Eleanor Clift, Wrong Again!
I'm beginning to love Sundays just for the opportunity to watch Newsweek's Eleanor Clift consistently say something stupid on McGlaughlin's Sun. Morning show. Today she had two howler's.
First she said "We are losing the War on Terror." That must explain why we have avoided a major terrorist attack here in the US since 9-11-01. It further explains why the radical Islamists of al-Qaeda have turned to operations against fellow Arab muslims. Even before this weeks recent attacks on a Jordanian wedding party by terrorists of al Zarqawi's al Qaeda in Iraq, there were signs that Iraqi Sunnis even those within the Baathist led insurgency were seeking to divorce themselves from the tactics of Zarqawi's foreign fighters. As democratic politics advances in Iraq, a political solution looks more and more attractive to the bulk of Iraqi Sunnis and extremist violence is increasingly revealed as counterproductive. It must be because we're losing.
Clift's second major verbal gaffe revealed her ignorance about piracy. Speaking about last week's attempted cruise ship hijacking, by well armed Somali pirates operating off the Horn of Africa, Clift said accurately that piracy is a growing and worldwide threat. But she immediately revealed her lack of qualification to speak on a national forum by announcing that since piracy is prevalent today, the president needn't "...worry his pretty little head about it." Wrong on multiple counts Old Girl!
Her point if I can tease it out seemed to be that since this action was primarily a financial crime, it was unelated to the War on Terror. Wrong. There are well established connections between some of the warlord led factions that run Somalia and al-Qaeda. And terrorism is almost always funded by illegal activity, piracy, extortion, robbery counterfeiting etc. While there is no clear tie, and may be no drect one between THESE pirates and al-Quaeda, they are not unrelated problems. Hence the presence of US infantry and Special Forces troops in nearby Djibouti.
Even disregarding the terror link Clift is wrong about piracy. It is a problem for the US president. We are the worlds only superpower, and that stills means global naval power. The world looks to us to help ensure free passage of the seas. Piracy like terror can somettimes be state sponsored. Chinese military factions have been implicated in piracy in east Asian waters. And the costs of piracy are passed on to consumers as shipping and insurance costs rise. I hope the president worries about these things.
Wrong Eleanor Wrong!!!!
Visit beautiful downtown Mudville today!
First she said "We are losing the War on Terror." That must explain why we have avoided a major terrorist attack here in the US since 9-11-01. It further explains why the radical Islamists of al-Qaeda have turned to operations against fellow Arab muslims. Even before this weeks recent attacks on a Jordanian wedding party by terrorists of al Zarqawi's al Qaeda in Iraq, there were signs that Iraqi Sunnis even those within the Baathist led insurgency were seeking to divorce themselves from the tactics of Zarqawi's foreign fighters. As democratic politics advances in Iraq, a political solution looks more and more attractive to the bulk of Iraqi Sunnis and extremist violence is increasingly revealed as counterproductive. It must be because we're losing.
Clift's second major verbal gaffe revealed her ignorance about piracy. Speaking about last week's attempted cruise ship hijacking, by well armed Somali pirates operating off the Horn of Africa, Clift said accurately that piracy is a growing and worldwide threat. But she immediately revealed her lack of qualification to speak on a national forum by announcing that since piracy is prevalent today, the president needn't "...worry his pretty little head about it." Wrong on multiple counts Old Girl!
Her point if I can tease it out seemed to be that since this action was primarily a financial crime, it was unelated to the War on Terror. Wrong. There are well established connections between some of the warlord led factions that run Somalia and al-Qaeda. And terrorism is almost always funded by illegal activity, piracy, extortion, robbery counterfeiting etc. While there is no clear tie, and may be no drect one between THESE pirates and al-Quaeda, they are not unrelated problems. Hence the presence of US infantry and Special Forces troops in nearby Djibouti.
Even disregarding the terror link Clift is wrong about piracy. It is a problem for the US president. We are the worlds only superpower, and that stills means global naval power. The world looks to us to help ensure free passage of the seas. Piracy like terror can somettimes be state sponsored. Chinese military factions have been implicated in piracy in east Asian waters. And the costs of piracy are passed on to consumers as shipping and insurance costs rise. I hope the president worries about these things.
Wrong Eleanor Wrong!!!!
Visit beautiful downtown Mudville today!
posted by John Byrnes at 11/13/2005 07:00:00 PM
8 Comments:
winning the war on terror?
JORDAN.
Nothing more needs to be said.
You're right what happened in Jordan proves how desperate al-Qaeda is. You see AJ, anyone who's not a complete defeatist from the outset sees what happened in Jordan as a positive sign for our side. The forces of al-Qaeda have turned on the Arab, and Sunni at that, masses who are not supporting radical Islam.
Terror is a weapon of the weak. And it rarely succeeds at any goal but terrorizing. When most people are attacked by nameless faceless terror, American liberals seem exceped, they get their back up. Notice that Jordanians are now furious at Zarqawi and al-Qaeda. Yes they can still strike. What's the liberal strategy for ending al-Qaeda's existence?
they attacked American hotels.
You think that the London bombings and the bombings in Jordan make US safer? that we are WINNING?!?! Because the fact is the world is not safer, and the Jordanians (who support the US) are not safer.
You have blinders on if you think we're winning anything?
And when, exactly, is there a victory? what is the final stage?
Terrorism is not a country you can attack, it is a mindset.
we're not winning anything. That's not a defeatest attitude, that's simply the facts.
No it's an opinion. And one unsupported by the facts. No terrorism is not a country, but it is a tactic. Radical Islam, with whom we are really at war is an ideology, that needs to be defeated. And the FACTS, would have led defeatists like yourself to believe that, Pearl Harbor, Kasseriene Pass, Anzio, Monte Casino, Operation Market Garden, and the Battle of the Bulge were evidence we were losing WWII.
False. WWII we attacked Japan, after they attacked us. Valid. We entered the conflict in Europe as Hitler was invading neighboring sovereign nations. Again, valid.
Here we were attacked by members of a terrorist organization, in our country on 9/11. These men, primarily Saudis, did not belong to Iraq or have any affiliation with Iraq or Saddam Hussein. Thereafter we entered Afghanistan which was their training ground. Again, appropriate action.
Then, somewhere out of the blue, we decide we need to topple Saddam. This was not necessary.
And, it has made the world less safe. That's all I see.
Now you're off your original argument. And you are still wrong. Iraq was a strong supporter of terror and harbor of terrorists. Iraq was in the business of WMD, and while perhaps samctions, and inspections kept Saddam from massing WMD, they also corrupted the entire UN secretariat and tied down US forces in Saudi Arabia, providing al-Qaeda's primary casus belli against the US. Perhaps it was not necessary. I think it was, as did the majority of the nation and the congress 3 years back. But even if it wasn't "necessary', that doesn't mean we are losing. But people opposed to the war are inclined to see difficulty as a deterministic sign of defeat. Nothing could be further from the truth. Every war this nation has won invilved difficulty and setback. According to your script the Civil War was unnecessary, and after First Bull Run the Union should have quit. That is defeatist.
I'm "wrong" - really? and what makes you so "right?" I'm simply disagreeing with your opinion...based on events that have occurred since our entry into the war.
Look, I'm glad you feel so strongly about what we're doing. I for one, do not. And I think that its FAIR for people in this country to disagree. Including journalists.
Are you seriously comparing the American Civil War to Iraq? Please. Because I disagree with the American foreign policy to invade Iraq in 2005 - hardly has anything to do with my opinion on the American Civil War fought a century and a half ago...to preserve the state of our union.
Well several posts back in your other identity: "anonymous" you claimed this opinion as fact.
You may as well identify yourself as Wilson Kolb; AJ, Anonymous and Wilson Kolb are the same person here. Or at least log in from a different IP address. I do track my visitors you know. Why the attempt at deception?
It is absolutely fair for you to disagree. I think I have been more than fair in that regard. I don't know your opinions on the Civil War, but I do know that the criteria you are applying to the Iraq war would have allowed the Confederacy to slip away, because many people felt it was "unnecessary," and the North was consistently losing battles until Gettysburg and Vicksburg.
I have consistently stated that I can understand a moral stance against the war, prior to its onset. But that, as I see it, any anti-war opinion today, to be seen as reasonable must offer a solution to the security situation in and around Iraq.
I am aware of the difficulties of creating a positive environment in Iraq. But it is not hopeless. There are many positive signs. And as a student of history, I am not inclined to see difficulties, as reverses.
American's today have accustomed themselves to overwhelming technical superiority in military affairs. And after Vietnam we seem to have lost our stomach for casualties and military challenge. It was not always the case. Independence, 1812, The Civil War, WWI, WWII, and even Korea, saw tactical defeats that were sustained and overcome.
I, have seen the overwhelming evidence of Saddam's evil. And I believe that Iraq is perhaps the key nation to the Arab-Islamic world. That world is the source of '"terrorism," "radical Islam," or "Islamo-fascism," however you call it, a real threat to our interests. So I think we were right to destroy Saddam. I heartily agree that mistakes were made, perhaps strategically, diplomatically, certainly operationally.
But my comparison to past wars and leaders refers to the fact that these mistakes are not valid grounds to say the war is failing. These mistakes plague every commander. I continue to welcome solutions that will end the conflict and the casualties, because while I know Mr. Kolb doesn't believe me, I may have to return to Iraq. But any solution that makes it likely that the US will have to return in force to Iraq, is no solution at all. And leaving unilaterally, because we are simply weary of the fight, seems to simply postpone the problem.
aj said...
Post a Comment
<< Home