Columnist West falsely asserts Obama's terror policy is "simply a matter of cops and robbers"
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
SUMMARY: On CNN, Washington Times columnist Diana West said that "Senator Obama's made it very clear that he believes terrorism is simply a matter of cops and robbers." Host Lou Dobbs did not challenge West's assertion echoing claims by the McCain campaign that Obama has said are "demonstrably false."
On the June 23 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight, Washington Times columnist Diana West said that "Senator [Barack] Obama's made it very clear that he believes terrorism is simply a matter of cops and robbers." West's assertion echoed what Obama has called the McCain campaign's "demonstrably false" characterization of his approach to fighting terrorism. Neither West nor host Lou Dobbs noted that Obama flatly disputes this characterization.
Obama said on June 18: "Senator McCain's campaign has said I want to pursue a law enforcement approach to terrorism. This is demonstrably false, since I have laid out a comprehensive counter-terrorism strategy that includes military force, intelligence operations, financial sanctions and diplomatic action." Obama previously detailed his plan for fighting terrorism, including military, diplomatic and international intelligence and law enforcement measures, in an August 2007 speech at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
From the June 23 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight:
DOBBS: Joining me now are three of the best political analysts in the country: Democratic strategist Hank Sheinkopf, New York Daily News columnist Errol Louis, and in our Washington, D.C., bureau, syndicated columnist Diana West.
Let me start -- Hank, your reaction first to Charlie Black and his comment?
SHEINKOPF: Charlie Black probably wishes he had not said this at all. It doesn't do him well. It does not do the campaign well, and it really doesn't hurt Barack Obama. That's the problem here.
DOBBS: You know, Errol, as a journalist, let me ask you: Are you at all offended by the fact that not too much note has been taken today of the fact that the Fortune magazine reporter asked Charlie Black the question, "What would happen with another terrorist attack?" It isn't as if Charlie Black came at this out of whole cloth and created this sentence.
LOUIS: No, that's right. I mean, he was thinking about it, clearly. I think the problem is that, in some ways, it's not just offensive, it's also somewhat incoherent. I mean, clearly the --
DOBBS: The question or the answer?
LOUIS: The answer. I mean, the McCain campaign, it sounds like, it's trying to have it both ways. If the surge is somewhat successful, the president's policy to which McCain is joined at the hip, he'll say this is evidence that my wisdom and experience are proven right. On the other hand, his advisers say, "Well, you know what, if there's an attack and it looks like security is going down the tubes, that'll help you too."
It doesn't make a lot of sense, and it'll be up to the candidate to explain who meant what and what the real policy is.
DOBBS: OK, Diana?
WEST: Well, I think, unfortunately, it does make sense in politics, yes, as Hank said, but the fact is that any reminder of the fact that we are in a war on global jihad is of benefit to the candidate who believes we are in a wartime situation.
Senator Obama's made it very clear that he believes terrorism is simply a matter of cops and robbers. So, I think that what we're looking at is the divide between the so-called September 10th mindset of Senator Obama and the so-called September 11th mindset of John McCain.
I have a serious question: do the hacks who work at the Washington Times have to be "moonies", that is, do they have to belong to the Rev. Moon's Unification Church (Rev. Moon owns the Washington Times), or can those hacks employed there by him, can they be heathen?
Is a belief in the Divinity of Rev. Moon, a pre-requisite to being employed by him, at the Washington Times?
It's a serious question: I'd think diana west would know the answer, and be qualified to give it, she being an employee of the Rev. Moon.
...and as an aside, as I leave: at the moment, there seems to be something un-related to this all, but that may well get into these pages here at MMFA: it involves something that that skeletal cadaver don imus has said, on the radio it seems... it might get a citation here by MMFA (since I think imus's words in this matter were broadcast on the radio: I think). You may find this observation to be outside the box a little, but I don't think so: the way imus invoked "pac man" Jones, was exactly the way these same people are wanting to invoke willie horton, or at least someone they can portray as being or looking like willie horton: "pac man" Jones might be that someone: and don imus might be the hack, to have kicked off the new "willie horton campaign"... I know it doesn't seem like it has anything to do with the presidential campaign, but you watch: watch how "pac man" Jones's face will accompany this talk, and watch how this talk will precede or follow or even directly involve, talk about the presidential campaign.
Actually, Dem, I've been tracking this today, and it sounds to me like Imus was trying to defend Jones--at least in his explanation of today--by pointing out that black men often get arrested for doing nothing.
Back on point. Apparently the new Repugnantcan talking point on terrorism is to imply that Democrats are weak on terrorism because they want to make it "law-enforcement" thing--Repugnant-speak for doing nothing--as opposed to simply bombing the sheol out of everything and rounding up the survivors to Gitmo. Considering how successful that strategy has been--terrorist attacks are up sharply worldwide again this year--maybe that "law-enforcement approach" needs another look-see...
Actually, Dem, I've been tracking this today, and it sounds to me like Imus was trying to defend Jones--at least in his explanation of today--by pointing out that black men often get arrested for doing nothing.
Wait a minute...are you really trying to justify that the criminal, pacman jones, has some sort of correlation to black racially profiled arrests (for doing nothing)?
Thats about the funniest thing I've heard all day. I wonder if its just "coincidence" that the girl in his previous strip club case was just murdered...
You said, and I quote:
"Actually, Dem, I've been tracking this today, and it sounds to me like Imus was trying to defend Jones"
Now, in reading that, and drawing a direct correlation about your view on what imus said, and that you had no problem with it....leads me to believe that you think there is an over abundance of racially charged arrest for nothing, starting with pacman jones.
Okay, so now I see I'm dealing with nothing but a conventional liar. I made no claim about having no problem with it, so either you're making it all up out of whole cloth or you're hallucinating. Probably the former, but I don not claim to possess any knowledge about your experiences with contraolled dangerous substances. Now go back to your My Pet Goat, liar...
Here is my exact quite:
Actually, Dem, I've been tracking this today, and it sounds to me like Imus was trying to defend Jones--at least in his explanation of today--by pointing out that black men often get arrested for doing nothing.
Tell me the exact words where I agreed with Imus' characterization of the Jones matter. Not "context"--that's crap and you (or at least someone with a functioning brain instead of a skull full of Fox News talking points) know it. Dem was referring in passing to the latest controversy about Imus, and I reported what I had heard from my listenings today. Sorry, Herr Forked Tongue--I made no judgment whatsoever about whether I agreed with what Imus said. That you made up out of whole cloth. In truth, I do have an opinion on Imus' statements both yesterday and today, but I will not share it, for the simple reason that you do not merit my taking the time to assert and explain it. When you learn a few concepts such as honesty and common decency, maybe you'll be worth responding to. Trust me, I'm not holding my breath...
Also my exact quote, but you know what happens when one tries to type with two left hands... :o)
Smiley for the rest of the audience--Colombian1492 can go to sheol for all I care...
LEFTWINGCENTER, these Republican hacks who initiate this talk, such as this item's diana west (who draws it like a comic strip, in terms of "war on global jihad" versus "cops and robbers"), they're not saying anything substantive: talk like that doesn't mean anything... all that these hacks do, is describe the undefined vague nonsense in their minds, instead of actually talking about persons places and events: instead of talking about means and methods...
Rather than discussing the matter in dim and dimmer abstractions, how about we introduce particulars and specifics into the discussion: and rather than make those particulars up (like hypotheticals), how about if we draw them from reality, from experience...
The only terrorist attack we know of, against the American People, occured on September 11 2001: you know the particulars of course. There is no other attack I can think of, from which we can draw particulars and specifics from, and still say that we were grounded in reality... instead of flying by the seat of our imaginations, doing nothing but describing our dim and dimmer perceptions of National Security (as diana west did).
September 11 2001 is our one and only case to examine, and solve.
Question: How would the U.S. Armed Forces, in any capacity of theirs that you can describe, have prevented the attacks of September 11 2001?
How would the U.S. Armed forces have prevented the 19 hijackers that day, from seizing those commercial airliners in mid-flight?
How would the U.S. Armed Forces have prevented those 19 hijackers from boarding those planes?
(It is here I would note, that I am in no way being facetious or sounding critical or making ridicule or even rhetoric: these are actual and serious questions, that I know you and I could spend hours and days trying to answer... they would probably befuddle and embarrass diana west though, as betraying the dim amd dimmer abstractions of her hack mind, to us and to herself too, if she didn't already know of that dimness, as we already do...)
How would the U.S. Armed Forces have tracked and/or stopped those 19 hijackers, once they were in the U.S.?
How would the U.S. Armed Forces have stopped those 19 hijackers from entering the U.S.?
How would the U.S. Armed Forces have saved the lives of those thousands of Americans murdered that day?
It's a real question, that includes nothing but real and substantial circumstances: and therefore requires a real answer, substantive and particular.
Whatever answer you might give to the above questions, which ask how the U.S. Armed Forces would have prevented or stopped the attacks of September 11 2001, at any of the various stages of those attacks... whatever answer you would give, factor this additional real and actual circumstance, into your answer:
How would the U.S. Armed Forces have saved the lives of those Americans that day, from Iraq?
How would a hundred and fifty thousand U.S. Troops in Iraq, have prevented or stopped the attacks of September 11 2001?
Be even more specific in your mind: How would 150,000 U.S. Troops in Iraq on September 10 2001 (pre-9/11) have stopped the attacks that occurred the next day (9/11), and saved those American lives?
In consideration of those serious and real questions, I ask: does it really help to answer those serious questions, to think in the comic book terms of "war on global jihad" versus "cops and robbers"?
Or do those comic book terms (as used by diana west) just get in the way, and mean nothing and solve nothing, and answer nothing, but mislead us into dim amd dimmer places, like the empty places inside diana west's head?
In consideration of those serious questions that I posed above (all based on facts and specifics and reality), where do the Law Enforcement Officers of the various Departments and Agencies (especially Intelligence Agencies) of our Federal and State and even Municipal Governments, where do they come into the answers to the above-posed serious and real questions?
"war on global jihad" versus "cops and robbers"
We'll never get anywhere, thinking like that: and the many domestic Law Enforcement Agencies of our Government (Intelligence Agencies especially) might have played a far greater role in preventing or stopping the attacks on September 11 2001, and in saving those American lives, than the U.S. Armed Forces could have... especially when they are in Iraq.
It's not a new talking point. It's the same ol, same ol Republican distractions that lead us away from any substantial civic debate on how our system of laws applies to pragmatic solutions to terrorism. Republicans know they cannot defend their notion of eternal war, so they have to do what they can to link the specter of violent death to ideas with which they disagree. Instead of coming together to hammer out a better national security strategy, they have to sate their lust for total control of the debate by injecting visions of death into the discussion if we even consider new directions in neutralizing terrorism.
It's sad really that they're so out of touch.
to keep casting this as a "wartime situation" implies that all we need to do is land the marines and kick some ass. that may be true in certain select situations, but this is mainly a law enforcement situation, where we put pressure on al qaeda and their allies throughout the world. this is not a fight we will win by raising the flag at iwo jima.
if bush and his administration would not have been in their "september 10 mindset", they might have been paying at least a little amount of attention to the warnings that some kind of "spectacular" attack was on the way. as counterterrorism expert richard clark put it, when the bush people came back into office after 8 years it was as if they were "frozen in amber" because their concern was on saddam hussein and not the terrorist threats that had grown up in the years since.
he noted bush's response to 9-11 was to ask us to "go shopping" and that bush had opposed higher vehicle mileage standards for the first seven years of his presidency.
Bush's response did nothing to fuel higher oil consumption. It was a statement to act as normal so the economy could continue to flourish.
But the other part of the post was correct, that decreasing our consumption will do NOTHING to bring prices down - which is evident on prices and the usage reports right now. OPEC has already responded today by saying "Prices will not go down", even after acknowleding that that "the current price is well beyond the laws of supply and demand which would be about $55/barrel". There is no oil shortage, there is no supply problem. Its a combined cause of speculation & the OPEC oil cartel.
Wait a minute here. The freemarketeer/conservative take on current oil prices is that they are mainly a matter of supply and demand. Thus, the miracle of "Drill Here, Drill Now" will suddenly and drastically send the price of gas back down by working on the supply side of things. But now you tell me that changing the demand half of that equation means nothing.
How does that work again?
Not many people out there are claiming its a supply/demand issue, so I suggest you go back and reread your topics.
The point of drilling here & now is two fold:
1. The potential to lower prices due to the OPEC countries realizing that we will no longer buy their oil, thus dropping their prices. Similar to that of the last oil embargo.
2. Whether prices immediately drop or not, we will still be putting those billions of dollars back into the US economy, instead of those such as Iran, Nigeria, Venzuela, etc.
3. We can regulate the market and oil from government leased land in the future, and regulate the speculator market.
You obviously have been reading too many partisan talkign points, instead of simple history and economics.
So much ignorance.
1. You have no idea of the scale involved here. We have no leverage at all as long as we continue the current level of consumption. If we don't by OPEC oil (currently about 5-6 million bpd - last I checked), China and India will. If there is a surplus, OPEC will simply reduce production to compensate - keeping the price the same. You are an idiot if you think for even one second that US offshore oil production has any effect on the price of oil. Oil companies want access to it so they can make more money. It is that simple. There is no demonstratable beneficial economic effect to the rest of the country.
You were right the first time...mostly. The oil price is high mostly due to speculation in the futures markets. I honestly think OPEC does not want the price this high. World recessions tend to be bad for the oil business - and that is where we are headed if the price does not drop soon. One way or another, the price is going to drop to where OPEC can gain control of it again.
2. The better thing to do is pump dollars into our economy by conserving energy and spending the savings on other things instead of handing that money to the oil companies.
3. The "speculator market" is not under US jurisdiction and the comparably small amount of oil drilled off the coast does not give us any economic leverage.
"the comparably small amount of oil drilled off the coast does not give us any economic leverage."
This is not true. If you realize that this equates to an over 25 billion annual reversal in the trade deficit. This could demonstrably affect the strength of th4e US dollar...the weak dollar being a leading cause in the current speculation in world oil.Columbo - read Friedman's column and then get back to us.
That is wingnut fantasy talk. We are not holding the cards here. The sooner you accept that, the sooner you can get a grip on the problem and our lack of control over it The people with the massive reserves and largest production will always have the greater say concerning prices. Right now, future uncertainty is over-riding what even the major producers can control.
$25 billion (not sure where that apparently speculative number even comes from) is still a drop in the bucket compared to the power OPEC and (right now) futures markets can wield to shape the market.
if bush and his administration would not have been in their "september 10 mindset", they might have been paying at least a little amount of attention to the warnings that some kind of "spectacular" attack was on the way.
Or maybe Clinton should have had the balls to take out Bin Laden when he was offered on a silver platter.
There's a blast from the past, the "Bin Laden on a Silver Platter" nursery rhyme. I don't think Hannity even does that bit anymore.
ps Moonbat; don't bother with Columbus and the oil prices- I went through the same thing with him on another thread.I don't think he really grasps the fundamentals of Supply & demand if he thinks increasing production (several years to a couple decades down the line)on something not currently in short supply will cause prices to plummet.
Terrorism is primarily a law enforcement issue.