National Security News

Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?

12:42 pm EST February 8th, 2012 | National Security, Terrorism | 13 Comments

There is a little bit of garment-rending in progress about a new Washington Post poll that shows liberals strongly supporting the government’s program of using drones to take out terrorist targets. I don’t quite understand the confusion.

When it comes to taking out terrorists not on U.S. soil we have three options:

1. Let them go free
2. Use drones, incurring collateral damage
3. Put troops on the ground, putting soldiers at risk along with incurring collateral damage

The option of using international cooperation to round up these guys — the preferable option — is simply not viable in Pakistan, where much of this activity is taking place. As the Bin Laden operation showed us, terrorists are able to operate within a stone’s throw of Pakistan’s government without them lifting a finger to stop it. Their government is an impediment.

So, faced with those three options, we’ve opted for the drones. They are not perfect by a long stretch, but after over a decade of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is the least bloody option that kills terrorists.

I’m not surprised that even among liberals, this is a strategy that meets with approval.

The numbers go down slightly if the target is a U.S. citizen, but again most of us view an American working with Al Qaeda on foreign soil as just another agent of that organization.

(It’s worth pointing out that the usually deceptive Glenn Greenwald writes about drone strikes saying, “Obama has used drones to kill Muslim children and innocent adults by the hundreds.” I don’t deny that innocent people have been killed by drone strikes, but Greenwald writes it like these people are intentional targets. They aren’t. Those of us who support the drone strikes shouldn’t pretend as if they are clean weapons, but those opposed should be honest as well.)

I totally understand the dangers in giving the president the sole power to designate terrorist targets. I’m not comfortable with that much power residing in the executive office. I would trust Barack Obama with that power, but not George Bush, so I don’t trust any president with it.

But I think the view of many who have these positions opposed to drone strikes and the like take a dispassionate view of this conflict that most don’t have. While we shouldn’t let emotion cloud things, we also can’t discount the unique toll of Al Qaeda-based terrorism on America’s psyche.

People want to get these guys, and it appears as if these drones are one of the best ways to get the job done, regardless of who the president is.

P.S. For what it’s worth, I still support closing the prisons in Guantanamo Bay and have found the sniveling opposition from Republican and Democratic lawmakers to closure to be disgusting. My guess is the death of Bin Laden and kill/capture of other Al Qaeda have made people less anxious about the war on terror and that’s why Gitmo closure isn’t the sticking point it once was. Still, we should close it.

Bush Let Bin Laden Get Away, Tries To Take Credit For His Death

11:33 am EST September 9th, 2011 | National Security | 62 Comments

George W. Bush allowed Osama Bin Laden to slip away at Tora Bora because he was focused on invading Iraq for no good reason in an action that killed thousands of Americans. From 2001-2009, under Bush, Bin Laden evaded kill and capture. The murderer of thousands of Americans, Kenyans, and other innocent people got away — on Bush’s watch.

On May 2, 2011, on direct orders from President Obama, Bin Laden was executed. Shot. In the face. Dead.

And now Bush is trying to take some credit for it, claiming that “The work that was done by intelligence communities during my presidency was part of putting together the puzzle that enabled us to see the full picture of how bin Laden was communicating and eventually where he was hiding.”

If that was the case, how come the capture/kill of Bin Laden didn’t occur until George W. Bush was back to being a private citizen? And while he was President, Bush told us that Bin Laden didn’t concern him that much?

Every time you stray from the notion that Bush may not have been our worst President ever, his legacy rears its head.

Topic: Al Qaeda, Terrorism

Al Qaeda Loves The Gun Show Loophole

4:23 pm EST June 28th, 2011 | National Security | 18 Comments

What Are You Waiting For? from Fix Gun Checks on Vimeo.

Hillary Clinton Echoes The Worst Of The Bush Administration

12:15 pm EST June 24th, 2011 | National Security | 24 Comments

I happen to support the ongoing military operation in Libya, but Hillary Clinton is about as wrong as one can get in arguing about the opposition to the mission:

But the bottom line is, whose side are you on? Are you on Qadhafi’s side or are you on the side of the aspirations of the Libyan people and the international coalition that has been created to support them?

I didn’t like this mindset when conservatives were saying people opposed to the Iraq War were pro-Saddam, and I don’t like it in this instance. It’s just a really crappy way to operate. (via)

Topic: Libya

Our Afghan Strategy

10:39 am EST June 23rd, 2011 | National Security, Terrorism | 17 Comments

I happen to agree with President Obama, though I understand the position of liberals who think we should accelerate leaving Afghanistan. The biggest problem with Afghanistan is that when it became difficult to get Bin Laden, Bush decided our mission in the country was about sending Afghan girls to school.

The problem is, that is not our mission. I’d like Afghan girls to go to school, but the first priority should have been the destruction of Al Qaeda. With the troop surge under President Obama, we’re a lot closer to achieving that goal – in addition to killing Bin Laden.

Afghanistan wasn’t a war of choice. They harbored the terrorist organization that attacked us. President Bush fumbled that conflict, badly, and many Americans died as a result while Bin Laden still lived to taunt us. That has changed, and we’re doing the right thing.

Topic: Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, President Obama

While GOP Was Faking Obama Tweets, He Was Dealing With National Security

4:37 pm EST June 20th, 2011 | National Security, Republicans | 25 Comments

The NRSC, the Senate arm of the Republicans, had a good time tweeting a link to a blank page to tweak the Obama administration today.

This story went out sometime after 11 today. According to the White House schedule for today, that’s when President Obama and Vice President Biden were having their Presidential Daily Briefing:

11:10AM
THE PRESIDENT and THE VICE PRESIDENT receive the Presidential Daily Briefing
Oval Office
Closed Press

The Presidential Daily Briefing is the intelligence summary presented to the President every morning by the Director of National Intelligence. Under Bush, these briefings were reportedly ignored or shortened. Soon after we had the 9/11 terrorist attacks, due in part to a failure to connect the dots.

Under President Obama, our military killed Bin Laden.

So, fake tweet away.

Former Spy: Bush White House Tried To Use CIA To Smear Blogger

10:21 am EST June 16th, 2011 | National Security, Republicans | 30 Comments

If you ever why conservatives try so hard to disappear the Bush presidency, it is because they were a bunch of unethical, dangerous, crooks.

Glenn L. Carle, a former Central Intelligence Agency officer who was a top counterterrorism official during the administration of President George W. Bush, said the White House at least twice asked intelligence officials to gather sensitive information on Juan Cole, a University of Michigan professor who writes an influential blog that criticized the war.

In an interview, Mr. Carle said his supervisor at the National Intelligence Council told him in 2005 that White House officials wanted “to get” Professor Cole, and made clear that he wanted Mr. Carle to collect information about him, an effort Mr. Carle rebuffed. Months later, Mr. Carle said, he confronted a C.I.A. official after learning of another attempt to collect information about Professor Cole. Mr. Carle said he contended at the time that such actions would have been unlawful.

Its things like this that make you roll your eyes when the Obama administration said we shouldn’t look back at what these jackals did to America.

Topic: George W. Bush

Qaddafi Writes Letter To GOP Congress, Thanks Them For Admonishing Obama

5:05 pm EST June 10th, 2011 | National Security | 20 Comments

Nice friend you’ve got there…

Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi has written to members of Congress thanking them for criticizing President Obama last week over his involvement in the NATO-led military campaign in Libya.

“I want to express my sincere gratitude for your thoughtful discussion of the issues,” Colonel Qaddafi wrote in the letter, a copy of which was supplied to The New York Times by a person seeking to defend the administration’s policy. “We are confident that history will see the wisdom of your country in debating these issues.”

Colonel Qaddafi did not refer specifically to a resolution passed by the House that rebuked the administration for maintaining an American role in the campaign without the consent of Congress. But he expressed hope that the lawmakers would continue to pressure the administration.

“Due Process” For Nazis? David Sirota Hits A New Low.

10:34 am EST May 13th, 2011 | History, National Security, Terrorism | 20 Comments

David Sirota is one of the drivers of the clown car on the progressive side. His arguments are generally weak, stupid, and unpersuasive. Today his argument – in the course of joining Glenn Greenwald and wailing about the time Barack Obama gave the order to shoot the world’s most wanted terrorist in the face – is that Nazis were subject to due process in World War II:

Why were the Nazis entitled to due process, but accused terrorists aren’t? Nazis killed millions of innocents and were convicted at the much-celebrated Nuremberg trials. Yet, many insist bin Laden and other al-Qaida leaders must be executed or detained without a similar trial because a courtroom drama would supposedly generate a circus (this, as if Nuremberg were some low-key affair).

As roadkillrefugee notes on Twitter: “Remember D-Day, when the Allies landed at Normandy with 1000′s of process servers to issue arrest warrants to the Nazi troops?”

This is embarassing. I didn’t sleep through history class, so I know that the Nuremberg Trials came after we defeated the Nazis in the biggest war ever fought in human history. The most egregious charge – crimes against humanity – didn’t even really exist before the war was mostly over.

The vast majority of Nazis who committed their atrocities weren’t punished at Nuremberg (only 24 Nazis were charged at Nuremberg). They were punished on the field of battle, when Allied soldiers shot them in the face (and other body parts).

Topic: David Sirota, Osama Bin Laden

Its 2011, Why Is Jim Geraghty Still Lying About “Global Test”?

1:39 pm EST May 9th, 2011 | Conservative, National Security | 9 Comments

National Review’s Jim Geraghty in the midst of whining about Democrats valid criticisms of failed Bush-era foreign policies (his “Democrats” cited are author Vincent Bugliosi and disgraced Senator John Edwards) writes this little lie:

When Democrats are not in the White House, they will scream bloody murder – in some cases, quite literally – and do everything they can to stop those policies, denouncing them loudly and pledging to repeal them. They will argue that the same or better results can be achieved by a more dovish set of policies, either out of cynicism (they have no intent to really change the policies once elected) or naivete (for example arguing for a “global test” for U.S. action, believing foreign leaders really do care deeply about the safety and security of Americans).

If you don’t remember, the “global test” nonsense is a bit of leftover bile from the Bush 2004 campaign in which they blatantly truncated a statement from John Kerry to claim he would subject U.S. foreign policy to a “global test.” Here, in full, is what Kerry actually said:

No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.

But if and when you do it, Jim [Lehrer, the debate moderator], you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you’re doing what you’re doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.

It’s funny that Geraghty highlights this, because conservatives like John McCain wanted to submit the killing of Osama Bin Laden to Pakistan’s veto pen – something President Obama wasn’t willing to do (and I would have wagered, neither would have John Kerry). But the worst part is that this is a 7 year old lie.