I think it’s pointless to hold hearings focused on whether the Bush White House could have averted 9/11. The answer is: Of course not. Not because of breakdowns in communication between Intelligence gathering outfits. Not because they didn’t listen to Richard Clarke. Not because, if it was a high priority for Clinton, it automatically became a low priority for Bush.
They couldn’t have averted it because of what Rice said some time ago: “No one could imagine terrorists flying planes into buildings.” That’s not true. No one *in the Bush administration* could imagine it. Writers of fiction have imagined it. Information gatherers imagined it. The administration simply could not because they consistently display lack of imagination. Every job requires a proper tool. In this case, the tool–imagination–simply wasn’t in their toolbox. If a carpenter needs a Philips head screwdriver and all he’s got is flatheads, oh well. You’re screwed.
Nothing in their subsequent behavior has indicated imagination. Congressional hearings into the war in Iraq would simply uncover the same lapse: They didn’t imagine that we would get the reception we did. Bush declared “Mission Accomplished” a year ago because he couldn’t imagine that, a year later, they’d still be shooting at us and that there’d be talk of more, not less, troops going in. I don’t blame him entirely. I couldn’t imagine that a year later they’d be talking about sending in more troops. Then again, I wasn’t asking voters to trust the lives of their young men to me.
Then again, the one time we did see a display of imagination–the fantasy that Saddam had WMDs–that didn’t turn out so hot.
What may make or break John Kerry’s campaign is offering an alternative view to Iraq. If he says, “I hate that we’re in there, but we have no choice but to stay and even escalate force,” then Bush wins. If on the other hand he says, “We wanted to give Iraq self-determination. If that self-determination involves killing each other in civil war, oh well, that’s their choice, but we’re out of there,” I dunno. That might work. Me, I don’t want to see people die in Iraq in civil war, but the fact is that people *are* going to die there in civil war because they’re not a united country, they’re composed of various factions who want to kill each other. The question is, how many of those who are going to die are going to be Americans?
I can’t imagine.
PAD
• 
To everyone about Andrew and others.
There’s an easy way of dealing with posts that go way outside the realm of polite discourse and into abuse and ranting. Don’t respond to him/her/them at all in your posts until such a time as the person knocks it off and starts acting civil. It’s no fun to play alone. And if the person gets really nasty, well we all saw the Martian Death Ray from above remove a few posts and a poster a month or so ago. I don’t know about you all but I would rather be right, wrong, bright or dumb as a brick with the group of you that know how to be civil.
I still think this (9/11) was/is far less about who is or was in the White House then about the fact that this would one day happen no matter who (R or D) was sitting in the big chair. Here’s the scary truth that most people don’t want to admit. No one is really safe. We value the freedoms we have in this country but they do make us a little more open to attacks of this type. And I wouldn’t trade a single one in for the fact that they win if we go that route. If they make us so wildly change our way of life because of fear, they win. But that does leave us open. A free country will never be completely safe and there is nothing Clinton or Bush could have done about it.
Now, Iraq….. Bush is a twit. It’s a mess. I really don’t like him right now. And he’ll win this November because Kerry isn’t a great option unless you just want the unBush.
*sigh*
Sorry about being an ášš.
I’m in a rather pìššëd mood today, mostly due to the fact that I read in my city’s paper today that amongst the two-dozen US soldiers killed this past weekend was someone from the area where I live. I didn’t know the guy, but it rather pìššëd me off that someone my exact age got killed for no good reason.
My lashing out at folks here was more or less residual “pissyness” from my seething hatred of Bush. Sorry for the insults I’ve directed at you folks. I was out of line. In the future, I’ll direct my anger/annoyance into amassing an army of bionic squirrels to take over the world. . . or Iowa, whichever is easier.
Jerry in Richmond,
It’s easy to write off people, but better to make an effort to educate. Some won’t respond well and that is the time to ignore them.
Andrew,
Well said. Apologizing shows class.
Jerry in Richmond,
We haven’t had a candidate I truly wanted in office for a very long time. But at the moment I truly want those in the White House out of power. This is the reason so few vote. No one seems worthy of the office. No one wants to improve conditions for all the people and the environment. At least Kerry seems to wants to improve a few things for us average citizens.
Andrew,
Bionic squirrels? You been hanging out around my workplace or what?
Karen,
Preaching to the converted, K. But I’m not sure Kerry is the answer. Let’s get something clear before I say my next bit… While I don’t hate Bush as a person, I hate him as a Prez. He moved us into something we should never have been in in the most heavey handed, dim witted, clumsy and foolish way. He has set this country up for failure with Iraq because there is no way out of this that won’t hurt and, most likely, flop. He has shown only a passing fancy at best of dealing with some of the many problems he has created there and they will come back to haunt us.
But Kerry, unless he does one hëll of a job in the next few months changing my mind and many other’s, is not the answer. I’m not saying I won’t vote. I will. Maybe even for Kerry just out of sheer bloody mindedness. But few others will. He has failed to be anything other then the anti-Bush up to this point. Enough for some but I think Dole showed how bad being the anti-Clinton worked. You have to show that you can be The Man (or the woman for you out there that will get on my for being sexy… er… sexist) and not the anti-Man.
Hmmm…. anti-man? Was that the guy who flew around on bugs or the Norman Bates superhero concept?
Man I need sleep.
http://www.snopes.com/photos/military/sandplanes.asp
Tell me why I still believe that someday we’ll come across those WMDs?
With a loved one in the military, the choice comes down to which canidate I believe will be most likely to keep them alive, or will their death count for something.
Which is why I’m voting for Jack Sparrow this time out.
Yeah, writers could imagine it. Writers can imagin a lot of things. But do they always come true? Of course not.
Jeez. I have to say, this is downright irritating to hear you say, pecificly, no one in the Bush Administation could have imagined this. No one in the Clinton, or Bush Sr., or any other president could either.
Before 9/11 it was always assumed we where safe – and that things like that simply didn’t happen to us. Nobody at ALL dreamed something like this would come true. We where all complacient – and sadly paid for it.
I think it’s unfair, arrogant, and insulting to say Bush, even with imagination, could had stopped 9/11. Do you notice, at all, for one second, how long Bush was even in Office? He barely got in there – and we suddenly are attacked like Peral Harbor. I swear – it seems like you can’t say anything without it dripping with Liberalisim.
You obviously think about things a lot – and think for yourself. But do you ever think that you, possibly, could be wrong? Your not omnipitent. No one is. I don’t assume I’m right all the time.
I’m sorry for blowing up like this. It just grates on my nerves how biased you seem to be. In the 2002 election, you and Glenn came on saying it showed how the Republicans tricked us, by frightening us with terrorism. That sounded like it came from an aggervatingly stupid idea that if people vote republican – then it must automaticly mean the people where tricked.
Seen ’em. Still doesn’t work for me on the entire WMD’s thing though. To believe that Saddam had a full WMD collection in his acid free boarded bags and dumped it all just before we attacked is a bit dim. Even he isn’t/wasn’t dumb enough to get rid of his best weapons within days of an attack that no one could not see coming a mile away. The proof of the WMD’s not being there came when we attacked and they weren’t launched against us. Please think about this for more then a second or two. These were his weapons of choice for years. These were the weapons that we feared the use of the most because we didn’t want to see thousands upon thousands of bodybags coming back home because of their use and he knew that. Bush wanted him gone at all costs and he had to know that as well. He had to know that there was no way he was staying in power. Do you really believe that Saddam had less then two IQ points to rub together? If he had had them, we would have had a body count of American soldiers well into the thousands.
Even Bush and Co. are moving off of that track ever so slowly. We’ve gone from “he has WMD’s” to “he had programs for the developing of base materials for the stuff that may have been used to make the stuff that could have been….”
And has anyone else noticed how much more the Bush crew is playing down WMD’s since we got Saddam and started pumping him for info? Prob because his answers are all along the lines of him not having them.
Let’s see. Bush in office for 8 months. 9/11 happens. Not his fault. Barely been there.
Clinton in office less then 30 days. Trade Center bombings in 1993. The right points out that Clinton was is office, it was under his watch and it was his fault while giving him no credit for catching the bášŧárdš who did it.
Neither of them were at fault for the attacks but I do so love how the right and the left look at the world and the events in it.
Anyone in a position of any authority and consequence in a national security position should not only have imagined it, but already been aware of the possibility.
Fact:
Hijacking roughly a decade previous in Europe, with the hijackers threatening to fly the plane into the Eiffel Tower.
Fact:
Foiled, and publicly reported, plot from the Far East (can’t recall if it was in Hong Kong or perhaps the Phillipines — but it is not my job to remember all these details) involving multiple hijackings on the same day and crashing the planes.
Fact:
During the GWB administration, and prior to 9/11, at the G-8 summit, it was publicly announced that airspace had been closed and extra security instituted due to the threat of a plane being flown into the meeting place.
Fact:
The blowing up of the Pan Am plane over Lockerbie, demonstrating the explosive force and concomitant damage on the ground from an airborne bomb.
Rice’s inane comment, which PAD used as the springboard for the thread (and which she has recently said she wishes to “correct” during her testimony, as she “misspoke” earlier) paints her as either unqualified for her position, or as plain old stupid. Not a happy choice.
The U.S. military, in fact, had scheduled a national security exercise involving the theoretical hijacking of multiple commercial airliners – the exercise was supposed to take place on 9/11/01.
If it takes ‘imagination’ to envision anything carrying thousands of pounds of combustible fuel being used as an instrument of destruction, that lowers the bar on what imagination actually constitutes, IMHO — a rudimentary understanding of chemistry and physics would be more than sufficient to leap from A to B.
I’m not so sure that there is a lack of imagination at work here. Let me start off by saying: I am a “lefty wacko”. I am, however, not one to say things without research. I only have one link which relates to what I’m talking about right now, but I will be looking for the other (I can’t remember it off the top of my head.)
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=507514
This is one link I have found regarding the story of an FBI translator who was aware of the possibility through intel reports she had been working on. She was able to give approximate time-frames, probable targets, etc. I’m not sure if this is the link that mentions it, but one link mentions that her report was turned over to the administration in June or July.
I am looking for the link to confirm this (I have read it in one or two sources, but don’t remember where.) but, in July, a senior administration official (Rumsfeld, I believe) suddenly stopped flying on commercial airliners.
I do not believe it is a consiracy, but I do find it somewhat suspiscious.
“In the future, I’ll direct my anger/annoyance into amassing an army of bionic squirrels to take over the world. . . or Iowa, whichever is easier.”
See, now THAT’S the constructive way to channel anger…become a supervillain.
Anyway, classy apology. We all have bad days. For me it’s Monday. Any Monday. Give me a Monday and a rocket launcher and…well, there’d be some changes, let me tell you that.
Back to the issue at hand…I really think that Rice was just saying something we all say without having to defend its literal meaning. An earthquake rocks Iran and we read about the “unimaginable destruction”. Unimaginable? Like, this earthquake somehow was destructive to a degree that no scientist previously thought possible? For that matter, how can people ever say “unbelievable” when describing something either good or bad? When John Kerry says that it’s unbelievable how badly Bush has screwed up the war does he literally mean that he, John Kerry DOESN’T BELIEVE that the war IS screwed up? These are EXPRESSIONS, not meant to be parsed over by Miss Krabapple your 4rth grade English teacher.
People have been using the word “unimaginable” to describe extreme events for a long time. But let me offer a challenge–has there EVER been an event in our entire history that could truly have been described as “unimaginable” by the people of that time?
Me, I’m ready for everything from large radioactive reptiles rampaging through the streets of our cities to the dead rising
I’ve been reading all of this quietly, and I haven’t posted anything in a while. What really strikes me is that to the best of my recollection, the scandals the left are invovled in generally don’t hurt or involve anyone outside of their immediate circle. Yes, Clintion lied about getting some. And he was very wrong to do so. But the right’s scandals seem to be more about “We’re the party of morals and ethics! Now let’s screw the middle and lower class.” Halliburton. Slandering Richard Clark. I seem to recall that the Medicare bill will now cost a third more and that many moons ago, there was a scandal with the congressional bank that cost the taxpayers millions that was by and large Republican legislators. Oh, and aren’t Georgie and Dickie pretty tight with Ken Lay?
http://www.villiansupply.com For all your Evil Deeds!
PAD I love your writing but I consider you to be very bias when it comes to politics. I guess that’s okay since your only expressing your opinion. However, it would be nice sometime to read something you wrote that sounded “fair”.
Okay, time to reveal a dirty little secret – I used to enjoy reading Tom Clancy’s novels (now, of course, he’s basically the CEO of Tom Clancy, Inc., and seldom actually writes anything…).
In “Patriot Games” (the novel, not that overblown made-for-TV thing that hit the theaters a few years back), there was a terrorist attack on US soil. Jack Ryan, retired professor and CIA analyst, noted that the attack was unpredicted because of an unwritten agreement among terrorist groups – no one wanted to awaken the sleeping giant.
I think that’s why no one thought 9/11 was going to happen – we all thought the terrorists were too smart to want what’s happening today…
“The fact that the 9-11 bombers were well-educated, well-financed, had families and lives in this country and were STILL willing to kill themselves…”
I thought most of them didn’t really know what the endgame was going to be. Only a select few ringleaders? Maybe if they HAD been aware, things would have been different?
“I can tell you who is at fault for 9/11. The terrorists and nobody else. This crusade by the Left to blame Bush is almost as stupid as the Rights blaming 9/11 (and every other problem known to man) on Clinton. Some very bad people wanted to hurt us.”
Which brings us once again to the question of WHY? And what could have been done to prevent it? As in: what did we do to attract such unwanted attention?
There are many other countries in the world which are not Islamic, and have democracy and piles of money. So why is it the U.S. which is so frequetly the target these days? The answer to these questions won’t JUSTIFY the attacks. But it could explain them. The next question being, where to go from there?
“You know how much of a pain in the ášš airport security is nowadays in response to 9/11?”
Which helps to explain which people don’t fly as much any more. Paying that much to be treated that way? Uh-huh … Not that it really does much good. The ‘security’ is still ridiculously porous.
“Now, imagine that the Bush administration, after hearing that a plane hijacking might be used by terrorists in the future, implemented this strict security even without any terrorist attacks had occurred. He would have been completely raked over the coals by everyone. Even if it led to a group of Arabs with weapons getting caught …”
How? None of them had fake IDs. None of them were wanted for anything. And … “weapons”? Just about ANYTHING can be a weapon.
“I think it’s unfair, arrogant, and insulting to say Bush, even with imagination, could had stopped 9/11.”
It IS fair to say the problem began several administrations earlier. Although, given how the British and French were meddling in the Middle East long before the Americans stuck their feet in it, it does make one wonder why they aren’t more of a target, doesn’t it? It comes back to the question … why are Americans so loathed and despised by these people, as opposed to their hating others as much? It may seem fanatical and unsane to our point of view, but the other ‘side’ doesn’t see it that way. And until we really fully understand this, we can’t begin to formulate a response which will work. Short of wiping them all out, of course.
“The fact that the 9-11 bombers were well-educated, well-financed, had families and lives in this country and were STILL willing to kill themselves…”
I thought most of them didn’t really know what the endgame was going to be. Only a select few ringleaders? Maybe if they HAD been aware, things would have been different?
“I can tell you who is at fault for 9/11. The terrorists and nobody else. This crusade by the Left to blame Bush is almost as stupid as the Rights blaming 9/11 (and every other problem known to man) on Clinton. Some very bad people wanted to hurt us.”
Which brings us once again to the question of WHY? And what could have been done to prevent it? As in: what did we do to attract such unwanted attention?
There are many other countries in the world which are not Islamic, and have democracy and piles of money. So why is it the U.S. which is so frequetly the target these days? The answer to these questions won’t JUSTIFY the attacks. But it could explain them. The next question being, where to go from there?
“You know how much of a pain in the ášš airport security is nowadays in response to 9/11?”
Which helps to explain which people don’t fly as much any more. Paying that much to be treated that way? Uh-huh … Not that it really does much good. The ‘security’ is still ridiculously porous.
“Now, imagine that the Bush administration, after hearing that a plane hijacking might be used by terrorists in the future, implemented this strict security even without any terrorist attacks had occurred. He would have been completely raked over the coals by everyone. Even if it led to a group of Arabs with weapons getting caught …”
How? None of them had fake IDs. None of them were wanted for anything. And … “weapons”? Just about ANYTHING can be a weapon.
“I think it’s unfair, arrogant, and insulting to say Bush, even with imagination, could had stopped 9/11.”
It IS fair to say the problem began several administrations earlier. Although, given how the British and French were meddling in the Middle East long before the Americans stuck their feet in it, it does make one wonder why they aren’t more of a target, doesn’t it? It comes back to the question … why are Americans so loathed and despised by these people, as opposed to their hating others as much? It may seem fanatical and unsane to our point of view, but the other ‘side’ doesn’t see it that way. And until we really fully understand this, and the reasons behind it, we can’t begin to formulate a response which will work. Short of wiping them all out, of course.
“Halliburton. Slandering Richard Clark. I seem to recall that the Medicare bill will now cost a third more and that many moons ago, there was a scandal with the congressional bank that cost the taxpayers millions that was by and large Republican legislators.”
In order–
Halliburton seems to have done a fairly good job in Iraq. At any rate, not many companies are equipped for this job–which one should have been picked?
Slandering Richard Clark– yeah, by quoting him. The bášŧárdš! (here’s a funny out of context one–
“The fact is, President Clinton approved every snatch that he was ever asked to review.”
-Against All Enemies: Inside America’s War on Terror by Richard A. Clarke
(Page 145)
Medicare WILL cost more, thanks to the new drug benefits. You want to take DRUGS away from DYING SENIORS??? What are you, a REPUBLICAN???
As for the congressional bank scandal–oh wait, your really ARE a republican, aren’t you? very clever, bringing up either the Keating 5 scandal ( Democrats and every democrat’s favorite republican John McCain) or the 1992 congressional bank scandal that was so heavily dominated by democrats that it led to the Republican takeover of the house of representatives for the first time in decades.
And you blame the republicans, knowing that someone will look it up and make the Democrats look venal. Clever, clever boy.
“Oh, and aren’t Georgie and Dickie pretty tight with Ken Lay?”
Not so tight that they allowed him to go on ripping off the country, like he was able to do under other administrations. Where were the watchdogs then?
I don’t get it, really. I’m conservative. I don’t “hate” liberals, I just don’t understand them. At all.
Someone said Bush’s ads are lies against Kerry. I wouldn’t mind being educated. I know how Kerry’s are lies about Bush, but I can’t see how quoting Kerry’s record and how it disagrees with the conservative mindset are “lies”.
Iraq is going pretty much how I thought it would. I can’t imagine (!) how anyone would think it would go differently. While I am NOT trivializing the loss of life, we lost more men in one day of every war other than the Gulf war than we have in all of the Iraq war. It isn’t going “well” because war CAN’T go “well”.
Nor do I understand how Bush is hurting the middle and lower class. I’ve moved from upper-lower to mid-middle class on his watch. I and several friends have started small businesses because of how much easier it is now than it was before.
My complaint with Bush is that he spends too much. With all the compassionate liberals out there, it seems like so many entitlement programs could be funded in the private sector instead of through Government programs (why should the government, by definition an inefficient machine, run entitlement programs? Isn’t it the responsibility of envisioned individuals to commit acts of charity????)
The government should provide security, roads, and not much else. It’s all the “else” stuff that makes politics a joke.
“Let’s see. Bush in office for 8 months. 9/11 happens. Not his fault. Barely been there.
Clinton in office less then 30 days. Trade Center bombings in 1993. The right points out that Clinton was is office, it was under his watch and it was his fault while giving him no credit for catching the bášŧárdš who did it.”
I never blamed the first WTC attack on Clinton. But compare the responses. Clinton tried and jailed those directly responsible. That’s it. Bush quickly struck back devastatingly and let the world know that anyone who even supported terrorism would be subject to similar treatment. Which approach is going to discourage future attacks?
I’d say that question’s been answered pretty decidedly.
USS Cole? In the days following the attack, the “slandered” Richard Clarke claimed that he knew exactly who was responsible and presented the Clinton administration with a detailed plan for dismantling al Qaeda on a global scale.
Clinton and his advisors turned down the plan and in the end, did nothing.
As for the issue of Democrats attacking Bush if he had taken the necessary steps to prevent 9-11 (if that were even possible), this entire discussion is the answer to that question. If the Dems were that reasonable and fair-minded, they wouldn’t now be trying to pin 9-11 on President Bush. They never would have denied that Hussein had WMDs even though prior to the invasion of Iraq, everyone (including the UN) accepted it as a given that he had them. My goodness, Dems attack the Patriot Act as if John Ascroft is personally using it to murder liberals, rape little girls and pillage the DNC.
And that’s AFTER 9-11. If you don’t accept the WTC attack as “hard evidence” of the need for increased security, I doubt very much that you would accept anything less prior to 9-11.
Tim
In the future, I’ll direct my anger/annoyance into amassing an army of bionic squirrels to take over the world. . . or Iowa, whichever is easier.
Hey now, Iowa would be more difficult to take over than you think. 🙂
Anyways, I agree with the general “lack of imagination”, but more so with Iraq than 9/11.
I think 9/11 would have happened regardless, or something along the lines of the plan used in 9/11.
I also think whoever was president would have done as good of job as Bush.
But, of course, that doesn’t excuse the rest of Bush’s cockups – namely Iraq.
Overall, a general lack of intelligence and intelligence gathering lead to 9/11.
And that’s not Clinton’s fault either.
I mean, c’mon… until 9/11, the FBI and CIA didn’t really work together, didn’t share information.
How fubar’ed is that!?
But, unlike the Clinton Administration (that I recall), the Bush Administration is splintered.
There is no unity.
Ridge is way out in left field (or right field if you want to stay political), Rice is a twit.
Powell’s saying one thing, Bush says another.
Most are saying we’re getting out of Iraq, Rumsfeld says we’re sending more troops in.
Not to mention that nobody has kept their story straight about WHY we went to Iraq.
Or how important bin Laden is, not national security, but to help Bush’s ability in getting reelected.
What the friggin hëll?
Here is the text of Condi Rice’s statement before the commission. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,116531,00.html
Here’s a couple of high points as far as I’m concerned (emphasis added is mine):
So, the first major NSC initiative was not Iraq? Kind of blows a hole in Mr. Clarke’s version of things.
Only if you assume she’s telling the whole truth.
Look at the substance of the public speeches she, Bush, Rumsfeld and others gave from January to September.
Lots on China (understandable given the downed plane)
Lots and lots on SDI.
Anything on al-Qaeda?
Rice had a major speech scheduled for the evening of September 11th, which from all accounts didn’t mention non-state terrorism in the slightest as a security issue.
Let me be clear: I’m not trying to blame the Bush administration for 9/11. I think it was to some extent unavoidable, and whatever “fault” they bear for it is mostly something they’d share equally with the last 3-4 administrations before them.
Like Craig, I think the main problem is what’s happened since then — particularly, yes, Iraq. Even if it wasn’t the “very first NSC initiative” (which I’m not willing to concede at present), it’s obviously been seriously on the minds of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Perle since at least 1998 if you look at the PNAC letters and essays.
I don’t think they missed the boat on 9/11, nor do I agree with the really conspiracy-minded folk that they simply “let” it happen in order to have an excuse.
I do think they seized an opportunity when they had it, and Osama’s been on the back burner for at least 2 of the last 2.5 years.
TWL
Technically, it doesn’t blow a hole in Richard Clarke’s version of events. As I understand it, Richard Clarke was the one pushing the very initiative adopted on September 4. He was pushing it, I believe, from at least January of 2001 to September. What Richard Clarke testified to was that, while terrorism was a priority for the Bush administration, they had their attention focused on many other things, i.e. Star Wars missile defense, the downed spy plane in China, and yes, Iraq. That’s why the directive wasn’t offically given the go-ahead until September 4. The Administration was, by Clarke’s account, delayed in adopting this first official directive because they were engaged in other pursuing other objectives.
I haven’t read Clarke’s book, so I’m basing that on the testimony he gave and his interviews following the testimony i.e. Meet the Press, Hardball, etc.
As to the lack of imagination idea, well…maybe. There may be some truth to that. I didn’t vote for Bush. I don’t think he’s evil. I don’t think Richard Clarke thinks he’s evil. The Bush Administration was following the course that they genuinely believed appropriate, and it’s folly to try to blame them for the attacks, just as it is for the Administration to blame the Clinton team.
Terrorists don’t operate based on logic and reason. They operate based on fear. That said, I’m not a fan of the war on terror. I despise terrorism and think it needs to be prevented, but I think that’s a job for the intelligence agencies acting in covert, than for the military in all-out wars. I think the war on terror is, frankly, a war of rhetoric. We’re never fully going to eliminate terrorism. All we do in trying to blow out the flame of radical terrorist cells is spread the embers. I think that’s what Richard Clarke was getting to when he said that the war in Iraq is undermining the war on terror…that it’s resulting in more radical extremists being willing to cause terror and destruction.
That’s just my opinion, though. Political debatest like this are healthy, and good, especially when they’re tempered with respect. I respect those who disagree with me. But those who are shrill or abrasive in expressing their views, whether they agree with me or refute me, lose my respect.
Opinions are opinions. There’s always room for debate. It’s when people stop respecting one another that the debate breaks down. Suddenly, it’s like talking to a wall.
Hello, wall. 😉
“has there EVER been an event in our entire history that could truly have been described as “unimaginable” by the people of that time?”
Define “our”.
I feel reasonably safe in thinking that it was “unimaginable” to people a thousand or more years ago that some huge hunk of rock could come down from the skies and vaporize their village. Mostly because the universe, as they believed it to be, didn’t work like that. Bit of a stretch between that, and not seeing that people could used bigger planes than the Japanese had in WWII to hit buildings instead of aircraft carriers.
Too, in a world where a nuclear weapon can be delivered by sub-launched missile to a coastal city in a matter of minutes, there seems to be a certain amount of unpreparedness when a place suddenly went silent, off-course, into a building, and no one seemed to look to see if there was something else going on that wasn’t, er, kosher, as it were, at the same time. Not until the SECOND one hit some time later. ie response time was dismal.
The problem is that the Middle East is very complicated. They fight each other, but not only each other. In other cases, they’re a united front against the world.
Let’s say the U.S. immediately pulls out all its troops. Yes, the Iraqi factions will fight each other, and there will most likely be a bloody revolution and mass genocide until one sides’ military dictator takes control.
In the mean time, terrorists will be trained there, and guess who their first target will be? The very country who was kind enough to pull out and stop interfering so they can determine their own fate: The U.S. And because they have a pretty big record to beat, it will repeatedly make 9/11 look like a small accident.
Not only that, but if it does happen it’s easy to predict that the U.S. troops who just left, tail between legs, will have to return again when Kuwait, Jordan, and probably Israel are attacked by the new Iraqi dictatorship. Only this time, without a dictator who just likes playing games, the U.S. will be fighting a fully armed Iraqi army.
I don’t really see what the hëll, the administration could have done.
The US Government gets hundreds (maybe thousands) of threats made against them every other week. Some are against the country as a whole, some are against administration members, some are against the president himself. It would be a logistical impossibility to commit all your resources to every single threat so each one has to be investigated on its own merits. You cannot blame one person or one department in the US government for 9/11. You can only blame the terrorists who carried it out.
PS. This has nothing to with any political party, i’m not American, i’m British, so don’t give a toss about what Kerry, Bush, Clinton, whoever are doing just to make each other look bad. All that does is belittle the memory of those who died and does nothing to prevent further attacks or catch those that did it.
What is irritating about this debate is that much of it exemplifies binary thinking. If you’re against Bush, there’s nothing that his team did that’s defendable; if you’re for Bush, any criticism of his tactics and strategy are invalid and are just partisan attacks.
Nothing in this world is that simple, folks. One could agree with the overall Bush strategy against terrorism, but can still be extremely critical of the tactics employed (e.g., invading Iraq is an acceptable goal, but not being able to muster more international support was an unacceptable mistake; getting rid of Hussein was a laudable goal, but the slowness and lack of preparation to handle the resulting chaos was inexcusable).
Bush has plenty imagination. Just look at that negative ad campaign against Kerry. Pure fiction, that stuff.
One example is the Bush campaign that claims that Kerry voted for 350 tax increases. Aside from the fact that 350 tax increases of $1 million each is probably better than 10 tax increases of $10 billion each, a look at the actual votes reveals that some of the votes are for measures that EVERYBODY voted for, some of them were for tax DECREASES that simply weren’t as high as Republicans would wish, and some of them were part of omibus bills that are linked and concerned with other issues.
Tim B,
Didn’t mean the right as in YOU. I was talking about the constant banging of the drum by so many on the Right.
Compare the responses? Only if you compare the acts themselves. If you think the American people would have accepted a full blown war because some guys blew a truck up and charred one of the towers…. Never would have happened. Also look at what was done after the bombing and not just look at the act in a bubble. We got intel off of those guys that let us stop terrorist acts against us that were in the active stage.
Which response worked? Answer that question fully when 8 years have past from the 9/11 2001 mark. Why, that would be the time period that would allow you to compare the two tactics side by side. As for now, we’ve had the same number of attacks on U.S. soil after 9/11 that we had after 93 for this time period.
Which brings to mind another fun one of the Right to show how great Bush is and how well his plan to invade Iraq has worked in the war on terror. I love how so many on the Right try to use the trump card of, “yeah, well how many 9/11 style attacks have we had on our soil since then?” Like that means anything?!? Please, please, please, someone slap one of those guys and ask them to name how many 9/11 style attacks we had on U.S. soil BEFORE 9/11 2001.
First, as was mentioned earlier, somebody in the Bush Administration was worried about terrorists using airplanes as missiles — just look at the security precaution for Bush’s appearance at the G-8 summit earlier in 2001. The notion that 9/11 came about because it was a hitherfore-unimaginable act is silly; there are entire departments within the FBI, the CIA, the Pentagon, the NSA, and several other hush-hush secret agencies that do nothing but dream up these scenarios and consider their possibilities.
The long and short of the whole matter is that the Bush Administration has a serious credibility gap. Their response to any accusation against them is always the same — destroy the messenger. There is no attempt to bring up any evidence disproving the accusations (because there aren’t any), and they have repeatedly stonewall any attempts by non-Administration members to get the answers (note that the 9/11 commission only managed to get $11 million in funding from the White House, versus the $30 million that was given out when the commission to investigate the Columbia shuttle disaster was formed).
For all the slandering of Richard Clarke that has been performed by the conservative media, note that none of them have managed to actually refute a single fact Clarke raised. Hëll, some of the stuff Clarke raises can even be corroborated in Bob Woodward’s flattering biography, Bush At War, yet nobody is accusing Woodward of treason or profiteering.
In the end, ask yourself which is more likely:
1. That the Bush Administration is a group of self-serving Iraq-obsessed neoconservatives who do whatever they want under cover of government secrecy, and who are now facing accusations from lifelong Republicans who are disgusted at how the Administration is betraying their conservative ideology,
or
2. That the Bush Administration is a pack of ever-alert angels and selfless servants, who keep their meetings and policy plans secret merely for the collective good of the American public, and who happen to be under vile attacks from lifelong Republicans who have been zapped with a mind-control beam to make them turn against George W. Bush because they’re jealous of his boyish good looks.
Let’s face it, kids, when even G. Gordon Liddy and Pat Buchanan look at you and say “you’re an extremist,” it’s time to seriously reevaluate your position…
For everybody,
For each side here that asks how either Kerry or Bush is telling lies in their ads..
http://www.factcheck.org
Does a good job pin pricking both sides.
Peter wrote: “That might work. Me, I don’t want to see people die in Iraq in civil war, but the fact is that people *are* going to die there in civil war because they’re not a united country, they’re composed of various factions who want to kill each other. The question is, how many of those who are going to die are going to be Americans?”
Sixty years ago or so, there were maybe 40 democracies on the planet. Today, there are more than 100. Many countries that are now democracies once had bitter ethnic, religious or political differences that were at least as devisive and deadly as those currently found in Iraq. But with hard work by people who didn’t throw in the towel when things get ugly, differences were resolved and the chaos subsided. In some cases, there was a large and horrible human cost before this happened — own Civil War is a perfect example an example. But the end result is that more people than ever on this planet have a means of self-determination that was never possible before.
As far as the question of why Americans should be involved? Well, without the help of the French, we would have most definitely lost the Revolutionary War, and without a successful revolution template for rebellious French intellectuals to point to or emulate, the French Revolution might never have happened. The result? Today there might be few, if any, democracies on the planet.
Russ Maheras
Bush IS evil. That’s why gas prices are so high. At an all-time high to be exact. The oil companies are making record profits and we are paying the price at the pump. The oil companies are then making HUGE donations to the Republican party. Sorta all ties together, doesn’t it?
As I write, Condy Skank is speaking before the commission. She’s all smiles and light. As if to say “All is right with the world. We are perfect and you are idiots to be questioning us.” Betcha Clarence Thomas is drooling all over his Coke can today.
9-11 should have been prevented. The Israeli airline, EL AL, has had locked and reinforced doors on their cockpits for a very long time. For the other airlines to say that they didn’t think they needed to do the same is complete bull. For the government to not force them to do so was a failure of leadership.
9-11 happened specificly because Bush was in office. As soon as he was gifted with the Presidency, it was ordained to happen. This was because he is the son of Bush, Sr. The problems that have happened after 9-11 are all Jr.’s responsibility. Taking us into Iraq under false pretenses is a crime worthy of Impeachment. That won’t happen because the Republicans have control of our country. If Clinton or Gore had done this, they would have been Impeached. Such is the way of the “Yer witt me or agin me” mental midgets of the (not-so) right.
“Didn’t mean the right as in YOU. I was talking about the constant banging of the drum by so many on the Right.”
Thanks. I honestly didn’t think you did, and I hope I didn’t imply that in my response. I’m not taking any of this personally.
Yet. 😉
“Compare the responses? Only if you compare the acts themselves. If you think the American people would have accepted a full blown war because some guys blew a truck up and charred one of the towers…. Never would have happened. Also look at what was done after the bombing and not just look at the act in a bubble. We got intel off of those guys that let us stop terrorist acts against us that were in the active stage.”
Who said that the only other response was a fullblown war? Did I? I hope not. How about a proportional response? I don’t think the fear of trial and conviction is going to put fear in the hearts of any terrorist. A military response might not either, but it’s got a much better chance of succeeding.
“Which response worked? Answer that question fully when 8 years have past from the 9/11 2001 mark. Why, that would be the time period that would allow you to compare the two tactics side by side. As for now, we’ve had the same number of attacks on U.S. soil after 9/11 that we had after 93 for this time period.”
As a matter of history when dealing with tyrants and terrorists, appeasement and negotiation doesn’t appear to work as well as confrontation. You’re right in that time will tell. Someone could use a dirty bomb or unleash a bioterror weapon on our shores tomorrow. But I feel more comfortable knowing that any terrorist who would do that knows that everything he holds dear may be bombed out of existence if he goes forward with his plan.
That’s my opinion, anyway.
“Which brings to mind another fun one of the Right to show how great Bush is and how well his plan to invade Iraq has worked in the war on terror. I love how so many on the Right try to use the trump card of, “yeah, well how many 9/11 style attacks have we had on our soil since then?” Like that means anything?!? Please, please, please, someone slap one of those guys and ask them to name how many 9/11 style attacks we had on U.S. soil BEFORE 9/11 2001.”
I honestly have never heard anyone say that we know the war on terror is succeeding because no one has flown an airplane into a building and killed 3000 people since 9-11. That sounds pretty foolish. Just like it would be foolish to say that the war on terror is a failure if anyone ever attacks us again.
Tim
“Let’s face it, kids, when even G. Gordon Liddy and Pat Buchanan look at you and say “you’re an extremist,” it’s time to seriously reevaluate your position…”
Pat thinks anyone who doesn’t hate jews is a Zionist extremist. You can have him, my friend.
“9-11 happened specificly because Bush was in office. As soon as he was gifted with the Presidency, it was ordained to happen.”
Uh oh, break out the tinfoil hats gang, we have spotted black helicopters and they’re heading this way.
Alan Coil wrote:
“As I write, Condy Skank is speaking before the commission.”
Condy Skank! Ha ha ha ha ha! That is hilarious! And witty! It almost makes me want to become a liberal again, so I can come up with such funny nicknames for people in the news!
I have plenty of items I would like to post about some very thought-provoking statements on this topic and a few others, but I have just had the privilege of seeing Condoleeza Rice testify for the past three hours on TV in front of the 9/11 Commission, and I juut have to say this: “Wow!”
I do not think I can ever recall someone with that much responsibility under that much pressure with such a wide range of heavy responsibilities in such an historic setting comethrough it with such flying colors. She absolutely BLEW ME AWAY!
If you think about this time in history and ALL the scenarios she has to take into account and departments she has to run and responsibility on her shoulders, it is truly amazing.When she interjected herself in a subtle manner over whether or not we can bring democracy to Iraq, citing our own country’s problems with the American Experiment (“I know when the Founding Fathers wrote ‘We The People’ they did not mean me – I was considered 3/5 of a person’) I was touched. It was something she has said before, but it really came through today. The genesis of the American Dream and maintaining it was not and is not easy, nor will it probably ever be. And we’ve had over 225 years to get it just right! We have been in Iraq for just over a year. It will take a while, but I am confident that we can deliver for the Iraqi people better and more peaceful lives, and that the Iraqi example will eventually inspire the rest of the Mideast to give up violence and hatred.
Now that takes some imagination – and the will to make it a reality. this administration – and rice in particular – have both in spades.
As for those who would stoop to name-calling, all i can say is that Clarence Thomas is the only other black person besides Condi in at least the past two decades who it has been politically correct to bash. So go on. I can only hope as many Americans watched this extraordinary woman – heck, extraordinary person – today as watched those ridiculous Anita Hill hearings. She was an inspiration to all of us on one can take on so much responsibility, be professional and sharp, answer tough questions and do it all with grace, style and class.
Finally, for those who would criticize Condi’s (the correct nickname) positive attitude and smile, what would you say if she looked moody, talked defensively and spoke snippily? Some people just can’t win. I thought she was tremendous even under heavy fire from Kerrey and was well-informed.
For those who doubt her intelligence, this woman entered college at age FIFTEEN and in addition to her doctorate was the first black female provost in Stanford’s (one of the elite academic institutions in the country) history.
She has a great deal on the ball, whatever you think of the Bush Administration’s policies.
Mr. President We must not allow an imagination gap!!
/Dr. Strangelove
Condoleeza Rice is an enormous asset to the Bush Administration and the entire country. I’ve been impressed with her since day one and I hope that she will continue on to bigger and better things. I would hope that she would think seriously about a run for President. I’d vote for her!
Think about that – the “racist, bigoted, sexist” Republicans running an African-American woman for President. Wouldn’t that be something. Although I doubt it will change the rhetoric on the other side of the aisle too much. (I’d love to see a Hillary/Condi competition in 2008!)
Tim
Point: Halliburton didn’t have to overcharge for fuel and food overseas, and I’d like there to have been at least another bid for the job. It went straight to Cheney’s old crew.
Point: The White House manipulated the numbers to make the Medicare bill seem less costly—their own man said so. And if we were allowed to use drugs from another country or control the prices instead of toadying to the Drug Lobbies, it would still have cost more than we were orignially told. (My brother’s a pharmacist. I am correct.)
As for the scandals, well I if I was wrong I apologize. But I was there and I recall it the other way around, with the Republicans taking advantage of the fact that checks that should’ve bounced cleared anyway. If you can point me to a website that’ll lead me to straight facts, I’s be grateful.
I still think they’re a group of schmucks. Individually, I don’t know.
Yes, we still need to work on our democracy, but do we have the right to inflict it on others? Do the Iraqui people not have the right to manifest their own destiny? We can’t shove democracy down the throats of a nation and expect candy and roses. That is why we are seeing an escalation oc violence. Just as our founding fathers wanted control, so do the Iraqui people.
Karen:
>>Yes, we still need to work on our democracy, but do we have the right to inflict it on others? Do the Iraqui people not have the right to manifest their own destiny? We can’t shove democracy down the throats of a nation and expect candy and roses. That is why we are seeing an escalation oc violence. Just as our founding fathers wanted control, so do the Iraqui people.
Agreed. There have been at least 2 reported protests consisting of Iraqi crowds numbering somewhere between 20,000-30,000 reported in the media. These aren’t assassins or terrorists coming in from other countries. These are Iraqi citizens. While it may be fine to argue one way or the other on whether the Iraqi people “deserve” democray, it is not a humanitarian endvour to force it down the throats of others.
Interestingly (or not), I had a different impression of the hearings. I thought she came off as and over-eager to make sure absolutely nothing could have been even the slightest mistake.
Granted, the odds were good that Jerome and I were going to perceive these events differently anyway, but I also wonder how much of that is because I listened to it on radio rather than watching it on television.
Looking forward to reading the full transcripts when I get a chance.
TWL
Bush IS evil. That’s why gas prices are so high. At an all-time high to be exact. The oil companies are making record profits and we are paying the price at the pump. The oil companies are then making HUGE donations to the Republican party. Sorta all ties together, doesn’t it?
While I have no complaints about paying less per gallon for gas, I have to wonder if we’ve got our priorities in order when we complain about paying less than $2 for a gallon of a liquid that allows us to go long distances in a short period of time…including down to Starbuck’s for the privilege of paying $3+ for a cup of coffee.
Rargh. Trimmed too much in that second sentence there:
I thought she came off as and over-eager
Please make that “came off as extremely defensive, and over-eager to…”
Sorry ’bout that.
TWL
Good point to Nytwyng. I’d also add that anyone who thinks gas prices are high should really spend some time in Europe. $2 a gallon is relative chicken-feed.
Now, today’s papers are reporting that Oman’s main oil field is definitely past its peak. If (and that’s a hefty “if”) that’s a sign that oil production is starting to peak … then my suspicion is that we ain’t seen nothin’ yet.
TWL