Wooooo hoooo! Dubya takes the gloves off and says the things I’ve been saying for over a year….. the ferocity of the 9/11 attacks had much more to do with the weakness of the United States’ previous response (under Clinton, Bush 41, Reagan and Carter) than it did about the first 8 months of the Bush 43 term.
Bush finally said what the 9/11 Commission was too politically-whipped to say: Bill Clinton, Sandy Berger, Madeleine Albright, Al Gore and Richard Clarke all bear primary responsibility for 9/11 by their sleeping on the job for eight years while al-Qaeda plotted and repeatedly attacked America.
President Bush: Clinton Weakness Led to 9/11 – NewsMax.com
“The terrorists saw our response to the hostage crisis in Iran, the bombings in the Marine barracks in Lebanon, the first World Trade Center attack, the killing of American soldiers in Somalia, the destruction of two U.S. embassies in Africa and the attack on the USS Cole,” Bush noted, after getting an update on the war on terror at the Pentagon.
“The terrorists concluded that we lacked the courage and character to defend ourselves and so they attacked us,” the president added, in quotes picked up by United Press International.
Four of the six terrorist attacks cited by Bush took place on Clinton’s watch, with the first two coming during the presidencies of Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan.
Bush Firm on Iraq Policy as Antiwar Forces Plan Protest – NY Times
The president asserted at a news conference afterward that terrorists had studied the American responses to the Iranian hostage crisis during the Carter administration, the bombing of United States Marines’ barracks in Lebanon during the Reagan administration and the first terror attack on the World Trade Center during the Clinton administration, among other events.
“The terrorists concluded that we lacked the courage and character to defend ourselves, and so they attacked us,” the president said. “The only way the terrorists can win is if we lose our nerve and abandon the mission.”
“For the safety and security of the American people, that’s not going to happen on my watch,” he said.
Same story, different sources, different quotes by the President used. Same message.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
Then go for Iran and Saudi, shit. We all knew Iraq didn’t harbor any terrorists(some, but most of those were targeting saddam). Go for a real threat, not some made up threat yelling “WMDS!” And “9/11!” everytime.
Joey, I do believe you’ve forgotten how the prior administration and every leading democrat for years prior to going into Iraq and indeed, after we did enter Iraq screaming about those same WMD threats, insisting they not only existed but Saddam had been stockpiling the same.
Have you really forgotten such ‘recent’ history? Or do you prefer to ignore it?
Thos who threatened and yelled “WMD’s!” were democrats for years prior.
Need proof?
Umm, he dissed Reagans handling of the Lebanon issue too. I guess he has a problem with history too. On the WMD in Iraq, the ones referred to through 1998 were taken out in that year in attacks that GOP congrressmen accused Clinton of diverting attention from pressing BJ exposes in front of the impeachment hearings. In no cases where the Democrats saying that Saddam was a good guy or someone that didn’t need containing. They also didn’t say that they knew exactly where the caches were, unlike Rumsfield and Cheney. The new premise of building Democracy was a much more admirable goal than the trumped up WMD claims, but they failed in proper execution because they (as usual) relied on overly optimistic analysis instead of realistic analysis in order to support their a priori positions.
The argment itself is a farse anyway. Britain has been very tough on terrorists, IRA and international Islamic terrorists. They are on board with us more than any other country in our global war on terror. Did such actions deter the terrorists from bombing their train systems this year? The argument therefore, as much of what Bush says, is simple untennable.
Mr. Moderate :
On the WMD in Iraq, the ones referred to through 1998 were taken out in that year in attacks that GOP congrressmen accused Clinton of diverting attention from pressing BJ exposes in front of the impeachment hearings.
———–
Those cruise missiles are what you are referring to? They took out an aspirin factory, in an attempt to hit OBL on bad intelligence.
Now here are some quote that defy your claim that the democrats ‘dropped’ their attention to the WMD threat. Here are some quotes and dates…
“There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
— Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them.”
— Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
— Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
— Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
— Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”
— Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
— Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
— Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do”
— Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
— Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.”
— Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real…”
— Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
I believe that list shows they felt he was a real threat and that indeed, WMD’s were on the table, so much so that they too felt the intel on the WMD’s was valid.
Those cruise missiles are what you are referring to? They took out an aspirin factory, in an attempt to hit OBL on bad intelligence.
Umm, no, I’m not confusing OBL with Saddam unlike most people in the administration. When Saddam refused to allow inspections into Iraq the suspected sites were bombed out and the status quo containment box that we had him in until our invasion was solidified.
Did you notice that ALL of your quotes are based on the data mined intelligence published by the Bush administration? The analysis critical of the administrations position was buried and only those supporting the a priori assumptions were presented to those outside of the white house. Of course they came to the same conclusion! What conclusion would they have drawn if an actual analysis of the real data, not just the subset that they like, had been performed. That is the question sir, and the responsibility for the production of the reports based on those faulty intelligence are those that you are defending.
#1 – “Joey” needs to check out http://www.husseinandterror.com – and to define this mythical “we” who “knew” something obviously untrue, that Joey claims about Saddam.
As for Iran – Yes, one of Iran or Syria should indeed be next.
As for Saudi Arabia – They have been cleaning up their act in fits and starts. Two steps forward, one step back, that kind of thing. We should continue to watch their progress (or lack thereof) closely.
the status quo containment box that we had him in until our invasion was solidified.
The box from which Saddam shot at aircraft patrolling the No-Fly Zone? The box from which Saddam sent $25,000 checks to the families of suicide bombers? The box from which Saddam skimmed billions off the Oil-For-Palaces program? The box from which Saddam allowed terrorists like Abu Nidal sanctuary, and provided training facilities for hijackers at Salman Pak?
Oh, but I forgot… Saddam had absolutely nothing to do with terrorism or 9-11
#3 – “They [Democrats] also didn’t say that they knew exactly where the caches were, unlike Rumsfield and Cheney.”
Totally false statement, about Rumsfield and Cheney.
Come up with ONE authentic statement where either Rumsfeld or Cheney said, in effect, “We know exactly where the caches are.” ONE.
Or else cut the B.S., you B.S. artist 😉
Actually Mr Mod, no “suspected sites” were “bombed out” prior to the UN investigators gaining access to the country… I don’t know what Kool-Aid pack you opened but put it back in SandyBerger’s shorts and leave him alone… sewdaily has it right: the consensus was that WMD did exist right up to the point of invasion of land troops. In fact, some of the forward defense positions manned by ill-trained Iraqi national guard had decontamination suits and supplies –hell, their own troops thought the wacky Baghdad generals would use biowarfare against US troops even if they caught forward iraqi troops in the attacks.
And please, don’t even try to hoist the nonsense that those suits and equipment were there ’cause of Iraqi fear the US would use WMD… because that one will put you in the certified loonie bin along with the “Hanging Chads/Election was Stolen” room.
#3 – “The new premise of building Democracy was a much more admirable goal than the trumped up WMD claims.”
A statement very false in what it attempts to imply.
Building democracry was not “a new premise”; it was one of the prime reasons (along with WMD) from day one. Mr. Leftist (not moderate) obviously just isn’t aware of it, because he wasn’t paying attention.
Also, if the WMD claims were at all “trumped up”, then they were trumped up by Democrats (as #4 points out correctly) and a CIA led by a Democrat-appointed director (George Tenet).
For proof of both, you need only read this authorizing resolution for the Iraq war in 2002, which details both the WMD claims and the urgent humanitarian to replace Saddam’s evil dictatorship with a democracy.
Most major Senate Democrats agreed with the resolution. It claims explicitly that al Qaeda terrorists were in Iraq, in a growing alliance; that Saddam failied in his international obligations, thus losing his sovereignty; that Iraq had WMD programs, materials and stockpiles it shouldn’t have; and that for humanitarian reasons, it was urgently necessary to build democracy in Iraq. All four claims remain true today, with the single exception that it turns out Saddam only had WMD materials and WMD research programs, rather than completed WMD finished stockpiles.
So Bruce – here’s what I came to say, before I got sidetracked cutting and pasting my responses above –
You run a great blog. Thank you for saying what needs to be said. – And saying it to flaming idiot hard-liberal gays who need to hear it. 🙂
Indeed, Tenet affirmed WMD’s at every turn, he drove the intelligence before Bush took office and continued to confirm it long after.
Now, if you want to argue that Bush fixed the intelligence, provide proof.
Otherwise, you’re spinning and you may fall down.
#12 – While we’re at it, let’s not forget about Congress’ Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which meant that from the day Bush took office, by law he and Tenet were both supposed to be thinking about removing Saddam and establishing democracy in Iraq.
For anyoone who has not availed themselves of the complete downloadable 911 report, it would be wise to do so and see that indeed, the intel for years had suffered. And the timeline of ‘events’ were seen as just that, ‘events’ and not a trend.
Each attack against the US here or abroad was seen and responded too as a singular act, not a ramping up of terrorism against us.
And when you read the report, take note of a PDB to Clinton on December 4, 1998 that specifically was titled “Osama Bin Laden calls for use of hijacking planes….”
What happened as an upshot of that threat? The airline industry was put on notice for a few months, end of effort.
Type in 911 commission in any search engine and you will see the link to the official site for the download of the full report. Over 500 pages, broken down into good download sizes for reading.
“Britain has been very tough on terrorists, IRA and international Islamic terrorists….Did such actions deter the terrorists from bombing their train systems this year?”
False again.
Britain has been widely and notoriously SOFT on Muslims and the Islamo-terrorist groups in its midst. Only now, only as a result of their bombings this summer, have they at long last started getting somewhat tougher on them.
Mr. Leftist – Can you say anything true?
(#15 refers to #3)
The airline industry was put on notice for a few months, end of effort.
Tom Daschle’s wife (the airline lobbyist) thought terror warnings would be bad for business.
#% – “When Saddam refused to allow inspections into Iraq the suspected sites were bombed out and the status quo containment box that we had him in until our invasion was solidified.”
What a bizarre statement. What a fantasy land Mr. Leftist lives in!
The French were selling Saddam weapons and materials he wasn’t supposed to have….the Russians were…..the Germans were…..the Chinese were…..the North Koreans were…..yet “containment was solidified”.
Somebody’s on crack. But it works for me, because in case anybody sane reads this thread, they might pick up a bit of information they didn’t know from our various responses.
#5 – “…The analysis critical of the administrations position was buried and only those supporting the a priori assumptions were presented to those outside of the white house….”
The attempted “faulty intelligence and it’s Bush’s fault” canard.
I agree, some important aspects of the intelligence was faulty. And whose fault was that? Who made the intelligence? The CIA. And who ran the CIA, not only for 8 years under Clinton, but also under Bush as well because Bush kept them in office for national unity? Democrats. (George Tenet and many, many other Democratic Party appointees and cronies, who have famously dominated the CIA for decades.)
Was there pressure from the White House for the intelligence to come out a particular way? No. Read the bipartisan Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq, which looked for signs of “pressure” exhaustively, and concluded there was essentially none. Please address further complaints to the Senate Intelligence Committee.
While the decision to back out of those various incidents, Somalia, Beirut, etc. was in retrospect probably the wrong one, it was also called for by the majority of Republicans in Congress at the time. You are also leaving out their little “wag the dog” accusations toward Clinton when he hit that terrorist camp in Afghanistan with cruise missiles.
There was and still is sound reasoning for pulling out of those incidents. At least, Reagan thought so.
You might try looking at recent history without putting on the red-rage colored glasses of partisan rhetoric. You want to hate Democrats more than finding an effective policy on fighting terrorism. Thanks. It’s thinking like that by both the GOP and the Democrats that helped cause this mess in the first place.
Bruce, you have rightfully complained in the past about the “Blame America” crowd that wants to blame 9-11 on America itself. What you are doing is no different.
joe, you took offense at my suggesting that Rumsfeld told us we knew where the weapons were. You asked for proof. I give you Exhibit A (I’d love to continue on your other points but i have a company to run).
From an interview on ABCNEWS (transcript at below link):
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/t03302003_t0330sdabcsteph.html
Rumsfeld: “Not at all. If you think — let me take that, both pieces — the area in the south and the west and the north that coalition forces control is substantial. It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat…I would also add, we saw from the air that there were dozens of trucks that went into that facility after the existence of it became public in the press and they moved things out. They dispersed them and took them away. So there may be nothing left. I don’t know that. But it’s way too soon to know. The exploitation is just starting.”
Not only was there nothing there, there was no evidence there was anything in any of these camps where they expected to find the WMD’s. I’m sure you will find this description as being too vague, since he didn’t give an exact latitude and longitude on the ABC news show, but this is a case where he is cleary stating to the American people where they “knew the weapons were.”
Mr. Moderate, Rumsfield was also basing his beliefs on the intelligence provided – and that again, goes full circle to Tenet et al.
And the cruise missiles launched in the supposed ‘wag the dog’ issue were based on bad intel. Clinton was well informed prior to launching that the intel was not solid that OBL was there. Furthermore, Clinton did not even bother to inform congress of the strike until after it had been done.
Now, who was wagging whose dog?
sewadily, Rumsfeld was basing his information not only on the CIA data but on data from the Defense Department’s intelligence arm. They actually preferred the data coming out of there because it conformed more readily to their a priori policy decisions. Tennet had nothing to do with that agency.
sewadialy, likewise unlike congressmen and senators, he had access to the entire gamut of data and the decision by people at the top, like Tennet, Rumsfeld, et cetera to ignore that data lead us to where we are.
#19 P.S. And I think CIA politics is really the subtext of the country’s whole conversations on these matters.
The big loser, the big guilty party in all these intelligence failures (9-11 itself, Iraq WMD finished stockpiles, etc.) is the CIA, or more precisely, its top leadership.
They’ve been a leaky, partisan, snarky, political mess for decades. They have – or ought to have – massive egg on their faces for all these intelligence failures.
But these particular folks are political pros. They know what a “deflection strategy” is, and so do their Democratic Party patrons. It can be shown/documented (but you have to do a lot of research) that they embarked on a campaign of leaks aimed to deflect blame from themselves and onto another target, i.e., Bush. And the MSM liberals ate it up, and have been repeating it and creating the legend, because they instinctively dislike Bush for reasons of their own (usually having to do with the abortion issue, Bush’s Christianity, the threat to liberal politics of group identity and victimhood, etc.).
#21 – “We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat…[there] may be nothing left. I don’t know that. But it’s way too soon to know.”
Mr. Leftist, can you read?
Do you know the difference between “somewhat” (Rumsfeld’s claim) and “EXACTLY” (your incorrect claim about Rumsfeld’s claim)?
Also, does the phrase “I DON’T KNOW”, that Rumsfeld used, mean anything to you?
Mr. Leftist, I challenge you to come up with ONE authentic statement where either Rumsfeld or Cheney said, in effect, “We know exactly where the caches are.” ONE. Since you have not done so yet.
So, Bush thinks Clinton didn’t gain the terrorists respect like he has done? Somehow I doubt that Osama is particularly upset that we have emptied our treasury and sacrificed our fellow citizens taking out Saddam, one of Osama’s most hated enemies. Bush has consistently played into the terrorists hands. Remember, 911 was a $900,000 military operation in response to which we have spent upwards of $200 billion and counting. Didn’t anyone else hear Osama saying his goal was to get America to sacrifice its treasure and its youth? He must be very well satisfied. If I were Bush, I wouldn’t be bragging about what he is doing on his watch.
#20 – “Bruce, you have rightfully complained in the past about the “Blame America” crowd that wants to blame 9-11 on America itself. What you are doing is no different.”
No, it’s way different.
First, and most important, it is not an analysis that blames America morally, or undermines our efforts to win the War on Terror. The “we deserved it because we’re evil and the terrorists are actually nice” type of analysis is the opposite.
Second, it’s an analysis rooted in some kind of reality, or actual cause-and-effect relationship. For a democracy, peace comes through strength. Weakness breeds attack.
Third, Bush spent 4 long years not saying anything of the kind. Bush has been extremely patient with Clinton. Clinton got into the blame game earlier this week (or was it last week) and earned Bush’s riposte.
Oh please, so now Tenet is a Bush supporter? LOL Mr. Moderate, Tenet fed the intel to this administration, did he not?
And while we have long since moved on beyond the quotes of top dog democrats, you fail to once denounce the intel provided for and accumulated by CIA Director Tenet, for over 8 years.
But that’s ok. We understand your reluctance to admit the intel was bad and instead blame Bush for counting on it. We know that according to new unwritten rules, Bush was supposted to create his own intel.
sheesh. circle jerk mentality.
#28 — Not to mention, there’s a huge difference between saying, “America deserved 9-11 because we didn’t ratify Kyoto” or “America deserved 9-11 because we’re greedy capitalists” and saying “Previous incidents in which terrorist violence was inflicted on America were not properly answered. And there is documented evidence that this emboldened terrorists to escalate their attacks.”
29 — BTW, wasn’t Tenet a holdover from the Clinton Admin?
Also, I think this has been pretty much swept under the rug, but throughout the spring and summer of 2001, weren’t the Congressional Democrats obstructing Bush’s administration appoinments, and didn’t this severely hamper Bush’s ability to put his team in place both directly because Democrats were blocking his appointments, and indirectly because instead of getting to work, he had to devote time and energy to fighting Democrats?
It really is a moot point about dems getting in the way of bush setting up his administration prior to 9/11.
The larger issue was well discovered in the 911 commission findings and again, would be much better if all in the discussion had bothered to read it. The timeline of our lack of response and the buildup of attacks is clear.
Our weakness was our downfall. Our inability to address the attacks that preceeded 9/11 as a trend instead of individual events did indeed ramp up the efforts by OBL and AQ – it’s very painfully clear.
Lots of mistakes were made, but to say as so many have done, that it “happened on Bush’s watch” is to ignore that time and events are a continuum. 9 months to piece it all together vs. 8 years is not only unrealistic, it’s dishonest.
#32 — It is a moot point, but worth remembering when Democrats accuse Bush of being unprepared for 9-11, and when Democrats insist that their obstructionism is good for the country.
New GP commenters favorite saying — “circle jerk mentality” — or some derivative.
Just an observation… 🙂
#31 – Yes….Tenet, and most of the CIA leadership until 2004, were Clinton appointees and staunch Democrats, that Bush kept on board for purposes of continuity and national unity.
And the same with Richard Clarke and much of the NSC staff, by the way.
I think (or is it just that I hope?) they have mostly been cleared out by now.
True, it never helps to have obstruction for the sake of party politics. But it’s always done to one degree or another by both parties.
Damn, we need congressional term limits!
Oh, did you HAVE to bring up clarke? LOL
He lied to the commission, as was determined after his live testimony that he knew nothing about the Saudi flight out of the country following 9/11. Poor fool, just trying to sell a book I guess.
In fact, the 911 commission report shows the truth of that issue as well. Despite Michael Moore’s best attempt to say otherwise. And ask some people to read the 911 report, they dare claim it was biased. ROFL!
Oh, ok. 5 dems chosen by dems, 5 rep chosen by reps and it’s biased?
Perhaps they would have preferred a commission made up of 10 french citizens? Oh the stupidity………….
Gotta fly – dr. appt and other fun things……keep the thread going, it’s a good one!
New GP commenters favorite saying — “circle jerk mentality” — or some derivative.
Much like “hycorisy” and “conservative/Republicans do it too”, it’s another lefty codephrase meaning “I have no good refutation to your argument.”
#38 – Well, if we’re gonna chuckle and shake our heads at big liars, let’s not forget Joe Wilson.
He and wife contributed to Gore in 2000. He and wife contributed to Kerry in 2004. (So they’re basically Democrats.) He had NO expertise to evaluate the Niger uranium claims.
His wife recommends him for the position, though. He goes, and only manages to gather intelligence in FAVOR of the Iraq-Niger connection. Ordinary CIA analysts agree, and add that evidence to the repertoire of evidence on Iraq’s WMD acquisition efforts.
Then, when it’s time to sell his own book and angle for a plum Kerry appointment and hopefully sink Bush, all at the same time, he suddenly says “I have no self-interest, and I went because Vice President Cheney asked me (!), and I only found evidence against the Iraq-Niger claim”, the opposite of his report at the time.
LOL!
Yeah… this guy should be critical of anyone’s response
http://s89194761.onlinehome.us/goatquotes.htm
Talk about flip-flopping.
Rummy says: Yes, we know where the WMDs are. Sorta…maybe….not really. They were there…but they may be gone NOW. LMAO.
And…Tenet was so bad Bush felt it necessary to award him a medal…or was he paid off with that medal to keep quiet?
Bush did not regard terrorism as a top priority after his election. His primary focus was on the “missile defense” system he wanted to buy. I can’t see much harm in the Dem’s delaying that.
Nevertheless, please do continue to beatify St. George W. of the Bush.
Back to the original topic 🙂 … Bush is right. It’s not just the instances that he mentions, either. I’d include Desert Storm and his father’s failure to remove Sadam at that time. Arguably it was the right thing to do. Stop short of Bagdad, I mean. That’s the way we do things because we’re secure in who we are… who cares if Sadam is trumpetting about how we didn’t take him out? Who the heck cares what some pissant in the middle east thinks anyway? But that, and Somalia, and our other responses, including our total lack of response to a published declaration of War issued by Bin Laden, and what is the logical thing to think except that the US doesn’t have the balls to respond effectively to threats?
Add to that the message in the media… and the enemy does *not* understand the concept of a free press, if Bush allows dissent it must be that he is powerless to supress it. Weak. Weak and vulnerable. But that’s not the whole picture either. Fringe fanatics make the news because they are interesting… so all the self-hating liberal fanatics are in the news. Ditto the militant sorts on the other side. Bin Ladin (and others) aren’t *dumb* they’re just coming from a different cultural context. It’s entirely rational for them to conclude that the warmonger president is going to start lobbing bombs indescriminately, which is great for BL’s purposes because he wants to establish Islam as dominent in the world and he can’t do that as long as most Moslems are complacent. Causing the US to lob a bomb on Mecca is/was BL’s wet dream. Combined with the constant “the US is evil” message from the lunatic fringe, these fortuitous bombings are going to be accompanied by complete civil and governmental disorder.
This, if it were accurate, is a *fabulous* war plan. This is *brilliant*.
Because if the enemy has had one thing demonstrated over and over and over again, it’s that the US population has no stomach for war.
It’s not a happy thing. It’s not a pleasant thing. It’s simply true, that the reason that the terrorists believed that the cascade of events would occur the way they hoped, is that *our* culture and *our* people demand just cause for any action. That’s how we see it (and this is right and good) but the result is this history of never following through, of failing to assassinate someone who has published a declaration of war because it wouldn’t be legal to do so, (I do not advocate assassination), of withdrawing rather than destroying Sadam, of leaving Somalia, of all those half-measures that can be expected of us.
And now with Iraq. In Afghanistan we had just cause. We have just cause to continue go after Bin Laden. WMD is just cause to go after Sadam, until we find that he doesn’t have what we thought he had (nevermind that he gassed the Kurds). Democracy isn’t a good enough reason, nor social justice, nor the understanding that things will just get worse until the middle east is drastically remade. No… we need a just cause, a good reason, courtroom style proof.
Iraq is not strategy, it’s a tactic in a larger war. Strategy is chaging minds and expectations about what the US will do if attacked. Every country in the middle east *needs* to wonder if we’re looking their direction. They need to care what their neighbor is doing because of the sure knowledge that the US is harder to stop than we are to start, and we may not stop at their border if their neighbor starts a fight with us.
Demands that we have a justification for being in Iraq miss the point that this isn’t a police action in any sense. It’s war. I don’t recall which way the phrase goes, diplomacy is war by other means or else war is diplomacy by other means… whichever it makes no difference. Either thing is aimed at making the other guy change his mind. Forcing him to change his mind. It’s not making nice-nice in a popularity contest. It’s not punishing an infraction or enforcing a law or hunting down a criminal.
Demanding that it be such is partly what got us in this predicament to begin with.
#44 — I guess that’s a difference between you and me. If Hillary were president and she was trying to get her security team of Jane Fonda, Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan and Joe Wilson approved, and the Republican senate was obstructing her, I’d still think that they were obnoxious and behaving inappropriately.
By the way, did anyone catch the news conference today where some idiot reporter was beating up on Bush for going to Texas, asking “Aren’t you going to get in the way?” This is the same Press Corps that had Third Degree Vapors because Bush didn’t drop everything and go to Lousiana when Hurricane Katrina hit.
But, of course, that doesn’t mean they’re out to screw the president no matter what he does or anything like that …
So…he decided not to go because he decided he might “get in the way”. Sounds like he got smart, VtK. LMAO.
GOParrot
God, what a litany of blame-gaming. Y’all ain’t acting like good Republicans.
Bush’s logic that the terrorists concluded we “lacked courage” to defend ourselves makes as much sense as his claim that we gotta fight ’em over there so we aint’ gotta fight ’em over here — logic already discredited by Madrid and London, but nonetheless still convincing to the right, which can’t accept reality.
Well, congratulations to Dubya for taking the gloves off and saying the things a blogger has been saying for a year. *eyeroll*
What? Bush changed his plans? Assuming so, are you suggesting that this means he was *wrong* about his statements that he wouldn’t get in the way? Perhaps what he meant was “I’m a rational human being with priorities other than myself, I Will Not Get In The Way, because I will be sure that I stay out of the way?”
Zippy… what is illogical about the terrorists coming to believe that we lack courage? Bin Laden and others are bright guys with long range plans. They expected to win… not simply bloody our noses… not simply die and go to their reward. Most of those still blowing up civilians in Iraq, though not stupid either, have more limited goals. Their tactics depend on convincing the US population that we are losing. (We have captured training manuals explaining how to manipulate our media… this isn’t even speculation.) Their goal is to bloody our nose, embarass us, and re-gain local political power and social position. But Bin Laden, By His Own Words, his own rhetoric, his own stated, written and published goals, felt he could utterly defeat us by provoking a response that would lead to a Holy War between all of Islam and the west. He is a smart person, a very smart person. He was wrong, but he wasn’t stupid. He did what he did because he believed we would react in a certain way. He believed that we have no stomach for war, that we are morally weak, weak willed, degenerate people.
The bombing in Madrid was a great success for the terrorists. They accomplished their goal, terrorism isn’t random violence, it is a tool to make governments bend. It’s a way for a small group of people to manipulate a vast majority through fear. After Madrid, the government of Spain bent. It didn’t work in London and it won’t.
Bush has one more confirmation decision to make and then it’s cocktail time for the lame duck.
I can’t wait for the Republicans in Congress to wake up and find that Bush has no coattails. Without Bush holding congressional Republicans in line for the next election cycle we may finally see what happened to Clinton with a Democratic Congress happen to Bush with his Republicans.
The worm may turn.
I’ve heard too many conservatives who more or less expect the next president to be Hillary Clinton to think that anyone will be surprised. I, personally, can’t see Condi running… different skills… and I don’t have a great feel for guillianni (can’t spell his name either.)
And I don’t know anyone who talks about “legacy” except for the media.
Oh, you mean in 2006… time will tell. I can’t see Bush doing too much campaigning for anyone, but I also don’t see any huge bunches of impressive local democrats. Just because Bush doesn’t have coat tails doesn’t mean that everyone who isn’t a Bush cheerleader is going to vote on the other side. In FACT, it seems more likely, that if people have reconciled themselves to Hillary (she can’t possibly stay as stupid as she’s sounded lately) they may subconsciously vote Republicans into the house and Senate for balance.
I think it’s way too early to speculate on 2006, but what happens will depend partly on whether the Democrats behave like a sane, rational alternative, or if they continue to be the party of Michael Moore – Cindy Sheehan – Geroge Soros – MoveOn – Kos – and the rest. I think a lot of America is about where I am… not too happy with Bush, but faced with al alternative party run by deranged, anti-American nutjobs.
Bill Clinton criticizes George W. Bush…Without class.
George W. Bush criticizes Bill Clinton…Wooooo hoooo!
I get it now. Thanks.
C’mon guys!
You know that you can’t hold lord B.J. Clinton accountable for anything. Liberals don’t understand the concept of accountability.
Saddam, one of Osama’s most hated enemies
Says who?
Oh, Yeah, Saddam Was Totally Opposed to Al Qaeda
Zippy (is your surname Pinhead?) said: Bush’s logic that the terrorists concluded we “lacked courage” to defend ourselves makes as much sense as his claim that we gotta fight ‘em over there so we aint’ gotta fight ‘em over here — logic already discredited by Madrid and London, but nonetheless still convincing to the right, which can’t accept reality.
The Islamofascists still haven’t bombed the USA since the war. They bombed Madrid and London because they know that most of the civilians in those countires are commies and opposed to the war against terror. They hoped to intimidate them and succeeded with the olive oil eaters but not with the beefeaters.
PS
V the K said: ….not too happy with Bush, but faced with an alternative party run by deranged, anti-American nutjobs.
Well Bush is not Reagan for sure – unfortunately – but he’s better than the alternative. Amen, brother.
Bush’s logic that the terrorists concluded we “lacked courage” to defend ourselves makes as much sense as his claim that we gotta fight ‘em over there so we aint’ gotta fight ‘em over here
You forgot that bin Laden referred to the U.S. as a “paper tiger” after your BJ buddy had us chicken out in the Mog.
Sorry to go back to 2008 speculation… followed a link from Rush Limbaugh’s web site to a report citing a KOS poll…
“The poll of 10,000 readers to the most widely trafficked Democrat blog, the Daily Kos, shows Gen. Clark is the 2008 frontrunner, with 34 percent support.
(…etc…)
Bringing up the rear, Hillary Clinton gets a tiny 8 percent support.”
Heh. Dredging up a war hero didn’t work last time so they figure they just need a better war hero? And Hillary, who many (at least who I run into) people who can’t stand her have nearly accepted as the next president gets 8%?
I take it back. I take it all back. Republicans have a darn good chance to win in 2008. I’m sorry I ever thought otherwise.
Who knows, Synova. ’08 is so far away yet.
For Dems, the leader right now (in national polling, not what you see on Kos) is Hillary by about 2:1 vs. anyone else. Aside: I had a meeting in the Wall Street area this Summer and upon leaving, walked by a Hillary press event enroute back to my office. I stood on the periphery of the event about 10 feet away (from Hillary plus Stock Exchange officials plus maybe 20 pressers), and was quite taken with the woman in person. She’s got an aura of warmth and determination and brains and while it might not be an aura the Republicans like, it’s there and impossible to ignore. Not so sure she can project that during a campaign. Being a Democrat, I would support her — despite what I consider to be her somewhat bushhawkish position on Iraq.
But, in the interest of winning back the Presidency AND having some semblence of national harmony with that, I think I’d rather see the Democrats nominate someone who doesn’t draw such baseless venom from so many on the right. Maybe General Clark (who, incidentally, is just a high-ranking general, not a “war hero” — and to my knowledge, he’s never been described as a war hero). Maybe a more seasoned John Edwards. And, while I think she’d never run, Diane Feinstein. But it’s so far off, who can tell who it’ll be. Same for the Republicans. Though we can be fairly sure it won’t be Guiliani, who — with his strong pro-gay and pro-choice views — would never make it through Republican primary voters. McCain might, if he’s healthy (that stuff that comes and goes on his left jaw is downright worrisome).
Personally, I loved the idea that floated for a while in ’04 of a “fusion” ticket of Kerry and McCain. Wish we could actually have one — and any pairing in a fusion ticket is likely to be attractive — so that we can get on about the business of being “one people” again. The extreme partisanship (my own too, I admit) is NOT good and cannot strengthen us as a nation.
baza abderrahim algerie setif sourds 1984/12/04
Just checking in. I need to add a blog based on business continuity home plan shopping.Does a blog help you get more traffic to your website. I get on traffic at all right now.. A New Starter, BRYAN nashville disaster recovery