What It Means to Protect the Nation

[Sonny]

Good column by former NYC Mayor Ed Koch...

What It Means to Protect the Nation
By Ed Koch

Why do so many Americans refuse to face the fact that our country is at war with international terrorism?

The leading terrorist group, al-Qaeda, is fighting us on the ground in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Both Iran and North Korea are threatening nuclear war. And yet many Americans, including some Congressional Democrats, denounce President Bush, and in so doing, weaken our country's ability to resist Islamic fascism. One Congressional Democrat, John Conyers of Michigan, announced his intention to impeach the President when Republicans lose control of both Houses of Congress.

There is something terribly wrong with people seeking to demean and weaken the president in war time, thereby strengthening our country's enemies. As a result of the language and tactics of those opposed to our presence in Iraq, our enemies have been emboldened, believing the American public to be sharply divided on the war, and in fact at war with itself. To other countries, Americans appear pitted against one another not in an election, but in a verbal bloodbath, convincing the world we are impotent -- a paper tiger.

The tyrannical forces in Iran led by its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, make clear that if they can destroy us, they will. Ahmadinejad has said about the U.S., "...Is it possible for us to witness a world without America and Zionism?...you had best know that this slogan and this goal are attainable, and surely can be achieved..." Ahmadinejad has also stated his goal of destroying the state of Israel several times, saying, "...Israel must be wiped off the map."

If a sovereign nation makes such threats, do those who are threatened have to wait until the missiles are in the air before taking action? Or may threatened states defend themselves with preemptive action?

The U.N. Security Council has demanded that Iran stop developing nuclear technology leading to the creation of a nuclear bomb. Iran has refused, notwithstanding threatened sanctions. Iran's conventional missiles can already reach Europe and Israel. Must Israel wait until the world knows exactly when Iran's bomb has been built? Experts estimate that it may take years or as little as six months. No one knows with certainty when the cobra will be able to strike. Iran has lied to the U.N. about its nuclear development efforts before. Is there anyone who believes it is not prepared to lie in the future or is currently lying?

Many of those who attack the president, hoping to make him ineffective and bring him down, are opposed to our alliance with Israel. You can verify that and the signs of anti-Semitism by looking at the banners and listening to the anti-Israel invective in the speeches in the street demonstrations and marches against the war in Iraq and President Bush. Regrettably, many of those marchers are blind to the terrorism that faces the Western civilization, sympathize with it, or fear it less than they despise the governmental leaders of the U.S.

Rest of the column is here:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/realclearpoliti ... tect_the_n

[Hackalicious]

Good column by former NYC Mayor Ed Koch...

There is something terribly wrong with people seeking to demean and weaken the president in war time, thereby strengthening our country's enemies. As a result of the language and tactics of those opposed to our presence in Iraq, our enemies have been emboldened, believing the American public to be sharply divided on the war, and in fact at war with itself.

Criticizing the president = Supporting Al Qaeda?

If that's the case, I might as well grow a beard and switch sides like Johnny Walker.

Ed Koch is trying to paint anyone opposed to the Iraq war as being weak on terrorism. He can suck it.

I suggest reading James Fallows' article "Declaring Victory" in the Atlantic. (Unfortunately, it's not available for free online.)

[Sonny]

Criticizing the president = Supporting Al Qaeda?

He didn't say that....

There is something terribly wrong with people seeking to demean and weaken the president in war time

[Campbell]

why should you support a president that brought you into a war that you did not support and was not in the best interest of the American people?

Anyway, I leave you this:

The Iranian Ambassador to the UN has just finished giving a speech, and walks out into the lobby where he meets President Bush. They shake hands, and as they walk the Iranian says, "You know, I have just one question about what I have seen in America." President Bush said, "Well, anything I can do to help you, I will." The Iranian whispers "My son watches this show 'Star Trek' and in it there is Chekhov who is Russian, Scotty who is Scottish, and Sulu who is Chinese, but no Arabs. My son is very upset and doesn't understand why there aren't any Iranians on Star Trek."

President Bush chuckles, leans toward the Iranian ambassador, and whispers back, "It's because Star Trek takes place in the future."

[Adam Gamradt]

The point Mr. Koch misses is that we dissenters do not turn a blind eye to terrorism.

"There is something terribly wrong with people seeking to demean and weaken the president in war time, thereby strengthening our country's enemies."

I argue that there is something terribly wrong with a president who doesn't listen to his people, and relies instead on faith.

How does bringing up the fact that we've over extended our military, help our enemies? Like they aren't aware of it already, they can't see 1600 people dying in July in Iraq, and see that we are not able to control the situation on the ground? How does reporting this fact, or discussing this, help give aid to the enemy. Treason is be definition, giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Koch has accused 50% of the US of treason.

For anyone who's interested, the 1600 killed in Iraq last month would be equivalent to 16000 killed in the US. So talking about this makes the enemy stronger, but actually starting the war that lead to those deaths does not?

The war in Iraq was a diversion of resources, detrimental to our countries ability to defend itself, both militarily, and ideologically. I argue that our enemies are emboldened more by our own mistakes, and lack of foresight, than our ability to disagree with our leaders openly, and democratically.

It's also comical to undermine the UN at every turn, and then justify our position based on Iran's unwillingness to cooperate with the UN. You can't have it both ways here.

Koch's point about profiling is a joke. A terrorist does not look a certain way. A terrorist may behave a certain way, which is entirely different. Yes, currently there are many arab looking people pretty high on our list, but Timothy McVeigh could have been in line with you at the IHOP, and no one would know. A critical limitation in profiling is it's inconsistency, and the fact that you are still free to dress, think, and say as you please in America.

There are better ways to address the threat that terrorists pose than profiling. For example, let's check 10% of our incoming cargo. Let's check 100% of every item that gets checked on to a plane, this will be difficult, but is feasible.

Let's make sure we have the proper amount of air traffic controllers on staff. Let's make sure they get to sleep at night.

Finally, I don't think Iran has any intention to use a nuclear weapon, though I can not be certain. I do think they are pursuing nuclear power, something which we have assisted them with in the past.

I find it odd that any discussion of Iran, fails to mention the historical context behind the current regime. Our participation in operation Ajax, and the collusion with the British to overthrow their democratically elected government still haunts us. To simply dismiss Ahmadinejad as a terrorist and a despot is naive. His power is a result of many factors, and can not be attributed solely to him or Iran being "evil".

That I question our president, or more accurately, his repeated failure to govern well, does not make me a terrorist sympathizer. For Koch, or anyone else for that matter, to suggest that we are aiding our enemies simply by engaging in an open and honest discussion of our place in the world, the polices which dictate our behavior, and thus perception in the world, is lunacy.

This article is yet another sad chapter in our recent history of right wing propaganda. History shows us that our actions in Iran, Iraq, Israel, etc, have proven that the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. This article by Koch uses the same tired logic, by criticizing anything our president does, you are empowering our enemies. Even though we can't say for sure who our enemies are, where they are, what they look like, how many of them there are, you are helping "them". Give me a break.

A far greater threat to our country than Iran, comes from the remaining arsenals resulting from the Cold War Arms Race. The US and Russia have never really stood down. One mistake or computer glitch means mutual annihilation. But politically, you can't score any points, so you don't hear anyone talking about this.

[Hackalicious]

Criticizing the president = Supporting Al Qaeda?

He didn't say that....

There is something terribly wrong with people seeking to demean and weaken the president in war time , thereby strengthening our country's enemies

A "war" on terrorism is a perpetual war that cannot be won.

Therefore, Koch is saying that anyone who criticizes the president ("weakening" him) at any time (since we will always be at "war") is supporting Al Qaeda ("our country's enemies").

Terrorism is an intrinsic and low-level risk in a free society. An individual can destroy a city block with fertilizer and diesel fuel. Unless we live in a police state under constant surveillance, this cannot be stopped.

The goal of terrorism is to cause terror. The only way to "win" is to not be terrorized. That means not changing our way of life due to fear. No one should refrain from criticizing our president (who incidentally is our employee) because of a fear of terrorists.

"The consciousness of being at war, and therefore in danger, makes the handing-over of all power to a small caste seem the natural, unavoidable condition of survival."

[Gvlax]

why do American people think that the war on terrorism has just been afganistan and Iraq? We have been fighting terrorist that have killed AMERICANs for over 40 years. Only the major terrorist actions are the ones we can remember (U.S. Embassy in Lebanon, USS Cole, 9/11 etc) but other Americans have been killed for the last 40 years or more by terrorist. A terrorist is loosely defined as someone who fights for a cause or belief. What should we do with these people, let them kill americans and other people around the world? The war on terrorism is never going to end but i beleive we can not just sit back and let our citizens get killed because they are simply Americans. For anyone who is opposed to the war on terrorism i ask you simply, should we allow terrorist to kill Americans when ever they want unpunished? Just a thought

[OAKS]

I don't think many people are against the "War on Terrorism". Most people, however, are now against the "War in Iraq". There is a large difference.

[JW]

I don't put much stock in Iran and Syria offering their support against terrorists after 9/11 when they themselves support terrorists group mainly hezbollah.

I don't think that we have over extended our military. I think there is much more that we could do, but they have been trying to win this with the minimal amount of military presence as possible. No life lost in war time is a good loss, but compare it to another war that people didn't think we should be in, Vietnam, and we are doing so much better at limiting casualties at this time than ever before. The difference in this war and others is that we can't see our enemy, the country we are helping are still unable to help themselves at this time. Military campaigns for the most part aren't 1 or 2 years, typically in history they have lasted a long time, and have caused more Americans to die. When the Germans U-boat sunk American ships and the Japanese Bombed Pearl Harbor we were all for going to war and no one complained. The difference here is that we are fighting an enemy with no borders and no flags.

While the American people are definately growing tired of this campaign, it is one that we all should have known would take time.

My beliefs lead me to be against war in general regardless of who is fighting or who it is against, but even in the old testament of the Bible, War was necessary.

[Gvlax]

I don't think many people are against the "War on Terrorism". Most people, however, are now against the "War in Iraq". There is a large difference.

Is there no terrorist in Iraq? it doesnt have to be al qaeda to be a terrorist, just someone who fights for a cause or belief that creates terror to get its way is a terrorist.

[StrykerFSU]

Finally, I don't think Iran has any intention to use a nuclear weapon, though I can not be certain. I do think they are pursuing nuclear power, something which we have assisted them with in the past.

Really? What in Ahmadinejad's behavior leads you to have such confidence in his restraint?

This article is yet another sad chapter in our recent history of right wing propaganda

Why is it propaganda when a Republican states his beliefs but insightful commentary when someone like Jimmy Carter is stating his? Is it just that you don't agree with the message?

I don't think disagreeing with policy or the President makes someone a terrorist sympathizer. I do believe that constantly criticizing current policies without offering clearly defined alternatives is irresponsible. I have yet to hear any of the leftist anti-war crowd offer anything that would amount to a plan to make America safer. If any of them (Dean, Biden, Feingold, Pelosi, Kerry, Boxer, Shumer, etc) had a plan, I'd be happy to listen.

I believe the real debate is whether the US withdrawing from Iraq would signal a victory for terrorism and Iran. I believe it would. What I see is members of Congress and others attempting to rewrite history so that they may somehow shed any responsibility for entering the war. Everyone who voted for the war shares responsibility no matter how many have done the Kerry flop since it began.

[Hugh Nunn]

I don't think that we have over extended our military. I think there is much more that we could do, but they have been trying to win this with the minimal amount of military presence as possible.

Tell this to the family of a National Guardsman prepping for his second or third trip to Iraq. Keep in mind that the National Guard was originally intended to man duty stations in America as replacements for active duty and reservists sent to fight overseas.

And by the way, there are many servicemembers in the theater of operations performing jobs for which they lack proper training..mostly things like clerks on patrol, but occasionally things like mine sweeping due to lack of manpower to deal with mission requirements.

Now, I don't agree with everything we are doing over there. I don't believe that there was ever a clearly defined goal beyond ousting Saddam. I don't believe everything I see on Fox News.

And I certainly don't think that by disagreeing with Bush or O'Reilly one is automatically aiding the enemy.

However the mere existence of published terrorist threat levels do damage and threaten national security. Nobody is going to be reading threat levels but the terrorists, to see when they have a greater chance of being searched.