Yesterday I stated that, in order to counter his plummeting poll numbers, Bush would step up endeavors to catch bin Laden. Liberals commented that he’d have to be doing something in the first place, and Bushies just made snide comments.
So what does Bush do?
He immediately makes a “surprise visit” to Afghanistan. In a story on AOL headlined “Bush vows he will Capture bin Laden” it states:
“He also pledged that Osama bin Laden and other planners of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks would be caught despite a mostly futile five-year hunt.
“It’s not a matter of if they’re captured and brought to justice, it’s when they’re brought to justice,” Bush said, standing side by side in the Afghan capital with President Hamid Karzai.”
Asked about the search for bin Laden, the mastermind of the Sept. 11 terror attacks in the United States, and of the president’s call for getting him “dead or alive,” Bush said the search for bin Laden and his associates continues.
“I am confident he will be brought to justice,” Bush said. “We’ve got U.S. forces on the hunt for not only bin Laden but anybody who plots and plans with bin Laden. There are Afghan forces on the hunt. … We’ve got Pakistan forces on the hunt.”
Most importantly, kids, he’s got his administration on the hunt…for ways to bring his poll numbers up.
Yes…he’s become Just That Predictable.
PAD
• 
> Osama’s founding of Al Qaeda and the planning of the 9/11 attack occurred before Dubya took office. Dubya’s actions may have exacerbated the threat of terrorism but he certainly didn’t create the threat, nor is he responsible for giving these monsters a global reach. Osama is largely responsible for that, having formed Al Qaeda and been its financier.
And who trained him? Who provided him with military weaponry? OK, Not Shrub, but it did have something to do with some white-shaded building on some Avenue in Washington. The U.S. and their short-thinking politicos are often their own worst enemy. Not that this doesn’t necessarily apply to other countries, mind you.
>Bush has some faults, but one thing that is true is he believes what he says,
So do Flat Earth Society members. Doesn’t make them worthy of admiration or of having them lead us.
> North Korea would not have to be ‘dealt with’ if not for bush. They only started developing nukes after bush included them in his “axix of evil” speech.
Nonsense. Nuclear weapons development is not something you manage in just a few months. There has to be some sophisticated, specialized equipment in place. NK’s announcement of having nukes came far too soon after for it to have been a direct cause-and-effect. They’d been at it for years. The thing being, once it was revealed, Shrub did nothing, ignoring a tangible threat, and concentrating instead on the fake boogeyman Saddam.
>There is no need to ‘deal with’ Iran at all because they are building a power plant, not a bomb factory.
And this is why they’ve given inspectors such a hard time. Right. Wanna buy a bridge?
> It’s absurd to say Bush “has” 1300+ dead in New Orleans. Bush is not the Weather Wizard. He didn’t create Hurricane Katrina.
No, he didn’t. But he did embark on an agressive tax-cutting program. Right after the American Society of Civil Engineers released a report stating that the U.S. infrastructure (including among other things dams and levees) needed $1.6 TRILLION dollars over the next five years to bring them up to snuff (http://www.asce.org/reportcard/2005/page.cfm?id=103). You know, little things? Such as decaying, unsafe bridges, dams, etc? Way to go, Shrub.
Bobb, you make some good points, but I don’t think the bin Laden comparison is a valid point. He made a useful ally against the because he’s a radical muslim nationalist. He’s now our enemy because he’s a readical muslim nationalist. The agreement with India is not with some strongman, it’s with a growing democracy. In fact, it’s the world’s largest. If Bush is serious about bringing democracy to the region, (and we know he isn’t), then strengthening India should be at the top of his list.
No, they haven’t signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty, but they aren’t likely to, regardless of what we do. This deal, however, does open up their commercial reactors to international inspectors in order to reduce the likelihood that the technology will be transfered into making weapons. And that’s more than Bush has managed to do with either Iran or North Korea.
Is it possible that 20 years from now, they’ll be under a dictatorship? Sure, but you could say that about nearly every other country. But if we want to keep that from happening, our best bet is to strengthen their growing middle class so that they have a strong electorate that will want to keep their country as a democracy. And I think this deal will help that.
You know, for all the talk we make about how the region is filled with hopeless dictatorships and insane theocracies, I find it hard to swallow that so many people are afraid of one of the few successful democracies.
“Again, why are people doing this? “
Because Osama’s is limited to a few hundred, or a few thousand fanatical followers around the world, who are often under close scrutiny and need to hide their actions from US scrutiny.
Bush has the might of the US Armed Forces, Spying Industry, and the rest of government behind him, not to mention TONS of advisors and concerned citizens, but continues to throw away American lives and money. Osama did it once on 9/11, Bush keeps doing it every….single….day.
“Again, why are people doing this? As I’ve said, Bush is one of the worst presidents we’ve ever had! He should be run out of town on a rail! There’s no need to exaggerate his misdeeds. The things he’s ACTUALLY DONE are bad enough on their own without having to pile this hysterical nonsense on top of them!”
Well said. Nowadays it seems to me as if everybody, right, left, European, American, Muslim, Christian, Jew, allow themselves to be caught up in their own rhetoric. It seems as if we are all living in seperate fictious worlds made of words. People use amotive words to get an emotional impact instead of talking about what is really going on and dealing with the issues in all their complexity. There are serious problems the world has to face that require serious multifaceted discussions.
And this is why they’ve given inspectors such a hard time.
No they haven’t. The only ones making this claim are bush, his administration & the U.S. corporate media. Considering they all made this same, false accusation in the build-up to the Iraq invasion, I think you’ve already bought the bridge.
“Because Osama’s is limited to a few hundred, or a few thousand fanatical followers around the world, who are often under close scrutiny and need to hide their actions from US scrutiny.”
Al-Quida, or its islamist ideology is involved in any place in the world where there is discontent among muslims. That means most of the governments of Muslim countries, which are perceived as tyranical and too secular. This means the poor muslim minority in Western Europe. This means anywhere where there is conflict between Muslims and non-muslims: Iraq, Chechniya, Israel/Palestine, Kashmir, the Philipines, Western China, Kosovo, Nigeria and Sudan. They are allied to many other Islamic parties and organizations around the world, which means almost anywhere where there are Muslims, and their tactic of choice is the deliberate targeting of civilian population.
Lets also set another thing straight. Bush did not cause the civil war in Iraq. If he’s guilty of something, it is that he removed what prevented such civil war — the tyrannical Bathist regime.
>> And this is why they’ve given inspectors such a hard time.
>No they haven’t. The only ones making this claim are bush, his administration & the U.S. corporate media.
Then you’d best include the Canadian corporate media, because it was in our Canadian-owned newspapers I read it. Not American ones.
Bush did not cause the civil war in Iraq.
By removing Saddam from power, we have directly lead to the impending civil war in Iraq.
It doesn’t matter what the situation was before because this is the situation NOW.
And the Baathist regime itself also had nothing to preventing a civil war.
Yes, the Baathists were Sunni, but these are two groups that have been at each others throats for hundreds of years (along with the Kurds), and the only reason Iraq itself exists is not because of choice, but because of force by Europe.
About the inspections, Here’s Radio Free Europe link which has the President of Iran signing legislations allowing him to block such inspections.
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2005/12/d7d42b7f-88c8-4d37-9bc9-621d62cda993.html
Or here, at the China Dailys. Or are they also part of the U.S. corporate media?
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-11/21/content_496580.htm
I was just remembering that bush was supposed to an isolationist president when he was elected, not interested in the rest of the world. Chance would be a fine thing.
Bush did not cause the civil war in Iraq.
Let’s think for a moment:
Saddam is left in power: No civil war.
Bush launches an invasion to topple Saddam Hussein’s regime based on bogus intelligence and with virtually no planning on how to handle the reconstruction: Civil war.
Run that by me again how he didn’t cause it.
Nowadays it seems to me as if everybody, right, left, European, American, Muslim, Christian, Jew, allow themselves to be caught up in their own rhetoric. It seems as if we are all living in seperate fictious worlds made of words. People use amotive words to get an emotional impact instead of talking about what is really going on and dealing with the issues in all their complexity. There are serious problems the world has to face that require serious multifaceted discussions.
True enough but I don’t think this is anything new. I’m amused when people talk about how an election was the “most vicious ever” or some such thing. Check out a newspaper or magazine from previous times and see how ugly it got.
People have almost always used emotion over reason when arguing–it’s easier, for one thing. It’s just that now that we all have blogs and stuff so eacdh person gets more attention. But I don’t think things have changed all that much. If anything I’d say the average person is better informed than they used to be–at least they certainly have a much easier time getting informed than they did back when only a few sources were available.
The only ones making this claim are bush, his administration & the U.S. corporate media.
And the Europeans, and the Asians, and…
Well, it just goes to show you, nobody ever truly stands alone. You’d think defenders of North Korea would be fairly hard to find.
Bill,
I’m a little confused here. Are you saying that anyone who claims that Iran is giving the internation nuclear inspectors a hard time is a defender of North Korea?
As for people being more informed than before, wellllll, I’m not sure if blogs are really that helpful in making people more informed. A lot of political blogs that I see often recycle things that they read in other blogs, which came from yet other blogs. And very rarely is the original source of the argument revealed.
Posted by Bill Mulligan at March 3, 2006 03:14 PM
True enough but I don’t think this is anything new. I’m amused when people talk about how an election was the “most vicious ever” or some such thing. Check out a newspaper or magazine from previous times and see how ugly it got.
****************************
Actually, I do recall a more civil time in politics. For all of his flaws, Ronald Reagan had a gift for working with congresspeople on both sides of the aisle. Even Democrats who violently disagreed with his ideology remarked about his civility and willingness to discuss issues with the goal of reaching a compromise.
And all is not lost. I’m neither conservative nor a Republican. And yet I agree with many things you’ve written here. And where I disagree, I find myself nevertheless impressed with your reasoning abilities. The concept of disagreeing with hating has not died yet. A spark is left, and I believe it can be fanned into flame once again.
Whoops, in my prior post I meant to say “the concept of disagreeing withOUT hating has not died yet.”
Crap. Hope that wasn’t a Freudian slip.
Bush did not cause the civil war in Iraq. If he’s guilty of something, it is that he removed what prevented such civil war — the tyrannical Bathist regime.
I tear down all the stop signs at a four-way-stop intersection. The resulting series of accidents kills fourteen people. Am I then guilty of fourteen counts of negligent manslaughter, or one count of vandalism? After all, I didn’t really cause the accidents – I just removed what prevented them.
For all of his flaws, Ronald Reagan had a gift for working with congresspeople on both sides of the aisle. Even Democrats who violently disagreed with his ideology remarked about his civility and willingness to discuss issues with the goal of reaching a compromise.
And it must be admitted in fairness, the same was true of Bill Clinton. Whatever you think of his other flaws, it must be admitted that he did not demonize his opponents, and in fact worked civilly with them in order to reach compromises.
The problem is, in the neoconservative newspeak, where someone who adds Cabinet-level government departments and vastly increases spending can be called “conservative”, “compromise” is regarded as a synonym for “surrender”, and “the opposition” is synonymous with “the enemy”. So long as Karl Rove and his ilk hold sway in this nation’s various administrations, we will be held back from any return to civil discourse in government.
I wouldn’t say that Bush is worse than bin Laden.
However:
Osama bin Laden, an unelected power monger, sends people to their deaths fighting on his behalf.
Osama bin Laden is responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent people through his direction actions.
Osama bin Laden firmly believes that he has a direct line to God, that God is on his side, and that his battles should be pursued with a religious fervor.
Osama bin Laden was aware that he was going to launch an attack in the United States.
While the ice caps melt on either end of the planet, Osama bin Laden is doing nothing about global warming.
Osama bin Laden believes rules of law don’t apply to him.
Osama bin Laden’s followers believe the Geneva Convention is irrelevant to their activities.
No…Bush isn’t worse than bin Laden. There’s many differences. For instance, y’know…there’s the beard. Oh…and another big difference. Bush was elected.
Kinda.
PAD
Bill Myers–Well, thank you. Reagan was an unusual guy but I remember a considerable amount of hatred sent his way. I was in college when he was shot and more than a few leftists there were not only openly expressing the hope that he would die they even wrote letters to the newspaper defending this position. It still amazes me to this day. But you are correct, the Democrats in congress at the time were nowhere near that crazed and partisan.
Of course, any Democrat who acted that way now would be treated as a traitor by the DailyKos crowd, just as many rabid conservatives criticized Bob Dole for supposedly being too respectful of Bill Clinton. I think those people are probably way outnumbered by people like me and you, despite the impressive volume of sound they make.
I’m a little confused here. Are you saying that anyone who claims that Iran is giving the internation nuclear inspectors a hard time is a defender of North Korea?
No, I was only referring to Michael. But I was the one who got things confused–the inspectors bit referred to Iran, didn’t it? My mistake, thanks for the heads up.
I think Michael has taken the idea of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” too far. The Iranian and North Korean regimes are two of the worst on Earth, by any rational standard, and their nuclear ambitions (and the incredible danger they pose) and awfully hard to deny without resorting to some pretty outlandish conspiracy theories.
Here is a link to an interesting essay: What’s in a Word? The Israel-Palestinian Conflict and the World of Words.
I think this is relevant.
I am not trying to say Bush does not bear responsibility for what is happening in Iraq. I just think some other people are also responsible as well, such as the Iraqi suicide bombers.
Thanks for the link to the Slate article, DonBoy! Up-front spotlighting of PAD’s prognosticating skills – cool.
Here is the link to the essay:
What’s in a Word? The Israel-Palestinian Conflict and the World of Words.
http://www.mideastweb.org/wordhistory.htm
The tension between rational discussion and emotion has been part of democracy throughout its history. There was always a fair share of briliant discussion and sneaky manipulation and propaganda.
Okay, Bill, that makes more sense.
I don’t think you can put all of the blame on the current level of political acrimony on either the Congressional Democrats or Karl Rove/the Administration. Both sides have had about equal number of hysterical rhetoric and gross distortions of the facts. The difference between the two is that the Republicans -at least until recently- have had the upper hand in public relations. That tide appears to be turning. But for the past five years, supporters of the administration have generally replied to any criticism with words along the lines of “We won the election, so sit down and shut up.” While the Democrats continue to cry and whine about every little slight.
It is, however, ironic that a president who promised as a candidate to be “uniter, not a divider” has presided over one of the worst periods partisan division in my memory. Things got heated during the Clinton administration. Impechment will do that. Plus, the GOP seethed over the fact that they won control of Congress in part by promising to reform welfare and shrink the federal government, and Clinton turned around and made both of those issues his own.
There will always be idiots who will cheer when some misfortune befalls someone on the other side. I remember when there was a rash nutjobs running up to the White House and firing a shot at the gates and some of the taking heads class said that this whackos should be found no guilty by reason of defending America from Clinton.
The next president is going to have a tough row to hoe. He/she is going to have to mend a lot of fences in order to get anything done.
Ironically, Bush and Cheney’s view of a “unitary executive” will likely result in a great deal of curbing of presidential power. Future Congresses are going to be less likely to issue blanket authorizations to use force if they think the president is going to use them to justify ignoring any law the administration deems as inconvenient.
Posted by: Jonathan (the other one) at March 3, 2006 03:57 PM
And it must be admitted in fairness, the same was true of Bill Clinton. Whatever you think of his other flaws, it must be admitted that he did not demonize his opponents, and in fact worked civilly with them in order to reach compromises.
*********************
You are absolutely correct. The only reason I cited Reagan as an example was to avoid the perception that I was being partisan. Y’know, since I said I thought Bush should be run out of town on a rail and all.
I think Clinton and Reagan shared similar gifts in the realm of communication.
Radio Free Europe article
Yes, it says he could block inspections, and that he threatened to do so, but it doesn’t say that he has done so.
China Daily article
Has lawmakers pushing for blocked inspections, but still the equilivent of a bill, not a law.
————
I think Michael has taken the idea of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” too far. The Iranian and North Korean regimes are two of the worst on Earth, by any rational standard, and their nuclear ambitions (and the incredible danger they pose) and awfully hard to deny without resorting to some pretty outlandish conspiracy theories.
I agree these regimes are bad, & I certainly don’t consider them friends, but why should it be up to the U.S. to change them? Haven’t we learned anything from the çlûšŧërfûçk in Iraq that our “leaders” are looking to implement more regime change?
And, considering how an honest word rarely, if ever, issues forth from the bush administration, is it so surprising that many, myself included, won’t believe them unless they provide hard evidence? Especially since they’re repeating some of the very same things they said about Saddam & Iraq that have long since proven to be false.
Yeah but Michael, what evidence would convince you? Tel Aviv turned into a thermic mist? I doubt that the Israelis will oblige and any action they are likely to take could lead to yet another full scale war, potentially one that will dwarf all the causalities in Iraq.
No Bill, nothing that drastic. I’d just like someone who’s not tied to, or a supporter of bush, who can provide some sort of real evidence that Iran is building nuke bombs.
Besides, even if they did build them, it’s unlikely they’d use them. Both the U.S. & Israel, which would be the most likely Iranian targets, have enough nukes of their own to destroy Iran dozens of times over. MAD – mutually assured destruction – would probably be enough to keep them from being used.
And I doubt that even North Korean President Kim Il-sung is insane enough to use them.
It is reasonable to assume that if Iran has the technology to build nuclear bombs, it will do so.
This is bad for three reasons:
1) Are they crazy enough to use them? We would like to think not, but how sure can we be?
2) Even if they are not going to use them themselves, there is the risk that the bombs will be given to terrorists who are more likely to use them. We have already seen that terrorists are less hesitant in this department. If a bomb explodes in an American city (Israel too close to Palestinians), and the Iranian government, or any other government, denies being involved, what can the US do?
3)Even if Iran does not use its weapons, the threat of using them can reduce the world’s ability to pressure Iran not to do other things, such as terrorism, conventional war, selling of weapons, or opressing its people. This is the most likely reason.
However, there is realy no way to prevent the Iranians from building these weapons. Neither Israel or the US has a military option. Deplomacy doesn’t seem to work. The only option is maybe sabotage using spies. Not very likely. So we should all get used to a cold war in Iran. We got used to nukes in N. Korea, India and Pakistan.
Question 2: Does the US. or anybody else have a right to interfere against an oppressive regime?
Here is the problem.
1. If you just have business as usual with such a regime you wil be accused of pretty much supporting it. The US was accused for supporting Israel and undemocratic Arab regimes.
2. Diplomatic pressure and international opinion doesn’t carry much weight.
3. Cutting deplomatic relations seems to only push countries to be more extreme. The US eventually had no choice but to talk with China.
4. Sanctions helped remove apartheid in South Africa, which is considered a good thing. But in Iraq sanctions harmed the Iraqis but not Saddam.
Furthermore, when does another country should interfere? When the regime in question is oppressive (South Afrika?)? when it is deporting civilian population (Kosovo)? Slaughtering civilian populatio (Rowanda)? To protect its allies (Kuwait)? To protect its interests (Oil)? Because the regime supports its enemies (Afganistan)?
For anyone still following the Katrina video flap, here’s the AP saying the same thing I did. They just waited until Friday night to do it.
Clarification : Katrina -Video story
WASHINGTON (AP) _ In a March 1 story, The Associated Press reported that federal disaster officials warned President George W. Bush and his homeland security chief before Hurricane Katrina
struck that the storm could breach levees in New Orleans, citing confidential video footage of an Aug. 28 briefing among U.S. officials.
The Army Corps of Engineers considers a breach a hole developing in a levee rather than an overrun. The story should have made clear that Bush was warned about floodwaters overrunning the levees, rather than the levees breaking.
The day before the storm hit, Bush was told there were grave concerns that the levees could be overrun. It wasn’t until the next morning, as the storm was hitting, that Michael Brown, then head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, said Bush had inquired about reports of breaches. Bush did not participate in that briefing.
We got used to nukes in N. Korea
Except, nobody really knows for sure whether N Korea actually has nukes.
Sure, there’s a lot of strutting on their part and they say that they have nukes, but it seems that we (the US government) just doesn’t know for certain at this point.
The Army Corps of Engineers considers a breach a hole developing in a levee rather than an overrun. The story should have made clear that Bush was warned about floodwaters overrunning the levees, rather than the levees breaking.
I’m sorry, but that sounds like a very Clintonian argument.
NOW we know where Mandy went; she switched parties and went to work as the Bush administration’s senior adviser for blog-based policy initiatives!
I’m sorry, but that sounds like a very Clintonian argument.
Perhaps. There is a major difference between the damage that would be caused by a topping and that caused by a breach. But that may depend on what the meaning of the word is is…so your point stands. 🙂
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at March 5, 2006 10:20 PM
I’m sorry, but that sounds like a very Clintonian argument.
Perhaps. There is a major difference between the damage that would be caused by a topping and that caused by a breach. But that may depend on what the meaning of the word is is…so your point stands. 🙂
************************
Say what you will about Clinton, his morals and his penchant for arguments that rely on minutae in order to dodge the big issues… but I honestly believe he’d have done a better job than George W. Bush at overseeing the federal response to Katrina. Bill, I know you’re not fond of such hypotheticals, but I have to say it: I believe Clinton was a smarter and more competent president.
Clinton’s biggest sin was his inability to control his sexual appetites. George W. Bush, on the other hand, has irresponsibly gotten us involved in an intractable situation in Iraq that’s hampering our ability to handle other emerging foreign policy crises, run up the deficit, and has been an ineffective leader during one of the most trying times in our history.
I’ll admit to being left-leaning, which is why I get so annoyed by what I consider to be demonization of Clinton. Although I freely admit he certainly had substantial flaws. As George Stephanopolous once said, he was a good president who kept himself from being great.
Of course, as I’ve said before, I also think in hindsight that George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, both of whom I reviled while they were in office, were infinitely better presidents than Dubya. I’d be thrilled if we could put Clinton, the elder Bush or Reagan in Dubya’s place.
(And yes, I know Reagan’s dead. Can you blame me for fantasizing, though?)
Frankly, though, for a good long time, I’ve really wanted to see a monkey in office. I love monkeys. I think they’re funny, especially when they’re wearing suits and sticking their tongues out at people.
And before anyone makes a remark like, “We do have a monkey in office right now,” or, “Having Clinton in office was like having a monkey as president,” I would ask you to please not disparage monkeys in that way.
I agree, Clinton would have done a better job with Katrina. Just as many people would have died, more or less, but I think he would have handled the aftermath better.
You must love the ads with the guy who works in the office full of monkeys. I spend all day with 9th greders so I fail to see the humor. In fairness, I have yet to be hit by feces. So far.
As a state worker, I deeply sympathize with the guy working the office full of chimps.
Actually, I have about three or four people on my team that I’d gladly trade in for chimps.
I don’t know if people in other parts of the country get to see it, but my favorite commercial on TV right now is Comcast’s “Monkey with a Sledgehammer” commercial. It has all of the appeal of the Trunk Monkey, but is a REAL commercial. 😛
-Rex Hondo-
I spend all day with 9th greders so I fail to see the humor. In fairness, I have yet to be hit by feces. So far.
You duck fast, huh?
In fairness, I have yet to be hit by feces. So far.
Parent/Teacher conferences can’t be that bad, can they? 😉
-Rex Hondo-