Funny & Sad, or LOLPerino

During a press conference about the situation in Pakistan, White House Press Secretary Dana Perino was asked if it was "ever reasonable to restrict constitutional freedoms in the name of fighting terrorism." Her response? "In our opinion, no."

Swampland's take on this is priceless:

She also came out against invading other countries without a plan for what's next, putting cronies in charge federal agencies, torture, Medicare part D, treating gay people as second class citizens, and Dick Cheney.

And then she said, "ha-ha, OPPOSITE DAY!"

Fruit Falling far from the Tree, or Have you any Wool?

Nothing against Barack Obama, but I find this whole situation hilarious:

When asked about Hillary Clinton during an October 16, 2007, MSNBC interview, Lynne Cheney said that she had a "certain bias" as "Dick [Cheney] and Barack Obama are eighth cousins." When asked if that meant that she was supporting Senator Obama, Cheney replied, "No."

"The Obama campaign's response? 'Every family has a black sheep.'"

Cheney was on MSNBC plugging her new book, Blue Skies, Open Fences. When she appeared on the Daily Show on October 10, Cheney claimed that there have been no terrorist attacks against the United States or American interests since 9/11. When Jon Stewart mentioned the bombings in Madrid and London, Cheney argued that these attacks on our allies' capitals did not count because "we were talking about American interests." The audience booed. Watch it:

Another Case for Withdrawal

In a recent Alternet article, Raed Jarrer & Joshua Holland argue that a U.S. withdrawal would be the best way to end al-Qaeda's presence in Iraq. Iraqis of all ethnic groups despise al-Qaeda, but tacitly support their attacks on coalition forces. Such support would collapse as soon as those forces withdraw. A majority of Iraqis also believe that withdrawal would lead to a more secure Iraq (as less foreign fighters would be drawn to Iraq by an American presence) and even less sectarian violence.

If you need more proof than Iraqi consensus, note that the heavily touted progress in the al-Anbar province is really due to a drawdown of American troops.

Touche, or Tit for Tat

Following the United States' decision to label Iran's armed forces, the Revolutionary Guards, as a terrorist organization, Iran's Parliament has voted to designate the U.S. military and CIA as terrorist organizations. The statement cited Hiroshima & Nagasaki, the Vietnam War, and the war in Iraq as examples.

Never forget.

“Never forget.” That’s what the sign said by the flags memorializing the victims on the northern part of the Diag. That’s what the poster said depicting various “terrorist” acts leading up to 9/11. Challenging these words seems to be unpatriotic, but the phrase has always struck me as cliché, unnecessary, and offensive.

Could anybody really forget what happened six years ago today, even if they really wanted? There are doubtlessly some for whom the attacks were especially traumatic—families of victims, rescue workers, businessmen who decided not to go to the office that day and will forever be haunted by “What if?”—who desperately want to forget, or at least not be continuously reminded of it.

Perhaps I wouldn’t be as bothered by those who said, “Never forget,” if they merely meant “Let’s remember and honor those who died on 9/11 and unite as a country against our common enemy.” But the phrase is more often than not used by fear-mongers who seek to politicize the tragedy. Instead of the above, “Never forget” implies “Remember the terror you felt on that day, and trust us with your civil liberties, trust us to make the complex foreign-policy decisions that are beyond your understanding. If anyone challenges us, they are not true patriots. We can and will keep you safe like no one else can.”

That may be an exaggeration, but take for example the poster that depicts the six “terrorist” acts. It shows three acts perpetrated by Al-Qaeda: the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the 2000 bombing of the U.S.S. Cole off Yemen, and 9/11. The poster also shows an image from the 1979-80 Iranian Hostage Crisis and a group of Iraqis burning an American flag in 1998. The last is not even an act of terrorism, and surely I could be forgiven if I forget that five Iraqis burned a flag nine years ago. The effect of the poster is to conflate Persian with Arab and Sunni with Shiite, to portray America under attack from Muslims worldwide who would all gladly kill us if they had the chance.

Whether the creator of the poster was deliberately racist or merely careless is debatable, but the fact remains that the poster is fear-inducing propaganda. This fear stifles dissent, discouraging debate and paralyzing the body politic of our nation. It is cruelly ironic that those who urge all never to forget have themselves forgotten that this is what the terrorists wanted in the first place.

Editorial: On Terrorism

The greatest issue that we, as Americans, face today is terrorism. No other problem is capable of creating the confusion, division, and tragedy that terrorism has already caused. Even worse, terrorism is likely to continue to be an issue many years into the future. However, the president’s present course of action is not the solution to the problem.

The biggest mistake of both the Bush Administration and the war on terror was the invasion of Iraq. The evidence supporting Bush’s invasion turned out to be false and should have been recognized as unreliable. The claim that Iraq was developing nuclear technology was being refuted by the United Nations and Joseph Wilson. Wilson was sent by the White House to Niger to investigate claims that Saddam Hussein was interested in purchasing yellowcake, a form of unrefined uranium, from the country. When he reported that the claim was false, a member of the Bush Administration committed a federal offense by leaking that Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, was a spy working for the CIA. Much of the information came from Ahmad Chalabi, an Iraqi exile living in London who had an active interest in Hussein’s overthrow. Once Hussein was usurped, Chalabi could then take power, or be placed in power by the U.S., in Iraq.

Because it was planned as well as it was investigated, the war is prolonging the problems it was intended to solve. Since the troops were lacking in both number and armor, they were completely unprepared for the sectarian violence that erupted in Iraq. The political vacuum allows terrorism to find a new home in Iraq. Thus, I am hesitant to withdraw troops before political stability is established. However, I am uncomfortable leaving over 150,000 American troops caught in the crossfire between Shi’a and Sunni without a clear strategy for ending the violence, something President Bush has not been able to provide in four years.

The war in Iraq has also shifted attention away from catching Osama bin Laden who is still at large in Afghanistan or Pakistan. The Taliban are even regaining power. Bush’s crusade does not create a terrorist haven in Iraq instead of Afghanistan; it creates a haven in Iraq in addition to one in Afghanistan.

Furthermore, President Bush’s whole approach to the war on terror can best be described as Orwellian. His statement that “we are fighting terrorists over there [in Iraq] so we don’t have to fight them over here” parallels “War is Peace” more closely than any other sentence I have ever heard outside of 1984. Bush tells us that “Ignorance is Strength” everyday. That is why enemy combatants cannot be made aware of their accusations. That is why recipients of National Security Letters (NSLs) are given gag orders preventing them from disclosing to the public what the government has requested of them. That is why executive privilege is invoked whenever Congress or the public demands answers. If the terrorists knew what we knew, they could use that knowledge against us! Big Brother is trying to protect you! The worst part is the “Freedom is Slavery” parallel. For the Bush Administration, freedom from worry from terrorist threats entails slavery to constant monitoring of phone calls, mail, and e-mail.

Democracy cannot be defended by suspending its core ideals. Freedoms of speech and of press; rights to privacy, a speedy trial, and trial by jury; protections from unreasonable search and seizure and cruel and unusual punishment are all basic ideas of the Bill of Rights. The belief that suspending these freedoms is the only way to ensure that they will continue is ludicrous, especially when we have not even tried to fight terrorism while maintaining these freedoms.

No, we must take the high road in the war on terror. Domestic surveillance and police operations should be carried out with no greater leeway than that before 9/11. A clearer strategy must be found in the war in Iraq and a military presence must be kept there until the country becomes politically stable. Osama bin Laden must be captured and should be given a fair trial.

Two broader policies must be adopted to combat the larger problem of radical Islam. First, we should create a federally funded program to promote energy independence and renewable fuel. This will be our generation’s NASA, our generation’s Apollo Program. The president, like Kennedy with the moon landing in 1961, should declare the goal of being energy independent in ten years. In addition to the environmental benefits, money will stop being funneled through oil-producing Arab nations and into the hands of terrorist organizations.

Furthermore, a new Marshall Plan is needed to invigorate the economy of the Middle East and North Africa. Many young men are drawn to terrorist organizations by promises of food, water, an education, and money to provide for their families after they die. Like the Marshall Plan, recipient nations should draft their own proposals for using U.S. money. Money should be given to any country who wishes to receive it; then, charges of imperialism will not hold. Furthermore, the people of nations who fail to ask for money or spend it wisely will seek change within their governments and pro-U.S. ones will take their place.

This is the only way terrorism can be combated. Proclaiming that we are building democracy overseas while dismantling the one we have back home is dubiously hypocritical. If we avoid one thing, it should be moderate Muslims’ suspicions of U.S. actions.

Operation Failing to Learn from Our Mistakes

According to a recent article in the July 2, 2007, issue of Time magazine:

Osama bin Laden has been urging Al-Qaeda followers to open up shop in Somalia for years, but there was always doubt about whether that call would resonate in a largely secular nation with a historic wariness of Arab interference. No longer. After January's attacks by Ethiopia--which were backed by U.S. air power and aimed to reduce the threat of terrorism--an increasingly international Islamist presence has flourished in the country, drawn by the chaos of postinvasion Somalia and the chance to strike back at the U.S. and its ally Ethiopia.

Oops. The article continues, saying, "The parallels to Iraq...are plain."

Read the whole (albeit painfully short) article here.