03/28/2004: Imshin's Story
The Israeli blogger Imshin is one of my favorites because she is able to blend the personal and the political so well, giving us an excellent perspective on what it's like to be on the front lines in the terror war (or whatever you want to call it)--a kind of supermarket's eye view of horror. Recently, she has been rather calm, reminding us that so far the targeted killing of Sheik Yassin has not resulted in the calamities predicted. Even the Islamic world has been surprisingly quiet: So you see, I have no particular fear as a result of the Yassin killing. I know my army, my security services and my government, are doing their utmost to protect me. They were before and they are now. I didn't change anything in my way of life as a result. I went to the mall, I went running with Bish in the park a few times, Eldest went out twice collecting donations door-to-door for some charity or other, I got the number five bus to work every morning, I walked home every afternoon (thankfully, not getting run over by a motorbike when crossing the road). And I must say, I didn"t notice any less people in the shops, in the cafes or in the streets. On the contrary, it's two weeks before Pesach (Passover). The shops are packed; the atmosphere in the supermarket is one of frantic activity. It's all hogwash, silly Left Wing scaredy-pants propaganda, the Media inventing news. It hasn't happened. Further down she dares to say: Maybe a lot of Palestinians are secretly relieved to see him go. Maybe they’re fed up and want it to finish already. Maybe they have long ago stopped believing the promises of people like Yassin that Israel is close to breaking point. Let's hope. We live in times when our opinions swing by the day, sometimes by the hour. I know I'm that way. Reading reports of the Clarke testimony in the blogosphere, I think to myself, well, they've nailed that sleazy hypocrite. Then, a few minutes later, I'm watching the same events on CNN, listening to the talking heads on Larry King, and I'm sure the "terror expert" is going to take down the president for no reason. So reading someone like Imshin, who has to face the reality of these events on the front lines on a daily basis, staying calm and cool, is reassuring. But speaking of Richard Clarke, I had a small epiphany about him last night. Probably many have thought the same thing but I will offer it anyway because it explains the book and his often contradictory testimony. Clarke is a man who spent his life trying to get terrorists and just when it started to get really interesting, when, mostly because of 9/11, a President finally was ready to get serious about the problem, he (Clarke) was already out of a job (or nearly). The natural "little boy" response is "Hey, what about me!" The rest you are watching on television. Meanwhile, I will continue to read Imshin who is telling me more about terrorism than anybody at the hearings. AND MORE MEANWHILE... Apparently new Hamas chief/pediatrician Abdel Aziz (not your father's Dr. Spock) Rantisi stated Sunday that "US President George W. Bush is the enemy of God and Islam. He also declared that God's war against the United States and Israel was ongoing." Sorry, Dr. Rantisi. Sheryl and I just changed physicians for Madeleine and we're happy with our new one. But we'll keep you in mind. PS: The "good doctor" goes on to make Imshin's point for her. According to this same AP report: Rantisi also suggested the Arab world is letting down the Palestinians. "I want to tell the Arab leaders, you will be asked by God ... about the blood of Sheik Ahmed Yassin," he said. UPDATE: Gerard Van Der Leun examines the "peace process."
Replies: 67 comments
Comments are open and unmoderated, although abusive remarks may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Roger Simon.
A couple of days ago, I made up a plot for a movie about 911. It was absolutely a cliche, but the sort of thing that was churned out by the yard during WWII. The Hero is a worker American. There are exotic locations. The Bad Guy is a snooty upper class man. America is fighting terrorists. Now, why isn't this kind of movie being made?? The Jim Carrey vehicle sounds wonderful and interesting, but it is PERSONAL. But the Warner Brothers sort of thing is cheap, easy and fun, and I would bet would make jillions. Is there no one in Hollywood who is simply patriotic, without irony or embarrassment? Why don't they take a look at Passion and the Lord of the Rings - both made by Australians, by the way - an underlying pride in our own civilization, without complication.
Posted by heather @ 03/28/2004 10:07 AM PST
Roger, I have had some thoughts about Clarke also. I met people like him in the corporate world. They are not uncommon. Uusually they are at high or highest levels of corporate management. And they have gotten there because of the force of their personalities. They are singleminded, driven, viciously partisan, don't suffer fools, demand loyalty and drive people to high levels of job performance. The jungle of corporate(or government) management is their battleground. And they play that battle for all it is worth. My old boss(and genius) used to call it "provincial empires". The Clarkes of the world are great assets to an organization as long as they can be controlled by a stronger boss. They also can cause great damage to an organization. And, the worst thing that can happen to you in a company is to have that guy as your enemy.
Posted by ted @ 03/28/2004 10:17 AM PST
yesterday (March 27) was the second anniversary of the Passover massacre. That month of March 2002 was the only time I actually feared for Israel's existence.
Posted by Joel @ 03/28/2004 10:37 AM PST
Joel, Don't stop fearing. It ain't over yet.
Posted by ted @ 03/28/2004 10:42 AM PST
Joel, Ask yourself how Israel survived the attacks of five Arab nations who each had larger and better equipped armys in 1948. If you get the right answer you can quit fearing
Posted by Mike O @ 03/28/2004 11:22 AM PST
Odd... Syria headed by an opthomologist Hamas is headed by a pediatrician The real brains in Al Qaeda belong to a pediatrician (al-Zawahiri) Many of the 9-11 hijackers were engineers.
Posted by John Moore (Useful Fools) @ 03/28/2004 11:54 AM PST
Many in Iraq seem to agree with Aziz..."freedom lovin' people" in Iraq agree with him...we should "liberate" them from their stupidity. Iraqi cleric: 9-11 'miracle from God' 'Proof' of divine plan seen in 'fall of the American Twin Towers' The Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the U.S. were "a miracle from God," and Israel's assassination of Hamas' terrorist leader was a "dirty crime against Islam," says a prominent Shiite cleric in Iraq.
Posted by neo-troll @ 03/28/2004 11:56 AM PST
Yes, and most of the 9-11 hijacker scum were relatively well-educated, too, as I recall. My question for Roger would be: what the hell were you doing, wasting your time watching Larry King in the first place?
Posted by geezer @ 03/28/2004 11:57 AM PST
John Moore: Good (if depressing) observation, and tends to cast doubt on the common observation that "education" cures all ills. It makes me think of a Christopher Caldwell article about Muslims in France in the Weekly Standard a few years ago. While we all tend to hope that assimilation cures all problems for immigrants, it turns out that the second- and third-generation Muslim immigrants in France are *less* assimilated, more alienated, and far more likely to be angry fundamentalists.
Posted by PapayaSF @ 03/28/2004 12:03 PM PST
I think the myth that there is nothing partisan in Clarke's claims can be laid to rest by the reaction of much of the Democratic party to his testimony. Just today I heard how mean George is to besmirch the character of this fine man from no less than the Kerry campaign. hummm. One might thing that the Democrats are trying to use the slaughter of three thousand of their fellow Americans to win an election. Only time well tell but chances are Clarke will implode. His ego may have gotten the better of him and Democrats might oughta just sit back and let nature take its course here. As for the most recent threats, what difference does it make? How many times can the same idiots threaten to kill you? After awhile it is just talking trash. I also thought the news of people in Iraq demonstrating against Israel and the US was troublesome, but they had to notice we did not shoot them or blow them up. At the risk of sounding unPC what is it about that culture that renders them incapable of reform or introspection? They think they are terrifying, but in truth they just look pathetic.
Posted by Terrye @ 03/28/2004 12:16 PM PST
Terrye says, "At the risk of sounding unPC what is it about that culture that renders them incapable of reform or introspection? They think they are terrifying, but in truth they just look pathetic." Wow, I thought you were describing Bush, the Republican Party and its two-prong forked tongue (Neocons and "Southern Culture").
Posted by neo-troll @ 03/28/2004 12:31 PM PST
The Duplicitous Mr. Clarke Tom Bevan of Real Clear Politics sent us this email on Richard Clarke's deceitful claim of political neutrality: My ears nearly fell off when I heard Dick Clarke say he voted for Al Gore on Meet the Press today, since I thought I heard him say he voted for Bush on Thursday. Turns out I was wrong, Clarke only misled me (and probably many others including members of the 9/11 Commission) into believing that. Here are the quotes: Sunday on Meet the Press: Russert: Did you vote for George Bush in 2000? Clarke: No I did not. Russert: Did you vote for Al Gore? Clarke: Yes I did. Wednesday Before the 9/11 Commission: Clarke: "Let me talk about partisanship here, since you raise it. I've been accused of being a member of John Kerry's campaign team several times this week, including by the White House. So let's just lay that one to bed. I'm not working for the Kerry campaign. Last time I had to declare my party loyalty, it was to vote in the Virginia primary for president of the United States in the year 2000. And I asked for a Republican ballot." Clinton could not have done it better. Indeed. There was no race in the Democratic primary in 2000, so Clarke crossed over to vote for John McCain in the Republican primary. (I think it's safe to assume he didn't vote for Gary Bauer, Alan Keyes or Steve Forbes, who were the other candidates in the race.) Clarke's forked tongue may help to explain why he fit in so well and prospered in the Clinton administration, but was demoted by the Bush team. http://powerlineblog.com/ Clarke just assured his "classified testimony", being UNclassified.
Posted by Why @ 03/28/2004 12:45 PM PST
neo-troll- Beautiful timing, AND leave Terrye the hell alone. "Wow, I thought you were describing Bush, the Republican Party and its two-prong forked tongue (Neocons and "Southern Culture"). Come down South and say this and rest assured, someone will rip your head off your shoulders and shit down the hole it made.
Posted by Why @ 03/28/2004 12:54 PM PST
I think the campaign to get Clarke was really hurt by Frist's comments. He went out and took a huge swing at Clarke. Think about it. The Senate Majority Leader, on the Senate floor, making charges as he did. And it was only hours later that Frist started coming back, saying, well gee golly gosh, I don't actually know what Clarke said, so, yeah, my charge of perjury was unfounded. Then Hagel and Graham jumped in on Clarke's "side" and today Clarke said he had no problem with the transcripts being released. This was a big-time call by the part of the Democrats on Frist's bluff. And it does look like one side is pretty confident about the soi-disant issue of testimony contradiction. Plus, Clarke did well on MTP (and we all know how liberal Russert is, haha) and Late Edition with Woodruff. In retrospect, Frist and his coordinating partners at the White House made a pretty big mistake. And Condi still won't testify. And if you look around the blogosphere, the right-leaning sites aren't pressing the "Clarke is perjorative XYZ" tactics. But again, if you all can't seal the deal with the American people that this guy is a monster, Frist's idiotic speech is a big part of the reason.
Posted by SamAm @ 03/28/2004 01:29 PM PST
"One might thing that the Democrats are trying to use the slaughter of three thousand of their fellow Americans to win an election." One might also think the Democrats weren't alone in that. And as for the "Clarke lied, parties don't coincide" meme, he 1) may be a Republican and still have voted for Gore. If the opposite is good enough for Zell Miller.... and 2) so what? He wasn't asked who he voted for, and people don't register by party in Virginia. And even if he's a Dem now, he was probably still a Republican in early 2000.
Posted by SamAm @ 03/28/2004 01:36 PM PST
Neotroll: Regional snobbery is just another form of bigotry.
Posted by Terrye @ 03/28/2004 01:37 PM PST
>Plus, Clarke did well on MTP (and we all know how liberal Russert is, haha)< SamAm, before you embarrass yourself any further, I suggest you look up the definition of sarcasm.
Posted by Occam's Nose Hairs @ 03/28/2004 01:39 PM PST
Sam: I missed MTP but my guess is to people who want to see Bush beat anyone who bitched about him would look good. Frist is not idiotic. The Democrats had a cow because Bush used a few seconds of 9/11 imagery on an ad and they jump and down with joy when some guy comes out of the woodwork years after the fact and contradicts his own statements in an effort to blame the Republicans and get the Democrats off the hook for 9/11. disgraceful. A lot of people died on Clarke's watch and now he comes forward in a campaign and uses the hearings to promote a book designed to trash the people he no longer works for. Just what as he done to protect and serve? Soemone other than himself that is?
Posted by Terrye @ 03/28/2004 01:47 PM PST
Yeah, I tend to agree with Clarke, and I'm gonna vote for Kerry, but I consider myself a Lieberman Democrat. From this biased opinion he did pretty well. Are there things I didn't like? Sure. I think Clarke probably misses the broader point about Iraq, and I wouldn't have cited Hosni Mubarak's words as reason not to invade a dictatorial Arab regime. Frist isn' dumb, but today that speech is looking like a misfire. And while you're never going to have any issue without partisanship, Democrats feel like the public hasn't gotten to hear the whole story. We're also tired of that day being used purly as a wedge for the GOP ("get the Democrats off the hook"). 9-11 is not being "politicized" it's just being used by the other party. And Republicans seem truly puzzled by this? Oh well. He's not coming out of the woodwork. And if you can't understand what he and people like him have done to protect the US through their service to your government, well, that's something I don't understand.
Posted by SamAm @ 03/28/2004 02:05 PM PST
SamAm. What do you think the world situation would be today if we had not removed the Saddam regime?
Posted by ted @ 03/28/2004 02:15 PM PST
See http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/000329.html for another take on Frist and Clarke.
Posted by SamAm @ 03/28/2004 02:16 PM PST
Ted- Good question. It probably depends on where we depart from what really happened. It's also to think what a Bush administration who didn't focus on Iraq would look like, in the sense that the issue is so embedded in Wolfowitz's and Perle's and Cheney's and Rumsfeld's minds, and in the history and FP of the US. Things would be different for Iraqis, for US soldiers and their families, for our relationships with European nations. If not going somehow freed our hand to get tough with the Saudis, the Pakistanis, the Iranians, that would have been good. If we could have concentrated on Afganistan, obliterated the Taliban and the warlords and found Omar and Bin Laden, that would have been good. I don't know to what degree, small to huge, the Iraq plans changed US military policy in Afganistan. At the same time, though, the pre-Iraq status quo in the ME was pretty bad, so anything to get that flowing in the opposite direction must be considered positive for the US. Likewise for the Libyan (though this is overstated) Syrian and Iranian political developments, which must have been helped a little by the US. Iraq as low-hanging fruit in the US war against Islamist aggression will, I believe, come to be the dominant metaphor, as long as future attacks against us aren't attributed directly to what we did there. Saddam was a bad, bad guy, and Iraq is a better place without him, and the ME has a better chance of being a better place without him. At the same time the cloudier issue is that of Iraq and our ability to fight AQ and terror cells. If, between the (and I don't agree with all these assertions, but they are possibilities in terms of consequences) Atlantic rift and the money spent and the half-assed job at occupation, and the Islamist constitution and the low-grade civil war and the over-reach of the US military the US suffers an attack bigger than 9-11, Iraq will look like a bad thing. So who really knows? What matters now is rebuilding the country, killing the terrorists, and building civil society in the Middle East. Not to be Chou En-Lai, but it's really too soon to tell the final outcome.
Posted by SamAm @ 03/28/2004 02:30 PM PST
It's not just Republicans who are puzzled by the Democrats use of 9/11, SamAm. Plenty of us Democrats are as well. I have been a dedicated Clinton supporter through thick and thin. But Clarke and his Dem supporters are engaging in nothing but self-aggrandizing partisan spite. The only way to strike serious blows against Islamist terrorism is through the use of ground forces. There was no political will or public mandate in this country to put our troops on the ground until after 9/11. That is why neither Clinton nor Bush acted effectively before that date. The Dems are choosing to make this partisan and alienating so many of us who are feeling forced to vote Republican or not at all, because our own party is too busy trying to score points and assign blame. If they instead took strong positions in support of the WOT, they would move the campaign issues to domestic areas where they have substantive legitimate positions.
Posted by SJ @ 03/28/2004 02:32 PM PST
Why, "They think they are terrifying, but in truth they just look pathetic." Indeed.
Posted by neo-troll @ 03/28/2004 02:33 PM PST
SamAm, I missed the part about the reestablishment of Saddam into the "family of nations". The removal of sanctions. The new $100 billion oil contract for Total and the French government. The renewal of WMD programs by Saddam and Co. AQ Khan's continued black market activity. The future announcement of the "Arab" bomb by the soon to be Caliph. My musings won't come to pass because of that illegal, immoral preemptive war.
Posted by ted @ 03/28/2004 02:39 PM PST
Statements like the following are just disingenuous: >If not going somehow freed our hand to get tough with the Saudis, the Pakistanis, the Iranians, that would have been good.< Come on. How on earth would not going into Iraq have freed our hands to do the above? You know the answer, so why do you write something like this? This is precisely the kind of false argument that is destroying the Democratic party.
Posted by SJ @ 03/28/2004 02:41 PM PST
neo-troll "Wow, I thought you were describing Bush, the Republican Party and its two-prong forked tongue (Neocons and "Southern Culture"). Don't you mean Kerry and his forked tongue by his voting for the $87 billion appropriation bill for Iraq before he voted against it bullshit? You either believe we are at war or you don't.Apparently Clarke never believed we were at war during the 8 years he sat on his ass in the Clinton administration.Suddenly,during the 8 months he works in Bush's administration,it dawns on him that time is wasting and he better sound the alarm louder than he didn't do with Clinton.. Like I said.It's simple and all this other crap is tiresome. You either believe we are at war or you don't.All this bloviating about who is right and who is wrong is useless.It's trivial and it reduces 9/11 to politics and that's disgusting. We need to find out WHAT went wrong and fix it and come together as a country to fight terrorism or it won't really matter whether you believe Clarke or not. And your comments about the South only make you sound like a bigot with self esteem issues. Piss on yourself.
Posted by Babe @ 03/28/2004 02:51 PM PST
SJ- Well, I feel the same way. I wish Kerry were more hawkish, that Clinton had been, that the whole party wasn't shy about stepping to the plate in defense of muscular US foreign policy. This is a constant refrain, from the blogosphere to The New Republic, to the work of people like Tom Lantos and Joe Lieberman, Bob Kerrey, Jim Marshall, Evan Bayh, Dick Gephardt, etc, to you and I. And the Clarke 9-11 debate does obscure larger issues about where the WOT goes from here, and whether Bush is the man to lead us. But what happened in the run up is an important issue as well, both as a pure intelligence issue, but also as a political one as well. It is simply a fact that Bush has based his presidency on the WOT, and within that on his leadership on 9-11, his break with the Clinton administration, this entire aura of leadership that knows what its doing. And Clarke raises important issues, about particular judgement in the past to the war in Iraq to the character of our leaders, to where we go from here. And these are political issues. You want them talked about, and so do I, and so do most people who follow this stuff. And the right and the GOP have not hesitated to play partisan politics in the past. Do you disdain the Cox Report? Dukkakis in a tank? The Cleland-Osama ad? Charges of "Wag the Dog." I do to. But they're part of the landscape, part of our politics, and that's never gonna change. Short of there being real bipartisanship, genuine accord, a govt of McCains and Liebermans (which no one really wants) the best thing is both sides engaging each other on this issue. When one side does it and the other doesn't, to me, that's the real danger. Hasn't the country suffered because of Dem demonization on issues not contested by the GOP? Yes. But the same is true for those that the GOP has long exploited.
Posted by SamAm @ 03/28/2004 02:51 PM PST
SamAm thinks that Clarke has done so much to protect the US. While he was in charge we had: 1993 WTC bombing 1996 Khobar Tower Bombing 1998 African Embassies bombings 2000 USS Cole 2001 WTC & Pentagon Clarke should have kept his mouth shut. He is looking more and more incompetent as his record is scrutinized.
Posted by Susan @ 03/28/2004 02:59 PM PST
Sam You seem genuinely concerned for our future as opposed to the future of the dem party. for that you are welcome. Some of us here who are not right wing Reps. share your concern but see a Dem administration AS too weak willed to carry on what will be a long struggle to stifle Islamofacism(or whatever one chooses to call it)Some of us see the UN as a useless tool which only aids the Islamists. Some of us see France as a financially and morally bankrupt country who will sell their souls and any one else for the short term benefit to France's financial well being.
Posted by ted @ 03/28/2004 03:00 PM PST
Ted and SJ- I supported the war and I still do. I believe we can make it so that going was even more the right thing that we believe it to be now. This is why rebuilding is so important. But there were costs. It wasn't free, and it wasn't easy, and we did lose things by going. Some are in the long-run unimportant, like surface thin French "respect" for us. Others aren't. The military is being pressured because of this, and because of bad-post war planning. And that's OK, but it's still there. It's not a contradiction to say so. The whole WMD thing is another, and I dare not get into it, but bad intelligence, selective intelligence, Powell's speech, all the times Bush talked about WMDs , those don't not matter just because we liberated Iraq. Like I said, I supported the war. I don't ever want to be the type of person who won't support a war because of who the president is. I wish those on the other side wouldn't pretend that there are answers that aren't maximalistic. Iraq was worth it now, and I believe will be in the future. But that's not the whole story. You can't forget how it went down. And because I support the effective use of US power, because I want people to be able to trust the president to take the action needed to protect us, I won't forget.
Posted by SamAm @ 03/28/2004 03:02 PM PST
Clarke. I've seen him in the past and he seemed like a competent expert, but the crack about Condi Rice's expression appearing to him that she had never heard the name of Al Qaeda tore it. She more than Bush is the real target for him, because she blocked his access to power. I think that somebody that much on the make would make anybody nervous to have around. I'm not sure I would have trusted him either. It looks like good judgment now, because you have to wonder about the intelligence of a guy with so much on the record throwing away his credibility to to sell a book. If he's telling the truth now, he's going to have to offer more proof, because he made so many false statements at the time. As for whether 9/11 could have been prevented, I think we're all culpable. Can you imagine the griping if the airlines had suddenly started searching everybody like it was Tel Aviv, cancelling flights, etc.? Look at the criticism over everything that's been done since then, when we knew the danger. If he had arrested the hijackers before they could pull it off, we'd still be watching the press coverage defending their innocence. I don't think we did nearly enough, but I also wonder if anything Bush had tried prior to the attacks would have gotten anywhere because of the nature of an open, democratic society.
Posted by AST @ 03/28/2004 03:06 PM PST
"Clarke. I've seen him in the past and he seemed like a competent expert, but the crack about Condi Rice's expression appearing to him that she had never heard the name of Al Qaeda tore it. She more than Bush is the real target for him, because she blocked his access to power." I'm with you on this AST. The accusation (veiled or otherwise) that Condi Rice--the former president of STanford who reads Tolstoy in the original--had never heard of Al Qaeda was a real head scratcher to me. Obviously he was out to get her. This whole game is just a joke, only not a funny one.
Posted by Roger @ 03/28/2004 04:09 PM PST
Roger, This thread seems to have run its course. Too bad. I was hoping to get SamAm to continue on the subject of what the alternative was to removing Saddam. The opposition NEVER addresses that small problem. As I have said a few times, for the sake of argument I will concede any point the opposition makes and then challenge them to answer that question. They really never are willing to face up to that. It begins and ends with "Bush lied"
Posted by ted @ 03/28/2004 04:15 PM PST
Sam: I have mentioned it before but I am a Democrat and have never crossed over and voted Republican, but I will in November. It seems that Democrats are not concerned with national security half as much as they are with partisan politcs and that hurts the party far more than anything the Republicans could do. The current plan of action seems to be accuse Bush of being a liar. Accuse Bush of screwing up before 9/11. Accuse Bush of alientaing our good buddies the French who have always loved us up until now. Puhlease.... For years I heard about Saddam's weapons. We can argue til those cows come home about the weapons but what the Democrats can't do is pretend Bush invented the concept. Clinton came up the Iraqi Liberation Act so let's be growups about this. Clarke can snipe all he wants but he just looks like a man who did not get what he wanted and now he is after Condi Rice. What exactly does any of this accomplish? The point to the Commission was supposed to be bipartisan and instead it has become part of the campaign. Other than making Democrats like me feel like we have to either cater to dictators like Saddam or vote for the other guy what is gained? And that gain has been for Bush, not against him.
Posted by Terrye @ 03/28/2004 04:16 PM PST
Hamas has announced in the clear that they are calling off all attacks in order to prepare for an 800 bomb attack. So now you know why there will be no more attacks by Hamas for a while. Now Hamas couldn't maintain the operational security for an 800 bomb attack but suppose they could. Suppose their peak sustained rate of bomb preparation was 4 bombers a day. It woulsd take 200 days to prepare such an effort. More like a year. Hamas has surrendered.
Posted by M. Simon @ 03/28/2004 04:45 PM PST
Clarke is not working for the Democrats. He is working for the House of Saud.
Posted by M. Simon @ 03/28/2004 04:55 PM PST
THIS IS how the U.S. had 9/11. Sunday, Mar. 28, 2004 07:54 PM EST CIA Analyst: 'Whole Bureaucracy' Still Opposes Bush Critics from inside the intelligence community tell Newsweek that post 9/11, despite the Bush administration's establishment of the Terrorist Threat Integration Center to remedy U.S. intelligence and law-enforcement agencies' failure to communicate, everything the various intelligence agencies learn is still not being shared. "The whole bureaucracy is against TTIC," says one CIA analyst. "They've got the long knives out for it." Read more if you choose, these God Damn bureaucrats. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/3/28/195648.shtml
Posted by Why @ 03/28/2004 05:00 PM PST
Any proof to that accusation? I wouldn't doubt it if Democrats ended up having a lot more money for this election than we all think. There is going to be a lot of chicanery this year.
Posted by linden @ 03/28/2004 05:01 PM PST
M. Simon, re: the 800 Hamas planned terror attacks... I saw that on Debka. Have you seen it elsewhere? Just seeking corroboration.
Posted by Roger @ 03/28/2004 05:03 PM PST
Just a little comment. I wonder if getting all this out of the way before Bill's book comes out will help him?
Posted by Jean @ 03/28/2004 05:13 PM PST
SamAmF I am glad that you are serious about the issues. However, I am a member of the vast right wing conspiracy and have some comments on the subject. You say: It is simply a fact that Bush has based his presidency on the WOT, and within that on his leadership on 9-11, his break with the Clinton administration, this entire aura of leadership that knows what its doing. SamAm, it is simply a fact that the Bush administration quickly realized the grave danger for the US after 9-11, and chose to make fighting terrorism the main focus of the Administration, even at political cost. It is simply a fact that the Clinton team never caught on, but according to Clarke himself, the Bush administration immediately upon taking office (even though they got a very late start in staffing and briefing because of the Florida fiasco) started the planning process for a more effective campaign against Al Qaeda, and in the meantime increased the level of activity in the old, failed Clinton policy. It is simply a fact that the planning process completed on the day before the attack. And of course it is simply a fact that not everything has been done right. We planned for mass civilian casualties, chemical and biological warfare and millions of refugees and all sorts of other terrible things in Iraq. We didn't plan for the regime to simply crumble into dust after releasing thousand of felons and stockpiling weapons all over the place. I think we failed to appreciate the difficulty of getting Iraqis to trust us. But that is little stuff unless the Democrats succeed in destroying our will before we win, like Kerry helped to do in the Vietnam War [see below]. That Bush's campaign is based on foreign policy and specifically the War On Terror is because that is by far the most important problem facing this nation. That he chose a highly skilled and effective foreign policy team, even though he expected to govern on domestic policy, shows that we have the right leader. It is also simply a fact that the Clinton administration damaged the national security apparatus of the United States, and it was this apparatus that Bush inherited. The military was cut back and lost many, many of its best due to some of the politically correct changes the Democrats forced on it. Just one example... as a former Naval Aviator, I watched the Tail Hook event turn into a way to attack the military warrior culture. Soldiers were taking sensitivity classes. Fitness standards in all but the Marine Corps were significantly lowered. More importantly, the CIA wasn't allowed to recruit bad guys - you know, like the sort of people that might be able to join a terrorist group. The message from that was clear: don't do anything that could possibly embarrass us. The FBI and CIA couldn't talk to each other, and Clinton’s appointed FBI head for almost the entire administration was a bozo so computer-illiterate that the organization was using essentially 1930's technology. The FBI was directed to focus on domestic right wing terrorists (but they failed to catch any before the act). Terrorism was treated as a police matter. Furthermore, up until 9-11, the terrorism model that was used for evaluating threats was the old Palestinian terrorism based model: terrorists will not kill large numbers of people because it would hurt their political cause. But the 1993 WTC bombing put the lie to that, and yet it wasn't recognized by the Clinton administration as anything more than a police issue. That bombing demonstrated that mass casualties were a goal of the new terrorists; had the attack been successful it would have killed upwards of 50,000 people (the intent was to collapse one tower onto the other). Clarke was on duty then, but he doesn't seem to have been too effective. That the conspirator who escaped fled to Iraq and was given refuge there was ignored. There was an Egyptian intelligence agent in the group that did the bombing, but the FBI ignored his information. Later he infiltrated the group that planned to destroy the tunnels leading into New York City and this time the FBI listened and thus caught the terrorists while they were mixing the explosives. This was another event that showed that international terrorists were willing to cause strategic level harm. Clarke is obviously an example of the Peter Principle, a man whose limited vision didn't help prevent 9-11. I think Condoleezza Rice recognized his limitations, and he has repaid her by lying to the nation If the 9-11 commission were serious, they wouldn't have scheduled public hearings for an election season. . The Pearl Harbor hearings were delayed until the end of the war and were held between presidential elections in 1946. .Most damning today, however, is that Democrats are treating the war on terror and especially the Iraq operation as pure political footballs, and they are using total lies as an every day tactic. Democrats have claimed that Bush lied about WMDs, and you seem to have concerns in that area. It is a fact that every major intelligence organization in the world believed that the WMD's were there. Most of the Democrats who have been calling Bush a liar themselves publicly stated that the weapons were there. The WMD issue was an undeserved bit of good luck for John Kerry, since there was no way that anyone could know that the weapons weren't there. 20-20 hindsight is one thing, but if you read Kay’s testimony and the article I reference above, I cannot imagine how the CIA could have known more. They had an agent at the highest level of that government, and he didn’t know. The Iraqi generals thought the weapons were available. Signals intelligence indicated they were present. On top of that, Kay stated that with regard to terrorism, Iraq turned out to have been more dangerous than we thought before we invaded. Only demagogues who are willing to lie for power, or people who have not studied the issue, can claim that Bush lied about this issue. I challenge anyone to explain how we could have known. The Democrats are playing a vicious game of politics with our national security. Bush didn't go into Iraq for political reasons - what was the gain compared to the risk? But the Democrats attack that action for partisan reasons. The attacks are vicious and remarkably dishonest - especially given that we are in a very serious war right now. Just as the North Vietnamese hoped for a political victory in Washington, so the terrorists and Baathists are obviously hoping for a Kerry win. The dishonest political attacks can only attract their admiration and raise their hopes, which will cost American lives. Fred Barnes has just forecast a “Tet Offensive” attempt this summer. For those not that familiar with the Vietnam War, the Tet Offensive was a mass attack which was a military disaster for the North Vietnamese and resulted in the destruction of the Viet Cong, but was reported and perceived in the US as a massive defeat, causing elite opinion to reach the tipping point about the war. I can’t wait to see how the Democrats take advantage of that attack. It won’t be pretty. The Democrats still claim we should have gotten UN approval before going into Iraq, even though we now know that the French and Russian governments were being bribed by Saddam. The Democrats attack us for not being multilateral (meaning getting a second UNSC approval for war), when it was clearly impossible for us to do so. If one takes the Democrats at their word (a dangerous thing these days), it is clear that they will delegate our national security to the corrupt and undemocratic United Nations. How can you talk of bipartisanship? The Democrats always talk about bipartisanship, and then immediately make dishonest attacks on Bush, knowing that the friendly press will keep the truth from making it to the American people. When the Administration defends itself, it is decried as vicious and negative. I simply cannot accept your equation of blame on demonization. It's just not true. Do you remember Bush the deserter? How about AWOL Bush? The National Guard is the easy way out slander (This describes the personal pain I suffered from that)? Then Bush lied about WMDs. Then out pops Clarke with the preposterous statement that terrorism was the highest priority of the Clinton administration and Bush didn't have it at as high a level. Heck, I'd have to keep a big file to keep track of all the Democrat attacks. Rather than clogging this blog with comments on Kerry, I have put them as an article on my own here. That article discusses (in brief, but references are available) things that the Democratic party is not telling you about Kerry – damning things.
Posted by John Moore (Useful Fools) @ 03/28/2004 05:46 PM PST
John, I am saving your comment. It sums up some of the arguments quite well.
Posted by ted @ 03/28/2004 06:30 PM PST
John- I appreciate your post. It's rather beyond the scope of what I'd ever want to tackle at 12:14 AM. Suffice to say I don't agree with you on many of the points you bring up. I've posted at Roger's blog before, and I couldn't tell you the exact specifics, but while it's always been interesting, I've come away from it every time feeling pissed off, because the answer each time, presented to me by others, has been "you're not serious/you're wrong about the WOT." I am not naive enough to hope that Democrats and Republicans will ever stop playing politics with national security, because it's never, ever going to happen, and because no one in power really wants it to happen. And if it happened in the past, which I'm not at all convinced of, it's because there was genuine commonality of belief between people. If there isn't today, that may be unfortunate, and it may well cost lives, but we have to work from there. I have talked and argued with my family many times about Iraq. In fact, I'm the only one who's ever been for it. But I remain a Democrat. And those words are reaching your eyes right now, and you're thinking about what kind of person to talk about this stuff is. A Democrat and a hawk? A Democrat first and always, you say? That colors everything; you're not with the program, and these are dangerous times. I respect the impulse, but when it comes down to it, wrong answer. A hawk first and always you say? A TNR-nik, DLC'er more like it, stooge of Bush and worse, Wolfowitz. And Bush lied, don't you know? Iraq is getting worse, and there's no point to any of this. Why don't you become a Republican? Well, I don't want to. I want to iron out the contradiction that pops up in peoples minds that the only party America can trust its security to is the GOP. I'm not a Republican; I don't know if I could ever be. GWB's animating philosophy is very far from my own, even as I find myself growing more conservative and libertarian over time, and much less enchanted with modern leftism and the lethargy and reflexive inanity of those on that side. But they don't have to speak for me unless I let them. So the reason I come back here is because it is important to me to talk to you, right now, with my iron in my hand. If you're reading this, I've done my job. You'll know there are others like me, who don't see the contradictions even Clinton and Kerry persist in allowing, but are also sick of allowing the other party to own an issue we know we could do better at.
Posted by SamAm @ 03/28/2004 09:46 PM PST
Sam, I applaud your intention to move the Democratic party back to one which can be trusted on security. I would respectfully suggest that the most efficacious approach would be to vote Republican in this and all succeeding elections until such time as the Democrats change their policies, while vocally letting all available Democratic representatives know of your actions and the rationale for them. WB
Posted by WichitaBoy @ 03/28/2004 10:02 PM PST
--And Condi still won't testify.-- Condi has already testified, SamAm. Do you realize what you're asking by her testifying in public? Setting precedent. Do you really want to go there? Unless you think executive privilege should go by the wayside. But if the future pres has to show his/hers, then so should Congress. You think they want to??? The Constitution is being tipped this way and that. Courts throwing it out of balance, Congress throwing it out of balance, think about what you're asking.
Posted by Sandy P. @ 03/28/2004 10:03 PM PST
You interest me, SamAm. I could never care that much one way or another about a political party. They come and go. I care about what I think is the truth and what I think that is right. That's hard enough. Political parties, as far as I can tell, are just passing through.
Posted by Roger @ 03/28/2004 10:05 PM PST
SamAm> You succeeded. I read your post (its only 1116PM here in Arizona). I applaud your independence of thought. And I know that such independence does exist in the Democratic party. What does not appear to exist is independence at high levels. The party discipline is enacted with the effectiveness of the Soviet communist party, so never a dissident is heard. Ideological absolutism in the upper levels of the Democratic party seems as strict as the most uptight of religious sects. When I refer to "the Democrats" I am, of course, overgeneralizing, but I tire of qualifying every generalization. Not all Democrats are as uniform in their public position as the leadership. I know many liberals who are fine people with fine ideals (whom I consider impractical, but that's just a difference of opinion). There are many here who hold to much of the liberal philosophy and whose values I respect. But I detest the current Democrat leadership. They are playing for power with the security of me and my family and they are doing it for pure partisan reasons. I am fortunate in that I like George Bush and support many of his policies. But I would vote against Kerry no matter what, because I think he would be a disaster, making Jimmy Carter look like a good commander in chief. Call me a yellow-dog terror warrior! I don't know if you read my off-blog comments on John Kerry, but just believe me when I say that I consider John Kerry to be a very dangerous and dishonorable individual to have leading our country, and a person whose antiwar behavior I loathe and detest. For the first time, we have a genuine Vietnam era radical, one who actually collaborated* with the enemy, running for the highest office in the land. I believe that the Democratic party today is inherently evil. It is evil because its highest levels are populated by those who constantly demonstrate their belief that the end justifies any means; who have no respect for their opponents; who are reflexively anti-American in their outlooks. It hasn't always that way and I suspect it will recover. It will have to recover or the younger generations will reject it - they didn't grow up with Vietnam tearing the country apart, at the same time that the enormous baby boom generation was throwing out all traditions and values (and I did a bunch of that myself in those years, but I got over it). *Note... because the charge I made is rather strong, let me define what I mean without going into too much detail. Kerry met with the enemy negotiators in 1971. He then returned to the United States and, in a masterful act of propaganda, trashed our war effort and the people involved in it on national TV. He then recommended to the Senate that the United States immediately accept the enemy negotiating points, and he even guaranteed safe passage for our troops after their surrender. He acted, in all ways, as a spokesman for the enemy.
Posted by John Moore (Useful Fools) @ 03/28/2004 10:40 PM PST
Roger- Certainly we've come a long way from the days when urban political machines were among the most important institutions of life. I'm not a rabid partisan, for sure. No question I'd vote for a moderate Republican over a leftist Democrat. And again, this is more the case as I get older (and older, and older.....) because intellectual libertarianism and gut-level conservatism have become more attractive. And under no circumstances would I have voted for Dean. Yaahhhrgh, I did not like that man, or his followers. But there are very few true independents; most people that say they are don't pay attention or are a little vain. In this forum, on the blogs, that's probably less the case. And political parties aren't really fleeting. We've had ours for 150 years. They've outlasted many institutions, and they've adapted to change. And they are the mechanism we use to view and interact with politics. How many bloggers can you not place into one of the two parties? Very, very few (a reason Phil Carter, who I think fits that category, is one of my faves). So I feel it's somewhat dishonest not to level with people where I'm coming from. I'm not an independent, I'm a centrist Dem with hawkish and slightly libertarian leanings and some smallish conservative impulses.
Posted by SamAm @ 03/28/2004 10:42 PM PST
John- Regarding the charges against Kerry, I don't know enough to answer them in any meaningful way. No one should ever carry (errr, haul) water for totalitarians. It's not a justifiable thing to do. But people can change. Rummy's not gonna shake Saddams hand again, and we can discuss which was the worse thing to do (Rummy bc he was in power, or Kerry because he went out of his way). I'm pretty uninterested in defending suck-ups to dictators. The choice we have in a few months is about the future, and I'm fine letting people judge if events like this really inform us about the character of the people we're choosing. What bothers me is the line "I believe that the Democratic party today is inherently evil." Now that is some statement. And you kinda mitigate it with other things. Still, it's hard for me to respond to something like that. I don't feel that stongly about the GOP (a failing of partisanship is a fatal disease these days?). I don't mean to war on straw here, but if you really believed the party was evil, wouldn't you have an extralegal responsibility to do something about it? Well, I don't know you, but I doubt that would be the case. But statements like that are pretty damn totalitarian themselves. And they serve to cut off debate at the knees. If it was 1860, I could understand it. But today there's simply no call for rhetoric like that. Wrong is one thing. Evil is a whole different context. Evil doesn't get tossed around like a baseball. At least it shouldn't.
Posted by SamAm @ 03/28/2004 11:05 PM PST
Here is Beruit News http://cgi.wn.com/?template=beirutnews/indexsearch.txt&index;=recent&action;=search&SearchSize;=30&SummaryLength;=120&SearchString;=topic%3alebanon1&Language;=english&SortBy;=Date_Newest&mode;=bool&from;_day=0&from;_month=0&from;_year=0&to;_day=0&to;_month=0&to;_year=0&FilterByDate;=0&first;=40 The only reference they have is to the Debka article. I'm going to assume the "800 bombers" bit was true because Debka claims it was sent in the clear. i.e. it is verifiable. Hezbollah has said that is at the service of Hamas: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115425,00.html I think this actually means Hezbollah has absorbed Hamas. http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/409515.html Is another article on the Hezbollah take over of Hamas.
Posted by M. Simon @ 03/28/2004 11:37 PM PST
John: I would not say the Democratic leadership is evil. I would say it is wrong. Kerry did something stupid many years ago. I think it was the wrong thing to do but given the times it was sadly typical. Sam: I feel the same as you in many ways. I could have voted for Lieberman, but the party decided to go crazy and that is when they lost me. I am very troubled to see the hearings descend into partisan politcs and I blame the Democrats for that. Given the circumstances I really can't blame Rice for not testifying under oath and in public.
Posted by Terrye @ 03/29/2004 04:05 AM PST
“Recently, she has been rather calm, reminding us that so far the targeted killing of Sheik Yassin has not resulted in the calamities predicted. Even the Islamic world has been surprisingly quiet” When are people going to read Eric Hoffer and Bernard Lewis? We must help democracy take root in the Middle East. The moderate Muslims must no longer be intimidated by the militants. Most people desire to live an ordinary bourgeoisie (and that’s a good word) life. Eradicate the true believing nihilists and everything will dramatically improve. Am I being overly simplistic? Nope, it really is that easy.
Posted by David Thomson @ 03/29/2004 06:09 AM PST
It is amusing to see so manyh partisan folks claiming Clarke is partisan! Either he is truthful. Or not. He has sworn under oath. Now let the Bush people do the same thing and we can judge. Meanwhjile recall these two things: 1. 9/11 took place under GWBush (not Clinton) 2. No one in any agency has thus far been fired because of 9/11 failures. Is that the way to reassure the American public?
Posted by freddie @ 03/29/2004 06:32 AM PST
Sam Am, Appreciated you calling John on "inherently evil". If we were conversing concerning Wahhabism (as an interpretation) it might make sense but the Democrat Party is neither evil nor good - same applies to the Republican Party. We have seven months to go in the saga of this cycle - there is plenty of time for argument and rebuttal. Sam, I applaud you willingness to remain a Dem and raise your voice asking for change. The fire is still burning however, and the Phoenix arises from ashes, not from flames.
Posted by Rick Ballard @ 03/29/2004 06:56 AM PST
Rice has already testified, and under oath. The commission members, especially the Leftists, are seeking an opportunity to make speeches and inject public demagoguery into what was intended to be an objective process. The commission has heard testimony from almost all the prinicipals they identified in their agenda. It is their responsibility to weigh the veracity of what they have heard and to generate findings based on their judgement. Having Rice testify publicly violates precedent and brings no objective benefit to the process. I don't routinely label Democrats "evil". I have no problem at all with calling them patently unfit for public trust regarding issues dealing with protecting national security or preserving our constitutional freedoms. The current power elite of what is left of the Democratic party is a grasping, small minded knot of hacks, would-be socialists, and big-time political opportunists bent on acquiring power for power's sake. Would that there were more Zell Millers. Would that there would be a rising younger generation of social liberals committed to acting in tandem with conservatives toward a common goal of protecting and preserving our nation and liberties. A generation dedicated to the idea that legislation, not judicial dictatorship, is the valid avenue for enacting law. A generation that embraces the history of the country as a story of growth and expansion of civil liberties and freedom worthy of admiration rather than some kind of soap opera of injustice and repression. The current presidential campaign shows starkly the differences between two parties: one that recognises the essential duty of confronting an evil dedicated to destroying all we hold dear - an evil that was ignored a half dozen times at the cost of hundreds of lives over the last decade - and one that seeks to exploit the threat they refused to counter as an instrument for political exploitation.
Posted by TmjUtah @ 03/29/2004 07:32 AM PST
> Kerry did something stupid many years ago That he's never clearly repudiated--or did I miss this somehow? That's why it's still an issue today.
Posted by Kirk Parker @ 03/29/2004 07:49 AM PST
SamAm, you wrote that you believe the Democratic Party could do a better job on the WOT. Please tell me, with specifics, what that would entail. I would like so very much to believe that too, but based on what I've been seeing, hearing, reading, I have zero confidence in them (Lieberman excepted, and I have to say that I think his serious hawkishness is due in large part to his Orthodox Judaism, which, as a secular Jew, I am not so crazy about in other areas).
Posted by SJ @ 03/29/2004 09:05 AM PST
SamAm and Terrye Here is what I said: I believe that the Democratic party today is inherently evil. It is evil because its highest levels are populated by those who constantly demonstrate their belief that the end justifies any means; who have no respect for their opponents; who are reflexively anti-American in their outlooks. I guess "evil" is too strong a word, it carries religious connotations and seems too inflammatory in this forum. So let me retract it with apologies. “wrong” as you suggest is just too soft. It doesn’t capture the combination of nastiness (such as Borking or the lynching of Thomas in the past, the “deserter,” “awol” etc characterizations of Bush), the antidemocratic behavior (filibustering judge nominations that would pass the Senate) and especially the constant and extremely nasty lying in the presidential campaign. So I am now at a loss for the appropriate adjective. But statements like that are pretty damn totalitarian themselves. How can a value judgement like that be totalitarian? I am not going to send out the secret police! I think that you misuse the word “totalitarian” like I exaggerate with the word “evil”. Perhaps the reason you don’t feel as strongly about the GOP is because the GOP is not fighting by the same lack of rules – it just isn’t being as nasty – it couldn’t get away with it in today’s media environment. I don’t know what it would do otherwise, but I like to believe it’s leaders would not be as <fill in favorite pejorative&rt; Regarding tactics and segueing into the Kerry topic, there are many of us who have very strong problems with John Kerry’s past actions. I don’t know if the public will ever get a clear idea of our position, because of the nature of the mainstream press. We feel justified in attacking Kerry with the truth, and one of the rules on my www.vetsagainstkerry.org site is to try very hard to verify anti-Kerry assertions, and not use them without adequate sourcing. The Kerry campaign has already taken one photo-shopped picture showing Kerry and Fonda together (origin of the forgery unknown) and used it to discredit another photograph that is valid. They can get away with that sort of thing because the media is too ready to believe that Republican attacks are lies. Democrats can lie almost with impunity, their opponents are tarred as liars when we tell the truth! The problem with Kerry is not merely that he carried water for totalitarians, it is that he carried water for the totalitarian enemy of our country while we were at war with them. He went far beyond mere protesting, meeting with and acting as a spokesman for the enemy. He was hardly a kid when he did this – he was 27 years old. His history since then, while not as loathsome, has indicated consistently bad instincts in foreign affairs, an eagerness to attack U.S. foreign policy, and a pattern of clearly not understanding the nature and threat of the international communist movement . If you want to debate Kerry in particular, we might to this forum a favor by moving off to that article I referred to on my site (or we can continue here, or drop it… your choice). Moving on… There have been many times that the United States has found it appropriate to ally with totalitarians – In World War II we allied with one of the most vicious totalitarians in history. As a side note, one of the amusing/pathetic details of that time was the way many leftist groups in the US went from condemning the Nazis to loving them overnight when the Stalin-Ribbentrop pact was signed, and then went back to condemning them when Hitler violated that pact. In the Iran/Iraq war we kept two totalitarian countries at each other's throats. At the time, the threat was thought to be from a fairly psychotic and militarily powerful Iran, and the US attempted to balance it. Realpolitik? Yes. Justified? I don’t know. But that was why Rumsfeld was in Iraq – because Iraq was losing the war (which it had started – Saddam was a fool), thus threatening stability in that very important region (in other words, yes, in that case it was all about the oil). I thought the most elegant operation in the whole thing was Iran-Contra. Unfortunately it was illegal because of the bizarre and tortuous series of Boland amendments (another Democrat attempt to keep us from helping liberate a nation which had been taken over by a communist coup). There is no way that I consider Kerry and Rumsfeld equivalent in their behavior. Kerry was representing a totalitarian enemy we were with war at; Rumsfeld was acting in support of US foreign policy objectives, however much one agrees or disagrees with them. I don't mean to war on straw here, but if you really believed the party was evil, wouldn't you have an extralegal responsibility to do something about it? Let me answer that as follows: most pro-life people believe that abortion is murder – the ultimate evil. And yet of the tens of millions of pro-lifers, only a very few extreme fringe people take extralegal action. There are two reasons – one of which is germane: we live in a democracy, and vigilantism is not justified in a democracy. Civil disobedience as protest is the most one should do in a democratic system. Also, remember that I stated early on that when I say the Democrats, it doesn’t mean every Democrat, and that particular statement was specifically aimed at the current leadership. That qualification wasn’t just a rhetorical trick – I meant it.
Posted by John Moore (Useful Fools) @ 03/29/2004 12:01 PM PST
John: Maybe wrong is not a strong enough word for Kerry. I think disgraceful is better. In regards to Rumsfeld and Saddam it should be remembered that Iran was the country that took and held our embassy and tried to ignite a religious war by telling the 'big lie'. That being that the US and Israel had attacked Mecca. The hope was that war would engulf the region before people realized it was a lie. Everyone including the Saudis and the Kuwaitis were afraid of the Iranian holy men. All the nations of Europe gave Saddam aid for the same reasons and Russia as well.[even Israel offereed some aid but it was of course refused] These things must be kept in the context of their times. And yes that is entirely different from Kerry pandering to the Viet Namese when Americans were still in Country. I also think you are right about Condi Rice. I smell a rat here. If she testifies they will say she caved. If she does not they will ignore the fact that she has already testified and say she is stonewalling. Either way the Democrats have effed up the process.
Posted by Terrye @ 03/29/2004 01:10 PM PST
Kerry has made two mistakes since he came back from his vacation (not counting his jobs policy): 1)Criticizing Bush's self-depracating wmd humor at the correspondents dinner. (Makes Kerry look tacky for sniping.) and 2)Sticking his nose in the Clarke thing by almost demanding that Condi testify publicly. (Now people are SURE this is a political fight, not a fact-finding commission)
Posted by Syl @ 03/29/2004 01:34 PM PST
We need to take out the Iranian nuclear operation, ASAP. They're never going to give it up unless it's taken out of thier hands and smashed on the ground. More than that, getting tougher with the Saudis, giving more seed money to pro-democracy forces in Syria, Egypt, Iran. Greater emphasis on UAV military strikes on terrorist leaders (the Yemeni example was one that needs repeating). Giving AQ Kahn a real trial and a real punishment. Not pulling out of Iraq in a few months. More troops in Afganistan, a sustained campaign to eliminate terrorists and warlords. Aid to groups fighting Sharia in Africa. AEGIS sales to Taiwan. More non-proliferation efforts. Stepping up military and diplomatic efforts against EIJ, Hamas, Hez. Better Homeland Security funding, including the creation of a domestic intelligence agency.
Posted by SamAm @ 03/29/2004 01:45 PM PST
Samam: I can't argue with that. The Iranians are really scarey. They have said that when they have the means they will "vomit" the Zionist Entity from the region. Well we know what that means and I think the Israelis will blow them to hell before they let that happen. scarey stuff.
Posted by Terrye @ 03/29/2004 02:28 PM PST
SamAm, You sound like my kind of Democrat! If the Democrats were to adopt those sort of policies they would have my vote in a heartbeat. Unfortunately, I cannot see any chance of that in the foreseeable future. The shock of losing the next election would however help them out. As for Iran, I must say I would argue somewhat with your statement. Namely, although I agree that taking out the Iranian nuclear capability is probably the right move, it is not in my opinion politically possible at this time. The Democrats have made it clear that they demand the approval of France before the United States takes any sort of military action and I can't see France giving us an inch (or is that a centimeter?) at this time. The Republicans are increasingly being hamstrung by the Democratic attacks and by the failure of any WMD's to turn up. Bush is the man who cried "WMD" one time too many. Besides, I agree with the Democrats that we are too militarily stretched at this time. Therefore, expect a nuclear-armed terrorist-sponsoring missile-wielding Ayatollah-led Iran in your near future. WB
Posted by WichitaBoy @ 03/29/2004 03:50 PM PST
SamAm - I agree with almost(more on that below) all of your policy prescriptions - but frankly I don't think that a Republican could do all of them (esp. the Aegis sales to Taiwan - which I'm not sure they can afford or want to afford), but I'm damn sure that no Democrat Admin headed by John Kerry could or would do it. Look, in a crisis, Kerry would probably do more or less the right thing, albeit after a lot of hand wringing. I'm fairly sure that he would have gone after Afghanistan after 9/11 - but I don't think that we would have pursued the WOT on an ongoing, global basis the way Bush has. He'd make a hard "decision" when he doesn't have a choice, but if he does he'll procrastinate, just like Clinton (Framework Agreement anyone?). I really do not believe that the US should have more troops in Afghanistan. A better strategy and more money, sure. I truly believe that the only reason that most Afghanis tolerate the US presence is that the low troop numbers have convinced them that the US really isn't an occupying power. The ISAF force in Kabul is a bit different - their presence is mostly tolerated because the troops are from second, third and fourth rate powers, so they are less of a threat on a collective basis. Also, the city dwellers are less prickly than their rural counterparts. On Taiwan and AEGIS - how about a lease of the 4 oldest Tico cruisers? It would be more immediate and less expensive for the Taiwanese - though they would have to be retro-fitted to mount the Block IV Standard Sam-2. I would also think that Taiwan would be a good customer for the Israeli Arrow system. Look SamAm - over the next 6 months the Dems are going to try to convince people like you and Andrew Sullian that they can so be as tough as the GOP where it matters. Let's be real - the current crop can't and won't. Sure Lieberman, Zell Miller and the ghosts of JFK and Scoop Jackson could - but they're not runnning. We're talking about John Kerry, Rand Beers and Dick Clarke. While the latter two are not above killing a few people, they fear the political consequences of pursuing a real war. Clarke as much as said so himself when explaining why the Clinton Admin never pulled the trigger on Bin Laden. Also, Kerry would never bring in a Rumsfeld to shake up the Pentagon - I don't agree with all of Rumsfeld's decisions (the US needs a bigger Army and Marine Corps, and probably a smaller Navy), but the Pentagon was sorely in need of a shake-up. The 1990s Clintonized leadership were a bunch of sorry sacks - Clark and Shinseki being to awful examples. These guys are just not warfighters - they were too worried about their diversity training statistics. Just look at the Jessica Lynch episode for an example of the rot that set in in the 1990s.
Posted by holdfast @ 03/29/2004 05:47 PM PST
Dr Rantisi us going to declare war on the US? We should all be so lucky! Insh'allah.
Posted by Mike Reynolds @ 03/29/2004 07:36 PM PST
SamAm... That's a darn good shopping list of policies. I mostly agree with holdfast except for the smaller navy part. There are, of course, some tricky problems that would be a bit harder to deal with than it seems. If we can do it, a democracy in Iran (which would support us if it happened today) is far preferable to going to war with them. We need to destroy the North Korean regime, but they hold a lot of hostages in South Korea and Japan. Remember my characterization of the Democratic party that you didn't like. That party is the main reason we cannot do many of these things. Their leaders care more about power than national security, or in the most charitable interpretation, they don't understand what needs to be done and will fight to prevent us from doing it. Unless we get hit again, and hard, I think our ability to generate adequate us of our power will be stopped by the Democrats. For a moment, I would take us back to the Nicaragua and El Salvador days. In one case, a Cuban sponsored vicious communist rebellion was fighting a nasty authoritarian regime (El Salvador). Democrats fought tooth and nail to prevent us from helping. We were told it was immoral to help a "right wing" dictatorship. Of course, allowing a left wing utopia to be created was just find, never mind the unbroken record of totalitarian states created just that way. In the other country, a populaar broad-based revolution was hijacked by the Cuban sponsored communist Sandinista movement (right out of the KGB manual). Democrats fought even harder to prevent Reagan from undoing that. Because of intense scrutiny, the Sandinistas were unable to implement a totalitarian regime (although their oppression of the Mosquito Indians exceeded that of Somoza). The threat was very real. The loss of those two countries to uncontested communist regimes would have led to major Soviet gains in our back yard, with Mexico being the next target. The Democrat party, through the Boland Amendments, found a way to criminalize aiding those who were fighting the communists, which is what led to the Iran-Contra scandal. The anti-defense tendencies of the Democratic party run very deep. The inability to see an enemy as opposed to a romantic vision of some sort seems to be hard wired. If the Democratic party operated with your vision, the world would be a much better place and I wouldn't be nearly as worried about who the next president will be. Today, Democrats have another romantic vision. The UN and the Europeans are peaceful people, and if we behaved like they did, nobody would attack us (or some such nonsense). Underneath this is a view that the United States is morally inferior to the UN and Europeans, that our international actions are undertaken for venal or bloodthirsty regions, and "it's all about the oiiillll." I would add to your list, by the way. I would *require* that health care workers get smallpox and other vaccinations, recognizing that a few would die. I would stop immigration completely, except in exceptional cases, until we can do a better job of vetting the immigrants. I would institute cryptographically and biometrically effective national ID cards. I would end the war on drugs, which would dry up an gigantic criminal enterprise which is already in bed with some of our enemies (Al Qaeda and Castro) and which has the means to smuggle anything they want into this country. I would make it clear that if we are hit with a major biological attack or any nuclear attack, evey nation which has not been cooperating with us will, at a minimum, suffer a regime change under threat of nuclear war, and at least one of that nations will be completely obliterated by nuclear weapons (our choice at the time). I would tell the world that if they are going to treat us like the bad guys, we are going to ignore them and do whatever we feel is justified. Then I'd start thinking about carrots.
Posted by John Moore (Useful Fools) @ 03/29/2004 09:05 PM PST
Add A New Comment
|