IS OUR NATIONAL SECURITY

BEING COMPROMISED?

I was just watching a debate between Newt Gingrich and two others on C-Span on the topic of Islamic terrorism and national security. Some point out that many who are released from Guantanamo go on to commit more terrorism. Does this mean we suspend all legal protections for those in this country accused of terrorism? Does it mean that we invent some new category of criminal that falls neither under legal protection or the laws of the Geneva Accords? I don’t think so. It’s pointed out that bomber who was arrested in New York around May first of last year was spotted by an alert vender who told a cop and they took it from there. Some may say “It’s dangerous to assume that any criminal arrested is not a radical Islamic terrorist. Some say militant radicalism in any religion is dangerous. Newt pointed out that there aren’t many radical Lutherin Norweegens, for instance. Therefore according to Newt this proved that only Islamic people are radical. We move on to the Egypt situation now. Rush Limbaugh yesterday said that the Islamic Brotherhood is a radical organization connected with Al Qaeda and they want to impose radical Islam by force on the nation of Egypt and make the nation of Egypt as a whole numbered among our enemies. Rush went on to say that the “Drive by media” spent all weekend saying that the Islamic Brotherhood was not dangerous and “apologizing for them” or whatever. In point of fact the only time I heard the first hint they were not dangerous was on one four minute interview on “This Week” and it was the guest who said it and not the talking head reporters. Rush went on to attack the Federal Reserve of this country saying that because of what they did last year in its “monetization of the debt” drive, drove up the price of corn in Egypt and therefore all the food riots in Egypt are really our fault. It was pointed out today however that the Islamic Brotherhood neither organized the protests, but were relative late comers to the movement. Neither are they leading the movement now. Rather it seems to be young people who are suffering economically who are spear-heading the movement. They say they genuinely want democracy and this just isn’t some ruse for radicals to get power, like took place in Iran over thirty years ago. We need to be aware of these things. Now Mubarek has stated that he will not run for reelection this coming September. But this concession is not enough for the protesters because they think between now and then he’ll “pull something” to stay in power. But we can’t let the tea bagger right like Gingrich telling us how to think and what to think. They’ve done it their way for ten years and it hasn’t worked. As was pointed out today now Turkey is becoming radicalized. Of course if we sent 150,000 troops in a small country with advanced weapons we are going to win in that area, at least for a while. But we won’t be getting to the underlying causes of radical movements, or whatever political perswasion. Few people would take President Obama to be some kind of a closet Islamic sympathizer who is weak on terrorism. Indeed there seems little difference between the Obama foreign policy and the Bush foreign policy. If George Bush were still President would Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich be calling him “the enemy” simply because terrorism hasn’t vanished overnight? I don’t think so. Rush Limbaugh is such a congenital liar- - I couldn’t believe what he said even fifteen years ago when I agreed with him. How much less now, that we disagree on virtually everything. We need to deal with events one by one as they present themselves.