Last Thursday, the Government Accounting Office, which is the non partisan, investigative arm of Congress, released a report which confirms virtually everything that I have said on this blog in regards to the Bush administration and its policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The report states that the Bush administration has failed to develop a comprehensive plan to eliminate Al Qaeda and its sanctuary in Pakistan's remote tribal region and that the United States has no plan that "includes all elements of national power — diplomatic, military, intelligence, development assistance, economic and law enforcement support — called for by the various national-security strategies and Congress.It goes on further to say that "the United States has not met its national security goals to destroy the terrorist threat and close the safe haven in Pakistan's FATA region," referring to the Federally Administered Tribal Areas. In addition, the report details how the Bush administration has relied heavily on Pakistani forces to deal with the problem.
All of you may recall a column I put up in December of 2005 entitled Flunk You! , which detailed the Bush Administration's complete ineptitude in enacting nearly all of the 9-11 Commission's recommendations. Here we are, nearly two and a half years later, and guess what? They still don't a have a plan! Great...
So, my question to conservatives is....and I am beginning to tire of this seeming endless broken record....why do you continue to support a policy and an administration that so clearly does not care about national security?
To this day, I am still amazed at the complete ignorance and seeming laissez faire attitude amongst supporters of this policy. I am beginning to feel like Sandy Berger during the transition in 2000....jumping up and down, waving my arms at what I see as being an extremely serious threat...only to be met with laughter and derision by folks on the right who feel that Iraq is more important. Even Barack Obama has been chastised by the right for wanting to bomb targets inside of Pakistan that may be Al Qaeda strongholds.
Huh?
What in the fuck happened to "if you harbor a terrorist than you are a terrorist?"
I guess all of that went out the window when half of our country decided it was more important to elect someone they could drink beer with and invite to a barbecue. A person, I might add, who everyday makes it abundantly clear that we are in Iraq for only one reason. I suppose if you don't know what that reason is, then I would be curious as to what the earth looks like with your head buried so far underneath it.We are right back to where we were on Sept 10, 2001, complete with wall to wall coverage of shark attacks (see: Fox News) and meaningless gossip about celebrities' blow job habits. Al Qaeda has made it very clear that they want to outdo 9-11 in their next attack. We know what they are capable of doing. Can anyone out there think of a reason why we don't have a plan?
More importantly, does anyone care?
42 comments:
Well, I care.
But seriously what did you expect when 60 million shit kickers elected a retarded oil pimp with a daddy complex for president?
Oh wait, that's right. I'm not supposed call people on the right names. It's not fair! WAHHH!!!! I'm being too divisive.
Too fucking truthful if you ask me. Hey, here's a bit of truth for some of you morons. Why is it that a party that loudly rebukes a culture of victimhood whines like little bitches any time someone takes them to the fucking mat?
That is, by far, the funniest comment I have ever read on this blog. It may be the funniest comment on any blog I have ever read.
Thank you, sir, for completely making my day.
All too true, tom. I have thought for some time that President Bush has been using the presidency as a vehicle to make up for past failings in his life. He seems to want to prove to his dad, in the ultimate way, that he is "better." From where I stand he has been even more of a failure at this job than any other.
What's wrong with follow celebrities' blow job habits? That is fascinating news!
A great post Mark.
I found a list of undeclared super delegates. I have been calling to put pressure on them to end the race by declaring.
Here is the link.
http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/superdelegates-who-havent-endorsed.html
I aim to please, Randy.
Sara, I think someone should write a book on President Bush's daddy complex and how it is really at the root of the problem. I don't think Bush is a stupid man. Simple, maybe, but not stupid. His dominant trait revolves around trying to one up his dad. And the result is our brave soldiers dead in the fucking desert.
Bush's inaction on Pakistan shows he truly is a coward. He went after Iraq because Saddam was a toothless old man in a country that militarily prostrate. When it was becoming abundantly clear that Iraq had no WMDs Bush yanked out the weapons inspectors and declared war, otherwise the rationale for the attack would have evaporated.
Look at the countries that really did have weapons or the capacity to create them: North Korea, Iran, Syria, Pakistan. They are, coincidentally (except for North Korea, it seems), tacitly sheltering or actively supporting Al Qaeda, the Taliban and Hezbollah.
Bush thought that getting tough on Iraq would scare these other countries into acquiescence. Instead we're bogged down in an eternal argument between Shiites and Sunnis. The lesson our other enemies learned was that weakness gets you attacked: better to negotiate with the United States from a position of power (armed with nuclear weapons), than get invaded like Iraq.
Pakistan has been actively supported the Taliban and Al Qaeda literally for decades (even before we were, during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan). Yet we do nothing against our enemies in western Pakistan because Bush is afraid of the consequences of angering a nuclear power.
I don't endorse bombing Iran, or Syria or Pakistan out of hand. Bush has gotten us into an untenable situation which could have been easily avoided by just letting the weapons inspectors do their job, and gather up international support to get Saddam tried as a war criminal, much the way we got Slobodan Milosevic out of power in Serbia.
Bush is also a coward because he abandoned the hard war in Afghanistan to go fight the "easy" war in Iraq. Bush's advisors knew that Afghanistan was the crucible that destroyed the Soviet Union, and didn't want to get bogged down like the Russians.
Bush's goal was not to destroy the Taliban or Al Qaeda, or avenge 9/11, but to establish a permanent military base in the Middle East from which we could control the flow of oil. We had such a base in Saudi Arabia, but Bush timidly left after 9/11. After all, the presence of us infidels in Saudi Arabia was Osama's direct motivation for the attack. And George didn't want to continue to piss off Osama.
When you throw out all the bluster and nonsense and actually look at what we have accomplished in almost seven years of war, the only real accomplishment is the construction of that gigantic city-sized base in Iraq. And even to this day the terrorists can lob mortars in there and kill American soldiers.
And the news media waste their time on Obama's bowling score, Hillary's choice of whiskey and Reverend Wright's shenanigans.
Wow. Markadelphia and blk actually raise some valid questions and concerns. You have to look pretty hard to find them because they are buried amid the usual grandiose conjecture, outrageous contention, and otherwise misdirected anger, but they are there nonetheless. Predictably, the parts that the yippy dogs picked up on were those that involved the most colorful bashing of our President, and the salient points were seemingly ignored. But such is the mentality of the "No, honestly, we're not anti-Bush" camp.
Here is another perspective: GWB was basically screwed when it became clear that SH was significantly further away from being to do any damage to us than what his blustering and intelligence from multiple worldwide sources indicated. The message (as summarized by blk above) was clear, but the foundation for delivering that message had completely eroded away. This is evidenced by the seemingly frantic search for anything resembling WMD in the months/years following the cessation of the bulk of fighting. Without that foundation/justification, support for GWB eroded to cataclysmic levels both here and abroad, thereby dooming him to be a President that could never accomplish anything on the global stage as grandiose as nation-building.
Unfortunately for us and the rest of the world, he was inexplicably* elected to a second term, and his focus necessarily switched to damage control of the situation in Iraq (i.e. make the best out of an almost impossible situation) and battles that could more readily be won here at home. It really was the only avenue available to him as a President who had lost the confidence of many of his supporters and, more notably, had been vilified by the left to the point where anything that came out of his mouth or brain would be rejected out of hand. His second term really became one where the best he could hope to "accomplish" was to keep his head above the tidal wave of inanity and (sometimes accurate) criticism spewing from his detractors.
Definitely not an easy or glamorous position to be in, but one he got himself into and from which he had no chance of escape.
As has been discussed before, the jury is still out on whether or not the pros will outweigh the cons as far as Iraq goes. Good can still be snatched from the jaws of defeat, despite the current administration's lack of ability to execute a winning plan. But GWB's fate in the history books as an ineffective President was sealed, no matter the ultimate outcome in Iraq, when the truth about SH's impotence became clear.
* footnote about my usage of "inexplicably" - 50 or 100 years from now it will seem inexplicable to scholars studying the era. At the time, given the lack of another reasonable choice for President, it perhaps is not nearly as inexplicable.
Tom, on the subject of troops, I can go you one better. The health care our troops receive is so horrible that it is clear to me that he doesn't give a shit about them at all. They are fodder for the goal of increasing corporate profit.
Those on the right would have you believe that it is the fault of government run health care and it is a shining example of why we shouldn't have it. The Bush administration knows that if they make government run health care work for the tens of thousands of troops coming back from Iraq with injuries than they will effectively be shooting themselves (and their supporters)in the foot by showing that it can work. So, I think they let it fail on purpose and our troops suffer as a result.
Interestingly, I see no one from the private sector stepping up to help the troops. They want them to pay up like everyone else.
...just one point based on a line above that is nonsensical (abosolutely no reflection on the intelligent person who wrote it, it's just enduring baseless propaganda which is ridiculous at this stage, in 2008.)
'...when it became clear that SH was significantly further away from being to do any damage to us than what his blustering and intelligence from multiple worldwide sources indicated.'
there was NEVER any intelligence from multiple worldwide sources indicating ANY danger from SH's 'weaponry.'
Even 14 out of the 16 US intel agencies (who were being honest and non-poltical) were giving completely opposing views to the intel directed by VP's office.
The IAEA, the Weap. Inspectors, the UN Sec Council (minus Britain) and the entire UN (minus Spain and Italy, both led by staunch Bush allies, an ultra-corrupt one of whom Berlusconi, is now back in power) found and stated there was zero evidence on several occasions leading up to war.
The ONLY country (for 'country' read: Tony Blair, because the entire UK was aginst the war including the vast majority of parliament, the people and the nation's Attorney General, who had to sign off on the legality of support for the War in '03, but then said there was never any evidence presented to him and he was politically pressured) was Britain.
Britain was the ONLY nation apart from (Israel &) the VP's office, the Bush Admin, the CIA, NSA & the 'Office of Special Plans' created by Bush appointees, who provided any 'intelligence from multiple worldwide sources' indicating SH was a 'danger.'
Everyone else under the sun, including Russia and France, international inspectors who had scoured the country since 1991 Gulf War, for more than 12 years, said it was non credible BS. But there was this momentum and wave of BS, which i hope will not be repeated in the coming years.
puhleaze no1 mention the one Iraqi General and SH himself, who left the door open to speculation about their own 'danger,' because nobody in any country's Intelligence, including 14 of the US agencies, took the rightly described 'blustering' (by PL above) seriously. j
Catchy name, "anonymous"
Try not to present your revised history as fact. The facts of the matter leading up to the war really are undisputed. There are obviously points that are debatable, such as whether or not you agree that those facts constitute a reasonable justification for war, and whether or not you think the GWB administration lied about intelligence matters. But the facts remain that the United Nations Security Council itself found SH and Iraq to be in material non-compliance with its post-Gulf War resolutions. Your statement of "fact" to the contrary is incorrect. (See Resolution 1441.) Indeed, subsequent inspections yielded little to no evidence of current wmd production, however those inspections also revealed that Iraq was intentionally misleading the inspectors as to the status of nerve agents, biological agents, and other materials that could be used as weapons. This is fact as was known to the international community at that time. Post-war studies completed by Iraq Intelligence Committee, the 9/11 commission, and other independent groups such as the Carnegie endowment all state this to be fact. Also stated as fact both before and after the start of the war was the fact that SH physically possessed weapons, and mentally possessed the desire, for waging attacks that were in violation of UN Resolutions.
We now have the benefit of hindsight that shows us that other intelligence at the time was bogus. However, in the context of the time, and knowing that many of the most vocal critics of the intelligence had motive to reject it (read: France and Russia), it is far from the clear-cut noncredible BS that you claim it to be.
Hate the war in Iraq all you want. I can't and won't attempt to change your mind on that. But don't present the Wikipedia version of events, or the version as scrubbed through a self-righteous "I told you so" sieve, as "fact". The issue was far more complex and unclear than you made it out to be.
Wikipedia version of events...what exactly does that mean?
Is that offensive somehow? Not intentional on my part. It simply means that there is a little more subjectivity to information found on Wikipedia than I would deem appropriate, particularly in the sense that much of the information is written with the benefit of hindsight. Consequently, I'm dubious of the term "fact" as it may be used. A lot like that term as frequently used on this blog.
History is as much about context as it is information, and those who are authoring the info on Wikipedia aren't as concerned with capturing context. I'll leave aside any snide comments as far any agendas they might be advancing.
I was looking for the snide comment but your explanation makes sense and generally holds true to my view of Wikipedia. I do find it interesting that they have made a concerted effort to eliminate information that the conservative thought police find "offensive."
In answer to your question, Elizabeth…Wikipedia is written by volunteers without accountability and is thus susceptible to high degrees of bias, as Wikipedia admits themselves (and is one of the reasons the founder left). One need only search on something like “history of China” to get a warm & cuddly review of Mao’s Cultural Revolution and other brutal escapades glossed over like a simple bad administrative decisions, on par w/ a bad tax plan, etc.
“Wikipedia acknowledges that it should not be used as a primary source for serious research”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia
“Entire UK was against the war…” I’m guessing that ‘anonymous’ is really Joanne, unable to work her computer today… An England resident, no? But, speaking as someone who lived in London for several years (from before 9/11 thru the entry in the War on Terror) I can state that public opinion was not as anti-US as many believe. Oh, sure there are the flannel-wearing coffee-house misanthropes that protest anything and everything American on their speakers’ corner soap box, but the ‘professional’ public were generally mature enough to realize that our interests and theirs do not necessarily perfectly coincide, but that allies are allies and were generally supportive. That said, there was still decided push back…the BBC is pretty much Al Jazeera-lite and Ken Livingston, well, he’s just crazy…a term that comes to mind when reading many of the potty-mouthed ignoramuses here.
...suppose I should answer your primary question, Mark...."Why do we support a policy that does not care about national security". Because, though sometimes flawed, the administration cares more for national security than the other side. If the liberals cared a wit about national security they’d have worked with the administration to come up with new and more effective means to combat the threat rather than posting roadblocks to every Conservative initiative or wanting to go back to Carter-styled “talk ‘em to death” ineffectiveness.
Dont worry justdave, some cities in the uk are very close to adopting sharia law very soon. The lesson will be learned eventually.
Dave, your last paragraph is complete crap. Democrats actually do care about national security. As Mark says, they have gone on record and stated several times as to what they think would be an effective way to stop Al Qaida, which includes bombing targets in Pakistan.
The only roadblocks set up in this process were set up by the Bush Administration, whose narrow minded view of national security must include profit for the defense industry and the oil industry. Rather than continue to whine and blame liberals, deal with the morons in your camp that have made colossal error after titanic fuck up.
I would assume you think Reagan was a good president? Well, he "talked em to death" and look where that got us. We won.
Really, Tom, don't hold back. Tell us how you really feel.
SW, sharia law? I would humbly ask that you review this post.
http://markadelphia.blogspot.com/2007/11/appeal-to-fear.html
Well, I've really had enough of this crap. Someone needs to call them on it. Half the time, you really seem to hold back, Mark. You can make book on the fact that I won't.
Tom, it must be very sad to have been so forgotten by the public education system…
Want to compare who’s doing what? I can do that. Let’s see, off the top of my head…
1. We spend 12 years ‘talking’ and nothing comes of it. The left complains about the talking every step of the way but does nothing.
2. We act militarily against Afghanistan, the left complains.
3. We expand the war to others involved in terrorism (though not directly w/ 9/11) and the left complains.
4. We work on new methods to gain information on terrorists’ finances, the left (NYT) tips the enemy off to it.
5. We use a non-lethal, non-harmful means of ‘fake drowning’ to induce 3 of the most wanted men on earth to talk (and it works) and the left holds hearings because we’re mean to terrorists.
6. We lawfully tap suspected terrorist conversations (that aren’t even occurring in the US) and the left sues.
7. We hold enemy combatants in jail, the left wants them freed.
Want to keep playing? Can you list off anything the left has done to go after the bad guys? Let’s see ‘em. I can go all day, baby.
Has there been bad moves? Are some of the items listed above and others debatable? Could the administration do more? Of course, don’t be stupid. But what has the left done? Has the left in congress ever said, ”well, here’s another method that we can use to go after the bad guys?” Has the left ever been a team player? Have they come up with any plan of their own even if they can’t be a team player? Or if they’re not willing to play, could they have at least stepped aside and let us fight while they sit on their hands? No. They’re so bent on hate & politics that they’re going to put up road blocks every step of the way no matter what that administration comes up with; their only recourse being to wait until they’re in the Oval Office because, ooh, then the bad guys will be sorry. You say you want to go into Pakistan but you know dang well that if the President does that he’ll be lambasted by the left for that too. The left is so hateful they can’t even fight the same common enemy if it means the right might run the risk of actually looking good in the process. It’s like Mark & I playing on the same volleyball team and him refusing to set me out of spite.
And where exactly are the profits being reaped? That’s such a red hearing throw about…They’re mostly public companies…show me some budget sheets. Show me how the administration is profiting.
I won’t wait up checking the blog to see some facts behind your caterwauling, because you and I both know that when it’s quiet at night and you’re all alone with you ignorance; deep down you know you’re nothing…nothing but an angry, societal misfit who’s become unmoored from reality. Good luck groping your way back; I’ve got no more time for you.
A red hearing? Waz dat? A herring, perhaps? Sorry, no spell check on that last tirade.
"And where exactly are the profits being reaped? That’s such a red hearing throw about…"
I will start with this one. Dave, for the love of God, please open your eyes and spend about 15 minutes doing some simple researchers as to who is profiting from this war. Start with the article Mark put up here recently about the "experts" who went on TV and helped sell the war. Find out how much money their companies made.
This was has cost roughly 500 billion dollars of our taxes. This money has gone to defense contractors. Pick any one of them and see how their profits rose in 2004 and later. Dave, don't you find it odd that Haliburton has moved its corporate headquarters to Dubai?
I'll let Mark or Tom answer your bizarre questions about what Democrats have done. They are more knowledgeable than I and I'm not sure I can do it without laughing.
Golly, people that sell armaments make a profit when their wares are utilized. ...that MBA from Harvard is really paying off, Elizabeth.
also looks like she simply can't answer the questions about what democrats have done. Remember - there is talk and there is action. Don't tell us what they say, tell us what leading democrats have accomplished via legislation passed.
and when companies don't make money the economy suffers and elizabeth will complain then too. brilliant strategy there.
OK, Dave, point by point
1. Please clarify the time period during which the 12 years of talking occurred.
2. Wrong. Take a closer look at who complained about Afghanistan. Most Democrats supported and still do support action in this part of the world. I do. I'll give you Paul Wellstone but he's dead now.
3. We expand the war without finishing the fucking job we started against the people that actually attacked us. Osama Bin Laden and Ayman Al Zawahari are still alive and plotting, six and a half years after 9-11. Your hypocrisy on this issue is nauseating. I'm sure if another attack comes on our soil, from a reconstituted Al Qaeda in Pakistan, it will somehow be the liberal fault.
4. Would this be the same NYT that sits on stories for years at the administration's request? The same one whose reporters have gone to jail for not revealing administration sources who leaked classified intelligence? Really, dave, you are going to have to do much better than the ol' New York Times is traitorous malarky.
5. I consider you to be a moral person, dave, but after this comment I am seriously beginning to wonder. Torture doesn't work and it does more harm than good. Ask Secs Rice or Gates what they think about it. Hell, ask the army in which you served what their position is on torture. Ask any vet what the best method for getting information is or ask a Chinese interrogator about the highly effective "foot in the door" method. Liberals aren't the only ones against water boarding...human beings are as well.
6. Cheney and Rumsfeld went to the Dick Nixon school of spying. They aren't spying on terrorists, dave, they are spying on their political opponents.
To quote Franklin, "He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither." Seriously, are you really a conservative? Again, I smell some real hypocrisy wafting on the grill...
7. One of the greatest gifts we have given the world is the Constitution. The fact that we are holding these men, without trial or representation, in a gulag makes us no better than Iran or the former Soviet Union. Again, how can you hold the position of being for less government when the one you currently support is about waist deep in totalitarianism.
Dave, you present yourself as a dichotomy. On the one hand, you want a smaller, more efficient government. That's great. So do I.You want government to stay out of people's lives and allow the free market to flourish. All fine by me.
But then you start talking about national security and suddenly the government can do whatever it wants and anyone that gets in the way are traitors. And, oh by the way, defense contractors and the oil industry get a blank check. Anytime a company needs a bail out, call the government!
I will grant you that the left has done shit the last eight years. This is what happens when you have people like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi leading your party in Congress.
But really what could they do? They aren't in the executive branch and Bush Co has done a very effective job of giving them a choice between having diarrhea and vomiting (see:Iraq), which allows someone like yourself to have an excellent talking point.
...and that would be why I let Mark do the talking. Much better than I could have done, sir. Bravo!
Unlike my fans here in comments (dave and sw), I recognize my weaknesses and try to learn from them :)
Well, I don’t need to hide behind someone else… So, let me break it down into little bites and treat you like a small child…
1. Even during the long, long Clinton years when we were trying to drag Hans Blix kicking and screaming to do his job, the left seemed to be making excuse after excuse to do very little. Unless Clinton had a problem with an intern, then a strategic bombing run came in very handy to distract people. (that probably wasn’t my best example…)
2. The left was initially onboard w/ Afghanistan (because immediately after 9/11, it would have been political suicide not to have been) but it took very little time for Lefty heroes like Michael Moore to backtrack. …a simple Google will tell you all you need to know…
3. We’re still in Afghanistan, no? I don’t think the troops stationed there are at some tea party. Yea of little faith…we have a military designed to fight simultaneous wars on multiple continents. To fight 2 in the same vicinity is not taxing…and if there’s a troop shortage, there’s plenty that can be moved from less strategic places. Just ask John Kerry…he was blowing hard about this until someone suggested perhaps moving troops out of Germany, Iceland, etc and then he quickly backtracked. All talk… And I would never pin the blame solely on 1 party…that’s a lefty game (trying to pin the blame for 9/11 on GW)…there’d be plenty of blame to share.
4. If they’re sitting on stories that affect national interests, yes. The NYT has a big budget and works hard to uncover stories. Doesn’t it seem odd to you that the only stories they want to uncover are anti-US? They expose this or that by our gov’t thus (questionably) aiding the terrorists…letting them know how we’re getting information out of them, how we’re listening in on conversations of theirs, how we’re tracking their finances, etc. Have you seen 1 instance where the NYT has exposed a plot by the bad guys? Why don’t they put some of their investigative talents to use there?
5. The fact that torture doesn’t work is a debatable topic generally posed by those adamantly opposed to torture. I’m not in favor of real torture, but I don’t consider most of the things we do torture. We have very different views on this and I don’t believe you even understand the meaning of the word. John McCain could fill you in on real torture (though, considering his history, is an odd duck on the issue). Having a dog bark at you or making you listen to country music is not torture. Water boarding is certainly unpleasant, but is the recipient anything but fine the next day? If the left were in charge we’d wine ‘em and dine ‘em until they talked, right?
6. Spying on political opponents… BS. BS… You’ve got no proof and you’ve been called on it dozens of times. Quick, quick change the subject.
7. Glad you’re aware that we have a Constitution. Are you aware that enemy combatants are exempt from it? And don’t use the word gulag; you don’t know what it means. It’s an insult to the millions who’ve really been in them to hear about 3 hots & a cot being called a gulag. (Read the book prize winning book, “Gulag” and tell me they’re the same… http://www.amazon.com/Gulag-History-Anne-Applebaum/dp/1400034094/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209664155&sr=8-2) Totalitarianism…again, you’ve been called on this in the past and can’t put out. Name a single liberty you’ve lost. Just one. You can’t.
8. No dichotomy here. I believe the gov’t’s number one responsibility is security of the nation and I’ve never said “anything it wants” in my life…you’re just projecting to make a bad point.
9. What can they do? They can be a team player. They can either get out of the way or join the fight and when it’s their turn to lead, they can do it differently if they like. If they don’t like our intelligence collecting apparatus, they can come up with new ideas; if they don’t like how a prisoner is interrogated, they should come up with alternatives that produce results; if they don’t think there’s enough troops in Afghanistan, they should get an acting commander to back them up (not John Kerry saying that he talked to an anonymous private that says they need more troops but is afraid to come forward…). When administrations change, the entire apparatus doesn’t. Just because there’s a new CIA director, doesn’t mean that every CIA employee changes over. The base is always going to be there and can suggest things up the chain. Read the language in your own blog…you’ll see that the right is very conciliatory and that if you posed reasonable options we could be on the same team. …but you don’t want to do that. It would absolutely kill you to see me spike the ball so you’d rather just pass it over, or worse, let it fall.
1. Dave, your view of what went on in the 90s is so narrow minded that it is pointless to comment further on this. Until your widen your lens a little, nothing further can be gained from discussing it.
2. A simple Google will also show you how much support there is in the Democratic party for fighting a smarter war against these guys. I know it sucks that the absolute worst guy in the world for president had to be a conservative but you need to deal with the fact that Bush is so far off on how to deal with this problem that it is actually damaging our security.
3. The 9-11 report said there were 4 distinct errors Clinton made and 6 that Bush made. The Democrats have taken responsibility for their's...it is your side that has yet to do so. You might also want to pay attention to what leaders of our armed services are saying about the strain on our troops right now.
4. Yes, I have. They have been reporting extensively for the last year on how Al Qaeda's forces have reconstituted in Pakistan. Would you like some more examples? Do you read the NYT?
5. Wrong. The Army's official position, as well as those of professional interrogators, have stated repeatedly that the "24" style of torture never, ever works. It is pure fiction, dave, and serves to only feed the violent fantasies that some in our culture seem to need to have. And yes, Dave, wining and dining worked pretty well in WWII.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/05/AR2007100502492.html?sub=new
Ah, what a bunch of lefties!!
6. Dave, the proof is there if you want to look for it.
7. There have plenty who have lost personal liberties. Thus far, you have demonstrated that you are not willing to listen to their stories. When you ready, let me know.
8. Security at what cost? Dave, you go down a slippery slope here and it doesn't really sound like less government to me. The language that that the right employs when talking about national security sounds an awful lot like Berlin in 1932. Do the comparison yourself and try to prove me wrong.
9. Your accusations are not true. I have offered plan after plan. Barack Obama has a plan on how he would do things differently. The fact that you hold up the left as being a blockade is laughable. There is no room for debate on Iraq, dave, it's Bush's way or get out of the way.
I'm just going to pick one issue to clarify.
Remember "We are the World"? Well, there are really bad people out there in the world. They are the world too, and they want to kill us and take as many innocents out along with us. That isn’t fear mongering – it is fact judging by the bombings in London, Spain, Bali, etc. Al Queda is not afforded Geneva Convention protections because they aren’t fighting for any 1 country.
You want to go to where they live (Pakistan) and bomb them. Sounds good to me but are you also going to bomb Hamburg? Bomb London? Bomb New York? They live there too. No, in the situation we find ourselves in we have only one main defense in stopping an underground network of people who do their best to blend in with the people around them: Intelligence gathering. Superpower power is limited in this effort as nukes, stealth fighters, carpet bombers are largely irrelevant. This is not about killing an advancing brigade. It’s about killing cells…a handful of operatives here and there, nestled among millions of innocents. For me anyway, the real challenge is not how to kill them or at least capture them (both admirable options...it’s how to find them. How to identify them from among the hordes they dress like, sound like, and even act like… right up until the moment they board a plane. Or wave cheerily alongside a naval destroyer. Or park their little van next to the base of a mighty skyscraper.
The only way to prevent terrorist attacks is to gather intelligence. It is to collect the information that reveals who the jihadists are, who is backing them with money and resources, and where they are likely to strike. If you all think the US Government *shouldn’t* be doing this then I’d love to hear who you think should be doing it.
How do you get such intelligence? Your options are few but I for one think that you could easily use your technological wizardry to penetrate their communications. You use your mastery of the global web that is modern finance to find the money and follow it until you can pierce the veiled charities and masked philanthropists behind the terror dollars. A supply line that converts hatred into action does exist...I mean someone had to be paying for those folks to attend American flight schools. I for one do not underestimate Al Queda because a person or group of people can be clever, resourceful, adaptive, and evil at the same time.
Now I’m going to talk about the New York Times exposing the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program. Was there some kind of illegality going on in the government’s Terrorist Finance Tracking Program? No, no laws were broken. Was there some abuse of power? No, there seem to have been extraordinary steps taken to inform relevant officials and win international cooperation. So if the US Government tries to intercept enemy communications - as victorious militaries have done in every war ever fought –the New York Times will tell the whole world, including the enemy, exactly what we’re up to. If we track the enemy’s finances, they will disclose just what we’re doing and just how we’re doing it. Why? Because Bill Keller, editor of the NYT, has pronounced that American methods of monitoring enemy money transfers are "a matter of public interest". Lovely. I’m comforted knowing that our security may hinge on whether some newspaper editor thinks some intelligence defense measure might be interesting. Here’s something truly interesting to me - there are people in the U.S. intelligence community who are revealing the nation’s intelligence secrets. What about the public interest in that? I hope to hell the NYT sits on stories. Administration sources? So you’re sure the source is a member of the Bush administration? Did you ask yourself a question and then answer your own question to get that fact? Like Dave said, just because a new CIA director is put into power doesn’t mean everyone in the CIA is replaced.
National-security secrets? All fair game to the NYT. If it’s about how we detain, or infiltrate, or defang the nutjobs who have pledged to kill us, the New York Times reserves the right to derail us any time it finds such matters "interesting". But the media’s own sources? That, and that alone, is worth protecting above all else isn't it.
Mark, we’ve told you no less than 5 times already that National Security is a legitimate function of our government, of any government for that matter. When we say less government we are talking about taxes, regulation along with a host of other issues. If you think GWB has made screw ups I don’t disagree and if you think that the program has the potential for abuse I don’t disagree. Please tell us who is supposed to gather intelligence since you are opposed to the US government doing it. Another point of view is that someone could make a great case that you are comparing Daves words to words written decades ago when the world was a different place. There are plenty of issues to take into account nowadays that simply weren’t issues in the 1930’s – ease of financial transactions, ease of communication, ease of travel, etc.
Know that I'm not saying that we can make things significantly better than they are now. I'm saying that some of the things you espouse won’t work in my opinion. Government can work (as good as can be expected, anyway) at the very narrowly limited tasks it is assigned within the scope of the Constitution. Where it has stepped outside those boundaries, it doesn’t work very well.
As far as I’m concerned, the ability of our government and law enforcement officials to protect us has not risen proportionally with the ability of others to cause us harm. THAT is the reason why I support wire tapping, surveillance of financial transactions, etc. You can stop misrepresenting our position any time now. Nobody is saying you can’t have your own thoughts and opinions but I just wanted to clarify (for the 34th time) why I support what I support.
…getting off the pointless point by point comparison, but you’re spot on, Crab. And that is what is truly mindboggling about the left. They really fight the notion that there is evil in the world. Oh, sure, they’ll call POTUS and VPOTUS evil, but never the guys who chop off heads or gas their own people. For them, you need to understand them and work with them and figure out why we offended them to such a degree as to ‘make’ them do that. I try to understand their rationale, but I cannot…perhaps that is my failing in life...
There’s precious little Mark & I will ever agree on (other than I’m the greatest volleyballer since Mr. Kiraly – ha ha) but it’s Friday and I’m not interested in continuing that battle today. We’ll leave it with the minor agreement that, yes, as Mark states, current Democratic leadership has done practically nothing to help in the War on Terror. The one thing I will continue with is, “why”? I was thinking about this last night. Why can’t they do something or be a team player? True, they don’t own leadership of the White House or the cabinet (which Mark uses as the cop-out for their ineffectiveness) but they do own Congress. Love ‘em or hate ‘em, Newt’s group that pushed through their “Contract With America” got a lot done w/ a Rep. Congress and Dem. White House. So, it can be done. If the ideas are good enough or popular enough, things can get done. I just wish they would.
"They really fight the notion that there is evil in the world."
Dave, please, you're reaching. That's complete crap and you know it. I don't feel that way and most Democrats don't either. You don't understand their rationale because your analysis of them is flat out wrong.
Try to understand this: it isn't a partisan thing to say that this is the most criminal administration in our country's history, it's a fact. It is based on their actions and the ensuing results. This administration is behaving much in the same way that the people we are fighting behave. That's why people on both sides of the aisle think it's wrong.
I find it highly ironic that you champion the fact that conservatives believe that man is fundamentally evil and yet see only the good, the tiny amount there actually is, in a man like Dick Cheney. It sounds to me like the very naive beliefs you accuses liberals of having!
Conservatives aren't very bendy, dave, and that's the real problem here. They refuse to allow any compromise because to do so would somehow (??!) mean the end of everything. Why on earth would I want to be a team player and get behind a policy that has proven to be a failure time and again? And, even with said failure, the policy is still championed.
Crab, I will respond to your post later. You made some good points and I want to think about them some more.
Alright, crab, here are my points in regards to your post
While it's true that Al Qaeda is not a country, we still need to treat them with dignity even though they don't treat us that way. I would submit to you that our behavior, especially when it is poor, helps them with recruitment. If you don't want to take my word for it, ask Dr Rice or Robert Gates.
The bottom line is that torture doesn't work. Do you honestly think that there is any useful information that can be had by beating the shit out of someone or mock drowning them? "24" is pure fantasy.
We do need human intelligence not bombs. We need information gleaned from many sources and torture is not how you get it. Again, ask the experts. With the exception of Bush's butt boys, they all agree. It doesn't work.
Your paragraph also proves John Kerry's point from 2004: bombs won't win this fight, our intellect will. I happen to think it is superior to Al Qaeda's because we aren't animals like they are. So, let's not behave like animals and do it the right way, which sometimes requires a lot of thought.
Of course, therein lies the problem because it is my contention that the current administration and supporters don't want to do the hard work...because they don't know how!
I think we should use technological wizardry and wiretaps...as long as they fall within the law. The Bush Administration has broken that law (see: Ashcroft hospital bed story) and that is where rational, sane people like myself have a problem. It is a lie to say that Democrats are against wiretapping. They are against the illegal kind. Again, the "24" fantasy plays heavy here.
"I hope to hell the NYT sits on stories."
If you truly believe this, then I don't want to hear another fucking word about Jonah Goldberg and how liberals are fascists. This is how fascism begins--with the false belief that newspapers and other outlets of information are working contrary to the government so they are shut down. Did you ever stop to think that the CIA had the NYT leak the story about financial transaction on purpose? It is a well known fact that the CIA has people on the payroll of the New York Times.
You keep making the mistake that the Times is some all powerful enemy. Seriously, who really pulls the strings? It isn't them and you are terribly naive to think so.
"we’ve told you no less than 5 times already that National Security is a legitimate function of our government"
Yes, it is. But even conservatives have admitted that the Patriot Act crosses the line. Bush and Cheney have crossed the line. I want to see us go back to legal, intelligence gathering. The fear mongering of "if we don't do it now, we're all dead" is a lie. A terrible lie that actually prevents us from doing what we really need to do as far as intelligence gathering goes.
"Where it has stepped outside those boundaries, it doesn’t work very well. "
And I am saying that is exactly what is happening right now in terms of intelligence gathering and manipulation of the press.
"You can stop misrepresenting our position any time now."
The only misrepresenting that is going on is what you and dave think the left is in favor of and not supporting. We do need solid intelligence but in a legal way. What has been going on these past 6 years is not legal.
This whole argument comes back to the central problem of the current ideology of conservatism: do it our way or you are a traitor. Our way is the only way...why don't you become a team player? When you take the time to closely examine their policy, there isn't much thought behind it all and what you are left with is government that is abusing its power of innocent people.
Now why would you say such a thing? Just look at the left’s reaction every time POTUS makes a speech with references to “Axis of Evil” or talks about the bad guys in such terms. Every pundit and movie star w/ a big mouth (See Sean Penn, et al) spouts off about how simple GW is to talk in such terms as “good vs. evil”. Seems like a closed case to me.
…and it’s not only partisan to say the administration is criminal & behaving like our enemies, it’s just plain stupid. Love ‘em or hate ‘em, constitutional scholars are still arguing back and forth and can’t find anything verifiably criminal. Nada, zippo, zilch. We’ve discussed ad nausea and there is not a single verifiable law that has been broken and proven to be broken. (You can shout about illegal wire taps until you’re blue in the face but until the Supreme Court backs you up, it’s just add talk…)
And at what point did I ever say that man is fundamentally evil and/or where have any noted conservatives said that? Not from me. …just another blanket accusation you’re trying to drape on the right that just doesn’t hold water. I’m acutely aware of my faults (which we can delve into another day) but rarely do I toss out such blanket & unsubstantiated accusations as that. Where you come up with this stuff, I’ll never know.
But in the end, your retort did more to support my claim than I could have penned.
I wasn’t talking about torture but I’ll throw in my 2 pennies on the subject since you mentioned it - I don’t think we need to treat them with dignity. Anybody who uses children as human shields, straps bombs around the waist of retarded people and sending them into a crowded area to blow up as many innocent people as they can should not be treated with dignity. I wouldn’t piss on them if they were on fire. Why not make every mission of their a suicide mission (with our help at the end of course). To me, it’s kind of pointless to debate this because this is personal choice – something that is unique to each individual. As far as torture breeding more terrorists...I’ll also submit that if you want to breed terrorists and give them the opportunity to mature their plans, there is no environment better than a free, open, "diversity"whipped Western nation. While poverty, oppression, allegations of torture and madrassas make terrorists, comfortable lower-middle-class surroundings and local authorities terrified of being labeled racist at any turn will accomplish the job perfectly well also.
Last summer, police in the UK agreed to consult a panel of Muslim leaders before mounting counter-terrorist raids or arrests. Members of the panel will offer their assessment of whether information police have on a suspect is too flimsy and will also consider the consequences on community relations of a raid.
Ummmm, "WHAT?!?!?!" That is, of course, the single worst idea in law enforcement since Prohibition. For starters, why wouldn't the principle behind it, if it can be said there is a principle, extend to all groups? Did the British meet with the Irish before raiding the IRA so as to avoid offending Irish sensibilities? If this concept is valid in the country that gave us our legal system, it is hard to see why American police shouldn't meet with Italians and Russians before raiding the Mafia, Colombians before busting cocaine dealers, and a panel of CEOs before pursuing Sarbanes-Oxley violations. Otherwise there might be consequences for "community relations". I’m also guessing that it would never cross the mind of the British police to consult a panel of ordinary Londoners, the past and future victims of successful terrorist attacks, to see if they think the evidence in hand before a raid is too "flimsy".
Even if we stopped doing all bad things to them, they would invent stories of abuse (as they already do). Notice also that the Arab world understands political correctness far better than the west understands the Arab world. Criticism of Islam is usually described by Muslim spokesmen as "racist" (as if religious ideology is a biological given). As to how they have learned how to play on the politically correct citizens of western nations…when Muslim spokesmen deny the Holocaust, they defend themselves on the grounds that they are only exercising their free speech rights. But when they insist that images offensive to Muslims should be barred, they drop the free speech bit and argue on the grounds of multi-cultural sensitivity. Hell they really can’t lose!!
Personally I think what I typed has plenty of thought behind it. I know conservative leaders are often accused of being rigid stick-in-the-muds who refuse to adapt and change but know that I’m seeing that in what you type up when you talk about "the law" and "I want it to be legal". I have a hard time grasping that the writers of the constitution had suicide bombers, nuclear weapons or even DWI’s in mind when they wrote about freedom from unreasonable searches.
I’ve never mentioned Jonah Goldberg, not even once, ever. Again with the misrepresentations - I never said and do not think that the NYT should be shut down. I just cannot fathom our press doing something like that during WWII. Speaking of following the law, do you think there is a chance that the NYT and their source violated espionage laws with the disclosure of that program? I did stop to think that the CIA had the NYT leak the story on purpose but theen 9 seconds later I concluded that you and I will never know the whole truth so I stopped thinking about it and watched some porn.
Sorry Crab, you're being tarred & feathered from my indiscretions. ...alas the life of a conservative.
"there is no environment better than a free, open, "diversity"whipped Western nation. While poverty, oppression, allegations of torture and madrassas make terrorists, comfortable lower-middle-class surroundings and local authorities terrified of being labeled racist at any turn will accomplish the job perfectly well also."
Dude, seriously, what the fuck is the matter with you? Now you are shitting on democracy and ethnic diversity? I would argue that it is the opportunity that our country offers Muslims that prevent them from strapping bombs to their chests and blowing up malls. That hasn't happened here and I don't think it will because they have seen what a great place our country can truly be.
I would also add that you may want to attend a cultural sensitivity class. Good Lord...
Ahhh yes, here comes the 1 line insults and accusations of racism. How sensitive is it to accuse people of being racist any chance you get? I'd argue that throwing charges of racism around like you do is JUST as much to blame for keeping any productive discussion of race relations from happening in this country.
I'm not racist. I'm just not blinded by political correctness. You would have probably accused the FBI agent of the exact same thing if she had called for the detaining of 19 muslim men on 9/10/01 whose only "crime" was attending American flight schools.
So you're telling me that the police in the UK have it right in the example I gave? I really don't care what color their skin is sara.
I fit will ease your aching heart, I'd be happy if abortion clinic bombers were killed also before they can commit the act also.
Religious ideology is not biological and enabling their temper tantrums over cartoons and the like doesn't solve anything.
You know what, last? The little tactic of crying foul in the hopes of deflecting the fact that you made a comment that was a little racist won't work anymore. That dog won't hunt.
We are about to enter a new era of politics. I don't think you are going to be ready for it.
Congrats Tom. You fit in very well with most of the liberals on here in that you seem to not be able to type up more than 1 line insults.
So when someone calls me a racist I should just know my place and shut up? Sorry - that method that many of you libtards use to muzzle people will never, ever work on me. Just a few years ago Markadelphia was accused of being racist by a liberal. It's a lazy and convenient way for you to try to end discussions. Your dog isn't hunting either. Hell your dog hasn't even left the fucking kennel.
Re-read my first post in this thread. I put forth a proactive solution on how to deal with terror cells that exist. You and several others on here seem to translate any position that is off of the liberal intellectual plantation as "crying" or "whining". Why don't you let your dog out of the kennel and put forth a lengthy rebuttal to my first post in this thread. John Waxey, Markadelphia, Joanne T can, why can't you?
Why don't you type up a few paragraphs and tell us how you would deal with terror cells that are already here in the us, already in the uk, already in western Europe. Blaming it all on the Iraq war won't solve anything and is also known as "hindsight" and hindsight does not equal wisdom. Notice that Mark and I have clarified our position on the issue at hand.
I think we are all racist to a certain extent. I know I am. I have a prejudice against Muslims, specifically Arabs. It has lessened over the years but it is still there.
I would say that your comment could be construed as racist, Crab. I think there is a strong resistance by people regarding diversity. Somehow diversity has translated into a national security threat and I'm not sure the two things correlate.
Always remember one thing - I could care less if any of you think I'm racist. 2 best friends who are Hispanic and the gentleman who rents the spare bedroom of my home is 100% homosexual. Just keep accusing people of racism....every time you do it just think how much closer you are bringing the races together!!
I have no idea where I shit on democracy and I did not say diversity is a bad thing but it is bad when diversity is taken to a point where UK police don't want to upset "community relations" when investigating people who have a different skin color. Here's the funny thing - I'm guessing none of you are happy having law enforcement work like that either. I seem to be the only one to have the sack to say anything about the policy.
Sara, I agree with you that the opportunities our country offers people makes them less apt to commit mass murder. Mark will validate that. I have said several times on this blog that I believe the tensions between us and the Muslim world, in addition to our foreign policy of the last couple decades, also stems from the conditions under which many people in that region of the world live. I believe free people, living under freely elected governments, with a free press and with economies and education systems that enable their young people to achieve their full potential, don't spend a lot of time thinking about who to hate, who to blame, and who to lash out at. It isn't even a matter of me wanting young Muslims to like the USA. I want them to like and respect themselves, their own countries and their own governments. I want them to have the same luxury to ignore America as young Taiwanese have - because they are too busy focusing on improving their own lives and governance, running for office, studying anything they want or finding good jobs in their own countries.
I don't know, HMHC. That sounds pretty unreasonable to me, you racist pig. I missed the fact that a new era of politics is beginning, but it's too bad for you that you are aren't prepared for it. Maybe there's some sort of preparedness class that you can take? Try to schedule it around your cultural sensitivity class, though, because I'd hate for you to miss that.
Post a Comment