|
 |
February 21, 2004 CAPTURING BIN LADEN....Andrew Sullivan shakes his head in mock weariness today at the news that Bill Clinton actually tried to obey the law during his attempts to assassinate Osama bin Laden in the late 90s:
The reason for the difference between the Clinton and Bush approaches to killing or capturing Bin Laden should be obvious to everyone: 9/11. A full-scale military solution simply wasn't on the table before 9/11 and would have had no public support. So Clinton did what he could: he authorized covert CIA action against Bin Laden, but he did so within the legal restrictions against assassination that existed at the time. What's more, as the Washington Post article Sullivan cites makes clear, the legal roadblocks against CIA assassination attempts were put there by Ronald Reagan, not by some lefty Democratic administration. Conservatives are fond of claiming that liberals just don't understand that 9/11 changed everything. But if they understand it so well themselves, why do they keep pretending that Bill Clinton was some kind of fainthearted poltroon for not taking the actions that George Bush took after 9/11? The act has gotten old, especially since 2½ years after 9/11 George Bush still hasn't authorized the actions necessary to capture Bin Laden either. Shouldn't Sullivan be complaining about Bush's feckless behavior in not authorizing an invasion of Pakistan? Posted by Kevin Drum at February 21, 2004 04:29 PM | TrackBackComments
The Bush administration didn't try and get Bin Laden in the months before 9/11. In fact, the evidence shows that they ignored the threat more than the Clinton administration. So that argument doesn't hold up. And why is there this strawman that the Democrats won't do anything to fight terrorism? We supported the efforts in Afghanistan, though Bush failed to follow through (a familiar pattern in this guy's life). Posted by: alias at February 21, 2004 04:42 PM | PERMALINKOne can search in vain for any sign that Andrew Sullivan stopped biting the headboard long enough to type more than 100 words about Osama prior to 9-11. Posted by: John Dillinger at February 21, 2004 04:51 PM | PERMALINKAt some point, some Republican somewhere is going to have an epiphany...he or she'll just be sitting there thinking, and suddenly he'll realize... "Hey wait a second. I'm complaining about how Bill Clinton didn't do enough to go after Al Qaeda. I'm thinking of voting for Bush because he's supposed to be the one who can keep htis country safe. But wait a second. He took out the Taliban, and then left Al Qaeda and Bin Laden safe until the election year, and his army didn't really start going after Bin Laden until years had passed. So, if I'm so concerned about fighting the war on Al Qaeda and keepign this country safe...why should I trust the guy who has spent two years without going after Bin Laden to do the job?" It'll be an amazing day. Some day, some Republican is going to realize that. Did Clinton not do enough to go after Al Qaeda in the late 90's? Probably. But at the same time, show me where GWB was saying in 2000 that we needed to go after Bin Laden more. Show me where Bush's first task in 2001 was to go after Bin Laden. Show me how he didn't wait until after 9/11 to launch an invasion of Afghanistan. Until 9/11, everyone missed the threat. Since 9/11, 1 side has avoided going after the threat of Bin Laden, because they were busy in Iraq. In other words...it's time to see how the other side can do. If you have a minute, please visit my web page. Thanks! Posted by: Balta at February 21, 2004 04:53 PM | PERMALINKOff topic but relevant: WASHINGTON, Feb. 21 — The Bush administration says it improperly altered a report documenting large racial and ethnic disparities in health care, but it will soon publish the full, unexpurgated document. "There was a mistake made," Tommy G. Thompson, the secretary of health and human services, told Congress last week. "It's going to be rectified." Mr. Thompson said that "some individuals took it upon themselves" to make the report sound more positive than was justified by the data. http://tinyurl.com/29f4u Yet another example of this administration’s attempts at up-is-downism. It’s getting to the point where I can’t keep up with them all. I think they are finally getting it that their vulnerability now is their credibility – and they are quickly losing it. Not only did shrub & co bungle the pre 9/11 intelligence and
refused to recognize the threat. Post 9/11 they have squandered the
good will of the world, whose cooperation is needed to be effective in
stopping Al Queda, and they have squandered our resources on Bush's
failed Iraq adventure. Do you think we would have Osama now if we used
the billions squandered in Iraq to pay bribes in Pakistan. How about if
we put 150,000 troops on the Pakistan border while paying the bribes. "Conservatives are fond of claiming that liberals just don't understand that 9/11 changed everything. But if they understand it so well themselves, why do they keep pretending that Bill Clinton was some kind of fainthearted poltroon for not taking the actions that George Bush took after 9/11?" This is fair criticism, and conservatives ought not put any more blame on Clinton for mishandling terrorism than they do on pre-9/11 Bush. "George Bush still hasn't authorized the actions necessary to capture Bin Laden either." What the fuck are you talking about? Posted by: Reg at February 21, 2004 04:56 PM | PERMALINKI think we have to recognize that Andrew Sullivan has something seriously wrong with his thinking/judgment/logic parts. Posted by: BayMike at February 21, 2004 05:06 PM | PERMALINKBut since GW will almost certainly capture OBL just in time for the election, that problem will be solved,and poor Andy will have to find another excuse not to vote for Kerry, won't he? Posted by: Maude at February 21, 2004 05:17 PM | PERMALINKSullivan's getting weirder and weirder. I don't know what to make of him these days. His continued support of Bush and the war baffles me, given his generally correct -- from my point of view -- stances on social issues. I've truly come to believe that he would be a hardliner conservative -- even on social issues -- if he weren't gay. I really don't know how else to interpet him. I did read somewhere that some Democratic bigwig has stated on Sullivan that we should view him through the Tory prism in which he originated. Posted by: Tony Shifflett at February 21, 2004 05:17 PM | PERMALINKBalta, The republicans also claim that liberals and the liberal media are ultimately responsible for FBI brass not issuing a search warrant in the Zacarias Moussaoui case. This is another red herring, they owe all liberals an apology. The Karl Rove White House is responsible for thwarting Agent Crowley and her team during the investigation. It seems that political correctness is a sin common to both sides of the political spectrum. This will be laughed at and swept under the rug by the networks and ignored by the right-wing faithful. But check the facts. During the second presidential debate, Bush responded to a question about racial profiling by saying that "Arab-Americans are racially profiled in what's called secret evidence. People are stopped [in airports on suspicion] and we've got to do something about that." He also mentioned his support for legislation sponsored by Arab-American GOP Senator Spencer Abraham to repeal the secret-evidence act. He was then repeatedly asked about his thoughts on racial profiling of blacks and Hispanics, but he evaded the question and kept going back to profiling of Arab-Americans. Two weeks later, the American Muslim Political Coordinating Council endorsed Bush for president. During the election Bush got 76% of the Arab-American vote (which normally is fairly well split. Did the fact that Arab-Americans (oops - Muslim-Americans - sorry Juan Cole) are a small but important voting block in major democratic strongholds like Detroit, New York, and Los Angeles influence Rove (oops! Bush)? You bet it did. And did the FBIHQ people in Washington DC who squelched the request for a search warrant on Moussaoui have some undue influence from the Bush White House????? You bet they did. Dubya has since seen the political error of his ways and is now
curtailing the civil liberties of Arab-Americans. But again the reason
is kowtowing for votes. Another problem that I've always had with Sullivan is that he doesn't seem to read the articles he links to. Sometimes I get the feeling that he skims articles, looking for something he agrees with, and says "the hell with the rest". The Sullywatch blog is particularly good at pointing this out. And also Sullivan's other hypocrisies, such as his famous "milky loads" ads for sex. I think the milky loads thing kinda changed Sullivan's perspective on things, although he won't admit it. A good example of this was Sullivan's take on the whole Bennett debacle of last May. I really couldn't believe his stance on that one, given Bennett's continuing and ongoing campaign against sanity for gay and lesbian relationships. I really despise that pompous moralizer, and Sullivan should too, because of his orientation. Bennett has done a lot of damage to this country. And given his original quick conversion to Republicanism, I suspect it's largely because of the cash flow he receives from it all, kinda like Ann Coulter. Sometimes I get the feeling that Sullivan, no matter what, feels he has to stay in the Republican Party. I doubt whether or not even the party's stance on gay marriage will cause him to reassess his position. When I was a Republican, I finally realized that continued membership would result in intellectual bankruptcy for myself. Particularly given my very liberal views on social issues. I wonder if Sullivan will ever realize that he's shooting the country in the foot with continued support for THAT party. Posted by: Tony Shifflett at February 21, 2004 05:31 PM | PERMALINKIn 1998 and after, the GOP was doing everything in its power to undermine the authority of the Executive Branch. Congress acts as a governor to the executive, as it should, but the Republicans derided Bill Clinton's attempts to excercise presidential authority in any theatre. Imagine if Clinton had proposed an attack on Afghanistan. The GOP would have characterized it as an effort to buck up Clinton's popularity. I remember at the time thinking that this screetching partisanship, this framing every argument in terms of how it might diminish or augment the power of the Republican Party, might have lasting consequences. On 11 September 2001, it did. Why do the ultranationalists who have siezed control of the Republican Party hate America? Posted by: Brian C.B. at February 21, 2004 05:31 PM | PERMALINK"Why do the ultranationalists who have siezed control of the Republican Party hate America?" I wish I had an answer to that one. I always used to think that the Republicans stood for smaller government and less spending. But instead, they continue promoting the U.S. as some sort of global police force, causing much resentment around the world. I would never claim that we deserved 9/11 - but it's hard to deny that less people would want to attack us if we would leave them to their own affairs. Posted by: Hot Abercrombie Chick at February 21, 2004 05:38 PM | PERMALINKWhile we're on the subject, has everyone pre-ordered Richard Clarke's "Against All Enemies: Inside the White House's War on Terror--What Really Happened"? I'm sure it'll provide crackling reading between March & November. Posted by: Grumpy at February 21, 2004 05:38 PM | PERMALINK"George Bush still hasn't authorized the actions necessary to capture Bin Laden either." What the fuck are you talking about? umm . . . I think he's talking about the fact that, far as I know, OBL hasn't been caught yet . . . obviously, the "miltary" solution that Sully celebrates hasn't been much more successful, in terms of catching OBL, than the muddled "law enforcement" approach, at least so far . . . we'll see how well the "spring offensive" goes. Bush should hope it works better than Tora Bora, where, recall, OBL got away once again, in the midst of a half-assed "military" action . . . Whatever happens, it seems indisputable that we could have had a better chance catching OBL a LOT earlier had such an offensive been pursued 2 and half years ago, rather than getting bogged down in the grand distraction of Iraq . . . Posted by: trixi at February 21, 2004 05:40 PM | PERMALINK"And why is there this strawman that the Democrats won't do anything to fight terrorism? We supported the efforts in Afghanistan, though Bush failed to follow through (a familiar pattern in this guy's life)." That's what I'm thinking. The Democrats need to come out hard on these issues. If they are willing to support the war on terrorism, even if it means for once agreeing with Bush, they have to. It has reached the point at which the Democratic campaign has been reduced to dialling down the middle on any issue. We need to put our mark on every issue available, most notably the economy and the war on terrorism. Please visit Sortapundit if you have a moment And thanks to Balta for suggesting a more polite method of plugging a site in a comments box. Posted by: Keith Taylor at February 21, 2004 05:41 PM | PERMALINKOne thing I forgot to mention in my last post was the whole Sullivan vs. Marshall deal in the last month or so. In which Sullivan seemed to believe that Marshall didn't mention 9/11. This was even though it's pretty clearly stated in the article. Our man Andrew then seemed to have a problem admitting he was wrong. You can tell the guy has a HUGE ego. His final half-assed admission was weird in and of itself. A personal story. I came to blogs via Sullivan. I had heard he had a website, and wanted to check it out, even though by then I was on to him and his ways. I had been a reader of his back when he was a bigshot at The New Republic. He and I are almost the same age, and I admired the guy for his writing back in the early and mid 90's. The problem with him is that if you read him for a long period of time, you start to see the bundle of contradictions that he is. He is entertaining though. So, I thought, what the hell -- let's check out his site -- I didn't know the term blog then. I googled him up, and Sullywatch was there also. Immediately got addicted to Sullywatch - which lead me here. Posted by: Tony Shifflett at February 21, 2004 05:44 PM | PERMALINKNow why isn't the fact that the Kohbar towers bombing, the 2 embassy bombings, and the attack on the USS Cole not enough for more military action than launching cruise missiles? You don't think the public would have responded positively if Osama had been linked to all of those events? If we had pursued al Qeada into Pakistan, what do you think the odds are that there would have been a civil war in that country? Governance is difficult at best. Now we find that parts of the Pakistani militray were involved with the selling of nuke technology to other countries. Would we have learned that if we had caused the civil war? Agent Crowley was thwarted by a Janet Reno directive that prohibited terror investigations from sharing information with criminal investigators. That has since been rectified. How is he curtailing the civil rights of Arab Americans? The Arabs or Muslims detained had violated conditions of visas. Overstaying their visit periods. No longer in school. Not employed. Where are the examples of Arab American civil rights violations? As I said before, how can you squander good will of you suppossed allies when they work against you behind your back? Russia, France, and Germany all selling prohibited material to both Iraq and Pakistan. Then they will not abide by their votes in the U.N. What goodwill? How were we better off before? What has the U.N. done to keep peace in the world? N. Korea? They want us to negotiate unilaterally. Bosnia and Kosovo? We're still there years after Clinton said we would have our troops home. And al Qeada is now fromenting unrest in the region while the UN does nothing. Ivory Coast, Haiti, Rwanda, Somilia? A lot of good the UN did in everyone of these places. Food For Oil was one of the biggest financial scams in history. Forty plus nations are involved in Iraq and Afghanistan. Doesn't look like we're without too many friends now does it? Posted by: Meatss at February 21, 2004 05:46 PM | PERMALINKMeatss Oh!! Reno did it??? Of course, I should have known that Bush's words about stopping the practice of Arab-Americans being profiled and stopped in airports on suspicion had nothing to do with Grover Norquist and Kommander Karl. Posted by: james at February 21, 2004 05:52 PM | PERMALINKKevin; First of all, thanks for providing a forum for challenging Sullivan's positions. It is telling that his site doesn't allow comments from readers (Glenn Reynolds is also guilty of this). Right Wingers are not interested in hearing opposing viewpoints. Liberals understand very well that 9/11 changed everything. It provided cover for the NeoCon's long-planned efforts to remake the US government and American society to their liking. It seems to me that the exact opposite is true for Republicans--they don't understand how 9/11 changed everything. Bush had plans to invade Iraq before 9/11, and since Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, it is unbelievable that those events did not change his plans. This is, to me, a strong indication of where Bush's real priorties lie. Posted by: Vesicle Trafficker at February 21, 2004 06:00 PM | PERMALINKmeatss, are our soldiers dying in Bosnia? Just wondering. Posted by: scarshapedstar at February 21, 2004 06:03 PM | PERMALINKGrotesque Tide, I hear you. I have friends who have been Democrats for many years, mind you, but they won't spend the time to learn the truth. When I try to tell them that we've got to get these people out of office, they laugh and say it's no different that the past-- Democrats tell lies, too, and it isn't going make much difference who's in office. I can't make them understand this time it's different, and they get very upset with me. They think I'm a conspiracy theorist. For one friend now, everytime I read an article from a credible source to back up my arguments, I sent him a link or a copy. If he doesn't take the time to read it, I just don't know what else I can do. Furthermore, I'm not even drunk as I write this! Posted by: pol at February 21, 2004 06:21 PM | PERMALINKMeatss: Right after that debate, the American Muslim Political Coordinating Council (AMPCC) endorsed Bush for President. Some conservative activists publicly credited Muslims for the Republican victory in 2000. Kerri Houston, director of the American Conservative network, wrote: "Muslim-Americans nationwide voted for Bush by an 80% margin-closer to 90% in Florida." Posted by: james at February 21, 2004 06:30 PM | PERMALINKafter 9/11 George Bush still hasn't authorized the actions necessary to capture Bin Laden either. Shouldn't Sullivan be complaining about Bush's feckless behavior in not authorizing an invasion of Pakistan? Are you suggesting that we should invade Pakistan? That’s an interesting idea – how should this invasion be carried out? Should we seek India’s help, or should this be a ‘unilateral’ invasion? Should we seek the help of the UN, who, of course, will not offer it. And what do we do about that little nuke problem? I’m surprised by this suggestion – I thought most on the left agreed with ‘Hot Ambercrombie Chick’s’ idea, based on reactionary Pat Buchanan-style isolationism, that ‘it's hard to deny that less people would want to attack us if we would leave them to their own affairs’ I thought you all were terrified that any conflict would trigger WWIII. Obviously not. I thought Democrats had no foreign policy ideas. Maybe I was wrong. How do you think this invasion could succeed? Agent Crowley was thwarted by a Janet Reno directive that prohibited terror investigations from sharing information with criminal investigators. Actually, I believe that was the law, not just Janet's directive. And, btw, she was after a terrorist connection; it wasn't a criminal investigation. As I said before, how can you squander good will of you suppossed allies when they work against you behind your back? Russia, France, and Germany all selling prohibited material to both Iraq and Pakistan. Then they will not abide by their votes in the U.N. Your link for that information, please? Or is it just one of those "well-known facts" you all make up, since the real ones don't support your position. I'll be happy to reciprocate with links that show that Dick Cheney wanted to end Libya's sanctions before 9/11, AND that Halliburton was selling to Iraq while Dick Cheney was CEO. That, by the way, included the time after the inspectors left. Or just Google it for yourself -- last I looked, Cheney's pro-Libya speech was online, and there has been a fair amount of reporting about Iraq. BTW, I'm talking about documented facts, not conclusions or rumors. Forty plus nations are involved in Iraq and Afghanistan. Doesn't look like we're without too many friends now does it? Yeah - the coalition of the billing. We're paying for a lot of those -- your childrens' and grandchildren's tax dollars at work. Posted by: Ducktape at February 21, 2004 06:32 PM | PERMALINK"Now we find that parts of the Pakistani militray were involved with the selling of nuke technology to other countries. Would we have learned that if we had caused the civil war"
You know what I find perplexing - the Sully character has an advanced degree from the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. I really don't understand the world sometimes. But, conversely, if one thunk about it, what gimmick would Sully have if he wasn't a gay conservative? A gay liberal just isn't too exciting. And talking tough about furriners and the badassness of 'Merica is a pretty easy selling message. Posted by: andrew at February 21, 2004 06:41 PM | PERMALINK"Shouldn't Sullivan be complaining about Bush's feckless behavior in not authorizing an invasion of Pakistan?" Pakistan!?! That is one of the most utterly moronic statements I have read in a very long time. I have a very high opinion of you, and I enjoy your blog, because of the intelligence you apply to issues. But ithat statement displays such complete ignorance about Pakistan that I have to assume it was a joke. Posted by: Adam at February 21, 2004 06:47 PM | PERMALINK"Now why isn't the fact that the Kohbar towers bombing, the 2 embassy bombings, and the attack on the USS Cole not enough for more military action than launching cruise missiles? You don't think the public would have responded positively if Osama had been linked to all of those events?" No. Because Osama WAS linked to all those events at the time and nobody - Democrat or Republican - seemed to have an idea of what to do about it. Remember what happened when Clinton sent cruise missiles into Afghanistan? We heard howlings from the right that it was a big distraction from the Lewinsky scandal. But NOBODY at the time - at least no prominent conservative - criticized Clinton for not doing ENOUGH to get Bin Laden. Considering the lack of support for a too-timid attack against Bin Laden, the idea that political support would have been there for a full-scale invasion of Afghanistan is just ludicrous. Posted by: Elrod at February 21, 2004 06:50 PM | PERMALINK"Considering the lack of support for a too-timid attack against Bin Laden, the idea that political support would have been there for a full-scale invasion of Afghanistan is just ludicrous."
I don't buy all the conspiracy theories. Bush's failures pre-911 were a matter of negligence, not malicious foreknowledge of an attack. He simply didn't see Bin Laden as a major priority for his Administration. He was more concerned with setting up a missile defense program than launching some big offensive against Al Qaeda, even though he had been warned that Al Qaeda was an imminent threat to the United States. Frankly, I don't blame Bush alone for 9/11. But I certainly don't blame Clinton either. There were systemic problems within US intelligence services and law enforcement agencies that prevented the sharing of knowledge that could have thwarted the attack. Oh, and yes, effective law enforcement and communication would have prevented 9/11 just as it prevented the Lincoln/Holland Tunnel bombing and the Millennium bombing. It was a massive failure not of military will or power - though a more thorough attack against Bin Laden in 1998 MIGHT have put a dent in al Qaeda's operations - but of domestic anti-terrorism operations here in the United States. Bush's stonewalling of the 9/11 commission is more about saving face amidst inevitable charges of incompitence and negligence than against some conspiracy to allow 9/11 to happen. Posted by: Elrod at February 21, 2004 07:14 PM | PERMALINKSmalfish: If memory serves, one argument I've heard is that the Reagan assassination ban only covered heads of state (and I assume other high-level members of gov't). Bin Laden, as an unaffliated terrorist, would not have qualified anyways. Curse you for making me dip into a Sully post. Posted by: ArC at February 21, 2004 07:20 PM | PERMALINK1. James at 5:20: And did the FBIHQ people in Washington DC who squelched the request for a search warrant on Moussaoui have some undue influence from the Bush White House????? You bet they did. You're right about Bush pandering to Arabs and Muslims in the 2000 election and afterward, and I'm willing to believe the worst about everything to do with this administration, especially pre-9/11 negligence, recklessness or worse. But your statement seems a bit of a stretch unless you have some concrete evidence. Do you? 2. What nauseates me the most about post 9-11 is the willingness of
the Cong. Reps. to collaborate in the failure to investigate and
possibly coverup what happened. I can understand, (but of course, not
excuse), Bush et al. wanting to cover their tracks (what perp doesn't),
but Reps in Congress are acting irresponsibly if not treasonously in
aiding and abetting them. They are endangering us to cover their party
leader's ass. It's shameful. I really hate to break it to you all, but there really is NO reason to pay attention to (other than determining what the enemy is thinking) or debate what Andrew Sullivan says or writes. This is a man who claimed that he is HIV+ because of a "mistake" (or something to that effect), thereby aligning himself with people who contracted HIV thru transfusions. Unfortunately, Andrew's mistake just happened to be that (and I hate to hurt your intellectual sensibilities here) he happened to swallow another man's seed. This is a man who has lambasted the gay men of San Fransisco for their promiscuity and hedonism while simultaneously placing an add on BarebackCity.com (i.e., having unprotected sex even tho you might be infected). This is a British citizen (whose medical bills are being paid, in part, by the American public) who has spent the better part of two years telling Americans how to be patriotic. This is a man, who, because he has a better than average vocabulary and a British accent, and is a "independent" republican, has caught the eye and ear of the American media. His arguments are, for the most part, intellectually bankrupt and his primary concern is himself. He is not worth anyone's time or notice. Were there one "American" that even bigoted Americans should say "Why don't you go back where you came from, Andrew Sullivan is one (as opposed to Margaret Cho, who just happens to be a native American). Posted by: doug at February 21, 2004 07:22 PM | PERMALINKThe press has'nt even picked up on the residents backtracking on the agreement to meet with the commision.I have to agree that a conspiracy is a crazy concept to grasp.But really,where else can a logical thinker go.I'm one who has been a cow for many years believing all that the medial had to offer.I have been leary of what any administration has ever offered.This is what perplexes me in that no one questions this administration.NO ONE! Posted by: smalfish at February 21, 2004 07:24 PM | PERMALINKGood points Elrod.. Sullivan et al. seek to exonerate Bush by blaming Clinton. But that's faulty reasoning. We Dems. reflexively defend Clinton. But it's not necessary. Any (supposed) negligence by Clinton does not excuse Bush. He had plenty of time and warning, no matter what happened in the prior adm. Posted by: Upper West at February 21, 2004 07:25 PM | PERMALINKUpper West: What concrete evidence exists for statements from Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Meatss, and the rest of the pack that it was liberal political correctness that hindered Crowley's investigation??? Zero!!!! I think the key point is not who stopped the Crowley investigation (although I believe with every fiber of my being that it was a Bush White House directive, hopefully an honest FBIHQ agent or clerk will pass it to the commission). The key point is Bush's statement about stopping the practice of Arab-Americans being profiled and stopped in airports on suspicion. And then a year later - duh!!!! Posted by: james at February 21, 2004 07:39 PM | PERMALINKI am not advocating a conspiracy. I am saying Bush was looking for votes. He got them. He followed up on his promises (for once). And now is too cowardly to admit it. Posted by: james at February 21, 2004 07:43 PM | PERMALINKSmalfish: Occam may just be correct. Though I too am loathe to bite
on the bait of such an absurdity, given the reports coming out of DC of
late (from whistle blowers linked here in several threads and other
places about the web) a picture does begin to emerge of a concerted
group effort toward such a process. Added to this, the past
conivances of ChenyCo and other ties with CIA (whom we all know to be
the most honorable of persons ;=) there would seem to be a continuation
of trends which became starkly aparent in the post Viet Nam "sorting
out" of things. Sorry, I'm afraid I have to bring "history" up once again, but there were some very startling revelations post Nam with regard to the activities of CIA and others (oil and banking interests) and involvements in the mess overall. Yes, I know Iraq, OBL, etc. is not VN, yet I believe there are some parallels between the two scenarios. Posted by: Alli Gator at February 21, 2004 07:44 PM | PERMALINKJames. Agreed about the possible (probable?) cause and effect between Bush's debate statement and pre-9/11 failures, and the ridiculousness of the PC charge re the investigation. I was just wondering if you had seen any specific evidence of pressure. It's obviously something that would come out if there really was a serious post 9-11 investigation. Posted by: Upper West at February 21, 2004 07:47 PM | PERMALINK"...why do [conservatives] keep pretending that Bill Clinton was some kind of fainthearted poltroon for not taking the actions that George Bush took after 9/11?" And why do they pretend that George Bush was not a fainthearted poltroon for not taking those actions until after 9/11, despite having had more dire warnings of imminent threat than Bill Clinton ever had? Posted by: DanM at February 21, 2004 07:47 PM | PERMALINKMy biggest problem with Andrew Sullivan these days is his pushing the false dichotomy between the law enforcemnt vs. military action approach to the war on terror. The bombing of Afghanistan in 1998 was a military action, even if it was a lame one. And the Patriot Act, flawed as it is, is a domestic law enforcement matter. Neither the Bush Administration nor the Clinton Administration can be said to espouse law enforcement or military action AT THE EXPENSE of the other. Both administrations used both means. Now as for using each tactic wisely a different picture arises. Probably the big problem for Sullivan's argument is that he still clings to the idea that the attack against Saddam Hussein was a central component of the war on terror. Thus, he views the invasion as a more thorough execution of the military approach to the WOT, since finishing the job in Afghanistan didn't seem to be sufficient. Christopher Hitchens makes this same arguemnt. But both just look ridiculous now as we hear evidence from both captured al Qaeda and Saddamites that the two were working at cross purposes, not in cahoots. And to say we were fooled is just non believable. The fact is, the Bush Administration believed that attacking Iraq would send some sort of message to Al Qaeda that we would use our military in a big way. But since the al Qaeda enemy seems to reside behind the borders of our allies - Pakistan and Saudi Arabia in particular - rather than with actively hostile states (Iran is on the fence here but still less than SA and Pakistan), this great military action has sent us backward in the war on terror. We are now bogged down in the rebuilding of Iraq when we could have used our resources to finish the job in Afghanistan, not to mention pursue terrorists in Indonesia, Kenya and other places that could benefit from the assistance of US Special Forces. Moreover, what members of the Coaliation of the Willing would join us next time after the massive failure to find WMD? Britain? No way. Australia? Not a chance. The others? Not enough to matter. And not to mention the fact that the supposed "backstabbers" in France and Germany have actively pursued Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and through their own law enforcement bodies. Gratuitously burning these bridges will hurt our ability on both ends of the WOT - intel/enforcement and military action. Military action is essential in the war on terror. But misapplication of military action renders both future military options and worldwide law enforcement less effective. Posted by: Elrod at February 21, 2004 07:58 PM | PERMALINKWhy has everybody forgotten about Clinton's plan to "roll back" Al Queda? It is well documented that the Clinton Administration, in response to the Cole bombing prepared an operation to "put boots on the ground" in Afghanistan and go after Bin Laden and his crew. The plan was completed in 12/2000 but because of the fact that the administration was a "lame duck" Sandy Berger was given the task of bringing the Bush team up to speed. He spent days with Condi Rice, telling her that Al Queda will be the biggest issue they have According to Barton Gelman's reporting (WaPo) in late '01 and early '02 the Bushies ignored it completely and cancelled all activities including standing down the quick strike force that was floating a few hours away in the Indian Ocean and disrupting the arming of the Predator Drones that the military had flying over Afghan air space. Hell, why did Ashcroft submit a budget on 9/10/01 that diverted resources away from anti-terror? There is a lot of blame and second guessing going on. Andy evidently didn't get the new GOP talking point about Bush being "responsible". If he had, he would stop making excuses for him and blaming others. Posted by: def rimjob at February 21, 2004 07:58 PM | PERMALINKHm... maybe when Holland is under water due to global warming, then
and only then can Bush act on global warming, saying "Holland changed
everything" "Hm... maybe when Holland is under water due to global warming"
Smalfish, it scares the hell out of me that I agree with you. In addition to all of those things about 9/11 itself and its immediate aftermath that just don't add up to anything good, it sure was convenient that they had that Patriot Act all ready to go... especially when it was so big that almost no one had a chance to even read the whole thing before a vote was demanded. Posted by: Ducktape at February 21, 2004 08:19 PM | PERMALINKSmallfish, last time I checked, ice was the solid form of water:) Posted by: marky at February 21, 2004 08:22 PM | PERMALINKPosted by Hot Abercrombie Chick: "I would never claim that we deserved 9/11 - but it's hard to deny that less people would want to attack us if we would leave them to their own affairs." Hard for you to deny it perhaps, but all too easy for those who have not the slightest interest in leaving them to their own affairs. In their view, the affairs of other nations are our (with "our" meaning: those in power) affairs -- their resources ours to plunder and their people inconsequential except as tools to increase corporate wealth and U.S. power. Those opposing them become enemies, just as they do in this country. Should these enemies, in their oppression and desperation, dare to strike back as they did on 9/11, those who denied their right to be left to their own affairs will use every tool at their disposal (every able body of a soldier, every disabled body of a citizen) to attempt beating them into submission. The inevitable result is not freedom in the Middle East, but a world-wide police state and a complete lack of freedom everywhere -- except, that is, in the hands of a very few who are powerful and wealthy and who insist on and enforce their right to be left to their affairs. Posted by mary: "Are you suggesting that we should invade Pakistan? ... I’m surprised by this suggestion – I thought most on the left agreed with ‘Hot Ambercrombie Chick’s’ idea, based on reactionary Pat Buchanan-style isolationism, that ‘it's hard to deny that less people would want to attack us if we would leave them to their own affairs’ I thought you all were terrified that any conflict would trigger WWIII." It might well. I've heard no loud call from the left that we should
invade Pakistan. Their nukes are a deterrent for even those on the
right, whose bullying nature is to pick fights only with the weakest
possible opponents. Characterizing the leftist notion that we should
leave nations to their own affairs as "reactionary Pat Buchanan-style
isolationism" is erroneous. Isolationism, like imperialism, is just
another form of competition, which inevitably oppresses the masses. Only
when cooperation and common interest become official policy with the
underlying goal of advancing humanity can the world hope to be free of
those who would aggressively grab power for their own interests,
indifferent to the suffering of others. A system that rewards
selfishness is doomed to its own destruction. Survival of the fittest is
nothing but a fight to the last man. If you think I'm advocating
communism, you're wrong. I'm advocating kindness, kindness, kindness,
and more kindness. Marky,Thats the problem with the global warming concept.No one whos a laymen knows that warming will lead to ice. http://www.whoi.edu/home/ Woods hole institute has a very good explanation and is starting to
draw some conclusions as to how it will come about.Critics are so misled
and dont believe this.This is why critics dont believe its
happening,because they see the winters being so cold. I don't think it is enough to defend Clinton by saying 'those were
pre-9/11 days." Rather, lets attack Bush I and Reagan, justly and
brutally, for having set this country up for 9/11. Let's talk about the
entrace of Sheikh Omar Abdul-Rahman into this country in 1990 -- during
Bush's term -- on a visa signed by a CIA man in Sudan. Let's talk about
how he planned the first bombing of the WTC. Let's talk about how
Reagan's out of control CIA, setting up the world's second largest CIA
headquarters in Islamabad in the eighties -- second to Langley, that is
-- basically hotwired the network of Islamic thugs that later nurtured
repeated attacks on the U.S. during Clinton's term. Let's talk about how
this was predictable to anyone after the Soviets pulled out in 89 from
Afghanistan, yet for four years, Bush the first's priority was to coddle
Pakistan's military. Lets talk about how Bush II is coddling another
military dictator in Pakistan, who we already know has sold nuclear
weapon technology around the world. Let's not play patsy with the Andrew
Sullivans -- those are the people who have led us from debacle to
debacle. Since Bush I wants to push back the question of intelligence
failures, lets make that a positive investigation -- let's go into the
American right's complicity in the 80s jihad ideology. As to Janet Reno. She authorized a Grand Jury to examine the evidence against Osama Bin Laden in 1998, and in June, 1998 Bin Laden was indicted in the Southern District of New York. Mary Jo White, then Federal Prosecutor and Peter Fitzgerald (now in charge of Plame investigation) brought the indictment in. The charges had to do with Bin Laden's Somalia efforts to kill Americans and American military, and included conspiracy charges. The indictment was expanded after the E. African Embassy Bombings. Most of the evidence put before the grand jury was testimony that had been acquired in the WTC 1993 bombing trials, and the UN and tunnel plots. They also used considerable CIA intelligence in the indictment. The fact of the indictment was closely held -- Richard Clarke knew about it, apparently Sandy Berger did not. John O'Neill of the NY FBI was critical in the investigation, and the investigation had lots to do with his battles with Freeh. I await Claeke's book to see if he can sort out the politics and turf battles here -- we do know that Freeh was pretty cozy with the Saudi's, and playing them against Clinton. We also know something else. One of the first things Bush did in coming to office was to remove Mary Jo White from the NY Terrorist cases, even though she was in the midst of the sentencing phase of the last of the Millennium trials, and instead put her to work finding out whether Clinton had done something illegal in pardoning Marc Rich. I don't know what taking her off her nearly completed case was really all about -- but I am keeping that little fact in memory till it fits someplace. Was Bush trying to deep six one of the Clinton era terrorism prosections? Questions need asking. My Source here -- Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon, "The Age of Sacred Terror" (2002) (2003 in Paperback with new material). There are several sources for O'Neill materials relevant to Freeh's relationship with the Saudi's -- and Freeh's relationship with GHWBush during the Clinton Presidency. What's really needed here is to put all the reasonably firm sourced facts in a line, and then frame the proper questions. From what I see it looks as if Freeh and others were trying to point all fingers away from both the Saudi's and bin Laden while much of the evidence and CIA intelligence pointed directly at that nexus. But I await more firm facts. In the meantime, I remind that the modus operandi of the Bushes as per Kevin Phillips is "projection" -- essentially accuse other people of something like what you are actually doing, but don't want to get caught doing. Posted by: Sara at February 21, 2004 08:44 PM | PERMALINKRoger has some very good and valid points.But they leave a little out of the equation.The diputes that OBL has with america is the so called "invasion" of the holy lands,ie, Saudia Arabia.And Americas unwavering support for Isreal and the lack of support of the palestinans.And in some respects OBL is right,Isreal has been in violation of United Nations charters for many years and yet nobody holds them accountable.Bush and Reagan played a very dangerous game when they armed the radical Islamic factions THEY put in place to defeat the Soviets in Afganistan.Even after the Soviets pulled out the US government kept supporting and training these radicals.Clinton had no choice to pull some kind of offensive after OBL and his gang had gotten out ot the proverbial bottle.The CIA has been playing one side against the other in this battle of radicals vs Isreal.The current administration is in bed with Isreal untill the end of time and this so called "war" cannot end untill some sort of settlement of the palastinian plight.You can give Clinton some credit in that he was doing something towards this effort but he did'nt do enough.Weather this was planned or coincendence will probably never come to light.Bush II has no concept of peace plans or the way to compromise,therefor all he can do is use force and strong arm tactics to get something accomplished.Unfortunatly we are all in the way of this juggernaut. Posted by: smalfish at February 21, 2004 08:49 PM | PERMALINKHe can't, because that would mean understanding that our army is tied up in a place that has no connection to Osama Bin Laden. The righties just don't get it, do they? One hopes that the right will split into two groups: war-mongers and the conservatives who realize they've been taken for a ride because they're so desperate to be in a winning party that they can't stand to think of our nation's interests anymore. Posted by: Sugar Plum Fairy at February 21, 2004 08:50 PM | PERMALINKHere's another good one from WaPo: Thanks for the link ali_gator. I believe that the Bush administration has either already got Bin Laden in a secure, secret spot or has made a deal with some group who does - perhaps in Pakistan. He will be dramatically "captured" in another "October Surprise" just as cynically choreographed as the last. Even when it was happening, I looked at the Saddam "capture" as a kind of trial balloon of how big and long the poll boost would be. The Democrats MUST, MUST defuse this issue NOW and KEEP it defused by emphasizing the DELAY in Bin Laden's capture and the fact that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 anyway. Posted by: Cat at February 21, 2004 09:44 PM | PERMALINKIt's funny. I read his post and immediately fired off the note below to him. The I came to Calpundit, and he is so much more nuanced than I. ------------------------- How dare you make such an ill-informed comment. Are you so blind as to see that Clinton's actions were pre- 9/11 and
anything Kerry would do is through the post 9/11 lens. If you think
Kerry Just when you start making some sense, you have to go off half cocked and say something completely idiotic. Chris Swartout Actually, it is the left that doesn't get it. To hung up in a cult
of personality. OBL is just a rich raghead. Getting him won't do much
about stopping the Islamist's attacks on America. There is no evidence
on this blog that you guys even know what Al Qaeda is. Clue: Al Qaeda
is a data base; co-ordination center for Islamic terrorism. It doesn't
take direct action. It hooks up those that do with support elements.
Say Terrrorist group 'A' captures 4 SA-7's from the Russsians. They
need detonators for their IED's. Meanwhile Terrorist group 'B' has a
box of fuses and 20,000 rounds of AK-47 ammo. Al Qaeda acts as a go
between and arranges transportation as well as paperwork. So taking
down Al Qeada and OBL will not win the war that Muslims are waging
against the West. It will make it more difficult for the terrs to
function. That is why Iraq was a valid part of the war on terror. The
only way to 'win' this war is by converting Islam into a more begin
religion. That can only be done by the Muslims themselves. What the
USA is doing now is buying time. We are doing that by attacking the
logistics structure of the terrorists. This is very difficult, since
Logistics for a guerrilla war are never overt. So the whole thing is a
shadow war, with nothing ever cetain or explicit. And just to make it
really interesting, the players all change sides at random intervals.
If there was a choice, it wold be best to stay out of this sort of
'great game'. But the spread of nuclear weapons has made it impossible
to take a seat on the sidelines. A nuclear explosion doesn't respect
politics. It doesn't matter if you are left, right, Democrat or
republican when ground zero is the next block over. I don't think that
the West can win. The West will get tired of killing before the muslims
get tired of dying. And if we buy the time for some moderates to
emerge in Islam , they will still use the Convert or die thingy on the
rest of the world. That is a base part of Islam and the only way around
that is to destroy Islam. I don't think it is possible to destroy a
religion. If it was the Romans would have wiped out the christians.
And America under Islam would become another 3rd world shithole, just
like what is happening in Europe. I'm not a big fan of GWB and I
consider Ashcroft the greatest danger to the republic since Burr, but at
least President Bush knows we are in trouble and is trying to do
something about it. The Democratic canidates are clueless. The Left
seems to think that everything is normal and it's all just some sort of
plan by Krazy Karl R. If a democrat presented a better plan for saving
our nation, then they would get elected. Pretending that nothing is
wrong is not the way to get to the White House. You will see in
November. Yeah, damn that Clinton guy. It must be his fault for 9/11! Those airplanes must have been hijacked right after takeoff in early Jan 2001 when Clinton was still president, and flying around until they hit NYC and DC in Sept. 2001. Why didn't Clinton do anything about it? Sheesh!
Shorter ableiter: Why don't we go into their lands and forcibly convert them to Christianity. That will make us safe. Posted by: Elrod at February 21, 2004 10:40 PM | PERMALINK" I'm not a big fan of GWB and I consider Ashcroft the greatest danger to the republic since Burr, but at least President Bush knows we are in trouble and is trying to do something about it. The Democratic canidates are clueless. " Y'know, I was in Oklahoma a few weeks ago and heard almost the exact same line, without the Burr part, at a party. I like that little addition, though. It definitely gives the sense the person knows what s/he is talking about it. Of course, there's a great deal of difference between creating the illusion of knowledge and knowledgeability. Contrary to what this fellow writes in his post, al Qaeda is a far more complex phenomenon than a database (or a trained cadre of terrorists, for that matter) as are the Muslims, a diverse religious faith whose followers number over 1 billion worldwide and about which our correspondent here makes equally fatuous generalisatons. And one would think that if Ashcroft is the most dangerous threat to the Republic since Burr, why then we might want to set our priorities to first remove this threat before concentrating on the lesser threat of bin Laden. As I see it, however, neither bin Laden or Burr is as dangerous to the wellbeing of the Republic as the unfettered breast of a black woman on television. Posted by: tristero at February 21, 2004 11:11 PM | PERMALINKPosted by ableiter: "but at least President Bush knows we are in trouble and is trying to do something about it." According to your post, that "trouble" is the near inevitability that the West will be destroyed by militant Islamicists. In other words, apart from buying time, nothing Bush is doing can prevent that destruction. I agree with that. As you point out, killing them is useless if they never tire of dying. So aggression won't work. Humility is required. The U.S. needs to take actions which clearly show it is denouncing its imperialistic policies. Beginning with a humble apology to the world for our many misdeeds and greedy disregard for the massive suffering of billions, we must make every effort to bring about a new order of fairness and equality. If Saddam living in palaces was a theft from his people, then so too are thieves the many thousands of palace dwellers living in this country and elsewhere. If the mere possibility that he possessed WMDs was a threat to others, the positive fact that we possess many thousands of times more of them than he could have ever hoped to acquire makes us a deadly threat to the entire world. If his "rape rooms" were evil evidence that his regime should not be preserved, then how can we ignore the existence in our "freedom loving" society of millions of rape rooms where millions of women and children become victims every year -- Is that the way of life we want to preserve? Unless this nation is led in goodness, our actions in the world dictated by that ultimate value, we will rightly be seen as evil by the people of the world. The Moslem world will tolerate us -- even love us -- when we really show tolerance and love. Bush will never do this. Because he is a barbarian strutting around in whatever suit he thinks will authenticate his entitlement, he sees only a barbarous world which must be conquered. While any Democrat who might miraculously win election would likely only marginally improve the world condition and its survivability, it would be a start in the right direction. Ultimately, we do need someone like Nader or Kucinich or Chomsky (or Doris Haddock), else, as with Bush, we will only be buying time until the corporatists have ravaged the world and walled themselves up in nuclear-proof castles.
*feigns mock weariness* Good job, poltroon rules, tooo. Posted by: Churl at February 22, 2004 01:18 AM | PERMALINKOf course, if Bush had invaded Pakistan, that would have diverted military resources that he knew would be required for the invasion of Iraq. Posted by: raj at February 22, 2004 04:14 AM | PERMALINKpoltroon? Nice one. Excerpt: Bill Clinton's far-reaching plan to eliminate al Qaeda root and branch was completed only a few weeks before the inauguration of George W. Bush. If it had been implemented then, a former senior Clinton aide told Time, we would be handing [the Bush Administration] a war when they took office." Instead, Clinton and company decided to turn over the plan to the Bush administration to carry out. Clinton trusted Bush to protect America. This proved, nine months later, to be a disastrous mistake - perhaps the biggest one Clinton ever made. Clinton's National Security Advisor Sandy Berger remembered how little help the previous Bush administration had provided to his team. Believing that the nation's security should transcend political bitterness, Berger arranged ten briefings for his successor, Condoleezza Rice, and her deputy, Stephen Hadley. Berger made a special point of attending the briefing on terrorism. He told Dr. Rice, “I believe that the Bush administration will spend more time on terrorism in general, and on al Qaeda specifically, than any other subject.'' Which brings me to a lie. When Time asked about the conversation, Rice declined to comment, but through a spokeswoman said she recalled no briefing at which Berger was present" Perhaps so, Dr. Rice. But might I direct our mutual friends, my readers, to a certain December 30, 2001, New York Times article? Perhaps you know the one, Condi? Shall I quote it? "As he prepared to leave office last January, Mr. Berger met with his successor, Condoleezza Rice, and gave her a warning. According to both of them, he said that terrorism-and particularly Mr. bin Laden's brand of it-would consume far more of her time than she had ever imagined.'' ... On Operation Ignore Day 208, Ashcroft sent his Justice Department budget request to Bush. It included spending increases in sixty-eight different programs. Out of these sixty-eight programs, less than half dealt with terrorism. Way less than half. In fact, none of them dealt with terrorism. Ashcroft passed around a memo listing his seven top priorities. Again, terrorism didn't make the list. On the next day, the world shook. The day after that, they started blaming Clinton, covering their tracks, and accusing liberals of blaming America. Posted by: Al at February 22, 2004 06:02 AM | PERMALINKThere is reportedly going to be a Spring offensive this year, although Pakistani souces say no American troops will be allowed in. But why wasn't Spring of 2002, after the last big battle in Afghanistan, the time this should have been done? I'm not that worried about an October surprise, because there is not a snowball's chance in hell of getting him in an area that large with half-hearted Pakistani cooperation. Posted by: Bob H at February 22, 2004 09:38 AM | PERMALINK"Its also interesting in that this article only shows the Clinton administration in a bad light.Another sign the 4th estate is for the current administration?" The conspiracy nuts are out in force this morning. The WaPo is unlikely to be supporting Bush but if you believe: "So aggression won't work. Humility is required. The U.S. needs to take actions which clearly show it is denouncing its imperialistic policies. Beginning with a humble apology to the world for our many misdeeds and greedy disregard for the massive suffering of billions, we must make every effort to bring about a new order of fairness and equality. If Saddam living in palaces was a theft from his people, then so too are thieves the many thousands of palace dwellers living in this country and elsewhere." Now there's a Democratic platform to run on. The pessimism and self-hatred of folks like jayarbee is what makes elections so difficult for Democrats. Why bother ? Let the courts do it. If you know you're right, as in gay marriage, just do it. Elections are so clumsy and inefficient. If you are "the only progressive" in a world of stupid blue collar southern "good ol' boys", why give them a chance to screw things up ? You know better. Why you even understand that : "Cmon now it's a reality that 9/11 was allowed to happen for the benefit of this administration.The w/h needed a "new pearl harbor".Why else did bush stay seated in that classroom well after the second plane hit.Why else did NORAD do nothing to stop this from happening,especially flight 175 hitting the pentagon.This was an excersie in "bait and switch"like no other in the history of the world." There you have it. All it takes is the guts to take over. Lenin had
it. Trotsky had it. Go for it! Then we'll see who is mainstream and who
is a nutcase. What were you guys smoking last night ? Is it always like
this on Sunday morning for you ? What a bunch of goofs and conspiracy nuts. Posted by: Meatss at February 22, 2004 10:27 AM | PERMALINKJohn wrote: One can search in vain for any sign that Andrew Sullivan stopped biting the headboard long enough to type more than 100 words about Osama prior to 9-11. Can we cut out the homophobic crap? We're supposed to be the good guys. Posted by: Jesse at February 22, 2004 12:43 PM | PERMALINKFor some time now I've been toying with the notion that there is a distinct and verifiable correlation between progressives--those progressing toward the destruction of our country-- and depressives. That is, those afflicted with clinical depression, anxiety, paranoia etc. No, I'm not trying to be funny. The more I read this blog and others like it, and engage in face to face conversations with people holding similar views, the more I'm convinced that I'm onto something. The subject of a doctoral thesis perhaps? Not likely given the prevailing atmosphere in our colleges. But it's at least food for thought if you approach the subject with an open mind. without spending alot of money, how would you prove or disprove such a theory. Any thoughtful comments? Posted by: Mike at February 22, 2004 02:41 PM | PERMALINKSo, has Sully noticed yet that his boy Bush's picked man, David Kay, credits Clinton's air raids in 1998 with the destruction of most of Saddam's remaining chemo-bio warfare capacity? That would be the raid that Sully's good buddies on the GOP side were deriding as a "wag the dog" sham whose only purpose was to distract from All Monica All The Time. And we all know how important THAT was to our national security. Posted by: DrBB at February 22, 2004 03:41 PM | PERMALINKThe think I noted in my post on Patridiot Watch is that the Clinton administration tried to get bin Laden for three years -- 1998, 1999, 2000 -- and Bush has tried to get bin Laden for three years -- 2001, 2002, 2003. The thing these years all have in common is George Tenet, the director of the CIA. After this record of failure and the WMD fiasco, how does this guy have a job? Posted by: Poppy at February 22, 2004 04:37 PM | PERMALINKPosted by jayarbee (me): "If Saddam living in palaces was a theft from his people, then so too are thieves the many thousands of palace dwellers living in this country and elsewhere." Posted by Mike K: "Now there's a Democratic platform to run on. The pessimism and self-hatred of folks like jayarbee is what makes elections so difficult for Democrats." Hah! I think I'll wait until I get a palace before I start hating
myself. As for pessimism, I suggest you read my post again. The themes
of humility, generosity, kindness, tolerance, hope, and love are the
very essence of positivism. You might want to try it sometime. I'll agree that both presidents did not do enough to get Bin Laden before September 11. However, how do you account for Senator Kerry and Senator Edwards appearing to be in the pre-Sept 11 mindset? I'd love to be able to relax by knowing that any person elected in 2004 will continue the fight against Islamism. Unfortunately that does not seem to be the case today. Posted by: John Davies at February 23, 2004 11:03 AM | PERMALINK"Can we cut out the homophobic crap? We're supposed to be the good guys." true colors shining through. >>> note to john kerry: get elected, then invade pakistan... oh no, wait a minute. get elected. get the UN ok. invade pakistan. oh no no, try again. get elected. check with the UN. let NATO invade pakistan. oh to hell with it. just get elected. don't worry about pakistan, the folks holding up your banners are anti-war-at-all-costs in the first place. they'll not give a rip as long as the "war-monger" is out of the white house. you people are nutso r Sadly for the dead and maimed on both sides, Iraq will prove to be a colossal sideshow, a diversion from the main game. Hell, if supply of WMD know-how were to be the principal criterion, the wrong country has been invaded. GWB has alienated world opinion, so strongly behind the US after 9/11, and has created opportunities for work experience for terrorists. There will likely be civil war in Iraq; the Middle East will likely be more unstable; and the world generally will likely be at greater risk. And the US economy could well be stuffed. Coud Osama have achieved this on his own? Hardly. Meanwhile, Bush/Rice etc are obfuscating with the 9/11 Commission and with the Iraqi intelligence issues. Could Chalabi be the greatest con man in the history of the universe? The odds are shortening. Posted by: John B at February 24, 2004 06:15 AM | PERMALINK>Iraq will prove to be a colossal sideshow In GW-I we had to make a coalition with Arab countries to be able to get troops to the fighting. Not offending the coalition countries allowed Saddam to run free. In GW-2 part of our strategy was messed up when the feckless Turks wouldn't let our troops through. Iraq is a beachhead not a sideshow. Posted by: John Davies at February 24, 2004 07:18 AM | PERMALINKSo, we can assume then that you're asserting the notion that Bush should authorize an invasion of Pakistan. To go after bin Laden. Without getting UN authorization? Without getting France and Germany's approval? A unilateral invasion? Who are you, and what have you done with Kevin? Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) at February 24, 2004 11:15 AM | PERMALINKSome perspective is needed in pinning pre-9/11 blame, even to Clinton. We were all focused elsewhere. That said, I don’t buy the idea that it was a political non-starter to go after bin Laden pre-9/11. Americans have always hated terrorists. A little more explanation of who bin Laden was and huge majorities would’ve supported hunting him down, no matter what. That would’ve taken a truly great leader, not just someone from a different party, but politics was not the ultimate obstacle. It was the recognition that this was such a critical issue. As for openly invading Pakistan, good God. I thought I was hawkish. You need to think long and hard about invading an unstable, nuclear-armed country already teetering on the brink of war against an ally (India). If we went in there, the Pakistani government and its nuclear weapons could easily fall into the hands of the very type of Islamic radicals we’re trying to stop. How you get the main bad guys out of there without provoking a coup and war is a tough question, without easy answers. (Sorry if I’m repeating anyone, I didn’t read every preceding comment.) Posted by: The Mad Hibernian at February 26, 2004 12:49 PM | PERMALINK
Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. Posted by: McCargo Janine at March 17, 2004 06:35 PM | PERMALINKImitation is the sincerest form of television. Posted by: Kramer Zak at May 2, 2004 01:10 PM | PERMALINKA good friend can tell you what is the matter with you in a minute. He may not seem such a good friend after telling. Posted by: Powers Devon at May 3, 2004 12:40 AM | PERMALINK[In] mourning, it is better to err on the side of grief than on the side of formality. A little nothing goes a long, long way. A brute kills for pleasure. A fool kills from hate. Posted by: GrubbRobinson Josh at June 30, 2004 06:02 AM | PERMALINK49ercasino | 777dragon | 7sultans | 7sultanspoker | aceshigh | allpokercasino | aspinallsonlinecasino | authuriancasino | aztecrichescasino | aztecrichespoker | betmaxcasino Posted by: all poker casino at July 1, 2004 12:25 AM | PERMALINKlesbian sex laina sex online dating service anime porn live webcams rape stories gay sex asian sex
handjob movies hi. i'm 20 .. from Brazil... how r u? http://www.latina-sex.name WOW! I like this guestbook... that's cool http://www.online-dating-service.com free anal sex movies gay sex video free gay sex video free gay sex video gay sex asian sex animal sex free anime cartoon porn free lesbian porn sex movies free lesbian porn sex movies public nudity public nudity indian sex movies stories free rape stories videos sexy naked girls porn
animal sex, horse sex, god sex, rabbit sex, fish sex
WOW! I like this guestbook... that's cool http://www.online-dating-service.com http://www.free-anal-porn-sex.com
animal sex, horse sex, god sex, rabbit sex, fish sex
2203 You can buy viagra from this site :http://www.ed.greatnow.com Posted by: Viagra at August 7, 2004 05:56 PM | PERMALINK3039 Why is Texas holdem so darn popular all the sudden? http://www.texas-holdem.greatnow.com Best XXX Sites - Best XXX Sites - 473 get cialis online from this site http://www.cialis.owns1.com Posted by: cialis at August 10, 2004 08:24 PM | PERMALINK303 ok you can play online poker at this address : http://www.play-online-poker.greatnow.com Posted by: online poker at August 10, 2004 09:15 PM | PERMALINKAlways enjoy reading your blog. Thanks! Posted by: discmakers at August 12, 2004 12:10 AM | PERMALINK4373 Keep it up! Try Viagra once and youll see. http://viagra.levitra-i.com Posted by: buy viagra at August 13, 2004 05:09 PM | PERMALINK3203 Get your online poker fix at http://www.onlinepoker-dot.com Posted by: online poker at August 15, 2004 03:50 PM | PERMALINK92 black jack is hot hot hot! get your blackjack at http://www.blackjack-dot.com Posted by: blackjack at August 17, 2004 06:09 AM | PERMALINK1065 so theres Krankenversicherung and then there is 5905 Its great to experiance the awesome power of debt consolidation so hury and consolidate debt through http://www.debtconsolidation.greatnow.com pronto Posted by: debt consolidation at August 18, 2004 10:21 PM | PERMALINK5818 http://www.exoticdvds.co.uk for 7949 check out the hot blackjack at http://www.blackjack-p.com here you can play blackjack online all you want! So everyone ~SMURKLE~ Posted by: play blackjack at August 23, 2004 08:26 AM | PERMALINK7004 check out the hot blackjack at http://www.blackjack-p.com here you can play blackjack online all you want! So everyone ~SMURKLE~ Posted by: blackjack at August 24, 2004 05:20 PM | PERMALINK1728 Herie http://blaja.web-cialis.com is online for all your black jack needs. We also have your blackjack needs met as well ;-) Posted by: blackjack at August 25, 2004 09:34 AM | PERMALINK3370 check out http://texhold.levitra-i.com for texas hold em online action boodrow Posted by: texas hold em at August 26, 2004 11:37 PM | PERMALINK |
|
|
Powered by Movable Type 2.63 |
||||
