Phil Zimmermann Replies To CNet On Biden 371
A couple of days ago we discussed a CNet article on the tech voting record of Joe Biden, Barack Obama's running mate. Philip Zimmermann, who was mentioned in that piece, sends the following note to set the record straight.
"In his 23 August opinion piece in CNet, Declan McCullagh wrote on Joe Biden's suitability as the Democratic VP nominee, Declan quotes me, creating the impression I criticized Biden for some legislation that Biden introduced in 1991. Declan's quote from me is out of context because it does not make it clear that I never mentioned Biden in my original quote at all when I wrote about Senate Bill 266. Second, Declan's quote is drawn from remarks I wrote in 1999. Declan seems to be trying to draft me in his opposition to Biden, and, by extension, makes it seem as if I am against the Democratic ticket. I take issue with this."
Read below for the rest of Phil's comments.
When someone serves in the Senate for 30 years, we have to judge them by their whole body of work. Much has happened since 1991. I don't know what Biden's position would be today on the issue of encryption, but I would imagine it has changed, because I can't think of any politicians today who would try to roll back our hard-won gains in our right to use strong crypto. In fact, considering the disastrous erosion in our privacy and civil liberties under the current administration, I feel positively nostalgic about Biden's quaint little non-binding resolution of 1991.
Declan's article seems to imply that I would prefer McCain over the Democratic ticket. But McCain's stated policies on wiretapping, the Patriot Act and other policies that undermine privacy and civil liberties are a seamless continuation on the current administration's policies.
The actual quote (Score:0, Insightful)
Since the summary neglected to include it, here's the actual quote from the CNet article [cnet.com]:
Zimmermann, who's now busy developing Zfone, says it was Biden's legislation "that led me to publish PGP electronically for free that year, shortly before the measure was defeated after vigorous protest by civil libertarians and industry groups."
Oh, yes, that REALLY makes it sound like Zimmermann is a McCain man, and not just someone who Biden tried to screw over in the past.
In short, this article is yet another poor excuse for Slashkos to continue pushing Obama. Guarantee you'll never see an article on Slashdot from a McCain supporter.
Re:Pot kettle (Score:3, Insightful)
maybe Obama feels they deserve a second chance? I mean if some scary guys in suits came to your business and demanded all your customers info for the sake of hunting "terrorists" how many people would have the balls to stand up and deny them because they know its covered by the constitution?
Re:Pot kettle (Score:5, Insightful)
Folk got way to over-excited about it. Unfortunately the telcos probably had a viable defense that they were acting (1) on government instructions and (2) on government advice that their action was legal.
The original objective in bringing the lawsuits was to uncover the criminal behavior by the Bush administration so that they could be held accountable for it. Suing the telcos was the only way to force the documents into the open.
Do not confuse the tactics adopted by people trying to stop the abuse with the objectives of the perpetrators. Phil Z. is pointing out that on civil liberties issues McCain is every bit as bad as Bush, we can expect a continuatio of the same lawless behavior.
Exaggerate much? (Score:5, Insightful)
Here is what McCullagh said: "Biden's bill -- and the threat of encryption being outlawed -- is what spurred Phil Zimmermann to write PGP, thereby kicking off a historic debate about export controls, national security, and privacy. Zimmermann, who's now busy developing Zfone, says it was Biden's legislation "that led me to publish PGP electronically for free that year, shortly before the measure was defeated after vigorous protest by civil libertarians and industry groups."
I think Zimmermann is reading too much into the words above. I just don't see how that can be interpreted as saying that Zimmermann opposes Biden himself.
Re:Pot kettle (Score:5, Insightful)
When someone has been in the senate 30 years (Score:5, Insightful)
assume they have been bought and sold so many times, that they don't really have any position on any issue. If they were your foe 15 years ago, that doesn't mean they're your foe today. Nor your friend.
Re:Pot kettle (Score:5, Insightful)
I think Obama's "yea" vote on the bill that contained the wiretapping indemnity was more a problem of our current system of multi-issue bills than a true expression of Obama's ideals. There was a lot of content in that bill that was quality, but the indemnity was stuck in much the same way that any other earmark or pet project is stuck in, this one just got more publicity. That said, if Obama is really about change as much as he claims to be, he will take steps to amend this flaw in our government, either through line-item veto power or much tighter restrictions on the breadth of any given bill, I would prefer the latter as a restriction of Congressional power will serve us better in the long term over an expansion of Executive power.
Re:Pot kettle (Score:3, Insightful)
The original objective in bringing the lawsuits was to uncover the criminal behavior by the Bush administration so that they could be held accountable for it. Suing the telcos was the only way to force the documents into the open.
How is that not all the more reason to proceed with the lawsuits?
Attributing comments (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe Phil should have digitally signed his original comment :-)
The fight isn't over! (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm no fan of the immunity. Far from it. But you do realize that that bill was going to pass even without him, right? And Obama did try to remove that part of the bill.
But there were enough Republicans & "blue dog" Democrats in this election year that they would have been painted as "terrorist sympathizers" for voting against FISA at all (indeed, that is exactly what the right-wing forums tend to call them).
And it doesn't help that McCain wholeheartedly supports this. He voted for FISA before he voted against it, and he's supported it many, many times on the campaign trail.
Finally, it's not over. The EFF is now suing the government directly. I'm not happy with this state of affairs, but Obama is still the better of the two when it comes to this issue.
Re:Pot kettle (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree that multi-issue bills are a problem, but I think it's better to just not pass a mixed-bag bill than to live with the results of it.
If a majority in Congress agreed, it might keep the bills that are introduced more focused.
On Biden (Score:5, Insightful)
Biden's political record is fairly typical of strong government Democrats. It's really the Republicans who are supposed to be more on the side of smaller government and stronger civil liberties.
Unfortunately, Republicans largely have abandoned their libertarian positions. They have deregulated the economy, but it has led to a financial disaster in the banking and housing sectors.
Had the Republicans taken a stronger stand on civil liberties while advocating a well regulated economy with noninflationary fiscal policies, and consistently low-interest monetary policies, they would not be in the situation they are in right now.
I'm sorry, but this is a little scary (Score:1, Insightful)
I'm not attacking you, but it you'd said something like that 3 months ago, you'd have been skewered, and your moderations would reflect it.
That reads to me as a version of "the ends justify the means", which doesn't sit well with me, and probably a lot of other people too. I bring this up because 3 months ago, there's no way you'd have any insightful mods, but now, you're flying high.
I have to wonder, is that because people's minds have changed that much, or because they're more interested in their guy winning?
Re:Pot kettle (Score:1, Insightful)
"The original objective in bringing the lawsuits was to uncover the criminal behavior by the Bush administration so that they could be held accountable for it. Suing the telcos was the only way to force the documents into the open. "
This is it, in a nutshell. Basically there is no WAY the telcos need liability cover, because they have scary lawyers and can argue the points above.
Ask yourself when, in all this campaigning for this indemnity law, you ever heard a telco lobbying for it, or a telco shill arguing for it?
The liability shield stops the cases ever getting much beyond the clerk, which stops any evidence being heard.
It is the actions of the US government that the telco indemnification really protects. The telcos don't need it.
Re:Pot kettle (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Pot kettle (Score:5, Insightful)
You might think that, I might think that.
Unfortunately the current federal bench has been largely appointed by Republicans and in particular the DC Circuit has a bunch of very partisan judges - the folk who brought us the infamous Kenneth Starr and is unable to get the fact that the constitution absolutely prohibits any number of criminal activities of the Bush regime: torture, imprisonment without trial, wiretapping, etc. etc.
The problem with FISA was that the 'lawyers' for the Bush regime had purportedly found that the President could disregard any law he liked by exercising the 'inherent powers' of the Presidency. FISA did not have a sufficiently strong exclusivity clause to absolutely knock that defense out. So the compromise reached was to let the telcos off the hook in return for the administration allowing the replacement bill to specify exclusivity.
It is not a great result, but it was the best that could be obtained with the Republicans holding the Whitehouse and the Democrats only holding the Senate on the vote of Joe Lieberman. Throughout the process it was the Republicans in general and John McCain in particular who were arguing to trash civil liberties and the Democrats who were arguing to restore them. The only exception was on torture where John McCain claimed that he was going to be tough with the administration, fooled everyone into believing he was being honest then agreed to everything the administration asked for. If you care about civil liberties it makes no sense to vote for John McCain on the basis that the Democrats were unable to stop the Republicans!
Civil liberties are not just a moral issue, they are essential if you are going to have an effective government. The torture of three Al Qaeda operatives was not just bad morally, it was a total disaster from the point of view of stopping terrorism. The administration got absolutely no useful information as a result: they got a series a bogus leads that all turned out to be wild goose chases. And now that the use of torture is known there is no prospect of getting any criminal convictions in a real court of law.
We tried the Bush administration tactics against terrorism in the UK at the start of the Northern Ireland troubles. To say they were a disaster is an understatement. First off the troops originally went in to protect the Catholics from the Protestant terrorists. The Provisional IRA was essentially a product of the British Internment policy. And the use of aggressive interrogation techniques that fall far short of the Bush administration torture lost popular sympathy abroad, here we are talking about 'hooding', not the sleep deprevation, shaking or such that the Bushies are still using. Folk like Rudy Giuliani were so disgusted by these tactics that they headed numerous IRA fundraisers and Rudy even gave Gerry Adams a humanitarian award.
McCain is simply more of the same, he thinks that the solution to every problem is the use of more force. He is completely unable to comprehend that force might create more problems than it can solve.
Re:Pot kettle (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd tell them to shove it and get a warrant. Especially if they used quotes around the word terrorist.
And I don't even have the benefit of permanent, in-house legal counsel, to which any government requests were almost certainly referred!
Re:Pot kettle (Score:5, Insightful)
maybe Obama feels they deserve a second chance? I mean if some scary guys in suits came to your business and demanded all your customers info for the sake of hunting "terrorists" how many people would have the balls to stand up and deny them because they know its covered by the constitution?
Okay, so does everyone get a second chance when they break the US constitution, or is this just for corporations?
Re:The fight isn't over! (Score:4, Insightful)
You say the bill would have passed without him, like he only had a single vote to use. That is incorrect. He had a single vote, and one of the most effective bully pulpits we've seen in this country in a long time. He should have turned it into a campaign issue and beat McCain over the head with his cow towing to big corporate interests for the rest of the campaign. I was really hoping for more of a fighting spirit from the guy.
Re:It won't matter to the Dems (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think he is really thinking about how to sell ads, the Ann Coulter comment is more on target.
Declan is a libertarian, not a Libertarian. I would certainly not consider him a partisan booster for anything other than himself and his own career.
Re:Pot kettle (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree that multi-issue bills are a problem, but I think it's better to just not pass a mixed-bag bill than to live with the results of it.
Unfortunately, that also makes great fodder for one's political opponents. "Look, he voted against the Ice Cream For Orphans (And Some Other Stuff) Act! Why does he hate children so much?"
Re:Pot kettle (Score:3, Insightful)
They put emotional issues in those bills, like "Ban child murder", then when you vote against it, you are pro killing children.
I don't know that this is the case with this bill. I believe I heard that GWB was actually threatening to veto some other bills critical to the dems if it wasn't passed, and I think democrat party leadership was therefore exerting pressure as well.
Honestly I hate dems as much as republicans. These days I'll vote on a democrat for president, but then every single person, down the line, from judges to school administrators to senators, I vote independent wherever it's possible, Green, Libertarian, heck--for a city/state position I'd probably vote for someone running on a communist ticket before a republicrat.
Re:The fight isn't over! (Score:3, Insightful)
He should have turned it into a campaign issue and beat McCain over the head with his cow towing to big corporate interests for the rest of the campaign.
It's probably a hard argument to make. McCain's people probably could find plenty of other bills that Obama has voted in favor of that support various corporate interests (this could probably be done for any senator) and respond with an attack ad to the effect that he's being a hypocrite and also not being tough on terrorists as well. Given that after 9/11 polls showed many (the majority?) Americans were indifferent at best about terrorist suspects being tortured I'm not sure how well Obama could counter such an ad.
I think his initial attempt to remove that provision was genuine but he's also a smart enough politician to know to pick his battles wisely.
On a side note: way to go Qwest for not cow-towing to the government and refusing their illegal wire tapping requests. Probably the one and only thing Qwest has ever done right but still, kudos to you!
Re:McCullagh was right (Score:4, Insightful)
Not to mention:
If you get bored sometime, read Zimmermann's Senate testimony regarding Senate Bill 1726. It's lucid and eloquent, and he names names:
Now, I can totally understand something along the lines of "I believe that their positions have changed", or "I still disagree, but McCain's stance is even worse". But he cautiously backpedal against senate testimony were he says that legislation of the sort that Biden drafted "could allow such a future government to watch every move anyone makes to oppose it. It could very well be the last government we ever elect." I just don't get it. Zimmermann's always kind of been a hero of mine. What happened to make him back off so strongly?
Re:The actual quote (Score:1, Insightful)
That's because you'd have to be a moron to support McCain. Try Digg.
Republican Examples? (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually he is a libertarian, he once told me that he was just interested in knocking down both sides.
Perhaps someone in the know could bolster this claim with examples of his hit pieces on Republicans.
Not that the absence of these things means he's necessarily a Republican. Many economic libertarians -- especially the capital-L sort that genuinely believe that markets are the transcendant mediating social institution -- tend to see the Democrats as the greater of two evils because Dems have a greater tendency to also see state/public institutions as part of the toolset of active policy, while Republicans tend to at least pay lip service in opposition to this.
At any rate, the problem with knocking down both sides is that human society really doesn't allow for a power vacuum. You create something else to fill it first, or you reckon with the unintended consequences of whatever emerges. And you either have private power checked only by other private power, or you come up with a mediating public social institution. I'd be fascinated to hear what Declan's particular proposal is, if he's not so busy manipulating things that he's taken the time to genuinely think things through.
Response is political and counterintuitive (Score:1, Insightful)
John grows a tree. Someone puts forward a tree-cutting proposal. Paul votes for it. John criticises the tree-cutting proposal.
Years later, someone makes what they say is an overview of Paul's voting record on tree-cutting proposals. They quote John's criticism.
John feels however that he has come to like Paul, and likes him more than the alternatives. John therefore says that he never intended to criticise Paul.
The herring in this case is that the question on order is Paul's voting record on tree-cutting proposals. Whether John now likes Paul or not is not as relevant. Pulling back criticism by saying it was directed at the legislation (that Paul voted against) rather than at Paul himself, is a herring.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Pot kettle (Score:4, Insightful)
Ignorance is one thing, getting a statement from government lawyers telling you that something is legal is something else. Even a statement from their own in-house counsel would provide some degree of protection as the FISA statute requires intent.
That is why John Yoo's torture memo was so disgusting, it quite probably gives a legal indemnity to the people who committed torture.
Fortunately, there is still a check. John Yoo became an accessory to the torture when he wrote the memo and he is not able to rely on his memo to provide him with an indemnity. It is still going to be very hard to prosecute him but not necessarily impossible.
Substituting the government lawyers for the telcos as the defendants in the wiretap case sounds like an excellent swap to me!
Re:That's absurd. (Score:5, Insightful)
Fighting terrorists is like getting hit by a woman. If she hits you like a man, you hit her back like a man. If a terrorist hits you like a nation state, then you hit them back, like a nation state. That means, no courts, no tribunals, only war and death for them.
So yeah, I would almost agree that the torture of three Al Qaeda operatives was bad morally. We should have killed them on site!
And who decides what the line is between "criminals" who get a day in court and "terrorists" who you feel should be shot on sight? You? George Bush? Whoever has the gun?
Re:That's absurd. (Score:3, Insightful)
You, my good sir, are the one living in a fantasy world. By attacking "terrorists" as if they are a nation state (which they are NOT, by any definition I've ever read), you create more terrorists. You cannot end terrorism strictly by killing those who are terrorists. Their deaths will only cause more people to become angry at the US, and turn to terrorism.
Nobody in the Democratic leadership has suggested we "cut a deal with radical Islam". If you can cite a source for your claim, please do. Nobody has suggested we negotiate with al Qaeda. We do not negotiate with terrorists, and never will. Perhaps you are confused by the suggestion by Jimmy Carter that we allow Hezbollah to negotiate as part of a peace deal with Israel. This is unfortunately a misunderstanding created by a lack of in-depth reporting by the general US media on Hezbollah. They are not really a terrorist organization as it is traditionally thought of, as they are actually a fairly large political party in Lebanon (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah [wikipedia.org] ).
The compromises you seem to speak of, such as trials for captured al Qaeda operatives, are not compromises. Those things are part of our Constitution, part of the Geneva Convention, and part of long-established international law. The real compromise was the decision NOT to treat these prisoners under our own rule of law, and this was a compromise against our very premise as a country. It was and is an unacceptable compromise. You seem to take a short-term view that a little compromise is ok, but you seem to forget that the longer term is more important. The way to defeat terrorism is to end the reason for there to be terrorists -- our inept foreign policy has created most of them. The other way--killing them all--will require total nuclear warfare, because quite simply, the more people you kill in the name of ending terorism, the more people you enrage, and thus eventually the world turns against you. At what point do you realize that an eye for an eye does indeed leave the whole world blind?
I'm not saying we shouldn't have gone in to Afghanistan, because we directly requested that Osama Bin Laden and his top leadership be handed over for trial. The Taliban refused, and thus made themselves culpable in the acts of these terrorists. Some terrorists do have to die. But we must recognize that there are limits to this, and that we must remain in adherence with the law when we do use the military for this purpose, or we become the very thing we are trying to defeat.
Re:When someone has been in the senate 30 years (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd trust them if they were dead.
Then they wouldnt be telling lies.
Re:That's absurd. (Score:3, Insightful)
And who decides what the line is between "criminals" who get a day in court and "terrorists" who you feel should be shot on sight? You? George Bush? Whoever has the gun?
Constitution say, US Citizens have rights. Foreign POWs, foreign invaders, and foreign asshats on foreign soil bringing foreign bombs to soldiers deployed in foreign countries don't.
Re:Go by the size of the armaments. (Score:4, Insightful)
So...guys who say, are only using boxcutters when they try to take over a plane, we treat them as criminals?
Actually, yes. 9/11 wouldn't have happened if they just had better doors on the plane and if the pilot had a piece. Guys with boxcutters, lock the door, dive the plane and shake the terrorists about. Land. Let the cops come in. No 9/11, no need for the war(s).
But once the plane was used as a weapon, well, that's a big boy bomb, and big boy bomb rules apply.
Re:Pot kettle (Score:2, Insightful)
Hmm. Perhaps people (read: corporations) who have an entire army of congress critters at their disposal?
Fixed it for ya.
Re:We are all nation states now. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't believe that our foreign policy created terrorists.
Good grief you are living in a fantasy world. What do you think the Iranians thought when the US installed the Shah in 1954? What do you think the Kurds and Shiites thought when the US provided the chemicals used to make the poison gas he attcked them with? What do you think all Latin Americans thought when the US installed governments friendly to them and their banana corporations, over and over again?
Anyone with even a modicum of knowledge of history could come up with numerous examples of the US setting up governments contrary to local wishes. To not see the resentment that brings, and the "terrorists" that creates, is willful ignorance sufficient to qualify you for a position in the Bush regime.
Re:Exaggerate much? (Score:2, Insightful)
I just don't see how that can be interpreted as saying that Zimmermann opposes Biden himself.
Easy, the context of the whole article. Most readers just read in the general tone of an article without critically seeing if the facts presented support the case being made. They see "watch out, the democratic vp candidate is bad for tech". Then they see our hero Phil as being in agreement with the article. But Phil's response points to the political reality of the far greater evil. He is countering the very unbalanced article where he was quoted. The quote is out of context as Phil said, being about the bill in 1999, with Declan placing Biden's name next to the quote to make it seem personal and relevant. It is out of context and not relevant as it is very different from what Phil does say concerning tech issues in this election.
Re:Pot kettle (Score:4, Insightful)
One who cared about the rule of law.
Next dumb question?
Re:Pot kettle (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmm. Perhaps people (read: corporations) who have an entire army of congress critters at their disposal?
Actually
If that is the case... (Score:1, Insightful)
Then, let's see, under Bush, oil prices have gone up, increasing the standard of living in middle eastern states, and, Bush has put in a democracy in Iraq, which, despite all the violence, is actually growing rather dramatically economically.
So.. if, as you say, terrorism is America's fault, then, when Obama comes in, and quits buying foreign oil, or drives oil prices down, then, wouldn't you say that Obama would be fomenting terrorism? I mean, if we cut a people off from their only means of income, wouldn't they be pissed off?
Incidentally, if the Kurds are so pissed off at the USA, then, why has there not been a single American combat casualty in Kurdish Iraq -during the entire war-. Seems to me, that between the no-fly zone first and then the removal of Saddam, second, the Kurds are actually pretty damned happy with the USA. Similarly, the lion's share of American troubles in Iraq were with the Sunnis, who were associated with Saddam. Since the invasion, Bush has restored the marshes, drained by Saddam, that were the economic lifeblood of Shiites, and furthermore, the guys that were elected in the elections brought about by Bush, were in fact, primarily all shiites!
Now your man Obama would say that that was all mistake, that we should have let Saddam continue to oppress the Shiites and the Kurds, excaberating the very problem that YOU claim the USA to have caused.
I mean, if you sincerely believe that the USA's sponsorship of putting in dictatorships in the 1950s was the cause of today's terrorism, then doesn't it make sense that Bush's policy of removing the dictatorships the USA installed, at least in Iraq, seem to be conceptually the right thing to do?
Re:Phone companies aren't violating the Constituti (Score:5, Insightful)
What may be unlawful on the side of the phone companies is that they gave out private information, which maybe that violates privacy laws, but it's not what the 4th amendment is talking about. The 4th amendment specifies what the government is not allowed to do.
Unless the phone companies were acting as agents of the government.
Re:McCullagh was right (Score:2, Insightful)
"I'm not exactly sure what Zimmermann is opposed to."
Zimmerman is opposed to the possibility of McCain being elected. Therefore, he is pretending that "Biden the VP candidate" is somehow not the same as "Biden the sponsor of the bill he opposed".
Re:Go by the size of the armaments. (Score:4, Insightful)
Lock the door until they take hostages. Then what? Knowing what we know now, leave it closed. Back then? Tough to say.
Before anyone knew they'd be bold enough to fly planes into buildings, that door had no reason to be seriously bolted. Let's not make up a utopia where people knew it was coming, okay?
Otherwise you trivialize the decisions that would (and did) have to be made that day. Those on board Flight 93 figured it out and paid dearly -- of their own choice.
All you've pointed out is that hindsight is 20/20. Big fat duh, to you sir. Congrats. It's not a good argument for the current thread you're replying to. Try again.
Re:If that is the case... (Score:5, Insightful)
What a stretch. Your whole bizarre argument rests on thinking of Iraq as having a functioning democracy.
The government there, which has only the outward appearance of a democracy, stays in place only as long as the US bleeds for it. Democracy cannot be imposed from the outside. It has to come from the people themselves. As long as any government is propped up by outsiders, it is not a government of its own people, and is not a functioning government, let alone a functioning democracy.
Re:That's absurd. (Score:3, Insightful)
You need to stop the histrionics and start thinking.
West Germany and Great Britain both faced a terrorist threat in the 1970s. The West Germans responded treating the issue as a criminal matter and were very successful in containing the Baader-Meinhof gang. The British government responded with Bush style tactics and the problem only grew worse.
The British only began to be successful in rolling back the IRA when they started treating them as criminals. The IRA realized this and began campaigning for the British to treat them as political prisoners, not common criminals. Bobby Sands starved himself to death trying to stop the British government calling him a common criminal.
The war on terror campaign is completely counterproductive. It promotes Bin Laden to the status of a nation state. You go to war with countries, not criminals. And stop calling him a Jihadi and start calling him a hirabi instead.
Any fool can make tough talk about 'dead or alive', the fool in the white house has engaged in trash talk for the past seven years. But none of it has had any effect. Bin Laden is still alive, so is Al Zawahiri who is the real brains of the outfit.
Re:If that is the case... (Score:2, Insightful)
What a stretch. Your whole bizarre argument rests on thinking of Iraq as having a functioning democracy
Um, no. You think my argument rests on a democracy being in Iraq. I think there is and I think that the Iraqi government is asking the USA to leave in 2011 indicates that they think so too.
But... the thrust of my argument is, that, if the USA is responsible for terrorism, by, as you would argue, putting in tyrants and also exploiting the natural resources of third world nations, then, inverting those policies should reduce terrorism, would it not? Similarly, sticking to those horrific policies would in fact continue to foment terrorism.
Terrorism has political and economic components, so the argument goes. There's economic dislocation, or poverty, inflicted by the horrible American exploitation of the third world through low oil prices. Thus, it follows that high oil prices would be good for the third world and I would argue that the hundreds of billions dollars and euros headed towards arabia are not exactly hurting the cause.
Now, again, if Obama lowers the oil prices, then, he would be fomenting terrorism in the region. If he completely cuts off the middle east from importing oil, and thus, starves them all to do death, then don't you think that economic dislocation would cause more terrorism, rather than less?
Similarly, if Obama returns to RealPolitik and lets Iraq collapse, if it does in fact collapse, and then, a dictatorship thus rises -directly because of his decision-, then, is he not, again, fomenting terrorism in the middle east - even more -.
I mean, you can't have your cake and eat it too. IF the middle eastern oil kingdoms are ripping America off, and making out like bandits, as Democrats argue, then how in the hell does that foment terrorism, when they are happy campers?
Indeed, one might make the argument that $100/bbl oil has done more to win the war on terror, particular in Iraq, then has anything else. Even David Petreaus has said as much.
Re:If that is the case... (Score:4, Insightful)
If installing a faux democracy in Iraq has reduced terrorism, why are there more terrorists in Iraq now than before under Saddam?
Re:Go by the size of the armaments. (Score:4, Insightful)
Joking aside, what do you think the world community should do about a superpower that's lost its standing and is resorting to bullying in order to maintain some control in this fast-changing world? And I wasn't talking about Russia, but you're welcome to answer as if I were.
Re:That's absurd. (Score:5, Insightful)
Fighting terrorists is like getting hit by a woman. If she hits you like a man, you hit her back like a man.
The only man who hits a woman is a coward and a cad. Only a coward hits anyone at all for any reason. A moral person (or nation) doesn't stoop to the actions of an amoral cad.
You need to stop pretending that terrorism is a criminal act.
There is no pretense; it is a criminal act. The US is supposed to be a nation of laws. To have the government ignore its own law is to invite anarchy.
You and your kind keep intimidating that the best course for the USA is to cut some sort of a deal with radical Islam
No, the best course for the USA is to not stoop to their level, nor to ignore our own morality. The best course for the USA is to grow a spine and stop fearing these assholes. They are practically harmless; every year, more Americans are murdered by friends and relatives than were murdered by Osama this entire century so far.
Nobody that I know of has EVER said we should compromise with them. Your straw man is oin fire, fool.
Re:If that is the case... (Score:3, Insightful)
Leaving Iraq won't reduce terrorism for the simple reason you can't un-break an egg.
A few years ago we decided to support a country fighting against those "commies" by sending troops money etc. with promises we'd help them rebuild. After they won, we had no use for them, so we pulled out leaving them devastated and poor. The religious right in the country preyed on their new-found hatred of the broken American promise...and the Taliban was born from our former allies whom we left standing at the alter.
I was against the war in Iraq before it started. But there's an old slogan "You break it, you buy it" -- and we broke Iraq. To me, the only correct policy in Iraq involves a stable government at least not as bad as the one we deposed. Or else we repeat history.
But not breaking the egg in the first place? That's a different argument all together and one not addressed by your criticisms.
Re:Pot kettle (Score:3, Insightful)
Compare that endorsement to:
"Vote for me! My principles *include* supporting authoritarian spy laws."