My McCarthy / rendition post (here) drew an interesting comment. The guy, icono clast, likes Michael Scheuer and his messy retirement experiment, "Imperial Hubris." I don't. Interestingly enough, I was bringing up the fact that Scheuer and I agree on one fundamental thing, one that the Left rejects: rendition is a successful program and must continue. Go here for the guy's comment. My response to that comment is below.
I appreciate your opinions, "icono clast". To answer a couple of your questions...
Imperial Hubris is not a great book. I have a copy, and it's a messy internet search crammed into hardcover. I've done a little writing in my life (I've earned more than $100,000 so far with the profession), and I'd be ashamed to put my name on that book, too. This is why he labeled it "anonymous" at first, not because he was protecting his identity for intelligence or security reasons. He was embarrassed.
And there's nothing terribly inspiring about any of Scheuer's content. A sophomore journalism student could have done better. And, sure, writing a book can be done without hate.
Yes, I have kids. Two. I'm beside myself with glee that they have not been close to any serious terrorist attacks in five years. The U.S. has suffered no major attacks since 9/11 -- an attack conceived of and planned in its entirety under Bubba Clinton. We've had no attacks, while Europe has suffered 37 major attacks. Europe's tolerant socialism has failed, whereas someone here is doing something extremely well. Why do I think the left won't give any credit to a Republican president? Perhaps it's just a coincidence we've not been attacked here -- the terrorists, oops, I mean "dissidents", must be biding their time.
Scheuer believes, as most on the far left do, that being "bogged down" in Iraq, or getting stuck in the "quagmire of Iraq" or "reliving Vietnam" through Iraq is preventing the hunting and capture of al-Qaeda terrorists.
That's false on its face.
We're using a small percentage of U.S. military and intelligence capability in Iraq, and also Afghanistan. To assert the contrary, as the Left does every day, is a willful misrepresentation of the facts, or, at best, pure ignorance about the most capable fighting force in the history of humanity.
The same old, tired arguments were trotted out by the Bush-hating left when hurricane Katrina struck. The chord strummed by anti-Bush morons was, "Our troops are all tied up in Iraq, and that's why the Katrina response was slow." It was like an old, plastic LP skipping on a dime-store record player.
"Five hundred thousand peanut butter and jelly sandwiches weren't ready to go on the night of the hurricane, therefore Bush is inept, and racist to boot!"
This is laughable stuff.
Of course, anyone who spent two and a half minutes doing research knew that Louisiana alone had 18,000 available National Guard troops, and Mississippi and surrounding states had similar troop levels that could have been used (at the behest of a Governor, not Bush).
Presently, there are approximately two million trained, equipped troops that could be used for any military action, such as removing Iran's nuclear program.
So, if you feel Scheuer is some kind of great writer, or perhaps that the publishing of his book was an "act of honor", I'd say that when soemeone bashes Bush, the screechy Bush-haters will yell, "Bully for us!" This feeling of "greatness" you have is not as a direct result of any new information or insights from Scheuer, rather it is because the guy feels as you do, and nothing more.
Rather than getting stuck in a "quagmire" of anti-Bush books, why not read some insightful, well-respected works of non-fiction that lack political bias. I suggest "The Case for Democracy", and "America's Secret War". You will learn something about the world from folks who neither hate nor love a Republican president.