As much as I support the imperative to peremptorily, mercilessly, quickly and brutally kill any all all lunatics who seriously and credibly vow to kill others, should they get the chance (i.e., terrorists and their direct material supporters), I don’t necessarily support "The War" in the sense most people apprehend that concept (and this imposition of "democracy" is unnecessary: killing terrorists and would-be terrorists is necessary). And I certainly don’t support this "administration" in any respect beyond the foregoing imperative.
In other words, and as I’ve said repeatedly, brutal, consistent, non-stop, devastating, demoralizing, lustful killing killing killing is what’s important. It’s the quintessential moral imperative: self-defense. And it is those Darwinian misfits, if you get the reference, who mistakenly believe that you ought to allow serious threats of assault to be carried out before you have the moral authority to act. All this nation-building and democracy crap is just getting in the way of more killing, which, should instantly stop the very moment the threat, in its almost institutionalized and certainly cultural form, goes away.
And that’s all there is to it. Alas, my "support" for this War and the political apparatus engaged in prosecuting it is severely curtailed and limited to this core activity, recognized by the fact that it is my only practical means of carrying out such imperative activities at this particular time.
But that’s not all there is to it. As a civilized society engaged in killing those who would actively destroy civilization, if not return it to the dirt-scratching of the fourteenth century, we go to great lengths to protect the innocent, i.e., those who do not threaten to take up arms against us. If not, then we would just nuke the whole damn place and be done with it. We can not. Our conscience will not permit it, and that’s why we’re civilized, and they, those who threaten, are uncivilized savages (who would not hesitate to use those nukes if they had them).
Which brings me to the hoopla. Indeed: we must not just go off half-cocked, killing anything and everything in our path. We use clever and secret means at our disposal to identify those who need killing, sparring those who don’t. It also makes the task less risky for those of us engaged in the battle. We’ve the element of surprise. So, to the extent that the U.S. political and military apparatus engages in various clandestine surveillance for the purpose of killing or apprehending savages, good.
But for what and why, after all, are they doing this? For whom? To what end? Is it not to protect and preserve, for one, actions such as The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and others, took? Or, do we have people dying out there for the "ideal," merely, of "protecting" actions that no one much finds objectionable?
Look: they got the info and they chose to run with it. Tough luck, GW. Too bad that the political apparatus doesn’t control every single little thing. Apparently, that’s what some want; in which case, we’re fighting for absolutely nothing in the world that means more than a runny shit.
You ask me, I say that those newspapers did the administration a favor. After all, if they found out about it, how tough or long until the terrorists found out about it; and then, how tough would it have been to plant a diversion?
Think, people. Quit yer livin’ in goddamn tribes.