Ideological conflict menaces U.S. ability to fight terrorism
By Morton Kondracke
Enough already! It’s harmful enough that ideological conflict and partisan politics are preventing this country from solving its long-term challenges on health care, fiscal policy and energy. Now, it’s threatening our national survival. I do not exaggerate. Bush-hatred has reached such intensity that CIA officers and other bureaucrats are leaking major secrets about anti-terrorism policy and communications intelligence that undermine our ability to fight Islamic extremism. Would newspapers in the midst of World War II have printed the fact that the U.S. had broken German and Japanese codes, enabling the enemy to secure its communications? Or revealed how and where Nazi spies were being interrogated?
Nowadays, newspapers win Pulitzer Prizes for such disclosures. In Congress and in much of the media, the immediate reaction to news that the National Security Agency was intercepting international terrorist communications was not to say, “Good work - and how can we help?” Rather, it was to scream about a “domestic spying” scandal, as though Richard Nixon were back in the White House and tapping the telephone of Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean. And the reaction has been much the same to USA Today’s story last week that the NSA “has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans” in a program that “reaches into the homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans.” Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, reacted by asserting that “these are tens of millions of Americans who are not suspected of anything but we’re just going to collect their phone information for the heck of it. Where does it stop? “Similarly, Newsweek’s cover this week blares “Spying On Your Calls” - no question mark used - and implies that the Bush White House could be tapping everyone’s telephones.
In fact, what seems to be happening, though the details are secret, is that most long-distance phone companies have given the NSA their billing records identifying what numbers are calling what other numbers, when and for how long. Names are not included. And the NSA - not for the heck of it but to protect us from attack - is using the records to track terrorist networks and calling patterns. If a known terrorist in Pakistan calls a number in Los Angeles, I want the government to know what numbers that person calls. Don’t you? Certainly, the government will find out the names of people in a terrorist calling chain. If it wants to tap a domestic phone, it needs a warrant and, unless officials are lying through their teeth, it is asking for them.
The NSA call logs also apparently are being mined to establish patterns of terrorist-related communication - the use of pay phones, duration of calls, times of communication, etc. But all this scarcely constitutes “reaching into homes and businesses across the nation.” If the government is snooping into the business of anyone except terrorists (or drug dealers, Mafiosi and child pornographers, whose names and numbers also can be easily obtained with a subpoena), it is wasting its time and our money. The phone companies that are cooperating with the government ought to be congratulated for participating in the war on terrorism - as they would have been in WWII. Instead, they are being hauled before the Senate Judiciary Committee as though they were criminals. And trial lawyers are circling like vultures to make them pay zillions for alleged privacy violations. As for myself, I’m sticking with AT&T as a long-distance carrier because (according to news reports), it did cooperate. If I had Qwest, which reportedly refused, I’d cancel. Is there a potential for abuse in the NSA spying program?
There is. For instance, it would be all too easy for officials to ask the NSA to trace the phone records of the winners of those odious Pulitzers - James Risen of The New York Times and Dana Priest of The Washington Post - in an effort to uncover their sources in the name of “protecting secrets” and “fighting terrorism.” The Senate Intelligence Committee, when it quizzes former NSA Director Michael Hayden in his CIA confirmation hearings Friday, should establish that the terrorist surveillance programs have not been abused, although there is no evidence of it. To the extent he can do so without giving away secrets, Hayden also should tell the committee and the country why these programs are so essential and what the legal basis for them is. If the administration believes, as officials often have said, that the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is obsolete in the age of super-computers and terrorism, it ought to work with Congress to rewrite the law. Skirting it won’t work anymore. But the fundamental problem infecting much of Congress, the media and the political class - especially those left of center - is that they are consumed with loathing for President Bush and all his works and are prepared to do anything to undermine him, even if it makes the country less safe. Yes, Republicans tried to destroy former President Bill Clinton over sex and politics. But now Democrats want to destroy Bush so badly that they are willing to undercut national security.
Everyone in Congress (and the CIA) should see the movie “United 93″ as a reminder of what we are up against. Muslim fanatics will not only try to destroy the Capitol, but also explode a nuclear bomb, if they can. And, people also should heed the warning delivered by Princeton University professor Bernard Lewis, one of the nation’s foremost scholars of Islam, before the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life here last month. Lewis, now 90, cast the struggle with Islamic extremism in WWII terms - it is 1938, he said, and “we seem to be more in the mode of Chamberlain at Munich rather than of Churchill.” Osama bin Laden and other would-be Hitlers, he said, consider the United States “an effete, degenerate, pampered enemy incapable of real resistance.” It’s part of the pattern that we fight among ourselves as much as against our enemies. This is more than serious. It’s dire.
![[Valid RSS]](http://politicalpartypoop.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
May 23rd, 2006 at 9:53 pm
It’s always gratifying when a fair-minded and reasonable Democrat speaks out on these very
important issues. Good for Mort Kondracke. He “gets” it. Hope others join him in speaking out.
May 24th, 2006 at 4:13 am
“Now, it’s threatening our national survival. I do not exaggerate.”
I hate to be a party pooper, but yes, he does exaggerate. There is simply no way terrorism can threaten our national survival. Israel manages to survive, right in the middle of thousands of terrorists who are (literally) dying to get in there and blow themselves and Israelis up. Other nations suffer terrorism on a daily or weekly basis, yet somehow they manage to press on. Hell, Ivory Coast is in the middle of a civil War but still manages to send a soccer team to the World Cup. Yet somehow the fact that terrorists know we might be listening to their phone calls is going to end America?
I know it’s uncouth to say this, but terrorism is simply not a threat on the level of the nukes of North Korea or the economic power of China or the invasion by Mexico. The latter truly has the potential to change America.
A little perspective is surely in order. 9/11 killed ~4000 people. 10 times that number died on our highways the same year. Somehow, America survives that, every single year, without being materially altered. The fact that it did change us just shows how out of real history America has been. What other nation has not had a foreign army marching on its soild for 194 years? Maybe Canada, and only because they have no neighbors but us.
Sure, maybe the terrorists will get nukes and blow up a city. If they had nukes already they would have done so, no doubt. If they are to get a nuke, such would be a horrible attack, but would still not be the end of America. If Katrina, which essentially made a large American city uninhabitable for 6 months did not destroy America (or even cause a recession), then a bombing or even a series of bombings are not going to make us all into Canadians or Mexicans.
Mort has the true religion, that if only we come together politically we can create a land of milk and honey, and thus even his examples are silly. If a newspaper had revealed where Nazis were being interrogated, would that have lost the war? Not remotely. If they revealed that we had broken the code, would that have lost the war? Not remotely, because the war was not won because we broke their communications. such helped, but it dod not alter the outcome.
It was won because we were stronger than they were, just like we are stronger than an ideology that makes its base in caves half the world away. Terrorism is a method of attack chosen because those who use it have no better technology.
If they really wanted to destroy America, they’d build a printing press and destroy our economy through counterfeit money. That’s what we’re doing.
May 24th, 2006 at 2:35 pm
The popular Right-wing claim that all Liberals/Democrats want to
do is undermine the president, even to the point of
damaging national security, is so blatantly false, dishonest, unfair and total
bullshit that anyone that makes it has about as much credibility as
a pissant. Even less so.
Despite this, I hear such a claim repeated almost every day on this website.
To me such claims can be equivalent to racism and prejudice. In other words,
empty, baseless, irrational, insensitive ignorant rants and remarks
against a major class of people.
What really makes me angry is these conservative drones attaching false
and unfair labels and alleged agendas on people of the party making up
about half the country. There is not a shred of facts to support such claims.
The only ones who support them are a very small number of far right
extremist conservatives. It is an insult to our country that such idiots
such as Limbaugh manage to get on the radio. But then again, they are
comedians and nothing more. Unlike a Jon Stewart or Steve Colbert, Limbaugh does not use
any facts or substantiation behind his bullshit rants. He is an empty tub of lard.
This entire website is largely bullshit because it is long on name calling
but short on any facts.
Sniffer makes claims like the “Democrats haven’t
done jack shit for African Americans” where the hell is the proof of that? Provide
some evidence. I can surely say if not for the Democrats, the blacks would
likely still be sitting on the backs of buses.
I am well open to contrary viewpoints as long as they have some basis
in fairness and truth. As long as they can be substantiated. Not so on this website.
That is why this is my last posting and last visit here. I will seek intelligent
discussion of the right-wing viewpoint elsewhere.
So go ahead. Cheer that a Liberal/Democrat was pushed off this website in a protest
of sheer ignorance.
I won’t be back to read it.
May 24th, 2006 at 2:47 pm
Just one more word. Some of the commentary is good here. I don’t
mean to knock all the people who post here. Some like Trinity sometimes have something
intelligent to say.
My problem is with the initial postings and the
ignorant comics mocking Democrats, etc. Again long on name calling, short
on any facts or substantiation beyond baseless
conservative right-wing prejudice, spin and paranoia.
These are mostly reposted pieces written by some no-name right-wing extremist from some
minor league right-wing rag.
In the event anyone cares, just wanted to be clear on that.
Thank you.
May 24th, 2006 at 4:25 pm
(El Borak said…)
“I hate to be a party pooper, but yes, he does exaggerate. There is simply no way terrorism can threaten our national survival. Israel manages to survive, right in the middle of thousands of terrorists who are (literally) dying to get in there and blow themselves and Israelis up.
I’m not sure I can agree with you there, El Borak. Yes, it’s true that Israel does manage to “survive”, but would you really want Americans to have to live the way the Israeli’s have to live? We live in an open society, and we love our way of life. I would hate for that to change. I wouldn’t want to have to go through multiple security checkpoints every time I wanted to go somewhere. I wouldn’t want to have to have my car checked, trunk opened, and my vehicle’s undercarriage examined just in order to stop at the mall to do a little shopping, would you? Because that’s how the Israeli’s live.
If the NSA communications surveillance programs are effective in discovering possible terrorist sleeper cells, radical Muslim Jihadists who are already living in the United States, just waiting for the right time to coordinate suicide bomber attacks on Americans, then I’m willing to support those programs. I don’t want us to have to live like Israelis, facing the real possibility of such a thing happening every time they sit in a restaurant eating, or attend a wedding or sports event, or go out to a nightclub, or to see a movie, etc. That’s the way Israelis have to live.
So, although you might be technically correct when you say terrorism won’t mean an end to America, it very definitely might mean an end to America as we know it. Why make things easier for these whackjobs to accomplish their goals? Why stack the deck against US, in favor of the terrorists? I think it’s absolutely a perverse mindset to have. A dangerous one, too.
May 24th, 2006 at 4:37 pm
Good bye “war on terrible”…. Alas….You did not understand the ironic and deliberatively offensive humor of Sniffer. He’d love it if you’d throw that kind of “humor” back at him.
I am a peace lover and bleeding heart from way way way back (Viet Nam Era child). I have had to learn to stand up to him, toe to toe, and it has been good for us both.
For those who disagree or are offended, don’t let yourself down by running away from a chance to educate or be educated. Some humor may not be your cup of tea (or mine either) but it doesn’t always mean there isn’t real intelligence at its core.
May 24th, 2006 at 5:00 pm
(the war on terrible said…)
“The popular Right-wing claim that all Liberals/Democrats want to
do is undermine the president, even to the point of
damaging national security, is so blatantly false, dishonest, unfair and total
bullshit that anyone that makes it has about as much credibility as
a pissant.”
Twot, it’s always a mistake to use a broad brush when discussing politics, or anything else for that matter. If I’ve ever said ALL Liberals/Democrats, I apologize. But I will say, and I have said, that the vast majority of your party’s leadership seem to fit that description.
Naturally, I cannot look inside the hearts and minds of these individuals, so it’s impossible to say with certainty that they are consciously and deliberately damaging our national security by their ultra-partisan undermining and excessive obstruction of everything this administration tries to do to protect the country. It is rather difficult to believe that they are NOT aware of the consequences of their words and actions, but I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt, just for argument’s sake. Unfortunately, if they consistently undermine President Bush, for whatever reason, the damage to our national security is the same, whether they intend it or not.
(the war on terrible said…)
“It is an insult to our country that such idiots
such as Limbaugh manage to get on the radio. But then again, they are
comedians and nothing more.”
Twot, you are so completely off-base with that comment, I wouldn’t even attempt to correct you. All I can say is that you have absolutely no clue as to what you are saying. Rush is anything but an idiot. It’s been shown time and again that most liberals who characterize Rush Limbaugh and his show in this manner, have listened to the show either very, very little, or not at all. They simply go around repeating every insulting cliche that the Left has ever uttered about Rush, just as you have done here. It’s a bunch of mindless blather, and you should have more respect for yourself than to engage in such talk.
(the war on terrible said…)
“So go ahead. Cheer that a Liberal/Democrat was pushed off this website in a protest
of sheer ignorance.
I won’t be back to read it.”
Oh stop, twot. Of course you are going to be back to read it. It’s only human to want to see how everyone responded to your farewell address. And since you are back, reading this right now, allow me to let you off the hook and encourage you to continue posting here. I know we disagree on just about everything we discuss, I think at this point, I’d miss your passionate posts. We’ll never see eye to eye on things, but perhaps we might benefit somehow from our exchanges. So don’t throw a hissy fit, twot, and consider hanging around. Now you have a good idea how I feel when I post over on JABBS, where I was pretty much the one and only conservative posting for months on end. :)
(the war on terrible said…)
“Just one more word. Some of the commentary is good here. I don’t
mean to knock all the people who post here. Some like Trinity sometimes have something
intelligent to say.”
OMG. Are my eyes playing tricks on me? Did twot sort of give me a back-handed compliment there? After all of the times he’s blasted my posts as being ignorant and worse? I’m in shock…………(falling to the floor)
May 24th, 2006 at 5:22 pm
Trinity you read my mind, but people like War did not see that as a back handed compliment.
May 24th, 2006 at 7:13 pm
“Why make things easier for these whackjobs to accomplish their goals?”
But here’s what bothers me. You say that you don’t want to have to go through checkpoints, but doesn’t that attitude, just like mine that I don’t want the government spying on me, ‘make things easier for these whackjobs to accomplish their goals’?
You see, every program, every search, every increase of federal power is predicated on how dangerous it is to not do *everything* to protect ourselves. So while you love our open society, you seem to support every action deemed necessaary to make us safer. But once one accept that attitude, what argument remains against phone taps or checkpoints or full cavity searches, and then where is open society?
“It might mean the end of America as we know it.”
So might immigration. So might a depression. So might losing a war in Iran. So might an earthquake in Missouri or cascading cross-defaults in derivatives because of a crash in the Dollar. So might a civil war in Mexico. So might any of an hundred other possible events.
But my point is that terrorism, being a mere disruptive influence, does not have the power to ‘end America as we know it’ as much as at least 3 things on that list, one of which the Senate is in the process of exascerbating right now. It’s simply not a problem the size of which Kondrake proposes, and even if it was, a government that tries to solve the illegal immigration issue by making citizens of 10% of Mexico is pretty much guaranteed to make life hard on the good guys without much affecting the actions of the bad ones anyway.
May 25th, 2006 at 2:00 am
(Sniffer said…)
“Trinity you read my mind, but people like War did not see that as a back handed compliment.”
LOL Sniffer. I’m sure you’re right. It was most likely just a poor attempt at an insult. :)
In any case, now that I think about it, I am a little concerned that I may have sometimes said something that twot considers intelligent. What does that mean? lol
May 25th, 2006 at 2:45 am
(El Borak asks…)So while you love our open society, you seem to support every action deemed necessaary to make us safer. “But once one accept that attitude, what argument remains against phone taps or checkpoints or full cavity searches, and then where is open society?”
Believe me, El Borak. I do understand the concern involved with these intrusions. It’s absolutely anathema to Americans to give up any of our freedoms, and I know there can be abuses. Still, I don’t think President Bush has crossed the line with regard to our Constitution. From what I can see, he is truly making a conscious effort to balance the dueling needs of national security and civil liberties. I guess you disagree, which perhaps defines the difference between a conservative like me, and a libertarian such as yourself. I do believe in the “semper vigilante” creed, so what I would say is this: We have to endeavor to elect only men and women of high character and integrity into office. Not just to the Presidency, but to the Congress as well. If we fail at that, and we very well may, then it’s all over.
I agree with you whole-heartedly, btw, about the magnitude of the damage presented by the illegal invasion we are experiencing coming across our borders. The U.S. Senate is a complete and utter disgrace! I think we could solve this problem a lot quicker and more effectively and fairlly if we replaced all 100 Senators with 100 average American citizens. Our only hope is that the House hangs tough and refuses to allow the travesty that the Senate calls “immigration reform” to to remain in its present form. I know there’s going to be a big fight over this. I just hope it’s big enough!
Here’s the link to an excellent op-ed piece written by Ed Meese called, “An Amnesty by Any Other Name”. It’s a must read for anyone who is blase about the illegal alien issue we are dealing with.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/24/opinion/24meese.html?_r=1&oref=slogin