Rightank

President Bush finally addressed two key criticisms of the War on Terror last night and gave our terrorist enemies (and the cabal of liberal elites who support them) some food for thought.

W. hit two key points: terrorist causation and American defeatism.

First, he directly confronted the accusation of many a liberal that the Afghanistan and Iraqi conflicts are leading to an upsurge in terrorism and anti-Americanism which, if not our waging of war, would not exist:

Since the removal of Saddam, this war, like other wars in our history, has been difficult. The mission of American troops in urban raids and desert patrols, fighting Saddam loyalists and foreign terrorists, has brought danger and suffering and loss. This loss has caused sorrow for our whole nation — and it has led some to ask if we are creating more problems than we’re solving.

That is an important question, and the answer depends on your view of the war on terror. If you think the terrorists would become peaceful if only America would stop provoking them, then it might make sense to leave them alone.

This is not the threat I see. I see a global terrorist movement that exploits Islam in the service of radical political aims — a vision in which books are burned, and women are oppressed, and all dissent is crushed. Terrorist operatives conduct their campaign of murder with a set of declared and specific goals — to de-moralize free nations, to drive us out of the Middle East, to spread an empire of fear across that region, and to wage a perpetual war against America and our friends. These terrorists view the world as a giant battlefield — and they seek to attack us wherever they can. This has attracted al Qaeda to Iraq, where they are attempting to frighten and intimidate America into a policy of retreat.

Exactly. The terrorist thugs of Al Qaeda and other fanatical diasporas would be hellbent to kill us even if (and I would add especially if) we left them alone. 9/11, the ‘93 World Trade Center bombing, the U.S.S. Cole, all testify that the terrorists intend to attack us unless we forsake our freedom and democratic way of life. We have no choice. You cannot pacify a terrorist mindset.

Bush also attacked the defeatism of the Democratic party and their anti-war allies and outlined the consequences of leaving Iraq before the country is sufficiently stabilized and democratized:

Defeatism may have its partisan uses, but it is not justified by the facts. For every scene of destruction in Iraq, there are more scenes of rebuilding and hope. For every life lost, there are countless more lives reclaimed. And for every terrorist working to stop freedom in Iraq, there are many more Iraqis and Americans working to defeat them. My fellow citizens: Not only can we win the war in Iraq, we are winning the war in Iraq.

It is also important for every American to understand the consequences of pulling out of Iraq before our work is done. We would abandon our Iraqi friends and signal to the world that America cannot be trusted to keep its word. We would undermine the morale of our troops by betraying the cause for which they have sacrificed. We would cause the tyrants in the Middle East to laugh at our failed resolve, and tighten their repressive grip. We would hand Iraq over to enemies who have pledged to attack us and the global terrorist movement would be emboldened and more dangerous than ever before. To retreat before victory would be an act of recklessness and dishonor, and I will not allow it.

Reckless and dishonorable are two adjectives that aptly describe Harry Reid and the Democrats (excluding Joe Lieberman) who want to pull out and who denigrate the effort of our solidiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

President Bush’s speech was a welcome sound–a triumphant declaration that we are winning and that Iraq and the American people are worth the fight.

Bryon York of National Review posted this spread of Cindy Sheehan that is in the current issue of the fabulous liberal rag, Vanity Fair. Her belligerant tarnishment of what her son did in fighting and perishing for American freedoms is absolutely disgusting. She’s spitting on his grave.

Do liberals really think they succeed by enraging those who support the troops? How much money did you get, Cindy, for despoiling your son’s grave?

Right now, the Iraqis are voting in a historic parliamentary election despite the risks of losing their lives. Do you know what instills such bravery? Freedom. Democracy. Liberty. These spiritual emblems of the American spirit that our troops have born and brought to the sands of the Iraq and Afghanistan. America and what she stands for is worth fighting and defending–whatever the cost. This photograph absolutely enrages me as it should anyone who swears fealty to the “Home of the Brave.”

So, I finally got around to reading Charles Krauthammer’s article on torture. Writing in the Weekly Standard, Krauthammer argues contra McCain and 90 other utopia-minded Senators that torture is a necessary evil for certain classes of captured terrrorists. (I disagree with Krauthammer that capital punishment is just as “terrible and monstrous” as torture, but that’s an argument for another day).

Krauthammer divides the unlucky but highly deserving terrorists into two groups: the ticking time bomb terrorist and the high-level terrorist with slow-fuse information. He describes the operating parameters for these two groups:

Each contingency would have its own set of rules. In the case of the ticking time bomb, the rules would be relatively simple: Nothing rationally related to getting accurate information would be ruled out. The case of the high-value suspect with slow-fuse information is more complicated. The principle would be that the level of inhumanity of the measures used (moral honesty is essential here–we would be using measures that are by definition inhumane) would be proportional to the need and value of the information. Interrogators would be constrained to use the least inhumane treatment necessary relative to the magnitude and imminence of the evil being prevented and the importance of the knowledge being obtained.

Krathammer’s first category is a no-brainer. Saving hundreds of innocents outweighs any moral tenet of law or principle that ordinarily prevents torture or inhumane treatment. The moral casuality we as an American society incur by shoving a terrorist’s face in a bucket of cold water for extended periods of time, etc., is less than permitting the loss of many American lives by deliberate inaction. Any policy (like McCain’s) that would prevent such action values terrorist life above American life.

Krathammer’s second category is sensible, particularly during the early days of capture. The proportionality-based scale (though hard to measure) fairly balances America’s need to extract potential life-saving information from the terrorist with the value of the terrorist’s psychological and physical well-being.

Torture is a nasty business, but it is a necessary tool in fighting the War on Terror. The U.S. government’s overarching policy in the Terror War should serve American interests above those of the terrorist thugs were are fighting. Krathammer’s suggested rules of terrorist treatment fit this policy–a policy designed to win the war, not lose it.

*UPDATE*
Jonah Goldberg on torture and the moral value of American versus terrorist life:

[T]orture has been made into a moral black box, a stand-in for “something existentially and self-evidently evil.” . . .

Suddenly, no matter what the context, no matter what the reason, torture is a stand-alone context-killer. Whereas even many liberals accepted that in some cases dropping atomic bombs on civilian populations could be morally acceptable given the right circumstances, torture never, ever, can be. Again, I’m willing to be persuaded that this makes sense. But as of right now, I can’t get my head around the idea that it might be morally acceptable to nuke untold thousands or millions, leaving many to endure vastly greater agony than involved in 2 to 3 minutes of waterboarding but it is absolutely morally unacceptable to humiliate and hurt a terrorist in order to gain information that might help us stop just such an attack on our own citizens.

I couldn’t agree more.

John O’Neil wrote an excellent editorial on why the suggested troop pull-out by Congressman Murtha (D-PA) and company is standard protocol for the Donkeycrats:

The Democratic Party (notwithstanding its cynical expressions of concern for the same troops it periodically seeks to label as engaged in widespread crime) is regarded with intense distrust by many active duty and retired military personnel. They have been Kerried once too often. It was once the majority party that stopped the Nazis, Fascists, and North Koreans and that in words of a far different Kennedy summoned us “to fight any battle” for freedom. Sadly, the party of Henry Jackson and Franklin Roosevelt has become the party of retreat - from the Iranian Hostage Crisis to the retreat from Mogadishu; to opposition to the 1991 Gulf War; to the failure to avenge the 1993 World Trade Center bombing or the USS Cole bombing or the murder of our own troops and embassy personnel around the world. Indeed, this past Thursday night, the nation watched the bizarre spectacle of a Democratic Party speaking in favor of immediate withdrawal but too afraid to even cast a vote recording for posterity these convictions. And the drift from American values to the party of Mr. Kerry and Michael Moore has been matched by its shrinking base. Recent polls, for example, show vastly lower approval ratings - in the low 20s - for Congressional Democrats than even the low rating of Mr. Bush.

The retreatist Dems are trying to have its both ways: placating the radical leftists donors who fill their coffers and support their candidates (like MoveOn.org) while at the same time proclaiming their steadfast support for our troops. John O’Neil demonstrates, however, in a Democrat’s war victory is defeat or deliberate inaction. It’s as if the Democratic Party has whitewashed the last part of the Star-Spangled Banner. No longer the “Home of the Brave,” America is a regime that tortures terrorist detainees and ignites uprisings in Iraq and elsewhere. What a shame.

Evidently, the Dems are blocking the Director of National Intelligence’s (DNI) lawyer from being confirmed. NRO’s Byron York posted Negroponte’s letter to Senators Frist and Harry Reid.

The letter, coupled with the Murtha’s stupifying demand for Iraqi troop withdrawal, proves yet again that the Dems would rather undermine the President and vindicate their pride instead of protecting our country.

Today, President Bush gave a glowing tribute to America’s veterans along with a powerful rebuke to internal critics of the War on Terror. Aside from the rebuke, W. clearly outlined the three broad goals of the Muslim terrorists in which he relied on the intercepted Zawahiri-Zarqawi letter :

First, these extremists want to end American and Western influence in the broader Middle East, because we stand for democracy and peace, and stand in the way of their ambitions.

. . .

Second, the militant network wants to use the vacuum created by an American retreat to gain control of a country—a base from which to launch attacks and conduct their war against non-radical Muslim governments.

. . .

Third, these militants believe that controlling one country will rally the Muslim masses, enabling them to overthrow all moderate governments in the region, and establish a radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia.

Importantly, Bush explained why these goals of Al-Qaeda should not be dismissed as poppycock:

Some might be tempted to dismiss these goals as fanatical or extreme. They are fanatical and extreme—but they should not be dismissed. Our enemy is utterly committed. As Zarqawi has vowed, “We will either achieve victory over the human race or we will pass to the eternal life.”

There is no middle ground in dealing with terror. America and our allies must keep fighting until the enemy is exterminated. President Bush must continue to explain why we must continue waging the War on Terror. Our commitment to fight must be stronger than the Islamofacists commitment to kill us, the so-called “infadels.” Thanks for the reminder, Mr. President.

Shortly after this summer’s London bombings, The Financial Times created an interactive map showing the Muslim population levels within Europe. If you click on France, you’ll find a fascinating bit on France writen by John Thornhill:

Nobody knows for sure how many Muslims there are in France. Because of a strict insistence on the secular nature of the republic, state officials are not allowed to ask a citizen’s faith when conducting a census.

But Islam is estimated to be the second-biggest religion in France with about 5m followers, out of a total population of 60m.

. . .

In theory, French insistence on secularism makes state institutions blind to race or religion and eases integration of immigrant communities. In practice, many Muslims feel subject to unofficial discrimination. The unemployment rate in many Muslim communities is far higher than the national average, while their level of representation at the top of political, legal, business and media professions is disproportionately low.

Yazid Sabeg, a French Algerian businessman who has championed positive discrimination as a means of redressing these imbalances, has warned that without radical change France is in danger of creating a “social and political atom bomb.”

Alarmed at the influence of radical imams, who came from abroad and did not speak French, the government created the French Council of the Muslim Religion in 2002 as an intermediary between the state and Muslim communities.

Nicolas Sarkozy, who has twice served as interior minister, has even advocated state support for mainstream Muslim associations and mosques to deter the extremist fringe. However, this argument is still bitterly resisted by secularists.

Two points. First, the social and political atomic bomb has exploded in France. Second and more significant, the secularist predilections of the French elite have prevented their government from exterminating the terrorist rant of Wahabbi clerics and immams from their borders who have provided the needed bile and jihadist rhetoric that propels young, easily malleable Muslims to violence and self-destruction.

Indirectly, France’s secularist handicap is a lesson of the danger in maintaining the First Amendment falsity of a separation of church and state. Taken to an extreme, religious separationism would not only prevent the United States from providing support to (e.g., tax-exempt status) or procuring assistance from (e.g., faith-based initiatives) religious organizations but would bar any attempt by federal, state, or local governments to expel–based upon their religious expression–the terrorist spite that froths from the radical elements of Islam.

The French elite may value their secularity greatly but their immigrant Muslim population does not–which is why the Parisian suburbs are burning red accompanied the arabic battlecry “God is Great” instead of the peaceful greeting of “Bonjour, can I have another pastry?”

The CIA Prison Leak Story Goes to the Justice Department. Good. If the DOJ discovers that indeed there was a criminal leak of classified information, then I hope the malfeasants pay a hefty price. It’s despicable that some government employees and their liberal confidants in the press would rather see our Nation kicked and its reputation savaged rather than protected from harm or the heroic actions of our soldiers and generals praised.

Yesterday, at The World Without Zionism conference, Iranian President-thug Mahmoud Ahmadinejad denounced Israel while praising the Palestinians who oppose an Israeli state:

There is no doubt that the new wave in Palestine will soon wipe off this disgraceful blot from the face of the Islamic world. Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation’s fury, [while] any [Islamic leader] who recognizes the Zionist regime means he is acknowledging the surrender and defeat of the Islamic world.

A disgraceful blot? The “Islamic” world?

Apart from the hyperbolic, fireball rhetoric, President-thug Ahmadinejad directly challenges all nations who support the Israeli state, which includes (of course) the United States. Ahmadinejad’s boast of fire-balling any nation sounds like a nuclear challenge but I’m sure the IAEA has everything under control.

Meanwhile, the Union of Islamic Students Associations and the Iran House of Cartoons are hosting an art competition with the theme “A World Without Zionism.” If you thought that just bashing Jews wasn’t enough fun, there are other topics to choose from:

The competition will also focus on the themes “A World without America,” “A Mirage Named Zionism,” “The Wishes of a Palestinian Student,” and “The Intifada,” noted the paper.

Oops, they left out “A World Without Christianity.” They must have reached the maximum on their hate-meter for the day.

Recently, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ranted in the terrorist-friendly United Nations declaring Iran’s right to enrich nuclear fuel. Of course, Mahmoud claims Iran is engaging in nuclear fuel activities for “peaceful purposes” while the United States is trying to play “nuclear apartheid” with Iran. In other words, the Iranian President says “Trust me.” Can we really trust Iran?

Well, let’s see. Iran sponsors the premier terrorist organization in the world, Hezbollah, with lots and lots of petro dollars. Also, Iran is sending terrorists into Iraq to stir the Muslim pot and create unrest for the Iraqis as they make headway toward a new constitution. I think Mahmoud should re-think the “peaceful purpose” and “nuclear apartheid” part of his speech.

Then yesterday, the European Union decided against refering Iran to the UN for violations of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty.

Iran is a serious problem. I’m currently reading an excellent book on Iran’s nuclear ambitions called Atomic Iran. Author Jerome Corsi warns about the danger of Iran and how their funneling of money to different terrorist organizations combined with their unquenchable ambition for nuclear weapons presents a clear and present danger to America’s national security. He also has some great one-liners. Here’s one worth remembering:

If Osama bin Laden could find a state that would appoint him its ambassador to the United Nations, the U.N. no doubt would have a seat for him in the General Assembly.

Once again, the world community buckles and refuses to stand up to Iran. We Americans live in troubling times and an Iran with nuclear armaments will increase those troubles dramatically.