Gloat over my stupidity - toughness and the presidency

[jpgray]

Many who defend Obama on his retention of expanded executive powers believe extraordinary rendition, warrantless wiretapping, and blowing apart citizens are necessary to be tough on terror--all on authorizations so general as to lack much geographic or judicial constraint.

If that's being tough on terror, what is the standard for being tough on banks? Lenders? Fraud? There's something disconcerting in the fact that we go after documentary evidence more aggressively in the case of Islamic charities than major financial institutions, even when the latter have been factories of fraud, corruption, waste and lasting misery for millions.

The other disconcerting fact is that none of what is required needs any expanded executive powers. Or Congress. A strong DOJ/FBI investigation would do nicely. Terrorists can blow up planes, buildings, ships and people, but it takes a special villain to blow up an economy. When we were in the dark, we were engulfed and made miserable by what was hidden within the banks. What argument is there for maintaining that secrecy now if even our underwear warrants inspection as a potential risk to society?

[Kurovski]

1. Osama bin Laden said out-right his plan was to destroy America by destroying the economy

He knew that we would spend money in a forever-state of panic, lose our rights, and go the way of other empires.

[jpgray]

5. The unfortunate thing is that so many had goals in line with bin Laden

Not even in bad faith necessarily, and certainly not with the same ultimate aims, or backed by the same ideology, but shared goals nonetheless.

[Kurovski]

6. In My edit I essentially took out a statement

making a connection between the bin Laden family and the Bush family, but what the hell.

Yes, i agree.

Project for the new american century basically ordered-up and invited bin Laden. calling on "another Pearl harbor".

[nashville_brook]

2. damn right -- great comparison.

[fascisthunter]

3. Excellent Points!

[chill_wind]

4. K & R.

Such good questions.

[Aerows]

7. I think the mistake many of us make

is that we assume that we pursue these types of policies for "national security". We aren't pursuing these policies for "national security", but out of economics and at the bequest of the MIC. It has been said before, the only real export left in the US is war. Politicians on either side of the political fence are reluctant to do anything that might take away jobs from the defense contractors in their districts.

It's sad, but usually if you follow the money, things that don't make sense suddenly make sense.

[Kurovski]

8. Kick

Something rotten in Denmark.