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
• 
You guys are paying $2 a gallon? This doesn’t get said that often, but I love living in New Jersey.
The precautions during that G-8 summit indicated that Bush’s handlers took seriously the idea that someone might use an entire aircraft as a means of mass assassination. Nobody, to the best of my knowledge, ever thought that a passenger jet might be hijacked and used as a blunt instrument of terror, just to kill whoever might happen to be in the way. Well, nobody this side of al-Qaeda, anyway…
I remember the morning of 9/11/2001 well. There were no public announcements by the terrorists that they were going to strike. Until the second plane hit, it was widely assumed that the first one had suffered some sort of malfunction and crashed accidentally.
None of this in any way excuses Bush’s subsequent war on Iraq – as has been pointed out numerous times already, there was no real link between Iraq and 9/11.
(Incidentally, Condi’s statement about the Founding Fathers wasn’t quite correct. She would have been 3/5 of a person for census purposes – other than that, since she was black and female, she wouldn’t have been considered really a person at all…)
“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.”
“(Incidentally, Condi’s statement about the Founding Fathers wasn’t quite correct. She would have been 3/5 of a person for census purposes – other than that, since she was black and female, she wouldn’t have been considered really a person at all…)”
I couldn’t resist the temptation to put these three statements together. The last one is a genuine example of oppression. Lack of freedom. Usurped rights. Treating someone like they are less than a person and preventing them from enjoying the rights and freedoms that others have. And I dare say, in Hussein’s Iraq, the degrees of oppression went far beyond being treated like a fraction of a human being.
The two former statements assume so many mind-boggling things that it is amazing. Among them I see: liberating an oppressed people is “shoving democracy down their throats” (like democracy is really no different than oppression), democracy can be inflicted on people (as if they would choose oppression if we didn’t take away their rights to), freeing an oppressed people from tyrants is not by definition a “humanitarian effort,” people who are oppressed don’t necessarily want to be free or shouldn’t be freed from their oppressors, freedom isn’t absolutely morally right, and totalitarianism isn’t absolutely immoral.
We can debate the politics of the current situation until we are blue in the face, and that is fine. I’m discussing principle rather than the specific Iraq war, which reasonable people can disagree on. But to say that there are situations in the world where more democracy and freedom may not be a good thing is, in my opinion, execrable. Ideally, what we are fighting for in Iraq is the ability of the Iraqi people to manifest their own destiny. Under Saddam Hussein, that was impossible. Now, if we are careful and can succeed in what we are doing, there may come a time when the people there will have the freedom to decide their own fates. And to say that that freedom is something that we are “inflicting” on them or “shoving down their throats” is, to me, the moral equivalent of saying that maybe it wasn’t so bad when some people were considered only 3/5 of a human being. After all, we don’t want to force anything down anyone’s throat. Like equality and freedom.
(Sorry for the rant. But it’s Thursday, and I feel a little like Captain America. If you don’t like me today, tune in tomorrow. On Fridays, I feel more like Wolverine.)
Tim
Tim B.
We did have military action against terrorist for years. We’ve scrubbed more then a few bases and camps and the S.A.S. has had more then a few ops where they got to play Die Hard the real game. The former Soviets had had more then a few fun and game times with terrorist as well. We’ve supported those who fought them. Of course, most of them then turned on us but that’s another story. All that happened was new groups formed from the ashes of the old or old groups just moved their base of operations. The type of military action that we took after 9/11 when we went after Bin Laden worked very well but was only accepted by us and the world because of 9/11.
And I’m with you on saying that a massive attack (great band) on the U.S. at a later date does not mean that the fight against terrorist is going bad. Like I said way before; if they want to hurt us bad enough they will find a way. I think it was Rice who said something today that was dead on. We have to be right (about what they’re doing and how to stop them) 100% of the time. They only have to be right once.
You’ve never heard that line about the “since 9/11” bit? Guess you don’t work and play with people who have the listening and viewing habbits of those around me. Short list:
Rush, Hannity, O’Reilly, Hume, Savage, Will (I think), Hedgecock, Coulter, most the C’s and R’s on the FOX news op-ed shows. I get to hear that remark at least once a week when the “War on Terror” gets brought up on any of there shows.
The two former statements assume so many mind-boggling things that it is amazing. Among them I see: liberating an oppressed people is “shoving democracy down their throats” (like democracy is really no different than oppression),
But for all intent and purposes, we’re talking about a group of people that don’t want democracy.
Sure, we’d love them to have it. And some of the people likely do want it.
But it seems like alot of ’em don’t. And that’s where it comes to “shoving it down their throats”.
Democracy is a concept which, imo, must be willingly embraced.
From perusing bits and pieces scattered about the web, my favorite Codi moment so far:
KERREY: Why didn’t we swat that fly?
RICE: I believe that there’s a question of whether or not you respond in a tactical sense or whether you respond in a strategic sense; whether or not you decide that you’re going to respond to every attack with minimal use of military force and go after every — on a kind of tit-for-tat basis.
By the way, in that memo, Ðìçk Clarke talks about not doing this tit-for-tat, doing this on the time of our choosing.
RICE: I’m aware, Mr. Kerrey, of a speech that you gave at that time that said that perhaps the best thing that we could do to respond to the Cole and to the memories was to do something about the threat of Saddam Hussein.
That’s a strategic view…
(APPLAUSE)
And we took a strategic view. We didn’t take a tactical view. I mean, it was really — quite frankly, I was blown away when I read the speech, because it’s a brilliant speech. It talks about really…
(LAUGHTER)
… an asymmetric…
KERREY: I presume you read it in the last few days?
RICE: Oh no, I read it quite a bit before that. It’s an asymmetric approach.
I don’t think it’s Rice who was hurt today.
Hmmmm, Condi vs hillary in 2008? Won’t hapen…but if it did, some fun, eh?
“Democracy is a concept which, imo, must be willingly embraced.”
The only time I can see where someone would willingly choose oppression over freedom is if they think they are the ones who will be doing the oppressing. (Or they’ll be favored by the oppressor, like some parts of Iraq were.) I don’t see that as a reason to not free the masses. Those who side with the tyrant should be opposed, not embraced.
Let me know though if you find someone who doesn’t want personal freedom. Who likes to have their lives run by someone else. Who wants no choices in life. Who desires to be treated like something that is less than human. Who is satisfied to be considered cattle. Who desires nothing better for themselves than to be at the whim of a tyrant. Who has no dreams and no aspirations.
When you’ve found such a person, you can safely say that you have someone to whom freedom and democracy are an imposition. I suppose it’s possible that you may find someone who is that beaten down and devoid of life, but I think that they would themselves demonstrate the reason why freedom is something we should passionately export as often as possible.
Tim
Alan wrote: “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?”
Gas reached about $2 a gallon under Clinton’s watch, didn’t it? Maybe he was part of the evil oil conspiracy, too.
Actually, the reasons for the price increases are more complex than you may realize, and prices are manipulated all the time by one of the world’s largest “legal” monopolies: OPEC. I wonder why the European Union hasn’t ever fined OPEC, like it did Bill Gates, for monopolistic practices? Perhaps they are afraid OPEC might retaliate and destroy the European economy? Gates was an easy target. He is an American businessman (it’s always been fashionable to pick on Americans in Europe), and what harm could he possibly do — make Windows a more mediocre, more virus-prone operating system than it already is?
By the way, you should be thanking your lucky stars you buy your gasoline in the United States. When I lived in England in the early 1980s, petrol cost the equivalent of about $3 a gallon. While in England and Scotland two weeks ago, gas was about 80 pence a liter. Since about four liters equal a U.S. gallon, the cost for one gallon of gas was about three pounds, 20 pence, or about $5.75 a gallon.
So instead of bad-mouthing the mean old oil companies, you should probably have them on your holiday card list for keeping oil prices so low in the U.S. for so long. Most Americans are spoiled and they don’t even know it.
Russ Maheras
Bravo, Tim. Good points, all.
Before today, I didn’t think Condi would have a hope of beating Hillary, but not anymore.
Those are debates I’d PAY to see.
Craig wrote: “But for all intent and purposes, we’re talking about a group of people that don’t want democracy.”
Huh???!! Say, what??!! I’m sure this same, narrow-minded argument could have been used as well by those Americans who didn’t want us to get involved in World War II. “It’s not our fight. Why should our boys go over there and die? Screw the Europeans, they’ve been fighting each other for more than two thousand years. And what’s so bad about facism in Germany? It got them out of their economic mess. What do they need a democracy for, anyway? Hëll, ours got us into the Great Depression.” And on, and on, and on.
The Iraqis lived in a totalitarian society, but you apparently think they would have been better off if we had just minded our own business? Tell that to any Iraqi refugee who fled the country, or any Iraqi who lost a loved one to Saddam’s butchery, and they’ll probably look at you like you were crazy.
Russ Maheras
Tim,
They do not choose to be oppressed, but that does not neccessarily mean they choose our version of democracy. They are NOT being given a choice. It is our way or the highway.
Tim:
>>The two former statements assume so many mind-boggling things that it is amazing. Among them I see: liberating an oppressed people is “shoving democracy down their throats” (like democracy is really no different than oppression)
No assumption coming from me, but it sees that you’d like to warp my statements to fit your ideology. I can’t control the later… however, I can redirect yo to my original statement.Read it in its entirity and you’ll be hard-pressed to find where I said anything about liberating people = shoving democracy. It is interesting to methat you are currently seeing the current actions of our troops as liberating anything. Dispite the protests, dispite the 11,000 civilians killed, dispite what is being seen in our own news agencies as well as others around the world, you still view what is currently happening to the Iraqipeople as a functioning democracy? Interesting indeed.
>> democracy can be inflicted on people (as if they would choose oppression if we didn’t take away their rights to)
What rights are we currently providing them? Really, I’m curious. Maybe the right to dadge bullets. Thousands of protests are being copletely ignored.
>> freeing an oppressed people from tyrants is not by definition a “humanitarian effort,
They were freed a year ago according to the original goal that was publically provided to the citizens of this country.
” people who are oppressed don’t necessarily want to be free or shouldn’t be freed from their oppressors, freedom isn’t absolutely morally right, and totalitarianism isn’t absolutely immoral.
This is absolute nonsense and was not stated anywhere about.
>>We can debate the politics of the current situation until we are blue in the face, and that is fine. I’m discussing principle rather than the specific Iraq war, which reasonable people can disagree on. But to say that there are situations in the world where more democracy and freedom may not be a good thing is, in my opinion, execrable.
One need not have a democracy to be free. One could also argue that democracy will nt wrk in that region. There is no possibly way to seperate religion from government for starters.
>> Ideally, what we are fighting for in Iraq is the ability of the Iraqi people to manifest their own destiny.
Ideally, you are correct. However, that was not the original excuse for going in and manifesting their own destiny won’t work with U.S. hand-selected puppets in temporary presidential positions with no real influence…. and doesn’t seem to be working at the moment, since a very high percentage don’t want us there any longer.
>> Under Saddam Hussein, that was impossible.
I can’t argue this.
>>Now, if we are careful and can succeed in what we are doing, there may come a time when the people there will have the freedom to decide their own fates.
Where do you see “care” being given to n of the situations over there or in the mechanisms being put into place?
> And to say that that freedom is something that we are “inflicting” on them or “shoving down their throats” is, to me, the moral equivalent of saying that maybe it wasn’t so bad when some people were considered only 3/5 of a human being. After all, we don’t want to force anything down anyone’s throat. Like equality and freedom.
Again, you can twist words to attempt to portray those who disagree with you as devil incarnates, but you may want to stick to using their own words and intentions when doing it. You’ll be more succussful in making your points that way.
By the way, I said it was democracy we are inflicting on them and shoving down their throats. Not freedom. There IS a difference.
Huh???!! Say, what??!!
See: What Karen said.
They don’t want our democracy. That’s all there is to it. And it’s not just the ones shooting at our troops that think that way.
Hëll, they don’t want us (USA) period.
So yes, we’re shoving it down their throats.
If both the Shia and the Sunni are now working together then it doesn’t matter what Kerry’s plan is or Bush’s plan is; it’s effectively over.
On a lighter, I was searching the web and found this gem:
TOP TEN OTHER JUDGEMENTS ÐÍÇK CLARKE MADE ABOUT CONDI RICE BASED ON HER…ERR…APPEARANCE
10.) Her favorite literary character? Lando Calrissian from Star Wars.
9.) That she might express policy disagreements by saying, “oh, no you didn’t!”, and then dismissively cracking her bubble gum.
8.) That the NSC’s phones would frequently be jammed as she furiously dialed in to vote for Ruben Studdard on American Idol.
7.) That she might distractingly “whoop it up” in the War Room, yelling “Shazz-amm, suckah!” after each successful missile strike.
6.) That she would create a diplomatic embarrassment by calling a foreign dignitary “Sugah!” and then offering him a Seagram’s-and-grape-soda.
5.) That Donald Trump really waited far too long to tell her “You’re fired!”
4.) That, far too frequently, National Security Briefings would degenerate into nothing yo’ mama jokes and gang-signs
3.) That her duties as National Security Advisor might be compromised by her outside interests: singin’, dancin’, and stealing chickens from Old Man Codger’s farm
2.) That when confronted with a ghost or other supernatural spooky, she would bug her eyes out comically while wailing, “Feets, don’t fail me now!!!”, which is an express violation of White House security protocols regarding extradimensional intrusions
…and the NUMBER ONE JUUDGEMENT ÐÍÇK CLARKE MADE ABOUT CONDI RICE BASED ON HER..ERR..APPEARANCE..
1. That she only got the NSA job over Clarke because she was a…well, COME ON, you know why
Fred Chamberlain,
Tim is not “warping” your statements to fit his ideology. he is simply responding to your statements, in what looks like a calm, intelligent and reasonable manner, and the “you can twist words to portray those who disagree with you as devil incarnates” line is really defensive and paranoid. Neither he nor anyone else can read your mind, so if you disagree with the way he or anyone else interprets your words, then the best way to counteract that is by simply stressing what you DO mean. You make some statements, then disagree when those statements are held up to scrutiny? Just respond and make your position clearer. It beats whining and playing victim.
Also, while we’re on the subject of your words:
“Where do you see ‘care’ being given over there or in the mechanisms being put into place?”
Uh, the same place you DON’T see it, I would guess- Newsreports, etc. And based on what I’ve seen, we are making every effort to do this the right way.
Also,
“Thousands of protests are being completely ignored”
Really? Thousands? We’ve been there less than 400 days. Rounding it off, that would mean there are 2.5 protests going on a day. But since you used tousands, that must mean there have been at least 2,000, which means there have been slightly over FIVE protests EVERY DAY. Assuming the average Iraqi gets only six hours of sleep a day, that means there is a new protest about every three hours, which can’t run TOO long or else it’ll bump into the next protest.
Wow! The Iraqi people must not be doing much else, even eating, taking care of their children or having sex, if they are able to have thousands of protests in such a short period of time!
You really should choose your words more carefully.
At least you agree you can’t argue that the possibility of freedom for the Iraqi people would not exist if Saddam was still in power. Nice of you to admit that.
Wow Jerome, you surprise me… ok, point by point:
>>Tim is not “warping” your statements to fit his ideology. he is simply responding to your statements, in what looks like a calm, intelligent and reasonable manner, and the “you can twist words to portray those who disagree with you as devil incarnates” line is really defensive and paranoid.
Not at all. I stated myself claerly the first time. I talked of democracy, not freedom. It is clearly stated in my first post. Feel free to go back and reread it. No paranoia here. Simply restating my original statement in order to avoid being misrepresented, thank you.
>>Neither he nor anyone else can read your mind, so if you disagree with the way he or anyone else interprets your words, then the best way to counteract that is by simply stressing what you DO mean.
I did so…. and then did it again, quite clearly the first time and then from a terminal that is omitting some of my letters here and there. I’m not computer literate enough to even try and figure that one out.
>>You make some statements, then disagree when those statements are held up to scrutiny? Just respond and make your position clearer. It beats whining and playing victim.
Again, no whining or playing here. Just responding to mistatements attributed to me. Go poke someone else with your stick.
>>Also, while we’re on the subject of your words:
“Where do you see ‘care’ being given over there or in the mechanisms being put into place?”
Uh, the same place you DON’T see it, I would guess- Newsreports, etc. And based on what I’ve seen, we are making every effort to do this the right way.
You see black and I see white, apparently.
>>Also,
“Thousands of protests are being completely ignored”
Really? Thousands? We’ve been there less than 400 days. Rounding it off, that would mean there are 2.5 protests going on a day. But since you used tousands, that must mean there have been at least 2,000, which means there have been slightly over FIVE protests EVERY DAY. Assuming the average Iraqi gets only six hours of sleep a day, that means there is a new protest about every three hours, which can’t run TOO long or else it’ll bump into the next protest.
Wow! The Iraqi people must not be doing much else, even eating, taking care of their children or having sex, if they are able to have thousands of protests in such a short period of time!
You really should choose your words more carefully.
…and you should lose the sarcasm and condescension. You obviously read my entire post and know that I stated a few times that thousands of protestors (20-30,000 as reported by several news agencies) have gathered on at least two occassions to make their voices known. No bombs, no explosives, etc. Their voices have not been heard.
>>At least you agree you can’t argue that the possibility of freedom for the Iraqi people would not exist if Saddam was still in power. Nice of you to admit that.
The Iraqi people are not yet free, but thanks for the kudos.
Karen and Tim Lynch,
Just to give you an idea about how much I truly appreciated the SUBSTANCE of Condi Rice’s historic and inspirational testimony, I encourage EVERYONE to pick up a copy of The New York Times tomorrow if it has transcripts of the testimony. It was that good, and some of the exchanges – particularly with Bob Kerrey – were true treasures. Oh, and i loved it when after Kerrey had called her Dr. CLARKE for about the FOURTH time, and she said:
“With all do respect Mr. Commissioner, I don’t think I look like Ðìçk Clarke!’
Bill Kristol said long ago that Bush should drop Cheney and have Rice as V.P. I have wholeheartedly agreed even before today. After today, I ma have to get a letter-writing? internet campaign. She is extraordinary, incredibly special and in substance, style and symbolism is someone who exemplifies the very best that America has to offer. She is a shining epitome of the American Dream.
Russ Maheras posted:
“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.”
Actually, the French became involved in our war for independence more as part of their long rivalry with Britain–the same reason for support from nations like Spain and Holland (though it could be safely said that none of the three wanted their own subject peoples to follow the American lead). As for that French Revolution, you might want to remember the actual results of that little deal. Not only did it lead to the execution of the French king and queen, but also a great number of the French nobility (whose only real crime was their title) and a fair number of people who were perceived as too lenient to the “crimes” of the monarchy and the Church (a little period commonly known as the “Reign of Terror”). Then, after about a decade, the Revolution ended after a military dictator took power–and eventually declared himself Emperor–which led to almost two decades of continental warfare. Even after the fall of Napol
Fred Chamberlain,
The Iraqi people are free from Saddam Hussein. That’s a helluva start. No other kind of freedom would be possible without his removal, which so many still criticize.
PAD,
Do you honestly believe that if Gore would have won the elction that 9-11 wouldn’t have happened. Come on, man, these people hate Americans. All americans. They hate us. Why can’t you realize that. Why can’t you all see that, & quit thinking that peace is the answer. There can be no peace against a group of people that hates you for no other reason then to hate you.
As a jewish man, I can’t believe you don’t see that. Do you think that Osama & Saddam are friends of Israel. do you think the Palestinians are misunderstood & if Israel heard them out this would stop?
We are at war against a group of people who believe it is their duty to destroy us.
One more thing, Peter, Close to a year before 9-11 a group of mid east men were detained, They got themselves a nice layer 7 suid the airline for racial profiling. When 9-11 happend, the airports had reported that the terrorists had baought tickets using cash, & because of what happened a year before, did not detain the men, because the airlines were scared that they would get sued & let them go.
See, the problems with liberals is that they are more concerned with “rights” then safety. Liberals (i’m not saying Democrats as not all Democrats are liberals. I’ve actually met conservative Democrats & liberal republicans)would sell this country down the river. They want to weaken our country. Look at the moral decay thathas gone thru our country.
We have parents aquited of murdering their children (i’m not talking abortion), sleaze on tv & the radio.
When do you want our army to react, Peter, after the threat or before the threat. With 9-11 we reacted after the threat, with iraq, we reacted before the threat.
Nothing President Bush does will be good enough for you. Nothing.
“See, the problems with liberals is that they are more concerned with “rights” then safety. Liberals (i’m not saying Democrats as not all Democrats are liberals. I’ve actually met conservative Democrats & liberal republicans)would sell this country down the river. They want to weaken our country. Look at the moral decay thathas gone thru our country.”
That’s the big issue here then, isn’t it? Would we as a country rather be free or safe? This may be rather ghoulish of me, given what we are discussing, but I would take freedom over security any day, and I’d imagine there’s a good chunk of people here who would agree with me, even if that freedom increased the chances of a 9/11 happening again.
Of all the things one can accuse any member of the Bush administration of, a lack of imagination is not one I would put at the top of the list.
In the days after 9/11, Bush asked his people to talk to their underlings and think “out of the box” in terms of a response to the terrorist attacks.
One proposal came from a general, and was entitled “Thinking Out of the Box: Poisoning Food and Water Supplies in Afganistan”. This proposal never found its way to the president, and is one example that I have read of where plenty of imagination was used.
Of all the things one can accuse any member of the Bush administration of, a lack of imagination is not one I would put at the top of the list.
In the days after 9/11, Bush asked his people to talk to their underlings and think “out of the box” in terms of a response to the terrorist attacks.
One proposal came from a general, and was entitled “Thinking Out of the Box: Poisoning Food and Water Supplies in Afganistan”. This proposal never found its way to the president, and is one example that I have read of where plenty of imagination was used.
“If both the Shia and the Sunni are now working together then it doesn’t matter what Kerry’s plan is or Bush’s plan is; it’s effectively over.”
Wow, those must be a couple of really big guys.
You guys are paying $2 a gallon? This doesn’t get said that often, but I love living in New Jersey.
Don’t know if anyone else is or not, but you’ll notice I said, “less than $2.” Figured that would be the best way to hit a good price range coast-to-coast. 🙂
And, thanks, Tim…wish I could take full credit for that, but it’s an concept that I first heard floated on the old Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher. And, even though I don’t drink “gourmet” coffee (or much of any coffee, for that matter), it was hard for me to dispute the logic. 🙂
**********************
We are at war against a group of people who believe it is their duty to destroy us.
“We?” I don’t recall “Dubya” asking my opinion before he ordered an invasion in (if we go with this “we” business) my name.
Of course, there are those who would say that, yes, “we” are at war against a group of people who believe it is their duty to destroy us…and it is being waged by a group of people who believe it is their duty to decide what is best for us in every aspect of our lives.
In that perspective, it’s difficult to see the difference between the ones “we” are waging war upon and those waging the war.
Joseph wrote: “Actually, the French became involved in our war for independence more as part of their long rivalry with Britain–the same reason for support from nations like Spain and Holland (though it could be safely said that none of the three wanted their own subject peoples to follow the American lead)”
I didn’t state France’s motivations for helping us during the Revolutionary War because the “why” really didn’t matter — at least not as far as the Continental Army was concerned. The same goes for the Iraqis today. Our motivations for helping them throw off the yoke of a dictator really does’t matter to them as long as they end up free, and we leave when it’s all over.
Joseph also wrote: “As for that French Revolution, you might want to remember the actual results of that little deal. Not only did it lead to the execution of the French king and queen, but also a great number of the French nobility (whose only real crime was their title) and a fair number of people who were perceived as too lenient to the “crimes” of the monarchy and the Church (a little period commonly known as the “Reign of Terror”).”
I didn’t go into the details of French Revolution because my main point was that the success of the Revolutionary War in the U.S. may have been what influenced the French intellectuals behind the French revolt to give a revolution a shot in the first place. Had the U.S. attempt failed, the French might NEVER have stumbled into a democracy, and they might still be living under a monarchy today.
Russ Maheras
Here’s some red meat for conservatives who like to collect examples of media bias–from http://www.professorbainbridge.com/2004/04/chris_matthews_.html
Chris Matthews Misrepresented Rice’s Testimony
On Hardball, which I was just watching, Chris Matthews played this excerpt from Condoleezza Rice’s testimony for the 4 9/11 widows he was interviewing:
BEN-VENISTE: Isn’t it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the August 6th PDB warned against possible attacks in this country? And I ask you whether you recall the title of that PDB?
RICE: I believe the title was, “Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.” Now, the…
BEN-VENISTE: Thank you.
RICE: No, Mr. Ben-Veniste…
BEN-VENISTE: I will get into the…
RICE: I would like to finish my point here.
BEN-VENISTE: I didn’t know there was a point.
RICE: Given that — you asked me whether or not it warned of attacks.
BEN-VENISTE: I asked you what the title was.
RICE: You said, did it not warn of attacks. It did not warn of attacks inside the United States. It was historical information based on old reporting. There was no new threat information. And it did not, in fact, warn of any coming attacks inside the United States.
Then Matthews said this:
“He didn
Craig wrote: “They don’t want our democracy. That’s all there is to it. And it’s not just the ones shooting at our troops that think that way.”
Sorry, Craig. If you are talking about the majority of Iraqis, then you are just misinformed. I get my intel straight from the people who are actually in country, not local politicians or editorial writers with a personal agenda.
Russ Maheras
I don’t know that I’d call that media bias, Bill. I’d call it a shining example of Chris Matthews being an idiot — so far as I understand, neither side of the political aisle wants him. 🙂
TWL
‘I wonder why the European Union hasn’t ever fined OPEC, like it did Bill Gates, for monopolistic practices? Perhaps they are afraid OPEC might retaliate and destroy the European economy? Gates was an easy target.’
Well, first off Russ, OPEC is better viewed as a cartel rather than a monopoly; they set prices together but hardly can be said to work to block the use of Russian or Norwegian oil, for example. It’s simply a case that the countries who naturally have large oil supplies have decided that others have to play by their rules.
Secondly, its eleven members, as noted, are countries rather than corporations. Do you think countries should be treated in exactly the same way as companies?
See, the problems with liberals is that they are more concerned with “rights” then safety. Liberals (i’m not saying Democrats as not all Democrats are liberals. I’ve actually met conservative Democrats & liberal republicans)would sell this country down the river. They want to weaken our country.
You mean such commie pinko liberals as Benjamin Franklin?
“Those who would surrender essential liberty, in order to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither safety nor liberty.”
To my mind, the best way to keep our shores secure from terrorism is to develop a foreign policy in such a way that people in other countries don
There are tons of things to criticize Clinton about butb to say that he was weak on terrorism isn’t one of them.
Saudi Arabia offered Osama Bin Laden’s head on a platter and Clinton declined.
Criminal investigations and judicial proceedings regarding the first World Trade Center bombing resulted in the public revelation of certain intelligence-gathering methods just-previosuly used to hold terrorism in check. Once these methods were revealed to the world the terrorists compensated for this vulnerability and rendered that method totally impotent.
The inapropriate treatment of that incident resulted in us actually desensitizing ourselves and making overselves more vulnerable to harm.
CJA
I didn’t know the guy, but it rather pìššëd me off that someone my exact age got killed for no good reason.
How thin-skinned is your sentimentality?
How many people your age die in car accidents? How many as a direct or indirect result of alcohol consumption?
How many people are murdered?
To be pìššëd øff because of commonality with the dead would end in a coronary if you took it to the logical extent and acted consistently.
There are people my age and younger and even older who volunteered to be warriors and fight for me and you and us. They did this willingly. They chose to obey orders to travel to a far-off land to defend various principles and remove a villain from power. In doing so, some died. The main villain is gone. A horrific institution responsible for the oppression and violation of millions was dissolved a year ago under the force of our guns. The population itself must be guarded until it is no longer helpless (and for the most part the peaceful, benevolent Iraqis are in no position to protect anyone from the majority of the malevolent forces in the area).
These volunteers died for something.
(That was way longer than planned… but logical and neccessary).
Bush IS evil.
So am I.
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?
No. Your “facts” are not actual facts.
Taking inflation into consideration, and the value of the American dollar relative to the price of a gallon of gasoline at various time what we pay of gasoline now is less than what we paid in the eighties and seventies even with the “energy crises” and “fuel shortages”.
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.
To force companies to purchase certain items when previously in this area their need was apparently non-existent would be an example of fascism, not 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.
9/11 would have happened no matter who was President because there has been a ninth month in every year for over 1600 years and every month has at least twelve days.
The attack on 9/11/1 was planned prior to 2000.
Bush 41’s policies and loose ends became the responsibility for Bill Clinon in 1992 and remained so for eight years until the responsibilities were passed to Bush 43.
No one considered impeaching Clinton over any of his foreign actions despite even LESS public justification and the Republican presence in Congress being even stronger.
CJA
I’m not even reading all these replies, so forgive me if I’m repeating what anyone else has said, but I’m replying to the post.
I do wonder if this is even worth replying to, since it seems to amount to a very lame cheap shot, but I guess I’m easily baited so here goes.
By the way, this post contains spoilers for one of Tom Clancy’s best books. Be warned.
First off, Tom Clancy imagined exactly that back in 1995 or 1996 (whenever Debt of Honor came out) and I’d bet there are plenty of people in the administration who have read it, so this whole “couldn’t imagine it” thing is easily disproven. Possibly even George Bush has read it. (Sigh: YES, he reads books. Go to hëll anyone who wants to reply otherwise. Heck, he could probably understand that Clancy book far better than I can because of all the fighter pilot terms, aircraft terminology, business market workings and government abbreviations that tended to make it slow going for me.)
Of course, this makes it sounds like I’m saying the opposite of what Rice said, since she stated they couldn’t imagine it. Not at all. I think “imagine” is just her shorthand way of saying “seriously think that it would happen tomorrow just because it’s possible in a fantasy.”
Movies, books, and other fiction posit all kinds of events that could happen. Why doesn’t the government get into a major security fit over whether the seizure of an airport and rigging of the traffic control systems could really happen just because “Die Hard 2: Die Harder” showed that it was theoretically possible? Because there are millions of things that are possible and most are improbable, especially when considering the organization, funding and secrecy needed to do so…as well as the strategy.
9-11 was unthinkable. Not in terms of the planning and organization to use a plane or planes as living missiles, but from the views of a commonsense Westerner in a Judeo-Christian society unaccustomed to the terrorist death cult mindset.
Even Tom Clancy didn’t think of THAT. In his book, a Japanese commercial pilot who has lost his family members in Japan’s unofficial war with the U.S.A. gets his tanks refilled, declares the need to fly the plane PASSENGERLESS to its maintenance facility for repairs, files a false flight plan, kills his copilot and then flies the plane into the capitol during a presidential address, destroying almost the whole U.S. Government.
In other words, the pilot has nothing to live for due to the deaths of his family and is motivated by grief and revenge. His copilot is the only innocent who dies as collateral damage in his use of the plane as a weapon. And there is a legitimate strategic point to his target, in wanting to cripple the opposing country and kill the people whose actions and orders brought about the deaths of his loved ones and defeated his country (albeit in a war his nation started).
EVEN if you’ve read Debt of Honor, it’s a far cry from envisioning terrorists happily willing to die and take along hundreds of innocent passengers in the process to attack a few buildings full of businessmen, a small part of a military building and a capitol or White House (whichever the target was) on an average day.
It’s that kind of pointless hate that is much harder to imagine.
It’s even more unthinkable if you don’t see the U.S.A. as a cowering weakling that surrenders in cowering fear at the first bloody nose, the way Osama bin Laden saw us after Mogadishu. If you see America as a slumbering giant that would rouse itself to rain down a hellish fury on anyone that would attack you on your own soil for no reason, then you think that that should dissuade any enemies from any plots they might steal from Clancy or Michael Bay or Jerry Bruckheimer or McTiernan or the March 2001 pilot episode of “The Lone Gunmen” where a hacker uses the Octium chip to take control of a commercial airliner and fly it into the World Trade Center.
If you see your country as perfectly willing to do the smackdown on such an enemy, then there CAN be the failure to imagine such a terrorist who would engage in such an attack anyway.
All right, this is probably a much longer and more well-argued response than your post merited. You probably just wanted to make a snotty little comment that I used to think would be beneath you. Ðámņ, I used to read any Star Trek book you wrote because you were my favorite writer. Hard to believe. I used to think you had a good insight into people; now, all you can do is slander the fine people in this administration as dimwits instead of seeing that maybe they just have a different viewpoint from yourself?
Oh, and Saddam HAD WMDs. The question is “Where did they go?” not “Why did Bush say he had them?” EVERYONE right and left for a decade said he had them and was working to develop more, and Saddam gave the world ample reason to believe it, so quit being childish.
I dont think its a matter of imagination.
The Bush administration’s priorities have always been motivated by vested interests.
An interesting thing to note would be an interview Niaz Naik (Pakistani Ambassador the UN in New York) gave that he had been told by the US Ambassador in August 2001, that the Bush administration had plans to invade Afghanistan in 2002 or so.
I believe it might have had something to do with the pipeline that was supposed to run through afghanistan – a contract the taliban government had awarded to an argentinian company instead of an american one.
American companies such as Haliburton were mobilizing within the region and were investing in Pakistan at the sametime.
9/11 just made things a lot easier for them.
Tim says:
“I don’t know that I’d call that media bias, Bill. I’d call it a shining example of Chris Matthews being an idiot — so far as I understand, neither side of the political aisle wants him. :-)”
Good point, though without him we wouldn’t have those hilarious saturday night live skits. “Paul Begala, you horrid little lawn gnome, what do you think?”
“Well, Chris–“
“SHUT UP! Who the hëll cares?”
Saw this online. Thought it was an interesting bit of fact, and so far it seems to check out. If it’s wrong, I guess I should have checked harder.
On August 6, 2001, Condi hands Bush a national security briefing. The title of the briefing is “Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States,” and it warns of airline hijackings planned by al-Qaida.
On August 7, 2001 (THE NEXT DAY), Bush continues his month-long vacation. Possibly the longest vacation in Presidential history. Spends an extraordinary amount of his time clearing brush.
Yeah, Condi did great in those hearings, and there’s no failure of imagination in the white house at all.
EVERYONE right and left for a decade said he had them and was working to develop more, and Saddam gave the world ample reason to believe it…
And, a few centuries ago, EVERYONE said that life could spontaneously arise from given elements. After all, you could look in a haypile for vermin, find only some mouse fur, and a few days later, there’d be mice – OBVIOUSLY, the mice spontaneously generated from that fur, right?
Just because EVERYONE thinks something, doesn’t make it true. EVERYONE thought heavier-than-air powered flight was impossible – in fact, Lord Newcombe proved it! Of course, Lord Newcombe was unaware of work being done on internal-combustion engines at the time…
Which do you truly think more likely – that some third-rate tinpot dictator managed to develop nukes and massive chemical-weapon depots under the very noses of his neighbors, and further managed to hide them from both international inspectors and an invading army, or that a group of scientists, fearing the irrational wrath of said tinpot, lied to him about the wonderful progress they were making on the weapons he wanted?
Clinton Defends Policies With 9/11 Panel has this nice tidbit. Combined with Clarke’s admission that none of his recommendations would have stopped 9-11, you just have to ask why this witch hunt keeps going on:
So, Clarke’s changes wouldn’t have stopped it, and Clinton wouldn’t have done anything different? Can’t we just admit that it was terrorists that caused this?
Matthew Rossi,
You should have checked harder.
The title of the presidential brief Condi gave to Bush WAS titled “Bin Laden Determined to Attack United States”.
That IS NOT the same as “INSIDE the United States”, so that could have been taken to mean any of our embassies, businesses or others around the world.
Also,according to Rice, the briefing did NOT WARN of airline hijackings by al-Qaeda,
“It did not warn of attacks inside the united States”, said Rice of the August 6 briefing, “It was a HISTORICAL document based on OLD REPORTING. There was NO NEW THREAT INFORMATION.”
Since the August 6 briefing is about to be released to the public, I believe Condi is teling the truth.
Otherwise she’d face charges of perjury, humiliation, the end of her career and quite possibly prison.
And that would be, you know, bad.
Also, since it IS STILL CLASSIFIED, there’s NO WAY whoever wrote “this interesting bit of fact” could POSSIBLY know that it warned of airline hijackings by al Qaeda or of anything else.
So your information was flat-out wrong. Sorry.
But DID do great in those hearings. You were right about that.
What I think a lot of people here are missing is that you can read about something happening in a novel or watch it in a movie and still not be able to imagine that it could really happen.
This doesn’t get said that often, but I love living in New Jersey.
So, you enjoy long lines at the gas stations online the Garden State Parkway because everyone there is too stupid to be trusted to pump their own gas?
John Kerry wants to raise the gas tax. Just something for you Bush haters to ponder. The unemployment rate is the same as Bill Clinton’s 2nd term in office. Just something for you Bush haters to ponder. Bill Clinton gave a report to congress during his 2nd administration stating Hussein had weopons of mass destruction. just something for you Bush haters to ponder. John Kerry, in a letter to Bill Clinton said congress would approve a preemptive strike against Iraq if Clinton ordered one. Just something for you Bush haters to ponder at.
Do some research before you go jump all over someone.
Sorry, Craig. If you are talking about the majority of Iraqis, then you are just misinformed.
Really?
Could have fooled me.
People that actually want freedom usually fight for it.
But yet, only now, once we’ve given them freedom, are they fighting. And they’re fighting us.
Perhaps you were reading somebody elses post or something, because they don’t want our democracy.
I don’t see how it can be any plainer than that.
And don’t forget to separate those two terms: freedom and democracy.
They are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
The unemployment rate is the same as Bill Clinton’s 2nd term in office. Just something for you Bush haters to ponder.
From what I’ve read, the unemployment rate is figured differently than from when Clinton was in office.
But, you’d have to be pretty dámņ blind to see that there haven’t been 2 million jobs created to make up for the 2 million lost.
Unless you count all those new burger joints and Wal-Marts as “created” jobs. I sure as hëll don’t.
I didn’t go to college to flip burgers, and I’m sure alot of other people didn’t either. Yet, that’s what we’re going to be stuck with before long.
And even then, we get to compete with the illegals for even that.
Now you know why Bush wanted to reclassify burger flippers as “manufacturing” – he has to make up the lost manufacturing jobs somewhere.
Bill Clinton gave a report to congress during his 2nd administration stating Hussein had weopons of mass destruction. just something for you Bush haters to ponder. John Kerry, in a letter to Bill Clinton said congress would approve a preemptive strike against Iraq if Clinton ordered one. Just something for you Bush haters to ponder at.
It’s funny how the Bushies keep harping on the point that Clinton said that Saddam had WMD, as if that makes everything all right.
Tell me, who decided that the reports that Saddam MAY have WMD was worth the risk of getting us in the quagmire that we are in now?