Thursday, June 19, 2008

Obama will protect us!


As soon as the next terrorist attack kills Americans, he will be the first to make sure they get their day in court!

Just one thing. I am pretty sure that the American people are hoping our government prevents the next attack, just as President Bush has done for the last seven years.

The New York Times reports that an adviser to John McCain accused Barack Obama of having a "Sept. 10 mindset." Obama responded by . . . exhibiting a Sept. 10 mindset:


The latest battle began when McCain's advisers held a conference call to attack Obama for comments he made in an interview with ABC News in which he said that he believed that "we can track terrorists, we can crack down on threats against the United States, but we can do so within the constraints of our Constitution," and noted that the United States was able to arrest, try and jail the culprits in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

"And, you know, let's take the example of Guantanamo," Obama said in the interview. "What we know is that, in previous terrorist attacks - for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center - we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial."

The McCain campaign said Obama wants to go back to treating terrorism as nothing more than a criminal matter, called him naive, and argued that the World Trade Center case is an example of how insufficient that was.

"Once again, we have seen that Sen. Obama is a perfect manifestation of a Sept. 10 mindset," Scheunemann said on the call.

The Obama antiterror strategy is to wait until terrorists kill American civilians, then arrest them and put them on trial. Of course, when we tried that in the 1990s, the eventual result was another attack on the World Trade Center. This one was far more successful, destroying the complex and multiplying the death toll nearly 500-fold.

Oh, and the men who carried out the attack were never arrested and put on trial, because it was a suicide attack. Another failure of the Bush administration!

Obama will protect us. If by "us" you mean suspected terrorists.

13 comments:

jkruse said...

I can't believe how transparently stupid the WSJ editorial page is.

Obama's remarks are not in reference to preventing attacks. He's speaking about the hundreds of people we've locked up indefinitely without charging them with a crime. Many of these people were not arrested 'on the battlefield' but rather were turned in by others looking to settle a score or collect a reward.

If holding a few hundred people indefinitely without reason is the centerpiece of our war on terror I'm sickened and we're screwed.

Bike Bubba said...

Kruse, read his statements again. While Club Gitmo is in the context, B. Hussein Obama is clearly stating that he would treat terrorism as a criminal justice matter instead of as an act of war.

There are times, friend, when it's suicide to keep fighting according to the Marquess of Queensbury rules. This is oen of them.

jkruse said...

There are times, friend,...

Oh, cripes. Don't tell me conservatives are going to start talking like McCain for the next six months.

So tell me, Bubba. How and when do we win this 'war'? Can we take the constitution back out of storage when we do?

Bike Bubba said...

Maybe you'd better take a look at the Constitution, then. It clearly allows suspension of habeas corpus at certain times, and also provides for declaration of war and bills of attainder for dealing with rogue nations and terrorists--those at the time would have been the Barbary Pirates.

And the identity of those earlier terrorists would give us a hint about when the war with radical Islam is over; it will have a cease-fire when particular generations of Islamists understand that attacking our country will result in their deaths. Then there will be a cease-fire until a few generations later, someone else gets the idea they can take us.

I don't like fighting wars any more than anyone else. I don't want more white stones in Arlington, I don't like needing to go to hazier standards of justice, and I don't like paying for it through taxes. I simply understand that there are some things more terrifying than war.

jkruse said...

it will have a cease-fire when particular generations of Islamists understand that attacking our country will result in their deaths

Ummm, which people are we supposed to kill to prevent suicide bombers from doing their thing?

How about the Timothy McVeighs and Ted Kazinskys of the world? Should we cruise around the upper midwest and lock up all the crazy hicks we find?

Thanks for figuring this out for us!

Bike Bubba said...

Ya know, if you actually, say, read the papers, it can become a lot clearer where we need to act. Say when someone releases a celebration video of a terrorist act that clearly shows rock formations only found in certain areas of Afghanistan?

jkruse said...

How did that go in Afghanistan, by the way? We ever find the principles in that video? Or did we think of a cooler place to bomb?

If you read, say, the comment you're replying to, you'd note I asked who we kill, not where we kill them. Do you threaten to kill suicide bombers? That seems counterproductive against someone who's determined to become a martyr. Do you kill their wives and kids? I'm sure that will cool things off.

And who has enough authority that when he issues a 'cease fire' you bedwetters can come out from your hiding places and stop demanding that the U.S. lock up whoever they want, for as long as they want, without reason?

Bike Bubba said...

And what would you have been saying in the decades it took to subdue the Barbary Pirates?

Yes, war is messy. It's horrible. Letting Bin Laden and others continue business as usual, as did the man from Hope, is even more horrible.

jkruse said...

Are you serious? You combed the annals of history to find even scarier Muslims than the ones we've got today, and that's supposed to stump me?

I'd have been saying let's build a marine corp, fight, and defeat the pirates. But to roam around indefinitely locking up any brown person in a row boat makes us scarcely better than the bad guys.

Pathetic.

Bike Bubba said...

The trouble with your argument is that we've hardly been rounding up "any brown person with a row boat," as you mockingly claim. There simply isn't credible evidence for that.

We saw a faction in Afghanistan, and we saw a faction in Iraq, and we took action. How exactly could it be wrong to use an example from our country's own history--one of our first great foreign policy challenges no less--to illustrate what we're going through today?

Reality is that anyone familiar with western european history knows that Islam has been attacking Europe since shortly after Muhammad's death nearly 1400 years ago. No, it did not start with the Crusades or the founding of Israel in 1948.

Prudent foreign policy needs to deal with this fact.

jkruse said...

Try again:

http://tinyurl.com/yt4agg

jkruse said...

The example above is only one of many instances that can be found easily.

No doubt some of the inmates at Gitmo are very bad people, but it's repeatedly documented that many others are not. Mistaken identity, people turned in by others looking to settle a score, collect a reward, etc. Many have not even been told why they're being held.

If all of the inmates are really such a threat, how difficult can it be to demonstrate that fact to a judge? Welcome to Kafka's America.

Bike Bubba said...

You are aware that there is a wee little difference between having a few innocent defendants, and "rounding up every brown person and sending them to Gitmo," right?

Right?

Right?

Sigh. So many liberals. So few who understand basic logic.