Don't Close The Guantanamo Camp For Terrorists
As I read "Ghost Wars" by Steve Coll, on the history of CIA involvement in Afghanistan from the Soviet invasion in 1979 until the 9-11 strikes by Osama bin Laden, one of the most striking pictures is the hesitancy around Bill Clinton's White House in the efforts to go after bin Laden.
Time and again, U.S. operatives had him pinpointed, yet Clinton, a weak president if there ever was one, held off. Three thousand hapless victims in the twin towers in New York and the Pentagon in Washington paid the price on 9-11 of this fatal weakness on the part of the President and his closest associates.
And now, we have to ask ourselves, is the Bush Administration all that more decisive in the War on Terror? Months go by, and yet there are only a few known strikes at the area of Afghanistan and Pakistan where bin Laden is believed hiding, still plotting against the U.S. and European interests. Perhaps planning a nuclear or biological attack.
Now, we hear from Kofi Annan and his fellow appeasement advocates at that sickly and worthless organization, the United Nations, telling the U.S. we ought to close the prison camp for terrorists at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.
This would be a signal to the whole world that we really don't mean to kill off the Muslim fanatics led by bin Laden.
The Coll book makes it plain that the U.S. has many persons in its military and intelligence services who are strong fighters, devoted to the national interest.
Yet what can they do, if, when the moment comes, their commanders are overly hesitant?
Why is it that a few newspaper editors in Denmark turn out to be more aggressive at identifying the characteristics of Islam than the leaders of the Bush Administration?
The fire of terrorism continues to burn. Just today, mobs attacked the U.S. embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia. Scores have died in extremist riots in Libya, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Nigeria and elsewhere in the past two weeks in the cartoon controversy, while U.S. editors decline to even print the cartoons.
What kind of war is this, when the U.S. is reluctant to defend itself?
Time and again, U.S. operatives had him pinpointed, yet Clinton, a weak president if there ever was one, held off. Three thousand hapless victims in the twin towers in New York and the Pentagon in Washington paid the price on 9-11 of this fatal weakness on the part of the President and his closest associates.
And now, we have to ask ourselves, is the Bush Administration all that more decisive in the War on Terror? Months go by, and yet there are only a few known strikes at the area of Afghanistan and Pakistan where bin Laden is believed hiding, still plotting against the U.S. and European interests. Perhaps planning a nuclear or biological attack.
Now, we hear from Kofi Annan and his fellow appeasement advocates at that sickly and worthless organization, the United Nations, telling the U.S. we ought to close the prison camp for terrorists at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.
This would be a signal to the whole world that we really don't mean to kill off the Muslim fanatics led by bin Laden.
The Coll book makes it plain that the U.S. has many persons in its military and intelligence services who are strong fighters, devoted to the national interest.
Yet what can they do, if, when the moment comes, their commanders are overly hesitant?
Why is it that a few newspaper editors in Denmark turn out to be more aggressive at identifying the characteristics of Islam than the leaders of the Bush Administration?
The fire of terrorism continues to burn. Just today, mobs attacked the U.S. embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia. Scores have died in extremist riots in Libya, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Nigeria and elsewhere in the past two weeks in the cartoon controversy, while U.S. editors decline to even print the cartoons.
What kind of war is this, when the U.S. is reluctant to defend itself?
posted by Ken Reich at 11:40 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home