From Rummy's speech to the American Legion last Tuesday:
"With the growing lethality and the increasing availability of weapons, can we truly afford to believe that somehow, some way, vicious extremists can be appeased?"
That's a great question. I think we would all have to agree that the answer is no. Which is why we were all extremely concerned about the appearance of vicious extremist appeasement when George W. Bush said that he really didn't think about Osama bin Laden much, and that he wasn't concerned about him, six months after he said he wanted him dead or alive (in the days immediately following 9/11).
Then, of course, there was the appearance of vicious extremist appeasement when we made a half-hearted effort to capture a cornered bin Laden in Afghanistan, by outsourcing the job to Afghan warlords who ultimately allowed him (either intentionally or unintentionally) to escape.
And we can't forget perhaps the most glaring appearance of vicious extremist appeasement - the illegal, immoral, unnecessary invasion of Iraq, providing the ultimate terrorist haven where none previously existed.
Or the recent news that the CIA has closed the unit dedicated to the hunt for Osama.
These are not the actions of an administration that is serious about stopping terrorists. These are the actions of an administration hell-bent on perpetual war, as a means to serve the military industrial complex beast, gain control of the rich energy resources of the Middle East, fulfill its messianic militarist agenda and make a select few rich beyond anyone's wildest dreams.
Nobody is interested in appeasing Islamic terrorists. It's a ridiculously disingenuous neocon claim. But far too many seem far too comfortable with the continued appeasement of the Bush administration, which represents the single greatest threat to America as we know it in the 230-year history of our country.
DR: "Can we afford the luxury of pretending that the threats today are simply law enforcement problems, like robbing a bank or stealing a car; rather than threats of a fundamentally different nature requiring fundamentally different approaches?"
He's actually correct. It's not as simple as punishing a car thief or a bank robber. The Bush administration has committed multiple crimes against humanity (including causing the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people), violated multiple international treaties and viciously undermined our Constitution, in a blatant effort to insulate themselves from punishment for breaking the very laws they are sworn to uphold.
Mr. Rumsfeld is quite right; it's not simple in the least. They have created one hell of a mess and destroyed our country's standing in the world to the point that it will take us years if not decades to recover.
DR: "And can we really afford to return to the destructive view that America, not the enemy, but America, is the source of the world's troubles?"
As if it's not possible for an enemy to exist among us, pretending to serve our public and uphold our American values, while they feast on our good nature, eliminate our freedoms in the name of "protecting" them, and milk our treasury dry to satisfy their own naked lust for power, money and control.
There's a good reason why every member of Congress and the military swears an oath to defend our Constitution from "all enemies, foreign and domestic." We are experiencing it right now. Has this country ever had a larger domestic enemy of our Constitution than the administration of George W. Bush?
Now before all you Bush parrots start accusing me of trying to instigate an armed vigilante revolution, understand something: I am not advocating violence. I haven't done so in the past, and I will not in the future. We don't need an ounce of violence to rid our country of these criminals. We only need a Congress that takes its oath seriously, and understands that inaction on their part is synonymous with complicity in the crimes of the Bush administration.
DR: "These are central questions of our time, and we must face them honestly.
1 | 2