"ALL CAPS IN DEFENSE OF LIBERTY IS NO VICE."

Sunday, March 13, 2005

RENDITION AND THE LEFT

During the final moments of his appearance on THE OREILLY FACTOR (FOX NEWS, 3/11), Michael Scheuer [ (a) the former CIA honcho in charge of the CIA's anti-Bin Laden unit from the time of the Clinton Administration until he retired a few months ago - AND (b)a Bush critic who authored the anti-Bush book: IMPERIAL HUBRIS], said (paraphrasing):
that RENDITION was "the SINGLE MOST EFFECTIVE tool that the USA had in the GWOT," and that any claim - and specifically the LATIMES claim - that the policy had yielded no useful; information was "INSANE."

In a 3/11 NYTIMES OPED, Sheuer further opined:

... both Mr. Clinton and George W. Bush. In my mind [...]made the right decision - America is better protected because of renditions - [...] the rendition program has been a tremendous success. Dozens of senior Qaeda fighters are today behind bars, no longer able to plot or participate in attacks. Detainee operations also netted an untold number of computers and documents that increased our knowledge of Al Qaeda's makeup and plans. [...] All Americans owe a debt of gratitude to the men and women of the agency who executed these residentially requested and approved operations, often at the risk of their lives.

The rendition controversy followed a well-established pattern by the Left-wing and the Old Media they dominate: They attack Bush for doing what previous Democrat presidents did WITHOUT CRITICISM (and sometimes did with their PRAISE!) and also ignore the fact that the action in question is effective and in our national security interest.

The Left does this over-and-over again:

(1) Clinton was cool for ordering "Operation Desert Fox" against Saddam's WMD - WITHOUT Congressional, NATO or UN approval, but Bush lied about the WMD and is a war criminal for liberating Iraq without UN approval.

(2) Clinton was a hero for liberating Kosovo and deposing Milosevic (again without UN approval) - even though Milosevic presented no threat to USA security, (especially as compared to Saddam), but Bush is evil because liberating Iraq was never what he REALLY wanted; he only wanted Iraq's oil. And Leftists also charge that Bush never argued that Saddam had to go because he was a tyrant; Leftists falsely charge that Bush's neo-con rationalization that we need to democratize the Middle East is post facto. (Which is why we called it OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM, right?!?!?)

Well, the list of hypocritical, false charges the Left has made and still makes against Bush is endless. (You can add your own in "comments " if you want.)

ONE THING IS CLEAR: the Left is the major reactionary force in the world today - whether the issue is the GWOT, or trade and globalization, or Social Security. The sooner the Left is totally marginalized the sooner we make unlimited poltical progress on all fronts.

HOW WILL THIS HAPPEN?

Well, the Left will do it to themselves: As the MOVE ON types - and their DEANIAC cohorts - take over the Democrat Party, they will force it more and more to the extreme Left and the WHACKO margins of every issue. This will shrink Blue America and enlarge Red America.

NEED PROOF?! Well, the Democrats and their Left-wing 527's outspent the GOP and its 527's by more than 10-to-one, and still lost the presidency and Congress by significant margins.

It won't matter how much money they raise and spend; if the Democrats continue to move leftward they will - (as Zell Miller proclaimed in his book, A NATIONAL PARTY NO MORE) - disappear from the national political stage.

GOOD RIDDANCE.

**** UPDATE - 3/14: WELCOME JAWA REPORT READERS! Please check out a few other posts. And: if you're not a JAWA REPORT reader - you should be; JAWA is "GWOT and SGRENA Central."

2 comments:

Spear Shaker said...

Citing Scheuer is a bit risky...he is a weasel on par with Richard Clarke, and of the "we-need-to-change-our-Israel-policy-to-appease-radical-islam" camp...but your comments on rendition are well taken.

reliapundit said...

Spearman:

citing a weasel like scheuer makes the argument STRONGER: he is clearly not a neo-con or a bushie, so when he defends rendition, he MUST be litiened to by skeptics.