.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

sufrensucatash

news & opinion with no titillating non-news from the major non-news channels.

 

I am: progressive, not a wild-eyed Progressive; liberal, but shun liberals and Liberals; conservative, but some Conservatives worry me; absolutely NOT a libertarian. I am: an idealist, but no utopian; a pragmatist, but no Machiavellian. I am a realist who dreams.

 

I welcome all opinions.

Monday, August 29, 2005

Seen on C-SPAN: The Feingold Spin Doc
     remixing that ol' Dem snake oil

Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI), in a very determined attempt to not appear stumping for the presidency, is riding Bush's coattails while salting them at the same time. Seems the Dems have learned that Bush is on to something.

It is called reality; but I fear they are still on Reality TV.

Gone is the Kerry rhetoric that the fight against terrorism should be a law enforcement issue; gone is the rhetoric that the Iraq War was one of a son's vengeance for his father. Feingold is all for battling terrorism face-to-face.

Except.

I don't think Feingold understands what the face looks like.

At a Townhall:Los Angeles (un)stump speech Aug 23, Feingold repeatedly criticized Bush for not engaging the real enemy. He resoundly disputed (trivialized) all rationale for going after Saddam, even alluding to the argument that we are fighting the terrorists on ground of our choosing (Iraq) and not theirs (America) as "the Roach Motel Argument". Feingold was fond of quoting the 9/11 Commission as he charged the President with losing his way in Iraq.

What the good Senator seems to not be hearing is that the blogs have been abuzz for some time about the 9/11 Commission's own failures in their analysis. In fact, the commission has increasing come off as making the same mistakes it accused the intelligence community of making, disregarding intel simply because it didn't fit into their conclusions.

The intel linking Iraqi security agents with al Qaeda by the Czechs has never been properly disputed or debunked, just ignored. Intel linking al Qaeda with Iran's most senior terrorist liaison in the spring of 2001, intel that the "muscle hijackers" were directly provided by Iran, intel that Iran allowed al Qaeda free passage across their borders sans passport stamp; all begs the question of where the Senator thinks we should fight al Qaeda.

It has long been an axiom, both before the current era and now, that international terrorism cannot be international without state sponsorship, globalization not withstanding. Afghanistan is down for the count, Iraq is no longer a secure rear base providing training and medical treatment and sanctuary, Sudan has been exposed.

I don't believe Feingold supports operations against Iran. But the not-so-good Senator has never really geographically identified where the enemy could be found.

The only time he sounded sincere was in response to an almost direct question about his 2008 presidential ambitions. Feingold said he wasn't sure he wanted to play underdog to Senator Clinton.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home