Yeah, I guess I am fear-mongering
God help us all if the left takes over.
Posted on 05/15/2006 12:39:01 PM PDT by LSUfan
Now we know. The Sunday morning CNN program hosted by Wolf Blitzer provided an explanation for at least some of the bizarre behavior in evidence lately in Washington.
In response to a video clip of Senator Jon Kyl (Republican of Arizona) making the sensible point that it is "nuts" in a time of war to be disclosing our intelligence sources and methods, former Carter National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski declared that "we are not at war." While he acknowledged that there are serious threats, he suggested that it was fear-mongering to talk about being in a war, a practice used to justify otherwise insupportable infringements on the privacy and equanimity of Americans.
Breaking the Code
This is a useful prism through which to view this week's hearings on the nomination of Air Force General Michael Hayden to become the next director of the Central Intelligence Agency. We can expect Democratic Senators and even some Republican ones to showboat as they take the nominee to task for his work in a previous incarnation as the head of the National Security Agency (NSA). In that role and at presidential direction, the general strove to use NSA's powerful and exceedingly sensitive computing and eavesdropping tools to protect us against another terrible attack by enemies bent on our destruction.
Specifically, Gen. Hayden will be excoriated for having used warrantless wiretaps to try to monitor the battlefield communications of such foes. Battlefield signal intercepts in time of war are the stock-in-trade of the National Security Agency and, indeed, of military intelligence more generally. That such intercepts involve phone calls, faxes and e-mails to or from people inside the United States simply underscores the fact that we are, indeed, at war, one that amounts to a global conflict that is different - and potentially far more dangerous - than any we have fought before.
Legislators will also assail the general for having sought phone records - not wiretaps - for millions of Americans. Such information could allow the NSA to establish links between terrorist operatives and cells in this country based on calling patterns or connections between known targets and unknown associates. Again, this is the sort of activity the public would expect our government to be doing in time of war. Indeed, polling suggests the American people overwhelmingly support the NSA's efforts on our behalf.
Still, the denunciations of such eminently sensible and legal practices as unacceptable invasions of our privacy, as illegal activity and possibly as impeachable offenses are an important foretaste of what could happen if the critics get to run one or both house of Congress after November's elections: Instead of prosecuting the war for the Free World, official Washington will be consumed with prosecuting George W. Bush.
Confirmed: There is an Anti-Bush 'Camp' at the CIA
A front-page article in Sunday's Washington Post confirms what many have long believed: Those who disagree with the President's view that we are at war with a very dangerous, state-sponsored Islamofascist ideology include "a camp within the Central Intelligence Agency that considers the war to be a diversion from counter-terrorism activity." With no hint of irony, one of the Post reporters who won a Pulitzer Prize for publishing classified information apparently leaked to the paper by one of those CIA operatives, Mary McCarthy, refers to such a cabal within the ostensibly objective, non-partisan ranks of the Agency by way of trying to rehabilitate Ms. McCarthy - who had been fired by former director Porter Goss.
Mr. Goss was subsequently dismissed by President Bush at the insistence of Director of National Intelligence (DNI) John Negroponte. Now, Mr. Bush seems about to accede to another, no less ill-advised recommendation by the DNI. Mr. Negroponte wants to rehire another member of the anti-Bush "camp," former senior CIA official Steve Kappes, to be the Agency's Number 2. Such an appointment would be, to use Sen. Kyl's term, "nuts."
After all, Kappes was reportedly removed from his previous post as CIA Deputy Director for Operations when Goss discovered that he and his deputy were engaged in unauthorized disclosures of classified information to members of the press and Congress - then defiantly refused to desist when called on it. Fortunately, members of the congressional leadership have indicated strong opposition to the Kappes candidacy. They may insist that he be subjected to the sort of polygraphing about Kappes' alleged backchanneling of information to critics of the Bush Administration that resulted in Ms. McCarthy's confession to having done the same thing.
The Bottom Line
The fate not just of this presidency but control of Congress and the security of the country may depend on whether the public is clear that we are at war - and with whom and the exceedingly high stakes associated with losing. Toward this end, the President must make a redoubled effort to drive that message home, starting with assuring that his own staff and that of the Nation's intelligence agencies share his understanding of the nature of this war and his determination to win it - both of which seem to be true of Michael Hayden.
Those who feel otherwise are certainly entitled to their view. They are even entitled to work to advance it - just not from a vantage point inside the executive branch, especially by masquerading as objective, non-partisan intelligence analysts and operatives.
What is the Left smoking?
I used to think that he was the one Carterista with a brain. Looks like he doesn't have one either.
I dunno, but apparently Patches Kennedy's had a few hits of it.
He refused to recognize war when Iran declared it by sacking our embassy and holding our people for over a year.
Oh, so there's just a rather large group of Americans in Iraq having a paid vacation?
Same as the right apparently, they have both declined to declare war.
That's not hard to believe at all. Remember, Warren Christopher asked one of the Delta Force officers why they thought it necessary to shoot to kill during the abortive Iranian Embassy hostage rescue mission. If they cannot understand something that simple how can we expect the Z man to understand we are at war (even when our enemy tells us we are).
Yeah, I guess I am fear-mongering
God help us all if the left takes over.
OK ...
no military conflict since WW2 has been accompanied with a formal declaration of war. The current policies of the Executive Branch go back to the Korean Conflict*.
Yet, all Presidents, Democrat and Republican alike, have sought AND received authorization from Congress for the use of significant military force against a sovereign nation. The facts are, all U.S. military conflicts since WWII have been “undeclared.” The *“Korean War” was/is often called the ‘Korean Conflict’ as it was positioned to the public as a police action of the United Nations.
Similarly the Vietnam War was initially referred to as a “conflict” until the growing scale of US involvement and human cost earned it the self-evident and very appropriate “war” moniker. The President (LBJ) received his not-really-a-war declaration from Congress in the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. The U.S. Congress specifically authorized the President to use “all necessary measures … including the use of armed force …to assist any member or protocol state of the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty requesting assistance in defense of its freedom.” That [joint] Resolution was approved by the House unanimously (416-0), and by the Senate 88-2. The resolution was repealed during the Nixon years, in May of 1970.
Three years later, overriding a Nixon veto, Congress passed Public Law 93-148, The War Powers Resolution to limit the power of the President of the United States to wage war without the approval of the Congress. The Resolution is sometimes erroneously referred to as the War Powers Act, and continues to fuel a separation of powers dispute between the Legislative and Executive branches of our Federal government. But despite the rancor, all Presidents have sought AND RECEIVED consent from Congress to use military force. After “Gulf War 1” combat operations against Iraqi forces ended on February 28, 1991, the use of force to obtain Iraqi compliance with U.N. resolutions remained a War Powers issue, until the enactment of P.L. 107-243 , on October 16th 2002.
Public Law 107-243 explicitly authorized the President (GWBush) to use force against Iraq, an authority he exercised in March 2003, and continues to exercise for military operations in Iraq. The Resolution authorized “the President to use armed force to defend the national security of the United States against the threat posed by Iraq and to enforce all relevant U.N. resolutions regarding Iraq.”
WRT IRaq and the war on terror - Congress has repeatedly put their support into Public Law, as follows ...
H.Res. 322
Supported the pursuit of peaceful and diplomatic efforts in seeking Iraqi compliance with United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding the destruction of Iraq’s capability to deliver and produce weapons of mass destruction. However, if such efforts fail, “multilateral military action or unilateral military action should be taken.”
Passed in the House: November 13, 1997
H.Res. 612
Reaffirmed that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.
Passed in the House: December 17, 1998
H.Con.Res.137
Expressed concern for the urgent need of a criminal tribunal to try members of the Iraqi regime for war crimes.
Passed in the House: January 27, 1998
Senate
S.Con.Res. 78 Called for the indictment of Saddam Hussein for war crimes.
Passed in the Senate: March 13, 1998
P.L. 105-235 (S.J.Res. 54). Iraqi Breach of International Obligations.
Declared that by evicting weapons inspectors, Iraq was in “material breach” of its cease-fire agreement. Urged the President to take “appropriate action in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.”
Became public law: August 14, 1998
P.L. 105-338 (H.R. 4655). Iraq Liberation Act of 1988 (Section 586).
Declared that it should be the policy of the United States to “support efforts” to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and replace him with a democratic government. Authorized the President to provide the Iraqi democratic opposition with assistance for radio and television broadcasting, defense articles and military training, and humanitarian assistance.
Became public law: October 31, 1998
H.J.Res. 75
Stated that Iraq’s refusal to allow weapons inspectors was a material breach of its international obligations and constituted “a mounting threat to the United States, its friends and allies, and international peace and security.”
Passed in the House: December 20, 2001
Senate
S. 3079 Expressed the sense of Congress that key scientists, engineers, and technicians in Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction programs should be encouraged to leave and provide information to governments and international institutions that are committed to such programs’ dismantling. Stipulates that the alien and any immediate family members shall be eligible for U.S. permanent residence admission.
Passed in the Senate: November 20, 2002
Public Laws
P.L. 107-243 (H.J.Res. 114). To Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces
against Iraq. Authorized the President to use armed force to defend the national security of the United States against the threat posed by Iraq and to enforce all relevant U.N. resolutions regarding Iraq.
Became public law: October 16, 2002
Since we're not at war, then send these brainless idiots over there for a summer vacation. I recommend a leisurely tour of the entire country. I even suggest these Carter fools take the rest of their cohorts, e.g, Pelosi, Boxer, Feinstein, Howard Dean, Kerry, and the rest of the our embarrassments over there. If they survive their vacation in Iraq, they can tour over to Iran. Hey, guys, enjoy your trip!
I'm going to go out on a limb here, but I think I agree with ZB. First off there are wars and 'wars'. We've had a 'war on drugs' and a 'war on poverty' and many others. These are not wars, they are 'wars'. So the question is: is the WOT a 'war' or a war.
When you are really at war, it seems to me, you can't really have this discussion. It is blatently obvious who the enemey is, and in large part they are viewing you as the enemy and organized to fight you. For the last 500 years mostly these have been nations vs. nation conflicts, or perhaps militia vs. militia in the case of civil wars.
We are asked to consdier the WOT / Iraq such a war, but it doesn't really fit. Mostly what we hear good about what the US Army is doing in Iraq is 'nation building'. The USA and USA Army were involved in rebuilding Europe and Japan after WW2, and there were people opposed who caused problems. But, significantly, we didn't say we were still at war. The war was over VE and VJ days were passed.
So, to some extent I think Bush's "Mission Accomplished" marked the end of the normal, formal war.
If we are accept that we are at war with internation jihadi terrorism, I think that's a stretch. Surely we hate and want to defeat it, but are they really a threat that we can justify a war foooting for? Mostly the answer is no, I am afraid.
Many here on FR could point out chapter and verse what they say. So? The SLA/Weather Underground said all sorts of things about overthrowning the USA, so did the Red Brigades in Europe. Few would say we were at war with the SLA.
So I think ZB is correct, the WOT is really just a fancy name for something that is less than a real war, like say Vietnam or WW2. Until it is percieved as a real war the USA won't fight it appropriately.
I don't understand why we never declared war on radical Islam, or at least Al Qaeda. I remember Newt Gingrich calling for a declaration of war.
Why didn't we?
The older I get the more I hate the Peanut President!
They lie and know it, this is treason by the commies, Carter, all lefties.
Time is coming......
If we fought WW2 like we did this war we would be speaking German and Japanese.
It is their opinion that ONLY European people, and white Americans, have enough intelligence and drive to actually conduct a war.
Anything done by anyone else no matter how damaging is simply not legitimately war in their eyes.
He's not alone, though, which is what gives rise to the impression in the United States among thinking people that the Nazis never really got defeated in WWII.
bttt
The Constitution does not specify the exact words to be used in a declaration of war. If what Congress did for Jefferson in 1805 was a sufficient declaration, then the one Congress passed for Bush in 2001 and again a year later, is also sufficient.
Brzeniski is an ill-informed moron at best, a deliberate Democrat liar at worse, in making this statement that we are "not at war." We should be grateful that this war, for all its blood and money costs, is minor compared to the deaths and costs in proportaion to GNP in WW I, WW II, Korea, Vietnam, etc.
P.S. My primary is over, but because of certain legal and ethical problems, the incumbent, Charles Taylor may withdraw/be forced out, and I am in the running to be chosen as the replacement nominee for Congress in the 11th District of NC. For more information, see the article below, and my website. I still need your help.
Congressman Billybob
PLUS, and it's a really big PLUS, remnant, renegade elements of the former Islamic Caliphate have declared war against us. They didn't need an act of Congress to do so.
"they have both declined to declare war." OH REALLY - PERHAPS YOUR DEFINITION IS TO NARROW. WHERE IS THE APPROVED FORM SPECIFIED IN THE CONSTITUTION ?
The War is over!!!?????? Geez, has anybody let Mother Sheehan know? Maybe she can now go get a job.
"ZB" is correct in the same way that a judge is correct when he let's a murderer walk because his Miranda rights weren't read properly. The President declined to ask for a formal declaration of war because he didn't want to be perceived as "making war on a Muslim nation", and because he wanted a near-unanimous vote in Congress on a "Use of Force" resolution to show that "the American people were united behind him". As unsatisfactory as a "Use of Force Resolution" is to those of us who would like to see those who have committed treason and sedition behind bars right now (as they might well have been in a declared war), it is none the less "war by any other name", just as Korea was a war (even if Harrya$$ Truman called it a "police action").
There is so much more to the People of the United States invoking their War Power through their representatives in Congress assembled than the use of military force against a sovereign state.
Censorship, propaganda, internment, revocation of naturalization, trials by military tribunal, restriction of the US mails, extraordinary intervention in the economy including nationalization of industry and rationing - all of these flow from the War Power of the People.
And all of them are missing in Iraq, were missing in Korea, were missing in Vietnam - is there a trend?
Yeah, we have gotten so much better at kicking ass that we don't need all of those things at the moment.
"We DID declare war. See my post above on this thread."
I think a lot of people need to go back and read what the constitution actually says in article 1, section 8:
"...To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water..."
By my read, Congress get wide latitude not only in the type of authorization they issue, but in DEFINING what constitutes an offence that we will act against. We can split hairs on the definition of "war", but it is clear to me, at least, that Congress has authorized one.
It is a suprise to know that the Fed can handle the millions of phone records generated by the average American
How in the heck do they handle all that info and to what purpose?
I don't even know an arab, much less a radical islamic one.
But I do call my congress and senate critters, do they want that information and if so for what purpose? We really don't know do we. I would like a lot more information on what this information is collected for before giving it a rubber stamp approval.
Brzezinski has few accomplishments to put him in the category of "authority". The MSM continues to play his song with backup by the Jimmie Carter choir.
I'd be more inclined to listen to the "there's a war on" verbiage if I had a congressional declaration of war to read.
Okay, I read your article. I don't necessarily disagree with anything you wrote, but I think you must acknowledge that there are a lot of people, to include Harry S. Truman, serving Congressmen, judges and Zbiggy Brezhinski, who firmly believe that there is such a thing as a "Use of Force" that does not have the same practical effect as a "declaration (formal or otherwise) of War". Were it not so, we could have been looking at Michael Moore's ugly mug behind bars at Leavenworth by now.
Exactly it has been obeyed, but the other poster was saying we weren't doing things we did during total war, and I said its because we don't feel its necessary to break our constitution to fight third world nations.
"former Carter National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski declared that "we are not at war."
Not exactly the brightest light in the firmament. Sharpen up, Zbiggy!
I vote for "deliberate Democrat liar."
Sorry, but I don't think it's that obvious. Otherwise we would not have a pretty intelligent former Secretary of State saying "we're not at war".
Your examples prove my point. Surely you are not saying we are at war with Iraq? After all they are now in the process of seating the first democratically elected coalition government that our troops fought to install (er, facilitate). So at most we are at war with "some terrorist elements in Iraq" - but not with Iraq.
Perhaps they are in cahoots with Iran, perhaps they are not. It is by no means clear. No doubt they all hate us, but still lots of countries (with real armies and tanks and things) hated us throughout the cold war and we didn't go to war with them.
The British fought the IRA for twenty years. But, to my way of thinking it never rose to a war. That's how I view the USA vs. Fascist Ismlamists contest we are in today.
Can you site any evidence to support your characterization of Brzezinski? I'm pretty sure he (an most everyone else) would credit the Japanese with "actually conducting a war". Sinking most of our Pacific Fleet in a surprise attack is pretty intelligent, from a tactical point of view. I'm pretty sure he considers the Vietnamese to have fought a 'legitimate war'. They managed to win, after all.
He might not be my favorite politico, but I don't believe he holds the beliefs you have attributed to him.
At most, as a National Security Associate or whatever he was he might have asked the military "can you rescue the hotages?". And if an operation was undertaken it was because the military agreed to do it. The failure of the mission was not that it was a bad idea, it was that our pilots screwed up and crashed their helicopters in the staging of it. Hard to blame that on some policy wonk in Washington.
None the less I think ZB speaks for a lot of people in that the Islamic Fascists just don't seem that scary at this point. 9/11 looks more and more like a 'lucky shot' and Iraq looks like a good place to let the various odd flavors of Mohammed ispired insanity duke it out, with us watching safely from the sidelines.
What I am arguing is that the level of threat, as percieved by the average Joe doesn't rise to the level of requiring a war in response. And that because of that we have not actually fought much of a war in Iraq. Instead we let the opposing side slink off, put Saddam on trial and are now in PREVENT defense to stop a civil war from breaking out.
Actual war, to my mind, involves a clear enemy who you go out with all due haste to destroy utterly. We have a good track record at winning real wars (American Revolution, Civil War, WW2, Korea fought to a standstill).
Because we don't see anyone as that bad we're not really using our Army to fight, they are heavily armed police and sacrifical targets of opportunity for Jihadi losers. That's unfortunate.
This is what happens when you declare war on a concept, or military tactic (terror) or even a group which is hostile but indistinguishable from those surrounding it.
If we had declared War on Iraq that would have made sense. All of Iraq would have been our target and we could have extended the War (blowing things up, killing men with guns on sight) for quite a while. We could have demanded complete unilateral surrender (like we did in Japan).
Wars have a way of being resolved. If you totally commit (as the USA, Japan, England, Russia and Germany did in WW2) someone is going to win and someone is going to lose rather quickly.
Low level military-as-police can't tell the good-guys from the bad (and care) pseudo-wars can go on indefinately.
Or, put another way we didn't enter WW2 by declaring war on "the Emperor and imperial army of Japan" and then try to limit our target to some self-defined subset of Japan. Ditto for Germany.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.