The Real War
Ever since Iraq came on the national radar, the left has been hectoring President Bush for not going after "the real terrorists" - as if Al Quada were the only terrorist organizaton in the world.
Word is, of course, filtering through the mainstream media's embargo - the larger war on terror is going well, albeit in exacty the way the president described in 2001 - in secret. The main successes of this war are happening in the shadows, unknown even to senior members of the government.
And yet the successes - intelligence, military, diplomatic and law-enforcement - are there:
In cooperation with U.S. intelligence agencies, authorities in Pakistan and Britain have detained suspected al-Qaida operatives, while computer files uncovered in Pakistan contained surveillance information of five financial sites in New York, Washington and Newark, N.J. The United States issued a terror alert based on that information.
Townsend said it is not clear how much has been uncovered about a potential plot around the November presidential election. "This certainly looks like it was a piece of it," she told CBS' "Face the Nation."
In addition to the five financial buildings, counterterrorism officials have said other sites have been mentioned as possible targets. Asked whether there have been threats against the Capitol and members of Congress, Townsend said, "Yes, in the past and as part of this continuing threat stream."
No word whether the tanks and artillery and huge columns of vehicles that subdued the Iraqi military were missed in the covert chase through the alleyways, bank accounts and web sites of the likes of Al Quaeda.
Seriously - when the left whines about Iraq "diverting attention from the real war", what do they think - that the V Corps and the First Marine Expeditionary Force (100,000 men, 500-odd tanks, hundreds of pieces of artillery) would have been any use in this sort of operation?
Again - the left should be required to take a test before commenting on matters of national defense.
Posted by Mitch at
August 10, 2004 03:57 AM
| TrackBack
now if we could only stop giving up the names of informants whou would continue to be useful until the terrorists know we have them. . .
Posted by: JasonDL at August 10, 2004 10:39 AMMaybe.
If you learn one thing from reading the history of intelligence and counterintelligence, it's that you NEVER know the full story for years, usually decades.
If the informant got "outed", there may VERY well have been a reason for it that we won't know about for a long, long time.
Not to say a mistake wasn't made (if you read about the history of intelligence, you see that's pretty common *and inevitable* too), but we don't know.
And by "we", I mean "especially the Kerry campaign's spinmeisters".
Posted by: mitch at August 10, 2004 10:58 AMFunny, I heard it was Sandy Berger who "inadverdently" let the information slip out! Not that any of it was classified or anything...geesh.
Posted by: Dave V at August 10, 2004 04:09 PMDave- are you sure your tsalking about the "Kahn" story release? Im pretty sure Berger had nothing to do with that.
Open the door and let some of this innuendo out.
Posted by: JasonDL at August 10, 2004 11:07 PM