Safety according to Boortz
I came across a nice example of Boortzian logic in the Dec. 26 edition of Nealz Nuze.
http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html
Neal has been really getting after Howard Dean for saying that we are “no safer” since 9-11-01. Continuing today in that vein, Boortz says:
”Following Saddam's capture about three weeks ago the ever-irate Howard Dean sneered that the U.S. is no safer now than it was the day before 9/11. I hope some reporter asks him that question again today on one of his campaign appearances.
Today we wake up to news that intelligence experts believe that a terrorist attack was probably averted by the cancellation of those Air France flights on Christmas Eve. Investigators (unfortunately they're French investigators) are looking for some people who didn't show up for one particular cancelled flight ... including a trained pilot. I guess we'll never know for certain, but the suspicions are that there may have been a plan to use one of the Air France aircraft as a missile to attack Las Vegas.
If this story is accurate, then it is clear that U.S. intelligence services are doing quite a job protecting Americans. There is no way they can make this country our the American people 100% safe from the intentions of Islamic terrorists, but bit by bit they're hacking away at the terrorist infrastructure. Al Qaeda leaders and operatives are being captured or killed, and not it looks like planned terrorist attacks.”
And then, further down, Boortz continues:
“Here's something else many of us just learned over the past few days. The Homeland Security folks have installed outdoor sensors in over 30 cities in the United States. These sensors are designed to detect biological pathogens that might be released in the air by Islamic terrorists. These devices would provide an early warning in the event of a biological attack. In Howard Dean's world this does not make us one bit safer.”
In Neal Boortz’s worldview, (and I have so far seen nothing to contradict my assessment of it), the past and present aggression of United States foreign policy has absolutely zilch to do with our safety or lack thereof.
So what if intelligence operatives are successful in averting an attack? The fact that there are any attacks at all, including 9-11-01 and before, should elicit critical thought in any sane individual; especially when countries that aren’t forcing their will on the rest of the world (or aiding those that do) experience no problems with “Islamo-fascists.”
And now we’re supposed to be delighted (if this is true) that “Homeland Security” has installed some weird “sensors” in 30 of our cities?
This is evidence that we’re “safer?”
Maybe if people would’ve given some serious thought to the three grievances stated by bin Laden after 9-11-01, (which were consistent with what he’d been saying for years), instead of buying into the government/media’s various attempts to draw attention away from those grievances, we would be on our way to truly becoming safer.
This wouldn't mean that we were "giving in to terrorists." It would simply mean that we as a nation had finally reacquainted ourselves with the moral and practical relevancy of a truly Jeffersonian, Libertarian foreign policy; a policy of military non-interventionism and zero foreign aid through coercive taxation.
On the War Party's own theory, Saddam could only be a threat to the U.S. if he regained power in Iraq. They have painted a picture of Iraqis fed up with Saddam's terrorism, so that only those who profit directly from his regime support him. That would make his return to power a remote prospect even if the occupation forces were withdrawn. This inconsistency in the War Party worldview has passed mostly unremarked.
Of course Boortz's Air France anecdote, even assuming it is true, is no evidence that we are "safer". Such incidents took place before 9-11. One might as well point to the arrest of a single criminal as proof that a particular city has become "safer". Criminals are arrested every day, whether the rate of crime is going up or down.
Boortz's three sentences about "sensors" raise lots of interesting questions that Boortz doesn't bother to ask. Assuming those gadgets are good for anything, does it make sense to advertise them? Doesn't that just tell the terrorists they should make their airborne biological attack against several small towns instead of a big city?
I suspect the gadgets will wind up costing a fortune in false alarms, being triggered by a variety of naturally occuring organisms. They might even be ignored on the "cried wolf" principle when there is a real attack.
Boortz shows a remarkable inclination to assume the government always knows what it is doing, and to take all its claims at face value. That is naive for anyone over the age of twelve, but it is particularly odd for a "libertarian".
Perhaps some folks might consider listening to Neal on a regular basis before jumping to so many conclusions. His show is webcast.
www.boortz.com
The LP is wrong about Iraq. However given the inability of libertarians to vote for their candidates (see 2000 election results for Harry Browne), it probably doesn't make much of a difference.
Posted by: Dann at January 19, 2004 06:07 AMWell I did vote for our candidate but that didnt make him right on everything I disagree with the LP on isolationism. Washington warned of entangaling alliances he did not however say we should stick our head in a hole and ignor the rest of the world. It is thoughtless at best and crimnially neglagent at worst for a president to pay no attention to the forces of tyranny!
You claim this war was pre-emptive would you care to address that?
Pre-emptive implies there was no action taken by the target to provoke war.
Were the US to up and attack Brazil that would be a pre-emptive war. But the initiation of conflict was begun by Iraq in 1991. We did not start a new war we continued a previous war which had went into stasis due to an agreed cease fire which Iraq signed.
This cease fire was a contract which Iraq violated warnings were issued to cease the actions which violated the terms of the cease fire to no avail. So the stick had to come out!
This war was no more pre-emptive than our entry into WW2!
I believe that no man should initiate force against another man. BUT if I am walking down the street and another man comes up to me and raises his fist. I do not have to wait for him to hit me before I respond!! HE initiated the act by taking an aggressive posture I am morally justified in responding with equal force I do not have to risk being hit to have a clear conscience!
Posted by: JB at January 19, 2004 09:38 PM