’)Conservatives once again try to whip up the noise machine to attack Obama for stressing the role of law enforcement in fighting terrorism, yet as I’ve noted for years here, law enforcement is often the first line of offense versus terrorism. Because it works.
The only way to defeat the terrorists is to have a president like Barack Obama. Elect a Bush flunky like McCain and we’ll get what we’ve gotten the last 7 years: Dead Americans.
MORE: Obama Campaign Rolls Out Richard Clarke To Hit Back At McCain’s “Sept. 10th Mindset” Attack
As opposed to the “law enforcement” approach that Clinton used, which did so well at stopping the first World Trade Center attack… and the African embassy bombings… and the attack on the Cole…
The Millennium bomber? Caught by a watchful (and lucky) Border Security officer.
Since 9/11, how many terrorist attacks within the US? A couple psycho jihadists driving an SUV into a college common, shooting up a Jewish center, and the LAX booth for El Al.
Obviously, the best solution is “no Americans killed,” but if it comes down to an ugly either-or choice, I’d rather have the armed forces facing those determined to kill us than our civilians. And, I suspect, so would the vast, vast majority of those who have volunteered to serve in the military.
Police are, at their core, REACTIVE in nature. They have to wait for the terrorists to make some overt actions before they can legally pursue them.
I’d rather not give them that initiative, that advantage.
J.
Yes, with the exception of the worst terror attack in U.S. history, Republicans have a great record on terrorism.
Anthrax, anyone?
Why do they always forget about that?
I wasn’t talking Democrat vs. Republican, but law enforcement’s ability to stop terrorist attacks before they happen. And I tend to think of things as “before 9/11″, setting that aside from all other attacks because of its sheer magnitude and its effect on changing the fundamental paradigm of fighting terroristm. But yes, the 9/11 attacks fit my argument quite accurately. Indeed, they make it even better — law enforcement’s anti-terrorist finest hour was in finding, trying, and convicting most of the first WTC bombers, and that did absolutely dog-squat about preventing the very same buildings from being targeted far more successfully eight years later.
My thanks, Oliver, for helping me make my case. I should have mentioned that most prominently.
J.
Yes, because Kalid Sheik Mohammad didn’t start planning 9/11 until he got fed up with the Bush Administration’s stance on Globalization or some such…
PS: Wasn’t Kalid involved in organizing the first WTC attack, Kohbar, and the Cole? Remind me again how the all-great-and-powerful Clinton/Gore Law Enforcement machine caught all the perpetrators and prevented further incidents.
[...] Ambinder, The Washington Independent, American Street, Hot Air, Political Machine, Israel Matzav, Oliver Willis and Sister. Weekly Standard Blog, DownWithTyranny!, The Corner, Power Line, Los Angeles [...]
And how many American deaths under the military option, gentlemen?
“My thanks, Oliver, for helping me make my case. I should have mentioned that most prominently.”
Jay Tea, please inform us as to how a military invasion of a foreign country would have prevented 9-11.
Yes, the Bush record of success:
Daniel Pearl 2002
Tunisia 2002
Pakistan, Karachi Bus Attack 2002
US Consulate, Karachi 2002
El Al ticket counter, LA 2002
Beltway Sniper 2002
Limburg bombing 2002
Riyadh Housing Compound Bombings, Saudi Arabia 2003
Casablanca Attacks 2003
Canal Hotel Bombing, Baghdad 2003
Gaza Strip US diplomat convoy bombed 2003
British Consulate Bombing, Turkey 2003
Superferry 14 Attack, Phillipines 2004
Ashoura Massacre, Iraq 2004
Pakistan March 2 Attacks on Shia pilgrims 2004
Madrid Train bombings, Spain 2004
Yanbu Attakcs, Saudi Arabia 2004
Al Khobar massacre, Saudi Arabia 2004
US Embassy bombing, Tashkent Uzbekistan 2004
Dubai restaurant bombings, UAE 2004
US consulate attack, Jeddah Saudi Arabia 2004
July 7 London Bombings, England 2005
July 21 Second London Bombings, England 2005
South Korean Embassy, Syria 2006
Al Askari Mosque Bombing, Iraq 2006
Karachi Bombing, 2006
US Embassy Attack, Damscus Syria 2006
Bagram Airbase Bombing, Pakistan 2007
It goes on. I didn’t include several bombings in Iraq and about 1000 suicide bombings in Iraq. Very successful record.
And an additional note to the idiots,
“[prosecutions of culprits]…and that did absolutely dog-squat about preventing the very same buildings from being targeted far more successfully eight years later.”
It sure as hell did. The tactics had to change, and a certain administration had to go to sleep for it to be successful.
Just as embassy bombings highlighted the danger and spurred the development of anti-terrorism tactics used to protect our embassies worldwide. Etc.
As has been pointed out repeatedly, the Clinton administration took counter-terrorism seriously, the incoming Bush administration, not so much. The Bush administration wanted to re-fight the cold war and replace the Clinton record of success with it’s own. Which they did by dismantling parts of the Clinton system before replacing with anything. Republicans thing 9-11 was the wakeup call, showing how far behind they truly were.
midderpidge, that’s a truly fascinating list. I note that, with a single exception, every one of those happened outside the United States, where other nations have primary jurisdiction.
Gee, could it be because it suddenly got a lot harder to attack Americans here in the United States, so they started going after alternate targets?
This is quite nice. I made an incomplete argument, and you and Oliver are helping me refine and improve on it, reinforcing my points for me. I’m not used to this kind of support around here. It’s quite refreshing.
My thanks to the two of you.
J.
Also: would you please get your story straight, Mr. Tea?
Is it “Barack Obama believes in a law-enforcement approach to terrorism”? Or is it “Barack Obama is reckless–he says he’ll use the military to invade Pakistan”?
Sorry, you can’t have both.
Do I really need to [virtually] say it again?
“Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.”
Man, Jay Tea and SaveFarris are stupid. George Bush, Jr. stupid. Don Luskin stupid. Peggy Noonan stupid. Doug Feith stupid. Yup, that stupid.
You can’t tout seven years of freedom from domestic terrorism and _not_ take full blame for 9/11. Sorry Republicans, I realize your world-views are faith-based rather than reality-based, but you don’t get to have this one.
Was Bush II directly responsible for 9/11? Of course not. But did he have access to a memo entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike Within US”? Yup. And he, and the rest of our government, specifically the national security apparati, failed us miserably.
Thank goodness he fired so many people in the wake of the worst domestic tragedy in American history.
Oh, wait . . .
Jaye Teigh makes a strong point. The terraists have gotten a lot of mileage out of 9/11 so far, and there has not been much reason for futher attacks on US soil. Thanks to the masterful brilliance of the cheney administration’s policies the US is mired in Iraq and has lost millions of hearts and minds in the Muslim world. This has tricked the terraists into thinking that new attacks here would only cause other nations to feel sympathetic to the US. The terraists also have fallen for the ‘flypaper’ argument, continuing to confine their activities to the occasional car bomb in a Baghdad market.
Quaker, seems to me that Obama’s trying to have it both ways. And while I applaud his basic idea — use the military to fight terrorists — his proposed method is, to be blunt, stupid.
1) Declare that he will not use nuclear weapons.
2) (Something about gnomes and underpants)
3) Threaten to invade a nation that possesses nuclear weapons.
And I’ll repeat my earlier point: I don’t see this as a partisan thing. I see that past approaches didn’t work — appeasement, law-enforcement, negotiations — but only led to more and more escalating attacks. Since the new approach — sending the US military to do most of the fighting — we’ve had damned few attacks in the US, and those were very, very small-scale compared to prior ones.
Personally, I think that’s a good thing. Not for Democrats, not for Republicans, not for independents, but for all Americans.
But I guess I’m just odd that way.
J.
appeasement, law-enforcement, negotiations
What the heck are you talking about? And yes, you’re odd.
And, by the way, 1) and 3) are plainly false. 2) is just dumb.
And I’ll repeat my earlier point: I don’t see this as a partisan thing.
Anyone even remotely believe this? Anyone? Beside the crickets, I mean? Well, OK then.
“Jay Tea, please inform us as to how a military invasion of a foreign country would have prevented 9-11.”
I don’t know. I do think tapping Mohammad Atta’s phone, running a trace on his bank transactions, and detaining him at Gitmo might have made a difference.
Yes, Jay Tea, I left out 9-11, the Anthrax and sundry Mail-borne scares as well as a few SUV attacks from the US list. It’s kind of like Farris’ list, one US attack then others outside the US. And no, you are wrong, the US does have jurisdiction or security responsibility in Iraq and Afghanistan, or did during many of the attacks.
Just like you argue it’s harder now to attack Americans in America, so it was during the CLinton years, until Bush relaxed the security. Bang! 9-11. It is also much easier to attack Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan now, why travel?
And whether you like it or not, Law Enforcement is the best line of defense. Unless you want to preemptively invade Alabama or South Dakota or Texas. There is more Earth than we have soldiers to occupy.
“midderpidge, that’s a truly fascinating list. I note that, with a single exception, every one of those happened outside the United States, where other nations have primary jurisdiction.”
Gee, Jay Tea, you didn’t seem so concerned about “primary jurisdictions” when you wrote this:
As opposed to the “law enforcement” approach that Clinton used, which did so well at stopping the first World Trade Center attack… and the African embassy bombings… and the attack on the Cole…
While you’re busy “refining” and “improving” on your “argument” you might want to try being a little consistent in your idiocy.
“I don’t know. I do think tapping Mohammad Atta’s phone, running a trace on his bank transactions, and detaining him at Gitmo might have made a difference.”
And Save, tapping phones and running traces are both law enforcement techniques. They work and they work even better when we’re applying them in a lawful, Constitutional manner.
The very same douchebags cowardly sh*tting all over the concept of laws & law enforcement then moan and bellyache about how no one was enforcing UN resolutions to their satisfaction, and if that isn’t a legalistic argument about law enforcement than they don’t even know what the f*** their cowardly phraseology means.
BTW, under Bill Clinton, we had 2 World Trade Centers, a 5 sided Pentagon, 0 hijacked airliners free to wander over the USA, and 1 major port city of New Orleans free of rotting corpses in the streets.
Under courageous Andover cheerleader and TANG hero George W. Bush Jr., we have 0 World Trade Centers, a rebuilt Pentagon, 4 airliners crashed into targets, and the Chertoff / Brown recovery of New Orleans.
I’ll gladly choose the Clinton record over you pathetic, useless, cowardly right wing douchebags any time you want.
“Since the new approach — sending the US military to do most of the fighting — we’ve had damned few attacks in the US, and those were very, very small-scale compared to prior ones.”
I’ll never understand conservatives, like Jay Tea, who pad out the WAVE OF TERROR during the Clinton administration by throwing in the Cole bombing and the African embassy bombings but then dismiss the post 9-11 spike in terrorism around the world as if it’s irrelevant to Bush’s record or else trumpet it as a resounding evidence of his success. At the same time, they point to the “damned few attacks in the US” since 9-11 and leap to the conclusion that the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq are the reasons for it.
But how many foreign terrorist attacks occurred on US soil between the first world trade center attack and the second? Anyone with any integrity would have to say “damned few” as well. And how many countries did Clinton invade to achieve this record? Zero. If you look at Bush’s tenure, he has so far achieved the same record as Clinton but with an incalculably greater cost.
At the same time, they point to the “damned few attacks in the US” since 9-11 and leap to the conclusion that the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq are the reasons for it.
Homer Simpson: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm.
Lisa Simpson: That’s specious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, dear.
Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn’t work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It’s just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don’t see any tigers around, do you?
[Homer thinks of this, then pulls out some money]
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
It seems clear to me that alone neither solution has any hope of success, without the necessary changes to the foreign affairs policies that produced many of the conditions that engender terrorism in the first place. I suspect it’s too late for this generation of extremists, but perhaps this is not so for the next.
This can be done in a manner politically acceptable to the United States, by a patient administration that doesn’t miss opportunities and doesn’t think it can just sit people down and tell them to ‘cut the bullshit.’ For instance we need not abandon Israel, but we do need to divest ourselves of the ‘pro-anything Israel (more specifically the Likud party) does’ line of thinking.
That said, I wonder whether we ought to look at this problem also in terms of how many innocent lives in the target countries are likely to be ruined or seriously impacted negatively, not least because it’s humane and Iraqi lives mean as much as American ones, but also because – logically, to me at least – a high number of innocent dead, maimed or ruined livelihoods creates a blowback that helps to radicalise the youth of the target country. I have a feeling this is so regardless of whether the deaths are caused directly by American invasion or by circumstances that were not a threat before but became so indirectly because of the invasion.
If we take into account the relative messiness of law enforcement vs. military, it seems to me that law enforcement has the upper hand, although that depends heavily on how the military campaign is prosecuted. There is a chasm of difference between neighborhood cordon-and-search ‘arrest everyone named Muhammed or Jamal’ sorts of tactics and the lighter footprint of Gen. Patreaus, before he was Grand Poobah of the whole lodge.
Fafaroo, the reason I include the African Embassy bombings and the Cole attack is because they were attacks on sovereign American territory. Embassies and warships are little pieces of America, subject to the laws and jurisdiction of the United States — not the nation that happens to surround them. It’s also why I did not mention the Khobar Towers attack — that was NOT sovereign US territory.
As I said: I am amazed at how well you folks are at reinforcing my points for me, when I slip up and presume things will be understood without going into painful detail.
And at no point did I say that I favored an exclusively military approach, merely that I thought an exclusively (or even primary) law-enforcement approach was — through experience — a bad idea. Another example: the “wall of separation” between law enforcement and intelligence constructed by Jamie Gorelick, Clinton-era Justice Department official and, inexplicably, 9/11 commissioner. I still want to know who the HELL thought putting her on the panel — and keeping her after her “wall” memo was released — was such a good idea.
J.
“I wasn’t talking Democrat vs. Republican…”
This is lie.
By the way…
“Another example: the “wall of separation” between law enforcement and intelligence constructed by Jamie Gorelick, Clinton-era Justice Department official and, inexplicably, 9/11 commissioner.”
There’s a little think called Wikipedia out there.
“This assertion was disputed by former senator Slade Gorton (R-WA), a member of the 9/11 Commission, who said, “nothing Jamie Gorelick wrote had the slightest impact on the Department of Defense or its willingness or ability to share intelligence information with other intelligence agencies.” Gorton also asserted that “the wall” was a long-standing policy that had resulted from the Church committee in the 1970s, and that the policy only prohibits transfer of certain information from prosecutors to the intelligence services and never prohibited information flowing in the opposite direction.”
You are wrong. She didn’t construct the wall, nor did it have any impact on law enforcement.
Then I named more than one US attack. 2 Embassy attacks, 1 Consulate attack and over 1000 Iraq suicide bombings, as well as countless other attacks against US bases and the US green zone in Iraq which I dismissively summarized.
The JayTea/Bush doctrine of fighting terrorism is to downplay law enforcement efforts, mock international cooperation, and then to have a hard on about putting bullseyes on US soldiers and shoving them over seas as targets.
tapping phones and running traces are both law enforcement techniques. They work and they work even better when we’re applying them in a lawful, Constitutional manner.
The new bumper sticker: Democratics in 08: Campaigning for Osama Bin Ladin’s Constitutional Rights!!!
You could try it, I guess. But I’m not sure it’s as popular as you think it is…
Leave it to conservatives, who used to run for office on a law & order platform, to now spend their time running down the notions of laws & having our government follow the Constitution as a bunch of wussy, wimpy stuff that real macho Patriot guys ignore.
I say you go with it.
I want all you right wingers to bring on every last bit of macho puffery, denigration of Democrats fer their dang-nabb’d technicalities, BRING IT ALL ON, only we macho konservativs got the guts to be a buncha incompetent lawbreakin’ boobs to keepusafe..
And lose.
And I’m going to laugh at you while you do.
Shorter SaveFarris:
Law and Order is too good for the Wogs. Exterminate the brutes.
“The new bumper sticker: Democratics in 08: Campaigning for Osama Bin Ladin’s Constitutional Rights!!!”
Always nice to hear the Lying Moron view of the world. Fortunately there are far fewer people like you than there were 4 years ago.
“You could try it, I guess. But I’m not sure it’s as popular as you think it is…”
Considering your track record on the matter, you probably shouldn’t predict anything more controversial than the sun setting in the evening.
I don’t fly, but I gotta laugh because by all accounts, the Bush administration’s plan protects airplanes from terrorism by terrorizing everyone trying to fly.
THe Bush plan protects us from those who hate us because of our freedoms by trying to take those freedoms away.
THe Bush doctrine says that to keep terrorists from attacking us in the US, we need to put American targets closer to the terrorists so the terrorists won’t bother traveling so far.
McCainm’08
Let’s Go All In on Iraq!
his proposed method is, to be blunt, stupid.
1) Declare that he will not use nuclear weapons.
2) [redacted for stupidity]
3) Threaten to invade a nation that possesses nuclear weapons.
Point 1 is false. but even if it weren’t, I would be okay with that. Nuclear weapons should never be used under any circumstances.
Point 3. Obama never said invade, you’re making that up. Again. Are you referring to the incursions of Pakistani airspace by drones that killed the latest Al Quaeda #2 just a couple of months ago? That one?
“The new bumper sticker: Democratics in 08: Campaigning for Osama Bin Ladin’s Constitutional Rights!!!”
You guys are just jokes. Complete jokes.
“…the reason I include the African Embassy bombings and the Cole attack is because they were attacks on sovereign American territory. Embassies and warships are little pieces of America …”
I guess we don’t count actual Americans as “little pieces of America” – you know, like all the Americans killed and injured in Afghanistan and Iraq by terrorist attacks under Bushes wonderful strategy to reduce terrorism.
The larger point still stands. It’s a stretch to include the Cole bombing and African Embassy attacks on Clinton’s record while overlooking the countless terrorist attacks that occur almost daily on American facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The bottom line is that Bush and Clinton have exactly the same record when it comes to domestic terrorist attacks only Bush achieved his record at a far, far greater cost. It’s really that simple.
“You guys are just jokes. Complete jokes.”
That’s the truth.
“… the reason I include the African Embassy bombings and the Cole attack is because they were attacks on sovereign American territory.”
Jay tea, on re-reading Midderpidge’s list and his subsequent comment, you’re response above makes even less sense. As Midder pointed out, the list of terrorist attacks since Bush took office includes two US consulate bombings and two US embassy bombings. Jay Tea, by your own standards, that makes Bush’s record on preventing “attacks on sovereign American territory” worse than Clinton’s.
Can expect further “refinements” of your argument?
Just for the record, Jay Tea, you should stay away from “going into painful detail.” Painful detail is not your friend.
Since Law Enforcement prevention of terrorism is such a waste, maybe we should do away with it. Stop wasting our resources that can be better spent on bullets and attack helicopters to patrol the skies 3000 miles away.