You know, I haven't read this article, because I actually wanted to respond to the title of the thread. It's a question that really does facilitate some deep contemplation. Now, I'm obviously coming from a partisan angle, AND I'm not ready to "put myself in the other person's shoe" at this moment, while I speak my mind.
The war against Islamofascism, or for those who overtly disapprove of such a title, the war against militant Islam. Where is that line, that we Americans draw? At what point do we actually tell ourselves, "yes, I think America needs to lose this war", based on what we're supposedly doing to our Constitution and innocent civilians? Take the media. The right argues, rightfully so I might add, how the mainstream media will frequently & repetatively focus on the negative aspects of the war, and of Bush in particular. They argue that the "public has a right to know", and it's their 1st amendment right to publish stuff, that may indeed be perfectly legal to be done by the Bush administration or the NSA, but could hurt Bush politically, and worse, put more of our soldiers at risk. The left, in their anti-war zeal, will undoubtedly, and at times wrecklessly, perpetuate a lengthening of the war, just as they did in Vietnam, by emboldening the enemy, while cyphoning public approval, with the perseverating
Bush lied us into war garbage.
All that said, and speaking for myself of course, as a supporter of the war, I do support the idea that the bad news be minimized. I understand how bad news can wither away confidence & morale, of both troops and the American Citizenry, which also explains why the anti-war and Anti-Bush folks want such maximized.
I support the idea that embedded American journalists have an absolute obligation that if they are aware of any plots against our troops or know the locales of enemy combatants, they absolutely need to tell our soldiers.
I support the effort of aggressive and uncomfortable tactics used to interrogate prisoners, which would include waterboarding. I do
NOT support such tactics just to terrorize prisoners.
I support the idea that our CnC use whatever constitutional methods at his disposal, to deal with this threat, which includes listneing in on suspected foreign terrorists, monitoring suspected terrorists bank accounts, and detaining any and all prisnoers taken in battle indefinately, as we've done in prior wars, until the war is over.
My belief in this threat, as concluded by the myriad of reports combined with the public pledges by those who lead this movement, prompt me to take this position, buoyed by the history that when we allowed a similar threat go unchallenged, we faced a global threat we could have never imagined. We were
-->this<-- close to either speaking German or Japanese
Is that over the line? Is that wanting America to win more than the terrorist threat to lose?
