.  Eternally painful and/or life threatening?  No.  Keep in mind that many of the same people that consider such methods torture also consider spanking to be child abuse.  (Then they wonder why their kids are hellions and have supposed ADD problems.)

I’m just getting around to making some posts, so the articles are a little dated.

Wall St. Journal op-ed on the purpose of “enhanced” interrogations by a former director of NSA and CIA.  The key points:

The release of these opinions was unnecessary as a legal matter, and is unsound as a matter of policy. Its effect will be to invite the kind of institutional timidity and fear of recrimination that weakened intelligence gathering in the past, and that we came sorely to regret on Sept. 11, 2001…

Which brings us to the next of the justifications for disclosing and thus abandoning these measures: that they don’t work anyway, and that those who are subjected to them will simply make up information in order to end their ordeal…  But confessions aren’t the point. Intelligence is. Interrogation is conducted by using such obvious approaches as asking questions whose correct answers are already known and only when truthful information is provided proceeding to what may not be known. Moreover, intelligence can be verified, correlated and used to get information from other detainees, and has been; none of this information is used in isolation…

Of the thousands of unlawful combatants captured by the U.S., fewer than 100 were detained and questioned in the CIA program. Of those, fewer than one-third were subjected to any of the techniques discussed in these opinions. As already disclosed by Director Hayden, as late as 2006, even with the growing success of other intelligence tools, fully half of the government’s knowledge about the structure and activities of al Qaeda came from those interrogations…

Politicians pressure the intelligence community to push to the legal limit, and then cast accusations when aggressiveness goes out of style, thereby encouraging risk aversion, and then, as occurred in the wake of 9/11, criticizing the intelligence community for feckless timidity.

The key finding in the aftermath of 9/11 was that the law enforcement side and the intelligence side of the national security community did not “share information.”  They, of course, did not share information because such practices had essentially been institutionalized, albeit informally, in the wake of the Church and Pike Commissions.  [During the Carter Administration, the country began learning of some of the tactics undertaken by the FBI during the tenure of J. Edgar Hoover (COINTELPRO, etc.).  A Democratic Congress was concerned that the intelligence people would "spy" on Americans that it deemed dangerous (white supremacist groups, anarchists, far Left-wing groups) and share it with the law-enforcement people, who would then round up "innocent" Americans for simply expressing their constitutional rights.  Thus, the "wall" between intelligence and law-enforcement was erected in order to protect groups like the KKK, the Black Panthers and Weather Underground.]

The point is that the airing of the entire “torture” discussion outside the administration has the same effect as the Church and Pike Commissions in the 1970s.   By publicly chastising and threatening legal action against it, the Intelligence Community learns timidity.  It learns to keep its head down and honor the house-line of the bureaucracy, the primary issue that led to the Intelligence Community’s failure to anticipate 9/11 despite, as George Tenet said, the “light was blinking red.”

These things matter.  Ideas have consequences.  I don’t think the Carter and Obama Administrations were/are intentionally trying to hurt the country, but I do think they were/are clueless enough where their actions do just that.  As stated, in paraphrase, at the end of the book “Broken”:  If you kick a guard dog every time it barks, it learns to not bark.  The worst type of intelligence community is one that doesn’t bark.