I absolutely emphatically agree with your analysis/comparison between these to columnists.
Good grief, please tell me that Arkin no longer works in our intelligence community! Geesh!
Just to clearify one thing that I believe that Congressman Weldon stated first and is now repeated in this article, Lt.Col. Shaffer's father did NOT work at the embassy, he was an officer of the United States Air Force, assigned to the MAAG. Believe me the military is barely acknowledged by the State Dept, when overseas.
TopDog You are just the best of the best bloggers, and this is one American that is very proud of what Lt. Col Shaffer and the other whistleblowers have finally brought to light...Thank you for keeping us all up to date on the happenings.
Arkin's AbleDanger column is followed immediately after with a link to your blog, which voices an alternative perspective. It shows a willingness to let people hear both sides and make up their own minds.
You either totally misunderstood Arkin's point or deliberately distort it with your following statement:
"In other words, without even examining the evidence, we all know that nothing could possibly have prevented 9/11 - and nothing could possibly prevent the next major attack - so why don't we stop all the patriotic huffing and puffing already."
Arkin isn't saying there were no errors prior to 9/11, or that nothing could have prevented it or future attacks. On the other hand, in the free and open society we sometimes take for granted, it won't always be possible to prevent a dedicated individual or group of extremists from doing harm; not unless we want to concede most of our hard won freedoms and rights.
Clearly, Arkin is correct to be concerned that there are those in this administration and government who are instilling and exploiting public fear simply to further their own agendas by exaggerating the threat from terrorism or their own roles in fighting it.
Moreover, of more concern is a "big brother" style government where constitutional law is circumvented or ignored by the executive branch and defense/intelligence apparatus to the detriment of open government and our rights and freedoms. While illegal data-mining and domestic wiretaps may from time to time bear some fruit, Arkin's contention is that these acts have provided little or dubious benefit relative to the cost. In judging all available evidence, a significant majority of that appears to support Arkin's position.
Our present conundrum may not be as simple or black and white as, "Give me Liberty, or give me Death", but this administration has not given us a realistic terrorism threat assessment, while discouraging or avoiding healthy, open debate on the options and costs associated to best deal with it. If we are no longer to be a nation guided by the rule of law, what will we become, and become of us? How much of our rights and freedoms are we willing to trade for security, and how much actual security will be gained, if any, after doing so?
My own feeling is that we have already given up more than was needed, and the strategy (to be generous) that this administration has embarked upon to counter terrorism has been counter-productive overall.
Commenting by HaloScan
