Destry Rides Again
Tom Destry: Well, you will fool 'em, Wash. We'll fool
'em together.
Washington Dimsdale: The only way to do that is fill
'em full of lead.
Tom Destry: No, no, no, what for? You shoot it out with
'em and for some reason or other, I don't know why,
they get to look like heroes. But you put 'em behind bars
and they look little and cheap, the way they oughta look.
--Destry Rides Again (1939)
___________
'em together.
Washington Dimsdale: The only way to do that is fill
'em full of lead.
Tom Destry: No, no, no, what for? You shoot it out with
'em and for some reason or other, I don't know why,
they get to look like heroes. But you put 'em behind bars
and they look little and cheap, the way they oughta look.
--Destry Rides Again (1939)
___________
Ranger's not all that interested in the recently released CIA inspector general's report. That we knew Osama was a threat back in Clinton's term is old news, as is the fact former CIA chief George Tenet is another yipping sycophant.
But I was interested in one passage from the NYT's Op-Ed coverage of the release:
"Mr. Tenet later helped hype the “slam dunk” intelligence that Mr. Bush used to justify diverting the military from the war of necessity against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan to the war of choice in Iraq (The C.I.A. Report.)"
Why does everyone take it on faith that Afghanistan was a "war of necessity"? Surely, or perhaps not so surely, the Taliban offered safe haven to al Qaida, and al Qaida is the international criminal/terror organization that attacks U.S. interests worldwide. But al Qaida is a stateless group of terrorists.
Like O.J. Simpson's friend Cato Kaelin, they may hole up here and there, but the decision to attack their hosts in this case -- the Taliban -- was not strategically sound. The Taliban was not the threat (save for allowing safe haven.) Attacking Afghanistan and destroying the Taliban did not neutralize the threat posed by al Qaida.
Ranger is truly sick of hearing from a large cohort of his fellows in North Florida: They want to destroy our way of life. Who are they, and how many are there?
Why not invade Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, as they left a bigger fingerprint on 9-11. (As Jon Stewart recently quipped on his program, a full 20% of the 9-11 attackers were not from Saudi Arabia.)
International cooperation, embargoes, incentives and negotiations are always the path to follow before entering into a war.
Mr. Reagan's questions knocks again: Are you any better off (safer) today after two voluntary wars, than you were before?
posted by rangeragainstwar at 9:42 PM
3 Comments:
i left a comment just the other day over at (i think) shakespeare's sister, where i told about how as we stand shoeless in line waiting for our scans and luggage search i like to ask people "do you feel any safer now?" the answer is almost always no. then i follow with "do you feel less free?" the answer is almost always yes.
so, hmmmmmmmm
less safe plus less free equals
osama won that one.
m.b.,
Yes, the U.S. overreaction to 9-11 was certainly a textbook case out of the terrorist handbook.
It gives heart to such criminals everywhere that they, too, might induce a robust paranoia which will act as a force multiplier beyond their wildest hopes.
--L.
m.b--
The U.S. reaction does not address the actual threat.
Post a Comment
<< Home