Mention that someone was a CIA agent and polar opposite feelings erupt in most people, typically depending on the person's feelings for the agency.
The question here for the great and good people of conscience everywhere (exempting myself as a person with little conscience) is can the US fight a war against terrorism while possibly having someone responsible for loss of life in the cause of defeating communism (paid for by the agency) loose in the country?
From this morning's BBC Online
"The US would have to reconcile its traditional sympathy for the politically influential Cuban exiles in Miami and its firm stand against suspected terrorists in the wake of the 11 September 2001 attacks, our correspondent says.
"
...and my answer: realpolitik -- I don't feel in the least threatened by this guy's existence on our country's soil, nor is his presence on US soil a moral quandry for our terror war. The US is fighting people who want to kill us. The war on terror is not a war for all things good in all times and places (despite Bush's rhetoric). Posada (the guy in question) does not want to kill us; in fact, he wants to kill our enemy.
I hope the agency put him up somewhere nice, gave him a funny name and a few dollars to spend on his retirement...
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
International :: Broad-Minded :: Intelligent
Why you want to read us
What you've found, dear reader, is a blog by disaffected, but good natured, righties.
We're not Christian fundies or religious right cheerleaders. Don't look for anti-abortion rants here. You will find fairly realistic foreign policy discussions and complaints about how insidiously communism is rearing its head among the trendy among us. But not much on the whole angry, Jesus-loves-us-unless-you-disagree-with-us movement, or for that matter the lefty predilection to say everyone-who-disagrees-with-me-is-close-minded sickness. We're more or less mid-way between those loons.
We're occasionally funny, sometimes insightful and often blunt.
Enjoy!
2 comments:
The quandry is not that he has killed people, or that he worked for the CIA. It's that he blew up a planeload of Cuban civillians. I think that fits most people's definition of "terrorism".
Chris, at risk of sounding even heartless than I intend, I will reiterate that my point was made in view of realpolitk; namely, that this guy doesn't want to kill Americans, and on that basis alone, I am not bothered by his presence here or his association with our government.
I agree with you that killing civilians is typically the defining characteristic of terrorists (unless you work for Reuters), and that terrorists are reprehensible.
But the particular BBC article that I referenced implied that the US was a hypocrite for sheltering Posada while fighting a war against other people who have killed civilians. My point was that this guy doesn't want to kill us, while the others do. Personally, I make a distinction among reprehensible a-holes: those who want to kill me and those who don't. I am more charitable to the latter than the former.
If I were in a more moral mood, I might argue, like Bush, that chasing down people who kill terrorists worldwide is the job of these United States. But I am an apathetic moralist at best...
Oh, and about the CIA, my point was that its history has skewed most people's opinion of it and anyone associated with it. The BBC could have said that Posado was just some prick terrorist who blew up a plane full of innocents -- but it didn't. The article states that he was an ex-CIA agent son of a bitch who blew up airplanes. In most lefty eyes a more damning combination can hardly be construed.
Post a Comment