Rachel Maddow seems to be having second thoughts about the
war on terror, or at least the length of the war on terror:
Before interviewing former Defense
Department general counsel Jeh Johnson, Maddow noted that German prisoners were
held on U.S. soil during World War II, paralleling the current detention of
terrorism suspects in Guantanamo. However, the war with Germany had a definite
endpoint, while currently terrorism suspects are being held indefinitely.
“We have always held prisoners in
wartime, and obviously we have always killed people in wartime,” she said.
“That’s not what is weird now. What is weird now is that we are doing those
things right now, this year for twelve years now, as part of a war that we say
is a worldwide war in which the only declared
combatant country is us.”
Makes it kind of easy to fight a war, if you don’t even need
another party to accept the invitation. Did
she expect that a war on “terror” would have an endpoint? Was this ever really possible, or just an
attractive name used to leverage the emotionally charged atmosphere of the
country twelve years ago?
“When does this thing we are in now
end? And if it does not have an end — and I’m not speaking as a lawyer here, I am just speaking as a citizen who feels
morally accountable for my country’s actions — if it does not
have an end, then morally speaking it does not seem like it is a war,” Maddow
added. “And then, our country is killing people and locking them up outside the
traditional judicial system in a way I think we maybe
cannot be forgiven for.”
There is no “we” about this.
Speak for yourself, Rachel. Be morally
accountable for your own actions. This should
be troubling enough.
This is one reason why the religion is so hard to
break. Too many equate themselves with
the government. Too many equate the
country with the government.
(h/t LRC)
Reads like Maddow is suffering pangs of conscience for supporting something in a kneejerk, rather than intellectual, manner and now has second thoughts about such support.
ReplyDelete15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudis, yet bush (small letter intended) is shown stating that the 'Saudis are our friends'. Not one Iraqi was involved, yet we go into Iraq again and have been there ever since. How does one square such conflicting statements and actions in one's mind to support the invasion of Iraq and spare the Saudis even embarrassment? Does the explanation 'knee jerk emotionalism' sound appropriate?
The sins of this nation are large and lie directly within the conscience of those who supported and continue to support the slaughter and theft that the abominable 'war on terror' is. That so many do not recant, or even recognize, their part in this abomination is a direct view into the soul of this nation.
I agree wholeheartedly and speak from my conscience when I write: THERE IS NO WE, HERE, MADDOW. Not from the beginning and not now. Speak for yourself.