Liz Cheney is wrong:
It's hard to know where to start in commenting on Liz Cheney's op-ed in the Washington Post (like, what credentials does she have besides being the daughter of the vice president
?). In any event, in her defense of the administration's Iraq policy, she writes
: (emp orig)
We are at war. America faces an existential threat. [...] We will have to fight these terrorists to the death somewhere, sometime. We can't negotiate with them ...
America does not face an existential threat from terrorists. They don't have the capability.
Speaking of capability, how about the news
yesterday that al Qaeda in Iraq were planning to send operatives (using student visas) to the United States. Did you notice that in all the fuss, there was no mention of what they were planning to do?
Certainly one of the most interesting impacts of 9/11 is that it seems to have completely erased everyone's memory of the previous 50 years. A few bearded lunatics living in caves now pose "an existential threat" that we must destroy now before they destroy us.
What would the Cheneys or Bush or even Rumsfeld have done, if they'd had the power back then, about the Soviet Union and their tens of thousands of nuclear warheads pointed at us? But I guess the threat of complete nuclear annihilation pales in comparison to the threat posed by one religious maniac with a suicide vest.
We are not at war. Only Congress has the ability to declare war and they have not done so. But did I miss something else? As failure is not an option, surely Ms. Cheney has signed up to serve in Iraq. I look forward to the announcement!
>We are at war.
Then enlist Ms. Cheney.