Hillary & Barack: 'War on Terror' back on!
by fairleft2, Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 10:07:05 AM EST
It's clear that Obama will soon escalate the Afghanistan war for a second time (our 'antiwar' movement is all over it; first ever national demo against Obamascalation scheduled for March, 2010!), and last night on Charlie Rose Hillary Clinton helpfully explained Obama's imperial policy and the role 'we the people' play in it. Our duty, in this democracy, is to believe in whatever they tell us this time is the mission, and all of us in this democracy must support the troops no matter what they're doing to the restless natives. Though Hillary and Barack are more polished and big 'D' Democratic than Cheney and Bush, otherwise their approach differs how from Bush era martial philosophy?
Hillary also offered a preview of Obama's next big speech, his re-rationale for the occupation and assorted war criminality we're doing to Afghanistan. Yeah, so get with it already party loyalists, looks like the War on Terrah phrase is again safe for Democrats; Hillary and Barack have to revive it when the nation-building pretense is now so publicly and obviously a joke/tragedy. Also, note that the 'War on Terror' is not just good for killing al Qaeda but can be applied with lethal effect to all groups or nations we say are inspired by their extremism. Yes, that'll make war anywhere/anytime easy, we now distinguish ally from enemy by saying 'enemy' is extremist (so be careful never to apply that term to ally Saudi Arabia). Emphasis added.
Charlie Rose: Beyond that, is the Taliban in control in Afghanistan a threat to the United States?
Hillary Clinton: I believe it is. I believe it is a threat because I believe that it once again provides a safe haven, because what we have seen is that al-Qaeda is now part of a syndicated terror. It inspires, it directs, it trains, equips, funds other groups within this syndicate.
((fairleft: Hillary is referring to the Taliban that in October 2001 offered to turn Osama Bin Laden over to Pakistan for trial?))
Charlie Rose: Like they did to Africa.
Hillary Clinton: Yes and to many of us, the principle objective is still to defeat, capture, kill the al-Qaeda leadership. We do think that is important. It's not a marginal issue. It's a core issue for us. But we also realize that there are many aspects to the threat from extremism that have to be addressed. It is imperative that there not be safe haven for al-Qaeda and its syndicate, its allies in Afghanistan.
Charlie Rose: And that's what the Taliban would deliver if they were in control.
Hillary Clinton: They would, in parts of Afghanistan if not to -- if they couldn't take over the entire country, because of resistance from the Afghans themselves, and allies like us, they would certainly establish a beachhead and would have a broader area of operation.
Charlie Rose: So what do you say to mothers and fathers as you know the question we were saying: "Are you asking me to send my son or my daughter to Afghanistan where I am essentially fighting for a corrupt or fraudulent government?"
Hillary Clinton: No, but you're not; you're fighting for the United States. You are fighting to protect our homeland and our people. . . . given the failures of the last eight years to capture and kill the al-Qaeda leadership [and] to try to stabilize Afghanistan, we have to recommit ourselves, because we do think it's in our interests. We do think it's in our security interest. And I feel very strongly that the young men and women who are stationed in Afghanistan, are really doing what has to be done on the front lines of the war against terrorism.
Charlie Rose: And they understand and believe in the mission?
Hillary Clinton: Yes, well, and it's important that the entire American public understand and believe in the mission because, as a democracy, we have to support those that we send to the battlefield.
Okay, just me speaking here, but "as a democracy" I don't think that means that requires that "the entire American public understand and believe in" whatever mission the government now tells us is 'the' mission over in Afghanistan. I also don't think that, "as a democracy, we have to support those that we send to the battlefield." No, I'd say we need to support all of our soldiers who are not war criminals, and provide court martials and defense attorneys for those of our soldiers (and policymakers) who are war criminals. Hey, I'm a Geneva Conventions, Nuremberg Principles kind of guy, what can I say?
Finally, doesn't the PBobSequious Charlie Rose serve up his 'questions' like pritty little cupcakes?