|
 |
March 09, 2004 TOUGH CAMPAIGN SEASON AHEAD....Is this going to be a tough race or what? It was only last Tuesday that John Kerry clinched the nomination and:
I'm sure I've missed some stuff, but I'm tired. And this was only the first week. Eight more months to go. Posted by Kevin Drum at March 9, 2004 09:40 AM | TrackBackComments
I'm biased, but I would say Kerry has the upper hand here. Posted by: Bob H at March 9, 2004 09:43 AM | PERMALINKThis is Calpundit. We're all biased here! Posted by: Kevin Drum at March 9, 2004 09:45 AM | PERMALINKI score the first round for Kerry. Bush is looking really weak, he can't land any punches, and he's acting like he's fighting a lightweight like Dukakis. Posted by: grytpype at March 9, 2004 09:49 AM | PERMALINKI predict response in the Internet age will make us all very, very dizzy. Posted by: Chris Rasmussen at March 9, 2004 09:51 AM | PERMALINKI'm plum out of care at this point...and we have EIGHT months to go! JUST LET ME VOTE FOR KERRY, DAMMIT. Posted by: Blue at March 9, 2004 09:53 AM | PERMALINKI have to say, Kerry's response to the 'soft on intelligence' attack was spot-on. Not only the campaign bring up the many increases Kerry voted for, but explained the specifics of the Bill Bush was criticizing (including the bill number), the investigation into the excess money, and the fact the Arlen Specter voted with him. Then he used it all as an opportunity to bring up Bush's weak 'It's being looked into' response to the Halliburton price gouging claims. I'm pro-Kerry, admittedly, but the level of detail in the explanation was reassuring. 1) President Bush's adds did not EXPLOIT 9/11 imagery, unless by exploiting, you mean including it in the political dialogue. 2) Sen. Kerry did not have to recruit those relatives of the survivors, that had been done some time ago. 3) Sen. Kerry did not imply that, he said that they were supporting him, and then went on to say that he could not identify them. I guess he felt that he has not sufficiently tried to undercut the President during the primaries, and now is trying to undercut the US on the international stage. Plus, if North Korea and Iran are for you, wouldn't it stand to reason that America would be against you? 4) That was wrong of the GOP, though that is what Sen. Kerry implied, and North Korea implied that as well. 5) Moveon.org is attempting to lower the standards of debate and credibility to a point where they render themselves completely irrelevant, not just sort of irrelevant. 6) Sen. Kerry is "another rich, liberal elitist from Massachusetts". 7) Though his record on national security is sometimes taken out of context, Sen. Kerry's ambivalence, at best, towards the intelligence community has been one of the few issues he has been consistent on. 8) Bush is wrong in attempting to limit his time to one hour, if that is how it was presented. However, Bush could argue that Sen. Kerry spent 3 hours getting a designer haircut, instead of drafting legislation to protect America. This road, on both sides, is endless, and tiresome. Posted by: JD at March 9, 2004 09:54 AM | PERMALINKWhat was my favorite part was the RNC going hog-wild about the MoveOn.org ad, then making sure after some calls of outrage, that they weren't opposed to the content, but to who and how it was paid for... then they go and do the same thing...I love the hypocrisy. What is great is having Kerry being the nominee early on, which I wasn't sure was a good thing, has forced Bush to respond to him, and thus not look presidential. For some reason, he can't talk about people he disagrees with without seeming like a mean-spirited a**. Posted by: PHDnNYC at March 9, 2004 09:56 AM | PERMALINKNot only that, Chris, but the Bush family *always* fights dirty. And Bush has the money to do so, and has no incentive not to go as negative as posisble. All through deniable intermediaries, of course. Posted by: Barry at March 9, 2004 09:58 AM | PERMALINKThis was started by the Republicans Worst hit against Kerry: self-inflicted -- the mention that foreign leaders want him to beat Bush. I have it on good authority (from the Bush campaign) that France is a foreign country. Worst hit against Bush: double blow -- stiffing the 9/11 commission while attending a rodeo, and landing such wimpy blows on Kerry. Accusing him of wanting to "expand the size & reach of the federal government"? More than you already have, George? Posted by: Grumpy at March 9, 2004 10:00 AM | PERMALINK"Citizens United responds with a sarcastic commercial declaring that Kerry is "another rich, liberal elitist from Massachusstts.""
But I too feel like it's time to move on and just get eh election done and over with,unfortunatly I only get to vote in the primary today. If I dont get screwed on my voter reg card (I just move to a new house and havent recieved a card)I'm going to participate in the Kerry campaign here in Texas.Going to take part in the delegate nomination process tonite and then go to the Kerry party tonite in downtown and get involved with the effort to beat the asshole out of office. Posted by: smalfish at March 9, 2004 10:00 AM | PERMALINKBarry and PhdNNYC: What shocks me about the RNC whining about Moveon is that the RNC *desperately* needs 527s in order to run a negative campaign b/c of the "I'm George Bush and I approve this message" requirement. Of course, they'll probably run an ad from a 527, have it so shrill that it is repeated in free media constantly, just as they did in 1988 with the Willie Horton ad. I guess the RNC is working the refs on this one. PS: I swear to God, I live in a swing state and I've seen Bush's ads on free media more than on paid media. Posted by: Chris Rasmussen at March 9, 2004 10:02 AM | PERMALINKI agree that the first round seems to be favoring Kerry over Bush. I'm particularly pleased to see Kerry responding to the feeble mendacity of the GOP spin machine and throwing it back in Bush's face. Kerry seems quite willing to have the 2004 election be a referendum on Bush's performance...that fact alone should have the Republicans very, very nervous. (I think Kerry is exactly right to be ready to make the campaign about 9/11 -- Bush's performance, like in so many other areas, just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.) In addition, Bush was forced to begin his campaign earlier than planned, and his early moves seem to be more focused on appealing to his restive base, while Kerry is reaching out to independents with a united party behind him. Moreover, we may be witnessing the beginning of the end of two of the Bush Administrations most cherished myths: that Bush is a Popular President whose Crack Political Organization Makes Winning Inevitable. It's true that Bush continues to raise money hand over fist, and the full brunt of his war chest has yet to be felt. But Bush appears right now to be dancing to Kerry's tune. He appears to have lost the initiative, and it remains to be seen if the money factor can turn that unenviable situation around. If Bush is forced to spend more of that money shoring up his base and campaigning in supposedly safe states -- as well as ones that he absolutely *must* win, like Florida -- that situation can't help but favor a united and inclusive Democratic party. Posted by: Gregory at March 9, 2004 10:02 AM | PERMALINKJD, Bush's ads showed a *body* being removed from the rubble. That is exploitation, pure and simple. Any questions? Posted by: Gregory at March 9, 2004 10:03 AM | PERMALINKSen. Kerry is "another rich, liberal elitist from Massachusetts". can anyone define "elitist" in such a way that it includes Kerry but not Bush ? i can't. Posted by: cleek at March 9, 2004 10:04 AM | PERMALINKYou're saying that the Bush campaign now has the Willie Horton people producing ads for them? Just like dad. Posted by: Spinning Tops at March 9, 2004 10:05 AM | PERMALINKcan anyone define "elitist" in such a way that it includes Kerry but not Bush ? i can't. As far as I can tell, the GOP is using 'Elitist' in it's broadest terms. Meaning 'Someone who doesn't vote the way we like'. Chris : How deftly you ignore that the liberals beloved algore is the one that originally raised the whole willie horton issue. Gregory : That image was on the screen for less than 2 freaking seconds. Additionally, were there not thousands of body bags removed from Ground Zero? This was a defining moment, good or bad, for whomever was in the White House. However, when it comes to national security, the Dems would always prefer to change the subject. Elitist refers more to the haughty condescending pedantic attitudes that one may, or may not, possess. Posted by: JD at March 9, 2004 10:08 AM | PERMALINK"Moveon.org is attempting to lower the standards of debate and credibility to a point where they render themselves completely irrelevant, not just sort of irrelevant."
With 8 months to go, with attacks, counterattacks, (counter)+ counterattacks already unleashed, a hyper-vigilant blogosphere scrutinizing every utterance, I've got to believe that we will see the best vetted candidates, and most informed political decisions by voters, in American history. When you've heard about issues and people ad nauseum, THEN you understand them. For some unnamed reason, I find myself inclined to hold that all this will hugely favor the Democrats. Posted by: frankly0 at March 9, 2004 10:10 AM | PERMALINKThis is just a feeling... No--I am not saying that our education system has suddenly prepared our citizens to defraud slogans, labels and bumpersticker. Rather--in the constant evolution of subtle word shifts, liberal has lost its opprobrium. Neocon, WMD, tax-cuts, deficit, debt, job-growth...these are the new dirty words. And we should use them most liberally. Posted by: -pea- at March 9, 2004 10:11 AM | PERMALINKI sure hope the extreme political tensions signifying an underlying understanding that this election represents an Endgame for the loser, does not resurrect the years of assassination of the 1960's. Desparate times/desparate measures/desparados. The Left took the lead, as in "led," back then, and were effectively cut off at the knees. Today, the Right having been unmasked will do anything to once again stem the tide. Just hope they're not lockin' and loadin'. Posted by: NoNoNo at March 9, 2004 10:11 AM | PERMALINKBush is not an elitist because he goes to see NASCAR races and likes baseball. Whether or not he comes from old New England money is apparently irrelevant. The fact that he is Ivy League educated is also irrelevant. He plays the role of the rugged, two fisted individualist from West Texas very well. Posted by: Roland at March 9, 2004 10:11 AM | PERMALINKI agree with cleek's implied point that the Bush campaign's attempt to portray Kerry as a "rich elitist" invites unfavorable comparisons that may undercut Bush's regular-guy, straight-shooter image. In fact, Kerry seems to have earned achievements through merit much more than Bush has. Kerry went to 'Nam; Bush got into the TANG through family connections. Kerry earned his way into Yale; C-student Bush made it in as a legacy. On and on...I don't think the GOP really wants to go there. In the same vein, I can't wait for Kerry's VP pick to challenge Cheney's ridiculous assertion that he earned his millions with no help from the gummint. Posted by: Gregory at March 9, 2004 10:11 AM | PERMALINK>For some unnamed reason, I find myself inclined to hold that all this will hugely favor the Democrats. That's because we have a little thing called _truth_ on our side... Posted by: me at March 9, 2004 10:11 AM | PERMALINKThank God France is not part of your country. I wouldn't want to be complicit in what's going on in the USA today. If Kerry is elected, though, you can ask me again. Posted by: Michele at March 9, 2004 10:12 AM | PERMALINKEight more months to go. I don't see any alternative. All the numbers show a persistent and even split -- it's been a "50-50" country for at least 5 years now, and arguably more like 10 -- which means neither side has any incentive to give an inch. And we can debate "who started it" forever, but there's no question that the Bush family doesn't shy from a dirty fight -- just remember Lee Atwater. And frankly, I'm a little glad of it, as I think many Democrats are. For whatever reason, the party leadership has behaved for years like a bunch of spineless accomodationists, and the result has been the loss of Congress, the White House, and arguably also the federal courts, and the most destructive and radical right-wing administration in recent history. It's time the Right was crushed. And if it takes a noisy, nasty campaign to do it, count me in! Posted by: bleh at March 9, 2004 10:13 AM | PERMALINKExploitation? Whatever, man. Lincoln did it too. (may need to scroll up) Posted by: praktike at March 9, 2004 10:13 AM | PERMALINKGrumpy, I agree with the "foreign leaders" self-hit on Kerry. I winced when I read that. Bush's America is a rogue nation that makes every decent country very, very nervous... but it's always a mistake to take a furriner's side against murrica. Hopefully he won't make that mistake again. Posted by: grytpype at March 9, 2004 10:15 AM | PERMALINK"He plays the role of the rugged, two fisted individualist from West Texas very well."
My father in law was born and bred there his entire family is from there from the cotton days and let me tell you BUSH IS NOT A WEST TEXAS GUY!Dont let the pictures distort your movie images. Posted by: smalfish at March 9, 2004 10:17 AM | PERMALINKGW Bush. Another North Eastern rich, illiberal, elitist. Born in New Haven, CT Private School in Andover, MA Legacy admission to Yale University, New Haven, CT Business School @ Harvard, Cambridge, MA Posted by: Armageddonoutofhere at March 9, 2004 10:18 AM | PERMALINKThis is just Bush racing to "define Kerry before Kerry defines Kerry," as Dick Morris puts it. Things will presumably calm down eventually, or we'll all be exhausted long before November! Also, see here for how Kerry should respond to the attacks about his votes on intel spending. Posted by: Lionel Levine at March 9, 2004 10:18 AM | PERMALINK"Bush is not an elitist because he goes to see NASCAR races and likes baseball. " As opposed to John Kerry, noted jai alai enthusiast. Posted by: Chris Rasmussen at March 9, 2004 10:18 AM | PERMALINKRoland--only if you're not actually from Texas. Let me tell you, I know some real cowboys, and Bush ain't one of them. Deep down, he's a little, little man, and unlike a real cowboy, has never had to get himself out of trouble. Two-fisted? More like a few ineffective slaps and some hysterical crying. Not the guy I'd rely on in a fight. Posted by: emjaybee at March 9, 2004 10:18 AM | PERMALINKGregory : That image was on the screen for less than 2 freaking seconds. Additionally, were there not thousands of body bags removed from Ground Zero? This was a defining moment, good or bad, for whomever was in the White House. However, when it comes to national security, the Dems would always prefer to change the subject. JP, the *point* is that it's offensive that Bush approved a commercial with the image of a dead body being removed from the rubble appearing *at all*. No one is arguing that 9/11 was not a defining moment -- indeed, I welcome Bush reminding us that the worst terrorist attack in American history occured on his watch, and Kerry has shown no inclination to change the subject by pointing out Bush's failure to come clean about his spectacular failure to address the terrorist threat prior to then. (Quick quiz, JD and other Bush apologists -- name *one thing* Bush did to protect the nation form terrorists prior to 9/11. See?) There must be countless hours of footage of 9/11 and its aftermath. Yet Bush chooses to show a body. That's beyond bad taste, it's downright disrespectful to the dead and their families. Two seconds is irrelevant -- Bush should not have approved the use of footage of bodies *at all.* Sorry, JD, but regurgitated GOP talking points just don't stand up to scrutiny. But then, they never have. Posted by: Gregory at March 9, 2004 10:19 AM | PERMALINKElitist refers more to the haughty condescending pedantic attitudes that one may, or may not, possess. Bush is haughty, condescending and pedantic, in spades, so using that as a definition doesn't meet my criteria. This was started by the Republicans They did? They do? "Bush lied, people died" Who started it and shouts? PS to JD: Whenever you hire actors to play 9-11 firefighters in a political ad, you're into exploitation territory. There was some gray area for me in the use of 9-11, but, um, using actors? What, there wasn't enough footage? Posted by: Chris Rasmussen at March 9, 2004 10:22 AM | PERMALINKThat image was on the screen for less than 2 freaking seconds. Well, there's your standard, then. It's OK to show anything you like, as long as it's on screen for less than 2 seconds. Posted by: Bryant at March 9, 2004 10:22 AM | PERMALINKKerry is probably a better guitarist, too. And I saw some film of him playing catch on airport tarmac somewhere, so I'd say he can match up on the baseball side. Pitchers and catchers report; is there a finer phrase in spring? (Note: the above was tongue-in-cheek) Posted by: Linkmeister at March 9, 2004 10:24 AM | PERMALINKAnd *he* didn't trade Sosa for George Bell. Posted by: Chris Rasmussen at March 9, 2004 10:25 AM | PERMALINKThere's no evidence at all that Bush was educated at Yale. Did anyone ever see hum in class? The RNC is offering $10,000 to anyone who ever saw Bush show up for class or crack a book. He's a man of the people who gets by on common sense and personal experience. Posted by: al at March 9, 2004 10:25 AM | PERMALINK"name *one thing* Bush did to protect the nation form terrorists prior to 9/11. See?)" I might ask the same thing,what HAS bush done to recieve our approval after 9/11?He invaded to cover up the fact that he screwed up.He twisted the event to a political end insted of rallying the country to an end that could have unoted the country. Remember all the flags flying after 9/11?Why was this sentiment not moved on to do good not just support a war. Just waht is it that bush did right after the event that makes him so revered?He passed the patriot act what else?He started dividing the nation.thats what.Why should he have this great reputation of a "great" president???? Posted by: smalfish at March 9, 2004 10:26 AM | PERMALINKHow deftly you ignore that the liberals beloved algore is the one that originally raised the whole willie horton issue. not exactly a lie, but a crazy fun-house version of the truth. Gore never mentioned Willie Horton. Posted by: cleek at March 9, 2004 10:26 AM | PERMALINKBryant -- then wouldn't Janet Jackson's mammary be OK? ;) Posted by: Gregory at March 9, 2004 10:27 AM | PERMALINKChris : You would have then argued that they were exploiting firefighters. You, Gregory, et al. will never agree with anything you do, and my few days on this blog have made me give up any hope of any type of rational discourse. Posted by: JD at March 9, 2004 10:28 AM | PERMALINKThere's no evidence at all that Bush was educated at Yale. Correct. He affirms this every time he opens his mouth.
"There's no evidence at all that Bush was educated at Yale. Did anyone ever see hum in class?" Here's something from Harvard business school.
However, when it comes to national security, the Dems would always prefer to change the subject. How about: "When it comes to national security, the Dems say: George, bring it on!" Posted by: peejay at March 9, 2004 10:29 AM | PERMALINKJD: I would have been totally cool if they showed him in the famous bullhorn speech. Really. Appropriate political imagery and truly his finest moment as President. Of course, the actual 9-11 imagery of the President would have shown him in an secluded airbase in Louisiana. But that's a cheap shot and I'm a uniter and not a divider. Posted by: Chris Rasmussen at March 9, 2004 10:30 AM | PERMALINKthe actual 9-11 imagery of the President would have shown him in an secluded airbase in Louisiana ...or in a kindergarten class reading to the kids and ignoring the news that the US was under attack. ...or making jokes about "bad pilots". Posted by: cleek at March 9, 2004 10:32 AM | PERMALINK"Well, there's your standard, then. It's OK to show anything you like, as long as it's on screen for less than 2 seconds." How long was Janet's boob on the screen? :-) Ahh finaly waffled again,did the Man with the plan.
Actually, JD, the images of the actors arguably *did* exploit firefighters as well, as it was far from obvious that they were faked, and IIRC there was no disclaimer. I see, though, that having evidently conceded defeat on the prospect of arguing that using the images of actual bodies was somehow appropriate since it wasn't more than two seconds, you move on to the "irrational Bush hatred" talking point. Tiresome, but you're welcome to it. But in the interests of rational discourse, I'm really curious as to what aspects of Bush's pre-9/11 performance against terrorism you approve of. As peejay so aptly put it, when it comes to discussion of national security, bring it on. Bush isn't going to look so good. Posted by: Gregory at March 9, 2004 10:36 AM | PERMALINKThen one might ask the same question of what the Democrats did for the 8 years preceeding 9/11. Posted by: JD at March 9, 2004 10:41 AM | PERMALINKYou, Gregory, et al. will never agree with anything you do, and my few days on this blog have made me give up any hope of any type of rational discourse. Yes, how dare people talk about this administration in the same way
that their supporters have been talking about liberals for the last 25
years, you know, with all that "rational discourse" and everything. I'm really curious as to what aspects of Bush's pre-9/11 performance against terrorism you approve of. i'm going guess that JD's most proud of Ashcroft's cutting of the counter-terrorism budgets. i know that demonstrates to me just how good the Repuclians are on national security. Posted by: cleek at March 9, 2004 10:42 AM | PERMALINKMichele, "Thank God France is not part of your country." I second that emotion. JUST KIDDING! I actually think France is a great country with a proud tradition. However, many of us Americans, being ignorant and rebellious hayseeds, tend to place little value on Euro-opinion and actually tend to react against it. Roger Simon had some interesting comments on the international opinion in a post yesterday: http://rogerlsimon.com/archives/00000748.htm Posted by: Hubris at March 9, 2004 10:43 AM | PERMALINKJD: I'll field this one. In part, there were responding to an impeachment hearing. Of course, they came close to getting OBL, but that was around the time that conservatives were screaming and yelling "Wag the Dog" at any military excursion. Posted by: Chris Rasmussen at March 9, 2004 10:44 AM | PERMALINKThen one might ask the same question of what the Democrats did for the 8 years preceeding 9/11. Easy, JD. Caught, prosecuted, and convicted the first WTC bombers. Launched at least oen airstrike -- albeit unsuccessful -- against bin Laden. And let's not forget that the Clinton team had drawn up a detailed plan for taking out al Qaeda by the end of its term. Mindful of hading off a hot war to an incoming administration -- as Bush Senior did for Clinton with Somalia -- they deliberately withheld action. Sandy Berger, in presenting the plan, told the Bush Administration that al Qaeda would be its number-one security problem. And now, JD, answer the question you have thus far avoided it seems like *you're* the one changing the subject...): What did Bush do about terrorism between January and September, 2001? Posted by: Gregory at March 9, 2004 10:46 AM | PERMALINKChris : What I was trying to say, in an apparently less than clear manner, was that NOBODY really was prepared for something like 9/11 prior to it happening. We can sit around and blame everybody and their brother, but the simple fact is that prior to 9/11 NOBODY had any credible or verifiable threat that anything like this could ever happen within our borders. Posted by: JD at March 9, 2004 10:48 AM | PERMALINK" I actually think France is a great country with a proud tradition." Ya they actually have the balls to cut of their tyrannical leaders heads,"Let them eat cake!"Unlike us Americans who bow to every rethuglican leader that comes down the pike to rape(the treasury)and pillage(social security and medicare).And do nothing but cheer them on.Way to go pals how patriotic is this??? Posted by: smalfish at March 9, 2004 10:49 AM | PERMALINKBush is not an elitist because he goes to see NASCAR races and likes baseball. Whether or not he comes from old New England money is apparently irrelevant. The fact that he is Ivy League educated is also irrelevant. He plays the role of the rugged, two fisted individualist from West Texas very well. He plays the role. As the Texans say "all hat, no cattle." Even his wife calls him a "windshield cowboy." Posted by: ____league at March 9, 2004 10:49 AM | PERMALINKFollowing up, JD, I think Chris, cleek, and I apologies to anyone I missed) have demonstrated that we don't mind standing behind the Democrats' record. How about you? Are you willing to defend Bush's incation about terrorism prior to 9/11? Remember that his focus then was putting his national missile defense boondoggle in place, which he's committed to doing whether it works or not -- a course that arguably enhances our national security not at all, and indeed may carry significant unintended consequences. Rather like his so-called war on terror, I might add. Posted by: Gregory at March 9, 2004 10:51 AM | PERMALINKJD: I completely agree. No one deserves complete blame, everyone deserves partial blame. I'm not a big "Bush bears responsibility" person -- he should be cooperating more with the Commission, to be sure, but no one deserves to be blamed for something none of us were really ready. Posted by: Chris Rasmussen at March 9, 2004 10:52 AM | PERMALINKA Note to JD: 1--Al Gore never mentioned Willie Horton. True, he questioned Dukakis about the Furlough program during a primary debate, but Gore never brought up a specific prisoner, including Willie Horton. 2--The "dead body being pulling from the WTC" segment of Bush's commericial was on screen longer then Janet Jackson's breast during the SuperBowl Halftime show. And look how that has got everyone's panties in a knot. dave Posted by: DaveInSeattle at March 9, 2004 10:54 AM | PERMALINKSure, I have no problem defending President Bush, and will continue to do so. Do you truly believe that 9/11 could have been prevented, not from today's worldview, but from 9/10's worldview? Posted by: JD at March 9, 2004 10:55 AM | PERMALINK"What I was trying to say, in an apparently less than clear manner, was that NOBODY really was prepared for something like 9/11 prior to it happening. We can sit around and blame everybody and their brother, but the simple fact is that prior to 9/11 NOBODY had any credible or verifiable threat that anything like this could ever happen within our borders."
Eight more months to go. Bring it on! (I can't believe no one else thought of posting it here yet!) Posted by: David W. at March 9, 2004 10:57 AM | PERMALINKSmalfish: Er..OK. So supporting or agreeing with a president on some issues equals bowing down to a tyrant? Interesting theory. And, over 40% of Americans are very far from cheering Bush on, while over 40% support him. Ain't America great? cleek, Thanks for the link. Wow, Ashcroft always did have a sinister agenda. From the article, his pre-9/11 priorities: "For example, in a May 10 letter to department heads, which told them the agenda the new administration was setting, he did not mention terrorism. Instead, Mr. Ashcroft cited seven goals: reducing gun violence and drug trafficking; helping states with anticrime programs; reducing racial discrimination; securing the nation's borders and cutting the immigration backlog; reducing overcrowding and drug use in prisons; securing the rights of victims of crime and strengthening internal financial and computer systems." What a right-wing nutjob!! Actually, while the campaigns have been fierce and at times unfair, a lot of what they are talking about inlcudes actual issues that should be discussed. How should intelligence be funded and operated? What should happen to overtime pay? Etc. At least we are not talking about who wears brown. The best thing I have seen is that Kerry seems to know he has to fight back immediately, every time, and over and over. It will be a lot harder to make lies like "Al Gore raised the Willie Horton issue" stick. Posted by: Emma Anne at March 9, 2004 11:01 AM | PERMALINKHey Hubris! The rightwing nutjob was investigating brothels in New Orleans that fated morning..... Posted by: akrnyc at March 9, 2004 11:01 AM | PERMALINKsmalfish : If somebody told you that mutant matian armies could possibly fly spaceships with bombs into the United States, what action would you take? Unless the threat is specific, and credible, there is no direct action to take. If you cannot understand that fundamental concept, then there is not much to discuss. Posted by: JD at March 9, 2004 11:03 AM | PERMALINK"Ashcroft always did have a sinister agenda."
"Crossing the threshold
Hubris, notice what Ashcroft doesn't included in that list of priorities. and, yet, listening to the wingnuts complain about Clinton's handling of OBL, al-Q, Saddam, etc. it's pretty clear that they (you?) think there were obvious, unmistakable signs that terrorism was something Clinton was supposed to be doing more about (he didn't get OBL from Somalia! he missed with the missiles! yadayadayada). and yet, here we see BushCo doing less than Clinton, pre-9/11. Clinton didn't do enough and Bush did even less, and yet wingnuts think the Republicans are tougher on national security. Aye! The up, she really is down!! Posted by: cleek at March 9, 2004 11:06 AM | PERMALINKWhat is the apparent importance of what any one individual was doing at the moment 9/11 happened? If Sen. Kerry had been in the bathroom would that make his position(s) on the war on terror any more or less credible? If President Bush was reading books to schoolchildren, in what way is that even related to the events in question? If AG Ashcroft was investigating brothels, what does that even remotely have to do with 9/11? Posted by: JD at March 9, 2004 11:07 AM | PERMALINKyou shouldn't call shrub an elitist for going to harvard business school. the only reason he went there was because he couldn't get into the university of texas. Posted by: Olaf glad and big at March 9, 2004 11:07 AM | PERMALINKarknyc, I'm actually for legalizing prostitution (mmmm..legal prostitution). That being said, with the law as it is, I have no problem that the Justice Department was cracking down on high-end johns instead of just Joe Schmo on the corner of Maple and 5th. Should Aschroft have been manning a control tower at the time? There are criticisms of Ashcroft that are valid; I just don't get this line of criticism. Posted by: Hubris at March 9, 2004 11:08 AM | PERMALINK"If somebody told you that mutant matian armies could possibly fly spaceships with bombs into the United States, what action would you take?" I guess I would take the same action the president took,I would sit in a classroom and learn about goats.While my people that I appointed would never think about trying to defend against invaders.I might even,like the president,sit around for an extra twenty minutes and not look worried when my cheif of staff told me about it. Posted by: smalfish at March 9, 2004 11:09 AM | PERMALINKcleek, Ah, that's where your "wingnut" ad hominem/categorization tendencies act as blinders. I don't blame Clinton; I think he did a pretty good job in this area. Try to remember that the world is a little more complex than black/white (or as you describe it, up/down). Posted by: Hubris at March 9, 2004 11:12 AM | PERMALINKWhy doesn't BushCo want the PDB before 9/11 opened up to the 9/11 commission? I find that the whole argument that NO ONE could have guessed what foreign terrorists would do on 9/11 to be patently ridiculous. The facts are there. The widows from 9/11 know that BushCo is hiding and foot dragging and sending out "2 million documents" that are worthless to the 9/11 commission, including pizza reciepts(!). The widows know that when BushCo announced his own private investigation into 9/11 would be a whitewash due to the fact that Lawrence Sillberman would head the investigation. When Condi Rice stated that nobody could've guessed that planes would be flown into buildings is flatly contradicted by the worries of the Italian government's intelligence services when Italy held the G8 summit in Genoa. Genoa had anti-aircraft batteries in place for the G8 summit for just such an scenario. As a matter of fact, why hasn't Dr. Rice testified under oath rather then the friendly chat before the 9/11 commission? I believe that BushCo is perfectly willing to blame the Clinton administration for his own administration's failure to protect American lives based upon his own apocalyptic religious beliefs and the neo conservative marching soldiers of Wolfowitz, Cheney, and others in this administration. Remember that Ashcroft cut the funding for more counterterrorist agents for the FBI. The frustrations that were so great by the back burnering of counterterrorist investigations under Ashcroft and Mueller led John O'Neil to resign from the FBI, and he become head of WTC security. The responsiblity rests on BushCo's shoulders and his cabal. They ignored the Hart/Rudmann report. They ignored the previous National Security advisor's, Sandy Berger, briefing on the threat that Osama poised. The questions being raised by the 9/11 commission will not go away because the American people are strong enough to know the truth about BushCo. No matter how low in the gutter BushCo will go this campaign season
there is the facts that are out there and those facts will not
disappear. "Try to remember that the world is a little more complex than black/white (or as you describe it, up/down)."
Black is White?Is up really down???? Posted by: smalfish at March 9, 2004 11:18 AM | PERMALINK'm actually for legalizing prostitution (mmmm..legal prostitution). That being said, with the law as it is, I have no problem that the Justice Department was cracking down on high-end johns instead of just Joe Schmo on the corner of Maple and 5th. Should Aschroft have been manning a control tower at the time? There are criticisms of Ashcroft that are valid; I just don't get this line of criticism. There are a limited number of FBI agents. Each agent listening to conversations in a brothel is an agent who can not be checking into people who want to fly planes but don't care if they know how to land them. Posted by: ____league at March 9, 2004 11:18 AM | PERMALINKI don't blame Clinton; I think he did a pretty good job in this area. that's why the "you?" is there - i wasn't sure of your own personal take on this. but, the general wingnut stance is that Clinton is a treasonous bastard for not getting OBL when he could, and that Kerry's voting to not approve a particular weapons system each proves something in general about the Democratic party's national security fitness. yet, here's but one example of how the Republicans were doing even less in an area that could have (in an ideal world) prevented 9/11. and yet we still get the accusation from Bush (links in the CP article) that Kerry is soft on security for something he voted on in the mid 90's. and, i won't apologize for "wingnut". it's a perfectly good way to describe those who parrot RNC talking points. Posted by: cleek at March 9, 2004 11:24 AM | PERMALINKsmalfish, Sigh. That's an old, and disproved, Michael Moore talking point. See: http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20031016.html The money wasn't given to the Taliban. Posted by: Hubris at March 9, 2004 11:24 AM | PERMALINKThere are an endless list of things that people could have been doing prior to 9/11. Clinton could have chosen not tell the truth in his deposition, therefore he would not have had to have made a political calculation, due to the wag the dog crap, to not continue to hunt Osama. If Berger and Co. thought that Osama was actually as big of a threat as they claim now, then they were derelict in their duties by passing it off onto the incoming administration. Bush could have chosen to go after Osama and Saddam on Day 1 of his presidency, but I can only imagine the wailing and moaning from the left had he done so. This is all so easy, when using the proverbial retro-spectro-scope. Posted by: JD at March 9, 2004 11:28 AM | PERMALINKleague, That's a strange line of reasoning. So to apply your model, I guess every police officer giving a traffic ticket is one less investigating or preventing murders?? 100% of resources should be devoted to one issue? I don't think that's ever the case. cleek, Just as you won't apologize, I won't agree that ad hominem is appropriate. If the talking points are so bad, you should be able to easily debunk them without calling people names. Name-calling weakens your argument. What's the need for it if you're right? Ken, Why do you care about the 9/11 Commission since you and "the American
people" already know the "truth" about the Bush "cabal"? We might as
well proceed directly to the sentencing phase. can anyone define "elitist" in such a way that it includes Kerry but not Bush ? i can't.
JD, your position as I see it is that your defense of Bush is that no one could possibly have foreseen it happeneing, and therefore it isn't his fault. I admit, "It isn't his fault" does seem to be shaping up as the theme of Bush's campaign. But that aside, first of all, that isn't the question I asked. I asked exactly what Bush had done about terrorism prior to September 11. You seem to be avoiding the obvious answer with your extreme scenarios (here's a hint: Aliens from Mars is a fantastic threat; terrorist attacks aren't.) Second of all, regarding your claim that no one could have foreseen it happening: Baloney. As has been pointed out upthread, this very method of attack was indeed contemplated. Even so, your limp repetition of Condi Rice's meager "we had no specific warning" defense is truly pathetic. If memory serves me right, the August Presidential Daily Brief did specifically mention a threat by al Qaeda to hijack aircraft. Even granting for the sake of argument that no one presumed the aircraft would be flown into buildings, you must agree that terrorist hijacking of a domestic airliner is a Bad Thing best prevented. So tell me: what, if anything, did Bush do about that threat? And if the answer is "nothing," how can you continue to support Bush if he did nothing to fulfill his duty to defend this nation? We don't need a President who's only good at closing the barn door after the horse is out. Especially if he uses the wrong door. And doubly so if he actually opens the door instead. Posted by: Gregory at March 9, 2004 11:32 AM | PERMALINKI like this site. It's like jumping into cold water (no shrinkage, I swear), then swimming into a feeding frenzy. Fun! Posted by: Hubris at March 9, 2004 11:32 AM | PERMALINKJD There are a great many things that could have been done prior to 9/11. From most accounts that I have seen, there is little to suggest that either Bush or Clinton was responsible in any direct way with events as they unfolded on that day. I suspect that 9/11 could have easily been prevented by adequate policework. Not superior policework, but just people carrying out their normal duties. 9/11 was successful for the terrorists not because they were or are a monothic, all powerful force. Rather, they had to get very lucky to succeed. Posted by: Roland at March 9, 2004 11:32 AM | PERMALINK1--Al Gore never mentioned Willie Horton. True, he questioned Dukakis about the Furlough program during a primary debate, but Gore never brought up a specific prisoner, including Willie Horton. I think it's sort of sad that this is the only conservative line of defense against those ads. Come on guys, at least come up with something a little truthful. Posted by: Irrational Bush Hatred at March 9, 2004 11:32 AM | PERMALINKThat being said, with the law as it is, I have no problem that the Justice Department was cracking down on high-end johns Why? Noting that it is, indeed, a crime, prostitution is generally not a federal
crime, nor do I see how it is a state crime that poses some kind of
extraordinary threat to civil order that the Federal Department of
Justice needs to be diverting resources to fight it rather than dealing
with actual federal problems like, say, terrorism. "Sigh. That's an old, and disproved, Michael Moore talking point. See:" Ok if it's a michael Moore spin then why is it that this info comes from Robert Scheer
Never mind that Osama bin Laden still operates the leading anti-American terror operation from his base in Afghanistan, from which, among other crimes, he launched two bloody attacks on American embassies in Africa in 1998. Sadly, the Bush administration is cozying up to the Taliban regime at a time when the United Nations, at U.S. insistence, imposes sanctions on Afghanistan because the Kabul government will not turn over Bin Laden." Posted by: smalfish at March 9, 2004 11:39 AM | PERMALINKThis is going to be a long, brutal campaign. But given the stakes it is still a small price to pay. And more importantly, I think we do ourselves a dis-service if we pretend that it shouldn't be that way. The President of the United States has more power of the well-being of humanity that anyone else. The argument over who should have that job should be deep detailed. And if there is a choice between being pilot and being brutally honest, let it be brutally honest. The remark on the rodeo - caught the issue didn't it? The bodies of 9-11? Horrible, but that's a big question: who can prevent this? So, let the fight go, but let us not pretend that we don't want it. Posted by: Samuel Knight at March 9, 2004 11:39 AM | PERMALINKHey all,
If Berger and Co. thought that Osama was actually as big of a threat as they claim now, then they were derelict in their duties by passing it off onto the incoming administration. Bush could have chosen to go after Osama and Saddam on Day 1 of his presidency, but I can only imagine the wailing and moaning from the left had he done so. JD, your defense becomes even more feeble. As I already said, the Clinton Administration, recalling how badly it got burned by its predecesor in Somalia, didn't want to hand off a shooting war to the incoming adminstration. Instead, Berger gave a fully developed plan to the Bush Adminitration, along with a make-no-mistake warning about the importance of getting OBL. You seem to concede now the obvious: That Bush did absolutely nothing about it. You then excuse it by imagining the "wailing on the Left." Here's a clue, pal: The left is not, contrary to what Rush and his slimy pals, tell you, adamantly opposed to defending this nation. To the coutnry, I think your own responses -- including the utter flops of the "so what did Clinton do, huh?" tactic -- are leading to a picture that Clinton was much more serious about terrorism than Bush. No, I think most Americans would have had no problem with Bush continuing to go after those responsible for the bombing of the USS Cole and other odious acts. I hate to break it to you, but opposing a war on a nation that poses no threat and has nothing to do with al Qaeda -- a war that, indeed, *creates* a terrorist haven -- is more consistent with a realistic attitude toward national defense than Bush and his neocon pals have so far displayed. Still, I applaud your relative courtesy, along with the fact that you seem to be gradually accepting the fact that Bush did nothing about terrorism -- even when specifically warned about it -- until after it was too late. Perhaps there's hope for you yet. Posted by: Gregory at March 9, 2004 11:41 AM | PERMALINKThat's a strange line of reasoning. So to apply your model, I guess every police officer giving a traffic ticket is one less investigating or preventing murders?? 100% of resources should be devoted to one issue? I don't think that's ever the case. With a limited number of agents, you assign the first one to the highest priority, the second to the next highest priority and so on. For example the first 10 might investigate murders and the 11th do traffic patrol because you only have a limited number of good leads in the murder investigation and traffic patrol can also save lives. I do not think that we had enough agents checking out possible terrorists such that the last agent working terrorism was less valuable than the first agent bugging whorehouses. Posted by: ____league at March 9, 2004 11:43 AM | PERMALINKsmalfish, Hey, you're right, Moore technically got it from Scheer. I should have given you a better sublink: http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?2002_03_24_archive.html#75037397 Both Scheer and Moore were incorrect. The money wasn't given to the Taliban. Better? Posted by: Hubris at March 9, 2004 11:46 AM | PERMALINKWhat was so bad about the Horton ads? It was all a fact, and apparently, the facts were something that were not on Dukakis' side. Posted by: James Byrd at March 9, 2004 11:50 AM | PERMALINKIf the talking points are so bad, you should be able to easily debunk them without calling people names. Name-calling weakens your argument. frankly, the talking points are so bad that they require name calling. Posted by: cleek at March 9, 2004 11:52 AM | PERMALINKcmdicely, Emphasis on generally not a federal crime. In the subject case, however, it was. league (and everyone, actually), I think the difficulty really does lie in separating out how much of our "insight" is due to hindsight. If there is a lot of documented criticism of the amount of resources devoted to counter-terrorism before 9/11, one could make a compelling argument against the Bush administration in this area. It might be out there; I haven't researched it. In my opinion, however, stretching your argument to encompass the fact that a couple of agents were working a prostitution case in New Orleans is over-reaching. Posted by: Hubris at March 9, 2004 11:53 AM | PERMALINKGregory : I am almost willing to concede that there were not many active steps being taken in re. terrorism. Additionally, I am willing to accept that not one single man, woman, or child in the United States worried about acts of terrorism within our borders on the scale of 9/11, prior to 9/11. Despite protestations to the contrary, it is disingenuous to suggest that anyone had ample knowledge or warning. Posted by: JD at March 9, 2004 11:56 AM | PERMALINKcleek, OK, but good luck on the "hearts and minds" front with swing voters. Some of them might resent folks calling them wingnut freaks just for agreeing with Bush on some issues. "Ditto" (intentional choice of term) as far as ad hominem attacks from the right. Either you're turning off undecideds, or preaching to a choir who needs no convincing. Either way, it seems to be pretty much a waste of time to me. Posted by: Hubris at March 9, 2004 11:56 AM | PERMALINKHi JD, JD: " If Sen. Kerry had been in the bathroom would that make his position(s) on the war on terror any more or less credible? If AG Ashcroft was investigating brothels, what does that even remotely have to do with 9/11? Nothing, even though it creates some funny images. Let's not go there. :-)
But, the important things are that later on he lied about seeing the first airplane hit the WTC before entering the classroom. In fact that image wasn't shown at that time, only the next day. And the image on his face and his frozen position after being told by Andrew Card that a second airplane had hit the WTC should leave us all wondering what was running through his mind. Was he wondering why nobody had warned him this could happen? Was he wondering why he ignored warnings? Was he wondering how great he'd appear in history books as a WAR PRESIDENT? Was he wondering if this was Armageddon? Was he wondering what he should do? There are so many questions we'll never have answered about those few special minutes.
"The money wasn't given to the Taliban. Better?" "The gift, announced last Thursday by Secretary of State Colin Powell, in addition to other recent aid, makes the U.S. the main sponsor of the Taliban"
smalfish, It doesn't matter that Scheer was the one giving the "facts," what matters is that they were not true. Please please please research this, you'll see. Could someone on this thread with whom smalfish normally agrees back me up on this, so smalfish will believe me? Posted by: Hubris at March 9, 2004 12:03 PM | PERMALINKThere's something here that indicates to me that Bush's so-called "national security" credentials are even weaker than his economic performance. It's a matter of record, of course, that Bush and Company promised job growth to tout the latest rounds of tax cuts, and that job growth has simpyl failed to materialize. (Of course; if nothing else, I have confidence that this Administration's failed experiment will help bury the stinking, rotten corpse of supply side economics once and for all.) But at least they *had a policy*. Sure, it didn't work, but at least they did something. And to this day -- and this is significant -- Bush promises that his tax cuts will result in jobs. Prosperity is, after all, just around the corner. All Kerry has to do is ask Bush, "What did you do about terrorism in the first eight months of your Administration?" As even Bush's defenders here are starting to realize, the answer is, nothing. The 9/11 commission is likely to confirm this fact. Which is, of course, why he's stonewalling it. If he expected an exoneration, he'd cooperate; indeed, he'd trumpet the findings from every rooftop of the Heritage Foundation. Worse, Bush even sat on Berger's plan to go after al Qaeda, and then in the wake of the attack, they started looking for ways to use the event as an excuse to attack *Iraq.* Again, these facts are a matter of record. And what's most delicious about this is, Bush's stumble with his 9/11 ads -- and his typical stubborn resistance to admit he was wrong -- have made his so-called performance against terrorism a legitimate issue. Frankly, I doubt Kerry could have gotten much traction just going on the attack -- but he's scored the best points so far by counterpunching. Look for Bush to take one on the chin over his self-evident failure to defend the country on 9/11. Posted by: Gregory at March 9, 2004 12:04 PM | PERMALINKJD: "Gregory : I am almost willing to concede that there were not many active steps being taken in re. terrorism. Additionally, I am willing to accept that not one single man, woman, or child in the United States worried about acts of terrorism within our borders on the scale of 9/11, prior to 9/11. Despite protestations to the contrary, it is disingenuous to suggest that anyone had ample knowledge or warning." The public are always the last to know, we are not all anti-terrorist or foreign affairs specialist as a rule, that's why we have a government. If it can be shown that our government knew or by some reasonable standard should have know prior to 9/11 then it will not reflect very well on that government and the public armed with the facts can voice their opinion in november. I would be scared, very scared. Posted by: postit at March 9, 2004 12:05 PM | PERMALINKsmalfish : facts are not facts when : A) they are not true, or B) Michael Moore says they are facts. Posted by: JD at March 9, 2004 12:06 PM | PERMALINKEither you're turning off undecideds, or preaching to a choir who needs no convincing. i'm actually barking at people who TP(*) comment threads with the RNC nonsense. but, yes, you're right about it not being the best way to win new hearts and minds. luckily, we have level-headed writers like Kevin to handle that duty. * TP = litter the place with Talking Points, the same way i used to cover my teachers' houses with toilet paper. Posted by: cleek at March 9, 2004 12:06 PM | PERMALINKsmalfish, Here are some more pages to look at re: the Taliban myth: http://www.blog-irish.com/somemore.htm http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20011008.html The money was given to the UN and NGO. Not the Taliban. Scheer was wrong. Posted by: Hubris at March 9, 2004 12:09 PM | PERMALINKIt is like trying to have an intelligent converation with Don William, or Mitzo. Try as you might, it just ain't going to happen. When confronted with the facts, rather than admit a mistake, they will just change the subject, or beat the shit out of a strawman. Posted by: JD at March 9, 2004 12:10 PM | PERMALINKHi JD, Gregory : I am almost willing to concede that there were not many active steps being taken in re. terrorism. How generous of you. But even that is too generous to Bush. As I've said before: Name *one* "active step" Bush did take against terrorism prior to 9/11. I'm betting you can't. If you can't, your statement smacks more of denial than reason. Additionally, I am willing to accept that not one single man, woman, or child in the United States worried about acts of terrorism within our borders on the scale of 9/11, prior to 9/11. A couple of points here -- first of all, the "on the scale of 9/11" qualifier is most disingenuous. As I've said, protesting that no one considered the *scale* of the damage wrought by the hijacking does not excuse failing to take steps to prevent the hijackings in the first place (see the first point). Even if you don't crash the plane, hijacking is a Bad Thing, and responsible governments know they should prevent it. I'd also point out that it's the President's *job* to defend the US -- in short, to worry about acts of terrorism and other threats. It's irrelevant what the American people were worried about. So no, no excuse there. Despite protestations to the contrary, it is disingenuous to suggest that anyone had ample knowledge or warning. No, it isn't. To the contrary, it's a matter of public record. Recall that Condi Rice had to back away from the "we had no warning" excuse not long after 9/11. What's disingenuous is to suggest that the terrorists not sending engraved invitations somehow excuses Bush's failure to defend the nation. Also realize that Bush has constantly dragged his feet in the creation of and cooperation with the 9/11 commission that is tasked with determining exactly what knowledge and warning we did have. But I point out again, in August 2001, Condi Rice passed along a warning in the PDB that al Qaeda planned a hijacking. What did Bush do about it? The answer to that question should be enlightening. Posted by: Gregory at March 9, 2004 12:13 PM | PERMALINKWhen confronted with the facts, rather than admit a mistake, they will just change the subject, or beat the shit out of a strawman. I must admit, JD, I haven't seen you attacking a straw man so far, but I have noted tyour attempts to change the subject. In any case, I've confronted you with the facts; I'm just waiting for you to realize the obvious. Posted by: Gregory at March 9, 2004 12:15 PM | PERMALINKHubris I am open minded enough to get real facts if you can find me a page that rebuts this story other than a blog I'll read it but I cant take the facts from a site that doesnt hold any credibility with me.GIve me a major publication that disputes this story.I read your site and I see nothing other than right wing pages that try to debunk the article.Spin can be spun any way you like but the fact is that the State department gave money to the afgan nation,your articles prove this but try to spin it in such a way as to tell us that our govt was trying to gove the money to the afgan people.How else do you give money to A people than thru their government.I would agree that more research probaly needs to be done but when you get a right wing organization trying to debunk what took palce is not what I would call investigating. And for what it's worth I found this information from The Center For American ProgressWhich its publisher is John Podesta,who would have a few more inside information seeing how he is the former white house cheif of staff under the Clinton admin.He has a little more credibility than the spinsanity boys. Posted by: smalfish at March 9, 2004 12:19 PM | PERMALINKJD: "It is like trying to have an intelligent converation with Don William, or Mitzo. Try as you might, it just ain't going to happen. When confronted with the facts, rather than admit a mistake, they will just change the subject, or beat the shit out of a strawman." For that to be even remotely true you would have to produce 'facts' not simply regurtitate repug talking points, random thoughts, or just your general insights gained without recourse to reason. Posted by: postit at March 9, 2004 12:19 PM | PERMALINKSure, there has been a lot of Monday-morning quarterbacking about 9/11. Would a President Gore have prevented 9/11? Maybe, maybe not, we'll never know. Is it appropriate that we know exactly what Bush and co. knew beforehand, to see if it could have been prevented? Absolutely. And a true leader should welcome that kind of inquiry openly unless there is something embarrassing to hide. What this country wanted then was the equivalent of a halftime speech, outlining the playing or coaching mistakes in the first half, and calling everyone together to follow a better plan, bear down, and work together. Telling people the best thing they can do is go out and shop is NOT it. Regardless of culpability (or lack thereof), the exploitative Bush ads tell us to look at his record since 9/11. Fine. Let's talk about a tax cut for the wealthy in the middle of wartime and a recession (a first). Let's talk about hiding behind the flag and a fearful population while environmental and business regulations were systematically gutted. Let's talk about overthrowing a weak, non-threatening country because, well, we could. And, you know, because it's inhabited by foreign people who sort of look like some of the ones who attacked us. Let's talk about alienating the world community, whose help we desperately need in tracking down and responding to terrorist threats emanating from their countries. We don't need to attack his detachment or ineptitude before 9/11, no
matter how much of both were in evidence. There is so much afterwards to
discuss. We don't need to attack his detachment or ineptitude before 9/11, no matter how much of both were in evidence. Ted, It isn't as if we have to draw the line for attacking Bush's abundant incompetence at 9/11. As you rightly point out, there's plenty on both sides ofthat line. And as I asserted upthread, Bush himself is inviting scrutiny by insisting on running on 9/11. Posted by: Gregory at March 9, 2004 12:23 PM | PERMALINKGregory : As I am not an officeholder in our government, it is safe for me to say that I cannot speak on behalf of the Bush administration as to what steps they were taking or considering prior to 9/11. However, my inability to cite chapter and verse does not, in any way, mean that they were not, in fact, taking action to help protect our country from terrorism. The investigations will bear that out, and until then, it is wrong for either one of us to state with any certainty what was or was not being done. However, even after their report, I doubt you will accept their findings. As to the PDB about Al Quaeda and an airplane hijacking, that is not even remotely close to specific and credible. It takes more than describing a contextually similar scenario in incredibly broad strokes, to give rise to action. Posted by: JD at March 9, 2004 12:28 PM | PERMALINK"It takes more than describing a contextually similar scenario in incredibly broad strokes, to give rise to action." Ok if this is true.How on earth can you justify the war in Iraq then?? Posted by: smalfish at March 9, 2004 12:32 PM | PERMALINKJD, the problem you have is that you cannot attack the Democrats (Clinton) with weakness on anti-terrorism unless you can show that Bush acted in a way to reverse this. Given that we can show that he appointed an AG whose priorities did not include counter-terrorism and that he was warned that this would be a big issue, the rational conclusion is that Bush was, prior to 9/11, actually weaker on terrorism than Clinton was. Posted by: Lori Thantos at March 9, 2004 12:33 PM | PERMALINKsmalfish, I would respectfully submit that your characterization of Spinsanity as a right-wing site is very off; peruse a sampling of the posts, I think you will find it instructive. Also, the irony is thick if you believe Scheer and CAP are good examples of neutral sources. I have yet to see primary source information supporting Scheer's allegation that the money went to the Taliban, as opposed to the UN and NGO. Can you provide such evidence? Or is every unsupported allegation against Bush true until proven false? Applying this logic, Kerry must have had an affair. After all, Drudge said it, didn't he? Posted by: Hubris at March 9, 2004 12:34 PM | PERMALINKsmalfish : change of subject. strawman. whatever. that is not what we were discussing. Posted by: JD at March 9, 2004 12:35 PM | PERMALINKThe Evil Party will undoubtedly welcome a long nasty campaign since voters will become increasingly disgusted as the repetitive filth wears on them resulting in suppressed voter turnout that will add to the tried and true voter suppression tactics already in the works by the Evil Party, who know that the more voters there are, the less likely that evil will reign. Posted by: Carswell at March 9, 2004 12:36 PM | PERMALINKHubris
You see I can admit I have made a mistake,can the right do the same? Posted by: smalfish at March 9, 2004 12:37 PM | PERMALINKFor those swarming on JD, I'm familiar with his comments from other threads. I think that you'll find that while he feels very strongly about some issues (and is on the opposite side from you), he is infinitely sincere (a quality which I unfortunately often lack) and will concede points that others successfully argue against him. He is extremely far from being close-minded. Posted by: Hubris at March 9, 2004 12:39 PM | PERMALINKsmalfish, Thanks!!! You're right about the media overall; it's hard to tell what's true and what's not about either Republicans or Democrats. I can't speak for everyone on the right, but I can admit when I make a mistake. Unfortunately, it's often. :) Posted by: Hubris at March 9, 2004 12:42 PM | PERMALINKHubris : thanks, though it will do no good, conservatives are evil. Lori : Even if I were to accept the premise of your argument, that would only lead me to the conclusion that the current and former administrations did not do enough to protect us from terrorism. I do not feel that anyone is free from blame in this process. An evil group of Islamic fundamentalists, hell bent on destroying America, attacked our soil. If Clinton/Berger really thought that was going to happen, they are equally culpable in not taking action, but punting it to a new administration. If the current administration ignored credible intelligence, which according to most today is sorely lacking, then they have culpability as well. However, at this point, we do not know that. Posted by: JD at March 9, 2004 12:45 PM | PERMALINKWe know from O'Neil's revelations that Iraq not international terrorism was the focus of foreign policy/defence from the git go of this administration. Note that Iraq at that time was not even linked to terrorism or the ME settlement in general by this administration because everything but Iraq was put on the backburner. 9/11 forced a major policy shift but it didn't take long before Iraq was back up front, even while OBL and the Taliban were still unfinished business, as they still are. And look how international terrorism and ME settlement were conveniently linked to and made part rationale for regime change in Iraq. Cheney et al constantly mixed references to Al Qeada and Sadamm in the run up to the war to the extent that a large majority of the US public believed Sadamm was in some way responsible for 9/11 and perhaps still do. The Iraq policy was simply irrational and I for one do not want an
irrational foreign policy or an irrational defence department, girdling
the globe, with the means to make war wherever it feels 'threatened'. It is my understanding that the Bush administration rejected the plan outlined by Berger which would have done damage to the Taliban and Al Quaeda, in favor of a plan to eliminate same. I am not sure of the dates, but it is my recollection that was around the beginning of summer '01. I fail to see how that constitutes inaction. Posted by: JD at March 9, 2004 12:51 PM | PERMALINKin favor of a plan to eliminate same ... I fail to see how that constitutes inaction. 2.5 years later and they haven't eliminated either. maybe Berger's plan would've been good enough to prevent 9/11. As I am not an officeholder in our government, it is safe for me to say that I cannot speak on behalf of the Bush administration as to what steps they were taking or considering prior to 9/11. However, my inability to cite chapter and verse does not, in any way, mean that they were not, in fact, taking action to help protect our country from terrorism. The investigations will bear that out, and until then, it is wrong for either one of us to state with any certainty what was or was not being done. However, even after their report, I doubt you will accept their findings. What you're saying, JD, is that you don't in fact know of anything that Bush was doing, but you take it on faith that they were doing something. Thus you concede, even unwillingly, that you're unable to demonstrate a single specific thing Bush et al did. And yet your position still leaves ample room for the assertion that they did, in fact, do nothing. Game, set, match. You're also apparently taking it on faith that the 9/11 commission that Bush resists even to this day will exonerate him. How charming, and yet how strange that Bush's actions do not seem to bear out this line of, um reasoning. However, I suspect that it's you who will have trouble accepting the report's findings. I'm certain Bush will not embrace them, particularly so close to the election. The real howler is this one: As to the PDB about Al Quaeda and an airplane hijacking, that is not even remotely close to specific and credible. It takes more than describing a contextually similar scenario in incredibly broad strokes, to give rise to action. To the contrary, JD, if a threat is "specific and credible" enough to make it into the President's daily briefing, it's enough to give rise to action. I for one would assert that *any* hijacking of a domestic airline flight by al Qaeda would be enough of a "contextually similar scenario" to *demand* preventative action. Remember -- it *does not matter* what they intended to do with the aircraft once taken. Hijacking is bad, and should be prevented, and Bush should have known that. As to this: It is my understanding that the Bush administration rejected the plan outlined by Berger which would have done damage to the Taliban and Al Quaeda, in favor of a plan to eliminate same. I am not sure of the dates, but it is my recollection that was around the beginning of summer '01. I fail to see how that constitutes inaction. Unless you can provide citation to the contrary, I beleive the public record indicates you're referrign to the *same plan*. Thus, taking no action on it until (if memory serves me right) September 5, 2001, by definition constitutes inaction. Although it's worth noting that Bush's successful initial assault against al Qaeda in Afghanistan was likely aided by a plan Clinton's staff helped create. Of course, Bush's failure to finish the job is all his, baby. Hubris, I don't doubt JD's sincerity, and I've given him (?) props for his courtesy, but I'm only seeing his conceding points tacitly, in the sense that he drops arguments that have been shot full of holes. As we've seen, though, he resorts to "I have no evidence to support this position, but I believe Bush must have taken some action," which is hardly a concession, even if it is a ridiculous argument. Frankly, though, I'm satisfied. Posted by: Gregory at March 9, 2004 01:20 PM | PERMALINK"It is my understanding that the Bush administration rejected the plan outlined by Berger which would have done damage to the Taliban and Al Quaeda, in favor of a plan to eliminate same." JD, can you cite any evidence for that? I'm not trying to be difficult, it's just the first I've heard of it. "Hubris : thanks, though it will do no good, conservatives are evil." Certainly there are people who think that, but what bothers me more (and I think bothers other people as well on this site) is utter hypocrisy. From either party, by the way, although since one party owns all three branches of government it's much easier to notice the hypocrisy of that party. Bush's utter hypocrisy in almost every facet of his reign is what makes me see red. He's a chickenhawk, he's mastered bait and switch on everything from Education to Iraq, he is the most fiscally irresponsible so-called conservative in recent memory, and his hypocritical names for industry give-outs such as "Clean Skies" and "Healthy Forests" are so ridiculous that they have become comical. And I know someone is going to come back and say "what about
flip-flop Kerry", to which I can only respond that most of the so-called
flip-flops cited by Republicans so-far are either outright
misrepresentations or incredibly minor compared to the
Hypocrite-In-Chief. Even if they weren't minor, I suspect it's not
unreasonable to be allowed to change your mind over 20 years in the
Senate once or twice. Gregory, I haven't re-read all the posts, but I feel you're mischaracterizing one of JD's statements: Your quote of JD: As I am not an officeholder in our government, it is safe for me to say that I cannot speak on behalf of the Bush administration as to what steps they were taking or considering prior to 9/11. However, my inability to cite chapter and verse does not, in any way, mean that they were not, in fact, taking action to help protect our country from terrorism. The investigations will bear that out, and until then, it is wrong for either one of us to state with any certainty what was or was not being done. However, even after their report, I doubt you will accept their findings. Your commentary: What you're saying, JD, is that you don't in fact know of anything that Bush was doing, but you take it on faith that they were doing something. Thus you concede, even unwillingly, that you're unable to demonstrate a single specific thing Bush et al did. And yet your position still leaves ample room for the assertion that they did, in fact, do nothing. Game, set, match. A plain reading of this specific post from JD indicates he is withholding judgment and that he says he cannot state with certainty, at this point, what Bush did or didn't do. You somehow translate his uncertainty into the opposite, as taking Bush "on faith," which doesn't make sense. He says right there that he doesn't know, which is far from faith. Then, your subsequent statement confirms that you understood this, since you say JD left "ample room" for Bush having been wrong. Being open-minded somehow translates to you winning "[g]ame, set, match." Huh? Posted by: Hubris at March 9, 2004 01:37 PM | PERMALINKIn my opinion, however, stretching your argument to encompass the fact that a couple of agents were working a prostitution case in New Orleans is over-reaching. But FBI agents were listening. Hour after hour, month after month,
10 agents recorded the men's demands, the brothel keepers' deals and
the prostitutes' complaints. (Wash Post "10" is not a "couple" in my dictionary. As of June 30, 2003, the FBI employed 11,633 Special Agents and 15,904 Professional Support people. (FBI.GOV) Ten agents was about 1/10 of 1% of all special agents. Posted by: ___league at March 9, 2004 02:21 PM | PERMALINKHi league, You're right, and I admit my mistake. I should have used the phrase "a few" instead of "a couple of." But, you should hold yourself to the same standards. According to the figures you provide, the actual percentage is .859623485%. By rounding up to "about 1/10 of 1%," you're overstating the percentage by approximately 16.33% (oops, that's rounded too). :) Posted by: Hubris at March 9, 2004 02:46 PM | PERMALINKhubris I also used 2003 numbers which probably differed from 2000-2001 numbers of agents. I still maintain that those 10 agents would have been much better used looking for terrorists. Shall we ask the posters to this thread what they think? Anyone else want to comment. league, Since we're getting specific, is there any evidence that this was actually ordered by/directed by Ashcroft, versus the local US Attorney? Serious question; if there is I'd be happy to look at it. Posted by: Hubris at March 9, 2004 03:01 PM | PERMALINKHubris There are about 4,500,000 people in LA. About 290,000,000 in the US. Let us round to 6 and 300. This would mean that LA would have about 2% of the US population. If agents are distributed by population this would imply about 200 agents for LA. This is 5% of all the agents in LA. I guess that the local SAC could assign that many agents to a single case even if it would normally have been only a state matter. I still think it was Ashcroft. Don't forget this is the guy who spent 10G to cover up statues that even Edwin Meese stood in front of with no problem. Posted by: ___league at March 9, 2004 03:17 PM | PERMALINKThis whole conversation leaves me with alot of questions... If Kerry is flip-flop, what is Bush? A handstand? Everything upside-down? If the money to Afghanistan (pre9/11) went to the UN, why did it go to Afghanistian? Anyhow, about the fact that 'no one could imagine'... If no one could, why were there more tv shows than I can count on my hand showing large office buildings being destroyed by terrorism, including the spin-off to the x-files having a show with the topic of several airliners being flown into the world trade center! What short memories we have. Posted by: Crissa at March 9, 2004 04:12 PM | PERMALINKSmalfish; SpinSanity is generally a pretty good site. They're mostly nonpartisan and trustworthy. I think Hubris and JD are right insofar as the Taliban "gift" is concerned, although I haven't looked at the links in question. Note that Ann Coulter once characterized it as a "Democratic" or "left-wing" site, I forget which, in reference to its numerous criticisms of her books. Hubris, JD. Pre-9/11, it is almost inarguable that Bush was more or even as focused on terrorism as the Clinton administration. The budget cuts alone should show that, as should the Bush Administration's opposal to Homeland Security or something like it. Posted by: Sandals at March 9, 2004 04:21 PM | PERMALINK"In addition, Bush was forced to begin his campaign earlier than planned, and his early moves seem to be more focused on appealing to his restive base, while Kerry is reaching out to independents with a united party behind him." Just like Clinton started his campaign early in '96, when Dole was out of money. Remember what happened ? "JD, Bush's ads showed a *body* being removed from the rubble. That is exploitation, pure and simple. Any questions?" Yes, who funds the small group of relatives that raised the stink (in addition to the firefighters' union)? The group is called 'September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows' and they traveled to Afghanistan to support the Taliban ! No wonder one of them said he would vote for Saddam before Bush ! Here's the link: http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/editorial/20231.htm Know where their money comes from ? Read the story; it's none other than Mrs Kerry and the foundation she inherited when her husband's plane crashed. And it may be illegal. "Cheney et al constantly mixed references to Al Qeada and Sadamm in the run up to the war to the extent that a large majority of the US public believed Sadamm was in some way responsible for 9/11 and perhaps still do." On 60 Minutes Chalabi showed Leslie Stahl a document listing OBL as an Iraqi agent in 1992. Of course, she dismissed it. The truth is still coming out but according to the DIA the INC has "truckloads of documents that are solid gold" intelligence finds. This story is not over yet. For your sake I hope they don't find the WMD and OBL on November 1. As far as what some of us were doing prior to 9/11; I was reading Laurie Mylroie's book "A Study in Revenge" which describes the 1993 WTC attack as an Iraqi intelligence operation and predicts that they will be back. Also remember that Ramzi Yousef, the bomb builder, who may be an Iraqi agent, was caught building bombs to put on airliners in the Philippines. Bush may not have been up to speed on terrorism but Clinton was convinced that the WTC plot was a local operation by a group of crazy Muslims in New Jersey. There's blame for everybody. What's important is preventing the next one and I have no faith that Kerry is up to it. Not when he was trying to CUT 6 billion from the CIA budget in '94, after the first WTC bombing.
Laurie Mylroie, the nut who says OKC was an Islamic plot? And Chalabi, who recently admited he made shit up to get the US to sacrifice its sons for his political ambitions? They're your ideas of credible sources? What color is the sky in your world? Posted by: TK at March 9, 2004 05:28 PM | PERMALINK"Additionally, I am willing to accept that not one single man, woman, or child in the United States worried about acts of terrorism within our borders on the scale of 9/11, prior to 9/11." Sorry JD, have to call you on this. Speaking from personal experience, I've been paying attention to this stuff for years. Much to the point of paranoia. Seriously. Mostly about Millenium/Y2K themed terrorism, to be honest. Mind you, it never really panned out, mainly because I think it was aborted because the Space Needle plan was thrwarted. In any case, I somehow ended up in DC for Y2K. Spur of the moment decision. I decided if anything was going to happen I wanted to be there to help. Nothing happened, but I believed that it would. I took it seriously. And in fact, many other people did. It was liberals for the most part that took terrorism seriously. Conservatives had their eyes on the prize of "missle defense". The whole idea of conservatives being the stalwarts of "Homeland security", either makes me laugh or makes me cry depending on my mood. Either way, it's a joke. Posted by: Karmakin at March 9, 2004 10:05 PM | PERMALINKJD, first, explain where the premise of my argument fails. Second, your comment in no way addresses my point – in order to show that Bush was better on terrorism before 9/11 you have to show that he made some positive steps against terror that Clinton did not. As I point out in another thread Clinton/Berger were correct in their assessment of the threat, nothing happened on their watch, nothing happened during the transition, and nothing happened until after George W. Bush had been in office so long as to have a full month off to raise funds and vacation. By the way, speaking of misuse of FBI agents, why don't we consider how many hundreds and thousands of man-hours were wasted by the Republican Get Clinton machine? If Clinton must get some grief for his failure to get al Queda, then the Republicans must get a considerable amount for wasting $100 Million to discover essentially nothing – not a single criminal act by Clinton that was not a product of that $100 Million investigation (and that requires a rather loose reading of notion of "criminal act"). To amplify Karmakin's point, it is the Republicans who felt terrorism was less important than removing a duly elected President, as their spending clearly shows. Posted by: Lori Thantos at March 10, 2004 12:56 AM | PERMALINKKerry is probably a better guitarist, too. And I saw some film of him playing catch on airport tarmac somewhere, so I'd say he can match up on the baseball side. I think Kerry ought to just put the hockey gear on and keep body-checking Bush on the open ice. This is a time for full contact pounding of a battered Bush team that can't control the puck. I love baseball, but it's no longer a good metaphor for the coming election season. Ice hockey captures the agility, speed and brutality of the coming election. Only the tough and the smart will survive. Posted by: Saint Fnordius at March 10, 2004 03:42 AM | PERMALINKLori, So the Bush administration should also be judged on the actions of congressional Republicans pre-dating the Bush administration? Hmmmm. Posted by: Hubris at March 10, 2004 04:35 AM | PERMALINK"This was started by the Republicans Really? The Kerry soundbites run something like a 10-1 ratio of "attack Bush" to "propose my alternative". There's not much besides the "Anything but Bush" hatred being offered by Kerry right now. Posted by: Mark L at March 10, 2004 12:28 PM | PERMALINKKarmakin.. Sorry, but more attacks happened under Clinton's watch. Both domestic and foreign. Without hope, the rest is nothing. Posted by: La Battaglia Juliana at May 3, 2004 09:19 AM | PERMALINKWhat is wrong with you people. You all must be terrorist. If I was a terrorist I'd vote for Kerry too. Bush will win. Overall this country is too smart to vote for Kerry.. Posted by: L. Dean Hartman at May 6, 2004 06:55 AM | PERMALINKPlease remember that the labels are your own. Posted by: Harris Laurel at June 30, 2004 10:45 AM | PERMALINKwww.capitalcasino.com | www.caribbeangold.com | www.caribbeansunpoker.com | www.carnivalcasino.com | www.carsands.com | www.casinodelrio.com | www.casinoking.com | www.casinokingdom.com | www.casinolasvegas.com | www.casinotropez.com | www.casinouk.com | www.challengecasino.com | www.cinemacasino.com | www.cirruscasino.com | www.cityclubcasino.com Posted by: 7 sultans casino at July 1, 2004 12:46 AM | PERMALINKBest XXX Sites - Always enjoy reading your blog. Thanks! Posted by: disc makers at August 11, 2004 11:43 PM | PERMALINK
Posted by: pocket bikes at August 13, 2004 05:18 PM | PERMALINK Spot on, as usual. Thanks! Posted by: storage area network (SAN) at August 18, 2004 08:34 PM | PERMALINKI totally agree. Thanks for the post! Posted by: text link ads at August 19, 2004 07:17 PM | PERMALINK8276 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 24, 2004 05:59 AM | PERMALINK2542 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 06:11 AM | PERMALINK5128 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 01:15 AM | PERMALINK8672 check out http://texhold.levitra-i.com for texas hold em online action boodrow Posted by: texas hold em at August 25, 2004 04:23 PM | PERMALINK |
|
|
Powered by Movable Type 2.63 
|
||||
