|
Edited on Thu Mar-10-05 07:13 PM by WildEyedLiberal
First, he spoke about how the United States needs to respond to terrorism more effectively. He explained that there are four concentric circles; the smallest and innermost being al-Qaeda, followed by jihadists of all stripes who wish to attack Americans or Westerners; then, a larger circle of those who support jihadists and sympathize with them but do not actually pick up arms to fight; and lastly, the Muslim world as a whole. He stressed how critical it is for America and the West to win the "war of ideas" and reach the two largest circles, so that support for the two smallest (actual terrorists) will wane and the Muslim people as a whole will be more receptive to helping us capture or kill the jihadists.
He also spoke (and this was very chilling) about how we have NOT made the world safer through the war on terror, and that in fact, the number of self-described jihadists has risen; the recruitment for al-Qaeda has risen; the funding for terrorism has not abated; and the number of terrorist attacks and fatalies has increased since 9/11. Apparently, the "war on terra" and the "spread of democracy" from Bush's PNAC playbook actually are counterproductive. Who'd ever have thought?
Ever more disturbing, he talked about how the United States is still incredibly vulnerable to a terrorist attack. Despite the Bush Administration's arrogant reassurances that they have "kept us safe" since 9/11, given that it generally takes 3-5 years for al-Qaeda to plan an attack on that scale, the so-called lull means nothing. Apart from airline security, the United States is pathetically vulnerable to another attack. The train system is practically unguarded (even after the tragic bombing of commuter trains in Madrid a year ago tomorrow which killed hundreds of people); ports are largely uninspected; and chemical plants and large manufacturing centers have minimal, if any, security. He talked about the large amounts of highly-enriched uranium that are unaccounted for, and how just a small amount of it could be detonated with a conventional bomb (thus making a "dirty bomb") which would spread nuclear radiation and catastrophe to any major American city. Scary stuff.
He then talked briefly about the danger of suspending civil liberties at home in order to fight terrorism. He stressed the unconstitutionality of the Jose Padilla case (an American citizen who has been detained without an indictment for over two years) and Guantanemo, and of the Abu Ghraib crimes, and how this does nothing to help us fight terrorism, but instead is decaying the fabric of our society. Finally, at the end of the lecture, he explained why he named his book "against all enemies." He said that it was a line from the oath that military enlistees and government officials must swear upon entering office - they must swear to defend the U.S. Constitution - not the president or any other elected official - "against all enemies, foreign or domestic." The implication was clear, and he got a standing ovation. I liked it so much I decided to co-opt it into my sig line. Against all enemies, indeed.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
