- The Washington Times - Tuesday, March 10, 2009

In “Criminals not warriors” (Bruce Fein, Commentary, March 3) and “Afghanistan abstracts” (Georgie Anne Geyer, Commentary, Thursday), both commentators make outrageous statements that belie the intelligence they portend to possess.

How can one possibly make the argument, as presented in “Afghanistan abstracts,” that we should treat “Sept. 11 as a police action … working with sympathetic governments to destroy [the perpetrators] quickly and effectively”? Are we dreaming? Or in “Criminals not warriors” that “Sept. 11 was not war; and, that the criminal law rather than the laws of war apply to suspected international terrorists.”

What is the value of the “Obama strategic review” that would make us “need to re-examine the entire decision-making process after Sept. 11” as is purported in “Afghanistan abstracts”?

What would a young, smart-talking senator (because that’s why he won) from Illinois still wet behind the ears (“infinitely more intelligent and cautious” than George W. Bush, Richard Cheney and Donald H. Rumsfeld together, who are “filled with arrogance and hubris, bereft of any modesty about America’s capacities in the world”) know so much better than they?

What’s so intelligent in saying that Iraq was not worth fighting for but Afghanistan is? Why is it that with the best will in the world I cannot side with commentators like the two quoted above and all those others who are in bed with President Obama? Whom do they represent? In the name of free speech, one can say a lot of stupid things standing all alone.



Sign up for Daily Newsletters

Manage Newsletters

Copyright © 2020 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Please read our comment policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide