The upshot of that ...article seems to be that political leaders should be immune from public or formal criticism and due process, that they should retain power, authority and respect regardless of their actions. Not a good sign. Also quite unpleasant to see the tired old "if you disagree with me then you're agreeing with the terrorists" routine - [quote]No, it is the real enemies of America that I’m concerned about.

These evil killers who right now, right now are gleefully watching the shrill partisan finger pointing of these hearings and grinning like a mule eating briars.

They see this as a major split within the Great Satan America. They see anger, they see division, instability, bickering, peevishness and dissension.

They see the President of the United States hammered unmercifully. They see all this and they are greatly, greatly encouraged.[/qutoe]If you criticise the President, or try to hold him accountable for something, then you're dividing the nation and encouraging terrorists. Hm.
Congressional hearings have long been one of Washington’s most entertaining pastimes. Joe McCarthy. Watergate. Iran Contra.
Iran-Contra concerned US citizens selling stolen US weapons to Iran in order to finance Central American terrorist groups. A matter of the most profound importance, I'd say - one that needed to be investigated at any cost. Watergate, too, concerned serious allegations directed at prominent politicians. It seems like this author is subtly proposing a return to a mediaeval level of immunity for political rulers, under the guise of 'protecting national unity'.

It is true that today's media cares little for facts and justice, and more for sensation and gossip, but that doesn't change the unshakable importance of having an accountable government. The September 11 terrorist atrocity cost thousands of lives, if internal oversights led to important clues being missed, then it needs to be investigated, so that errors can be fixed and so the country can be left in the hands of those who are competent.
We did nothing after terrorists attacked the World Trade Center in 1993, killing six and injuring more than 1,000 Americans.
The matter was fully investigated to determine who was responsible, and what could be done. It's not like they could justify invading other countries on that basis. You can't simply decide to kill somebody every time a criminal act takes place.
When our embassies were attacked in 1998, killing 263 people, our only response was to fire a few missiles on an empty tent.
US warship fired dozens of cruise missiles into terrorist training facilities and a suspected chemical weapons factory in Afghanistan; this author is deliberately lying in order to provoke the reader. What he seems to be saying is that the government should've ordered the full-scale invasion and annihilation of "the enemy" in response to every incident, and that their failure to do so somehow diminishes our responsibility for what's happening today.

I'd be very much afraid if writings like this became the norm.
La-li-lu-le-lo.





Edit: That Senator's name is really 'Zell'?!?