I have an open question for Amy Goodman and people like her who used the Chris Hayes format on MSNBC to complain. These people are as devoid of solutions as they are replete with heart rendering adjectives. One of the things I learned from my mother is if you are going to complain about that something you should have a solution in mind. I write many posts and many of them contain complaints but I always try to follow mother’s rule. In addition, I remember her telling me that if you go far enough right you will be left; it is a political circle.
Sunday morning I listened to the round table discussion complaining about Obama’s pick for CIA director. The participants focused their complaints on drone strikes made to kill terrorist. The fact that we make the strikes to kill people who have or are planning to kill Americans was barely mentioned. In fact, I do not recall Amy mentioning the purpose of the drone strikes once. Words and expressions most used, not just by her but most of the participants, were ‘innocent people’, ‘American citizens’, ‘children’, ‘collateral damage’, ‘kill list’, and a long string of etceteras. They make it sound as if the people killed by collateral damage were the targets—if that were the case, we could target soccer game crowds to increase efficiency. My point is that not once did the show participants mention an alternative tactic. Not once were the difficulties involved in protecting the American people mention. Not once, did they mention the heart rendering and dangerous decision the President has to make in deciding how to handle either this situation or the boldness it takes on his part in ordering a drone strike in a foreign country but they were quick to declare the strikes as “act of war’ violating the “war powers act”. It was telling that this extreme left wing cohort did use the expression “friendly country” although they over emphasized that the Pakistanis hate American because of the drone strikes but did it as if this was the only reason they hate us.
I would love to hear what their solution might be. Should we do nothing until after they attack and kill Americans then risk the lives of a 1,000 Navy Seals to capture the guilty party, “arrest him or her” and bring them to the Untied States for trial. This is equivalent to NRA mentality; wait until some person kills someone with a gun then get “John Wayne tough” and prosecute the bad guy to the fullest extent of the law: death penalties, etc. I have news for these people; accurate intelligence proved all of the people targeted by drones active in the planning acts of terror. They argue as if the government used shabby or altered proof to include innocent people just so we could attack them. This is not the Iraqi war where the intelligence was “cooked” to favor the opinion of the administration.
What do we do about an America citizen resides in a terrorist country and heads a group that highjack an airline and runs it into the White House? They seem to be saying we should not violate his or her rights by wire tapping, etc. I agree with Chris Hayes and his guests, our government should rule out torture, monitor “kill lists”, make every effort to limit collateral damage; have judgers issue warrants to wire tap, try to find ways to increase accuracy of our intelligences; figure out a way to prosecute foreign terrorists in United Nation’s courts or in the United States or what? A UN court is out because according tot the other political extremes, it would violate our sense of sovereignty. We cannot even bring the people languishing in Guantanamo to trial to prove their guilt or innocence; this leaves open the door for Amy and like-minded people to declare they are innocent without trial. Isn’t that just as erroneous as declaring them guilty without trial. What is the alternative? What is the American way? Amy, listen to my mother, keep it to yourself until you have at least tried to come up with a viable tactic to solve the problem. What you and Chris Hayes did is make MSNBC look as uncompromising as FOX News—you have gone so far left you sound as irrational as Rush Limbaugh does.
No comments:
Post a Comment