Carol Platt Liebau: The Gruesome Details

Thursday, August 10, 2006

The Gruesome Details

They're here,along with speculation here that this might have been intended as "the big one." According to left wing thought, the answer is confined to simply building better walls and employing better airport screening. Defensive measures alone, we're told, can do the job. But that's a failure of imagination, as well as of intellect.

For there will always be new methods of terror -- for instance, the best mechanized screening in the world wouldn't have been able to detect the combination of chemical explosives that were in play for the thwarted attack. Instead, there had to be spying, perhaps phone tapping, asset tracing, and other methods that liberals have from time to time criticized as violations of "privacy." It's worth noting that we may have been lucky that the attack was being planned in Britain -- where there are substantially fewer impediments to robust investigation of suspected criminals.

In fact, when one realizes all the intelligence measures that had to be brought to bear to foil the attack, it makes it clearer than ever why Democrats -- the party of radical civil libertarians, frequently hostile to foreign intelligence gathering -- simply can't be trusted with national security.

7 Comments:

Blogger Matt Brinkman said...

Oh my... Republicans wetting themselves with joy over a terrorist plot. They were so busy today putting their political fortunes over the possibility that actual people could have been killed.

"Weeks before September 11th, this is going to play big."--Unnamed White House Official

"I'd rather be talking about this than all of the other things that Congress hasn't done well."--Anonymous Republican congressional aide.

"In fact, when one realizes all the intelligence measures that had to be brought to bear to foil the attack, it makes it clearer than ever why Democrats -- the party of radical civil libertarians, frequently hostile to foreign intelligence gathering -- simply can't be trusted with national security."--Carol Platt Liebau

Klassy with a K--Ms. Platt Liebau--klassy with a K.

9:43 PM  
Blogger eLarson said...

Hey, guys, here's a hint:

Clinton was out of office for almost nine months before 9/11.


That's amazingly quick planning for al Qaeda, don't you think?

12:46 PM  
Blogger Marshal Art said...

It's notable that FDR didn't invade Mexico, but he didn't invade Japan, either. He did invade somewhere, though, didn't he? And it's a matter of strategy which determines where an invasion should take place. For example, was Normandy in Germany? No, but it was a strategiv initiative to strike in France on our way there.

And I would argue that 9/11 was a bigger recruiting tool for jihadists than our response to it was, because 9/11 made us appear to be less impregnable. Now, the wackjobs, whether from the Mid East or wherever, want to be known for topping 9/11. Every victory for these scumbags embolden them. Every defeat, particularly when they are devastating, makes them think twice. Surely, some are recruited as they tend to listen to the leading scumbags and believe their rhetoric, much like editor and wrabking do with their leaders. Fortunately, their are others who see clearly and base their decisions on real events and act accordingly.

1:44 PM  
Blogger eLarson said...

Wrabkin wrote:
all I can say is that when Japan attacked the United States, FDR didn't order our troops to invade Mexico. He chose to fight the enemy, not use the attack to fulfill some insane neocon fantasy.

He did indeed engage the enemy. After declaring war on Japan, he ordered the troops into North Africa of all places. Why? Because he recognized that the enemy included more than just Japan, but also Germany and Italy. north Africa is where the enemy was, and it played a big role in controlling traffic in the Mediterranean.

2:20 PM  
Blogger Marshal Art said...

Hey wrabkin, read more than just Michael Moore crap. Try the blog at Captain's Quarters where he's analysing the docs found in Iraq, much of which shows just what ties there were between these "enemies". You seem to want to ignore the fact that despite their "principles", the extremists can bite the bullet between themselves for their bigger enemy which is Israel and us. In such a way they are indeed allied against us, thus rendering your retorts idiocy.

10:38 PM  
Blogger eLarson said...

Straight question to wrabkin: What do you believe is Iran's role in the Middle East?

5:56 AM  
Blogger eLarson said...

I believe Iran's main role in the Middle East right now is to try to take leadership over the whole area.

I believe you are right. What can be done about it?

8:54 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Google