So what would good liberals do when presented with a genuine chance to capture Osama Bin Laden?
NOTHING, apparently.
Senator Joe Biden tells this reporter about people he calls “really bright guys in my party” who think the US army should NOT hunt down OBL.
{my bolding and italics}
Is this logic typical for the Bush-hating left?
Now, I realize that an unnamed group of “wealthy liberals” is not a fair sample. And of course, being wealthy doesn’t make you wise . But it does make you a more powerful contributer, with the ability to meet and influence senators.
We are talking here about OBL himself–who is obviously guilty of murdering civilians, waging war on America, and is preparing more terrorist attacks. Yet instead of saying we should proudly send in the marines, these liberals can only hang their heads in shame and look down at their shoes.
I can understand the logic behind the left’s reasons for not liking Bush (the claims that he is alienating allies, increasing Arab hatred towards the west, that Iraq was wrong war, etc.) But this quote isn’t about Iraq, or some vague and indirect war against an undefinable enemy. The quote presumes a very precisely defined enemy,in a precise location. It is a logical scenario, with a realistic military option.
What motivates this type of thinking?
Is the liberals’ need to respect Pakistan’s wishes more important than defending America? Or is the hatred of Bush so deep that they cannot allow themselves to show any support for the Commander in Chief under any circumstances? Or is the idea of sending soldiers to die in combat so scary that they prefer to let civilians die in another 9/11?
Huh? This question isn’t deserving of serious discussion, poisoned as it is (you seriously think any sane person hates Bush enough to let people die instead? :rolleyes:), but here’s something to chew on:
Biden’s question is not really hypothetical. There is every reason to believe Osama was cornered at Tora Bora, and Bush didn’t finish the job. There is other reason to believe he knew where Zarqawi was before the invasion, and refused to order the hit. So let’s reword it: What would *Bush * do? Well, we already know.
It’s not a question that I would quickly answer “Yes! Go get `im!”
The projected cost of 500 to 5,000 lives isn’t something to be taken lightly. The upper estimate is over two thousand more Americans than were killed on 9/11. Honestly, I don’t want our president to be a person who wouldn’t hesitate when weighing the cost in human life of such an operation. Especially since killing or capturing Bin Laden isn’t going to stop global terrorism, or make Al Qaeda vanish.
In order to answer the question, chappachula, one must conduct that most conservative of exercises - a cost/benefit analysis.
Among the issues to be considered would be:
What would be the effect of capturing ObL on the continuation of al-Qaeda/al-Qaeda’s future activities?
If ObL is not captured in this instance, what is the likelihood that his future leadership of al-Qaeda would result in the deaths of 500-5000 Americans?
If the capture of ObL would result in the demise of al-Qaeda, would that result affect the activities of JI and other affiliated groups?
How would Pakistan react? More precisely, would the loss of Pakistani cooperation due to an invasion of its territory ultimately result in the deaths of more than 500-5000 Americans?
I don’t know the answers to these questions, and I doubt that the wealthy liberals in the audience knew the answers, either. If it turns out that the benefits outweigh the costs, hell yeah I’d support the action.
But the cost/benefit analysis must be undertaken. Hell, it’s being done right now: let’s assume that the US knows where ObL is, within a 200-mile radius (not an absurd assumption). We could just carpet-bomb the area with nukes, which would be sure to kill him. But we don’t, because the costs outweigh the benefits. I don’t hear anyone (anyone sane, that is) berating Bush for not doing this.
Not having an answer and putting your head down is not the same as supporting terrorism or being spineless, nor is it the same as saying no. The thing is, it’s a complex question. With known negative consequences, one must think on it before rashly charging off to war. Sometimes thinking on something requires putting one’s head down.
I don’t see the link between what he says above, and the hypothetical situation he poses to a bunch of rich Californians. You shouldn’t assume they think the US should not hunt down Bin Laden. You shouldn’t assume they hung their heads in shame. (They may have all been looking down in embarassment at Biden’s clumsy attempt at manipulation.)
Add me to the list of those who don’t understand what’s wrong with Biden’s response. Pakistan is a sovereign country. Sending forces into another sovereign country to attack people is an act of war. You only send your forces into a sovereign country if you’re absolutely, positively certain that you can beat up said country. We are not so certain we can beat up Pakistan; they have nukes, remember?
You may disagree with this argument, but George W. Bush agrees with it. All available intelligence points strongly towards bin Laden and other members of Al Queda hiding in Pakistan for the last three and a half years, and Musharrif hasn’t made any serious effort to dig him out. So why does Bush still call Musharrif a “steadfast ally in the war on terrorism”? Because when somebody is as powerful as Musharrif, you’d better call them a steadfast ally.
It’s usually not like me to argue on the side of the liberals, but I generally like to argue on the side of the “not-stupid” regardless of political affiliation so here goes:
It is quite a leap of logic from saying that 500 - 5000 KIA (and presumably 5-10x that WIA) is an acceptable price to pay to capture Osama to declaring that the liberals refuse to capture Bin Laden. Especially since the strategic value in doing so is minimal.
Why not 50,000 or 100,000? Would it be worth it to capture OBL but loose the war?
Put me on record as saying that if it was a sure thing that we’d get bin Laden, it would be worth gambling that many lives to make it so.
The strategic value wouldn’t be that great. And sure, we’d piss off the Pakistanis. We’ve pissed off everyone else by now; why not add them to the list?
But the symbolic value would be incalculable. I’d say, go for it.
I don’t suppose someone wants to go dig up some quotes from prominent Republicans during the Clinton administration poo-pooing Bill’s attempts to go get Osama, hmmm? I’d do it myself, but I’m feeling rather lazy at the moment…
Could you explain what exactly your quote had to do with Bush? Plenty of people, like myself, don’t hate Bush and are not on the left. We just looked at Bush’s actual performance rather than just listen to his rhetoric. And we decided that Bush wasn’t getting the job done. Quite frankly, I think Bush is doing a poor job as a leader in the war against terrorism. If someone else had been President, Osama bin Laden might be dead or imprisoned by now.
Personal background: I would generally vote republican and was for the war (if WMD existed and we got them well that’s nice and all, but more importantly, if you want to go beat up murderers, okay by me.)
It does have a very realistic military option, and making that decision is not one which should be taken lightly. That the people being questioned–people who are not the president and probably have no desire to be for this exact reason–should not feel up to responding sounds perfectly reasonable regardless of the audience.
But that there are people in the democaratic party who simply would refuse to risk any military action–certainly this is true, if unrelated to the specific example provided.
I am currently living in Japan–a country that has legally accepted a position by which they are only allowed to respond military to any situation in defense. They cannot attack any other country, nor having been attacked proceed on to conquest.* Personally, I can accept this as a very noble stance–though I admit that it is largely practical because the US is legally bound to protect Japan and has several military bases here.
The only point at which I would view a completely pacifist stance as being wrongful would be when that person turns around the moment he personally is endangered and becomes an advocate of violence, rather than accepting the consequences of a commited pacifistic lifestyle. That’s not to say that I think pacifism is intelligent–just that I can respect the logic behind it, and the difficulty of following it faithfully in the real world.
So whether these members are the democratic party are idiotic wusses or unrealistic-yet-noble people is probably a person-by-person issue. I just don’t agree with them, will vote opposite, and until having determined for myself the intelligence level of the individual be perfectly respectful of that persons opinions.
You took the whole quote out of context, disingenuous at best. The whole freaking interview is about how the democrats need to get stronger and how many of them feel that military use is justified in many circumstances, but how they are doing poor job of communicating this. The people who put their heads down are a small faction of the party and NOT in the main stream.
What about this quote from the same article?
Should we talk about the logic and hypocrisy of the oil grubbing, poor hating right because of this?
No. Because you are just trying to stir up crap and me pulling this quote out of context is doing the same thing. Biden implies, if not outright states, that he would go after Osama regardless of costs. Many liberals feel the same way and even feel betrayed that President Bush has not made more of an effort to get him. They feel betrayed that he has instead used our military and our money to engage in a war that had little to do with 9/11. This is not to say that the war in Iraq will not have/has not had an effect on the “War on Terror”. There has been an effect and I think it is too early to tell if it is positive or negative. Regardless, Saddam and Iraq had little or nothing to do with Al Qaeda before 9/11 and the war was not motivated by 9/11 (at least not directly IMHO).
Conservatives have the White House, they’ve got both houses of Congress, they’ve got the Supreme Court. We can assume with people like Rumsfeld, Ridge, Rice, and Negroponte in charge, there’s no secret liberal cadres in our military, intelligence, or security departments. So even if the America-hating liberals want to help Osama stay free, how are they doing it? Hiding him in a safe house in Berkeley? You’d think the conservatives would quickly see through this plot and round up bin Laden wherever he is. Those dopey disorganized terrorist-loving hippy liberals would never know what hit them. So what are the conservatives waiting for?
And of course, Bush himself has said both that the search for OBL is not a priority, and that we are constantly tracking him.
So, not only is the quote taken out of context, but even the President expresses equivocal views on the subject. The OP has established a bizarre binary in which the only choices are invasion (+ US and Iraqi civilian and military deaths)/ support (US) civilian deaths; as if somehow a moment of speechlessness when faced with the inhuman calculus of war, retribution and global politics reflected a sort of moral deficiency.
d)None of the above. Do you realize how extremist (and frankly insulting) you sound? Is it really so incomprehensible that if a war is to be undertaken, there ought to be a solid reason for it, and it should not be a rash decision? Why would you sooner assume that the left is ‘anti-American’?
sorry for the tone. I should have been more restrained.
Thanks for suggesting this, and I hope you are right.But my gut reaction tells me otherwise. I interpreted their hanging their heads in silence as a sign of weakness.Whenever I feel the need to look down at my shoes, it’s usually because I’m embarrassed. If I were part of that group who chose to meet a senator and disscuss important issues, I hope I would have something to say.And if he caught me with a difficult question, I hope I would say “Wow, that’s a tough issue. I don’t know how I would react, and I’m glad it’s not me who has to make the decisions of Commander in chief”. I don’t think I would shut up and look at my shoes.
Several posts here have responded with a cost/benefit analysis–(is it worth the loss of soldiers lives, and offending Pakistan).That’s the sort of discussion I would expect these people to have with Joe Biden.The quote I posted is part of a story about Biden’s strategy for the Dems to regain power by being strong on defense, and speaking out loud about military options .The fact that he chose to tell a reporter about the reaction of these democratic supporters who fall silent and look down when offered a concrete example of a military situation , implies that Biden sees their reaction as part of his party’s crediblity problem. And so do I.
(so , as I re-read my OP, I’m sorry for sounding so “extremist and insulting” to you , aurelian. I’m more concerned about the fact that good (well, if wealthy = good liberal democrats fall silent when I think action is needed.
liberal democrats fall silent when I think action is needed.