Politics: J'accuse!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
So I take it you are pretty happy that Cheney and Rummy run the show then.

I used to think that the joke that Cheney runs the show was just a tired way for lefties to call Bush dumb. But I've seen a bunch of things recently that suggest to me that Bush is disengaged and that those who control the flow of information to him and know how to push his buttons (in particular, Cheney) exercise enormous power. This is clear from Suskind's book, re domestic policy. On foreign policy, Condi Rice has access to Bush, too, but Cheney complicates her life by sitting in on the meetings and throwing in with Rumsfeld (who doesn't have the access Cheney
and Rice do).

Meanwhile, here's tomorrow's NYT editorial page on the "wall":

• The attorney general argued that a "wall" between law enforcement and intelligence gathering had kept officials at the F.B.I. from communicating with one another, and with the C.I.A., and had led to both agencies' missing the 9/11 plot. Mr. Ashcroft was eager to blame the previous administration for those failures, and he offered up a newly declassified 1995 Justice Department memo that he said made the wall even larger and more impenetrable. After months in which the administration has refused to make other documents and testimony available, Mr. Ashcroft's eagerness to put this one bit of classified material on the record seemed more than a little self-serving — especially since Mr. Ashcroft affirmed that policy in August 2001.
  
  Mr. Ashcroft was also intent on claiming credit for moving the policy on Osama bin Laden to "kill" instead of "capture," until some of the commissioners suggested that papers held by the White House until just recently contradicted that account.
  
  The "wall," which reaches back to concerns over domestic spying in the Nixon administration, had indeed become a problem before 9/11, in part because F.B.I. agents were eager to use it as an excuse not to pursue cases. It was certainly not the culprit when the F.B.I.'s own offices failed to share information about terrorism suspects going to flight schools. Information about the arrest of Zacarias Moussaoui in Minneapolis never made it up the F.B.I.'s degraded reporting chain to Washington — although somehow the head of the C.I.A. knew about it.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Not Me
Did you even read the quote I posted from the NYT? It was about the wall between law enforcement and intelligence agencies (put in place in 1995) and how that impeded the transfer of information inter-agency (something many people think hurt our ability to protect ourselves from terrorists). Stay on point.

Clinton authorized the assassination of bin Laden. How many attorneys does that take? Ashcroft's obfuscating bit about the lawyers only panders to the anti-Clinton-at-any-cost crowd. But he can't be blamed. How much can you expect from a man whose only qualification for office seems to be that he agrees with the Religious Right that pictures like the links you post on the fb should be illegal? The failure to take out UBL has more to do with CIA/FBI/DOD CYA than it does with over-lawyering.

P.S. How can I believe anything in the NYT? It's a newpaper published for profit, you know.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
So he's toned down a bit since announcing that he was pleased at the killing of the Americans a few days ago?

I don't think that's what he said, but I tried to ignore that fuss. I don't usually read him, but I was looking for reaction to the press conference.

Yet another example of your standard Kill The Messenger gambit. If Not Me were capable of criticizing a fellow traveler, she would observe that you responded with an ad hominem attack on Kos rather than to his substance. But I can understand why you wouldn't want to discuss what Bush said . . . .

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I don't think that's what he said, but I tried to ignore that fuss.

"Fuss." Cute. He said he was glad the particular people got killed, that they deserved it. I can see why you would want to minimize a popular Dem blogger saying that. "Fuss."

Yet another example of your standard Kill The Messenger gambit.

The Messenger is a shit. Maybe you can get past things like that. I can't. He has shown in the past to be able to make any leap of logic if it serves his preconceived ideas. Given how easy it is to blog a philosophy - I still say I could play your part on this board quite well, maybe better than most - he has disqualified himself, in my mind, from any serious consideration. Like Iglesias, he's not worth the time to read. Hell, I could make socialism and murder sound good in a blog if I tried.

But, on to the reason I came back. The NYT has an article on Clinton's new book, due out in mid-summer. Dems are (it says) rather frantic that the timing will "suck the air out of" Kerry's campaign at a critical time, taking away attention from Kerry, and re-energizing the committed Clinton haters at a time when they might well sit quietly otherwise.

I guess my take on it is different. This is more of a "hate Bush" campaign than a "love Kerry" one, and I suspect that a Clinton book, with his normal self-effacing (?!) themes, will cause more comparison to Bush, to Bush's harm, and will only help Kerry.

So, should the Dems push Clinton to publish as soon as possible (so the effect wears off in time), or right before the election?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Much. It was like he couldn't think for more than a sentence at a time. He would start somewhere, and then you could see how each sentence would kinda relate to the one following, but he'd end up somewhere that had nothing to do with what he started on.

But I only heard a bit of it, so maybe I missed the lucid parts.

Were there any? He acted confused and frightened until he could come around to prewritten talking point platitudes. Did you catch the part where they asked him if he made any mistakes? A perfect opportunity to say, "Hell yes. And I'm raising hell within my administration to correct all those mistakes." Of course he can't act like everything's going perfectly because, well, look at the world. His response? "Well, I'm not really good at thinking on my feet."

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Do you know anything about this 'wall" other than what you read in the NY Times about Ashcroft's testimony? If so, please describe.

http://www.nationalreview.com/docume...elick_memo.pdf

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Not Me
http://www.nationalreview.com/docume...elick_memo.pdf

It is (presumably) published for profit. I will not read it.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Clinton authorized the assassination of bin Laden. How many attorneys does that take?

Assasinating OBL sometime after GWB took office would not have stopped 9/11. OBL wasn't in those airplanes. The people who flew those airplanes into the WTC and the Pentagon would not have stopped their plans if OBL was assasinated sometime after GWB took office. They were already here and well on their way to being ready to fly airplanes into buildings by then.

What might have stopped 9/11 is better intelligence and better intelligence sharing between agencies. This was impeded by the Gorelick and crew. Moreover, all you PC fuckers put the fear into the FBI agents and made them too worried about investigating Arab males in flying school. They thought that would be considered racial profiling, because it fucking is racial profiling. Racial profiling Arabs in flying school (as that agent in NM noticed) could have maybe saved a few thousand lives on 9/11.

I hope you PC fuckers are proud of yourselves.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
"Fuss." Cute. He said he was glad the particular people got killed, that they deserved it. I can see why you would want to minimize a popular Dem blogger saying that. "Fuss."

What he said was wrong, misguided, and in poor taste. Surely we can all agree on that. You and I know that the blogosphere went a little nutty over it, and that's what I was referring to with the word "fuss." As I said, I don't normally read Kos -- maybe you do -- and don't need to carry his water. Have you ever seen me link to or quote from him before?

The Messenger is a shit. Maybe you can get past things like that. I can't. He has shown in the past to be able to make any leap of logic if it serves his preconceived ideas. Given how easy it is to blog a philosophy - I still say I could play your part on this board quite well, maybe better than most - he has disqualified himself, in my mind, from any serious consideration. Like Iglesias, he's not worth the time to read. Hell, I could make socialism and
murder sound good in a blog if I tried.

Be that as it may, the paragraphs I quoted rang true for me re Bush's preformance. As I say, you have found something other than Bush to talk about. Congratulations.

But, on to the reason I came back. The NYT has an article on Clinton's new book, due out in mid-summer. Dems are (it says) rather frantic that the timing will "suck the air out of" Kerry's campaign at a critical time, taking away attention from Kerry, and re-energizing the committed Clinton haters at a time when they might well sit quietly otherwise.

I guess my take on it is different. This is more of a "hate Bush" campaign than a "love Kerry" one, and I suspect that a Clinton book, with his normal self-effacing (?!) themes, will cause more comparison to Bush, to Bush's harm, and will only help Kerry.

So, should the Dems push Clinton to publish as soon as possible (so the effect wears off in time), or right before the election?

I saw these stories too, but I have a hard time thinking it will make much difference. We have months and months and months until the election. We could all stand to let it go for a few weeks to discuss shark attacks, Clinton's book, or whatever else seems hot in August.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
It is (presumably) published for profit. I will not read it.

It is a copy of the declassified Gorelick memo at issue in this discussion. Doesn't surprise me that you won't read it. Why bother educating yourself about the subject matter we are discussing.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
http://www.nationalreview.com/docume...elick_memo.pdf

Nice Googling, but you have yet to prove that you know anything about this subject.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
What might have stopped 9/11 is better intelligence and better intelligence sharing between agencies. This was impeded by the Gorelick and crew.

You're cute when you're repeating right-wing smears that you don't know anything about. See above, where the NYT points out that Ashcroft continued the Gorelick thing in April 2001.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
. . .you responded with an ad hominem attack on Kos rather than to his substance.

Okay. Here goes.

He said, to start, "The transcripts are just coming out, and there will be plenty to pull from George W. Bush's press conference to show that he's ignorant, clueless and an embarrassment to our country." Yeah, there's substance to discuss. Which part of Kos's policy debate shall I start with from that sentence?

And then, we get "Bush made the absolutely stunning claim that his administration was somehow successful in breaking up A. Q. Khan's "dangerous network," which is crazy considering that Khan's "dangerous network" is otherwise known as the government of Pakistan." Intentionally misleading, which is sort of like lying, right? Bush referred to the black market network to whom he was transferring info. Kos knows that, but it was a good cheap line. Standard for him.

Next, "He suggested that criticizing him or our actions in Iraq sends a bad message to our troops and our enemies--i.e., dissent is treason." Nope. I listened. Kos supplied the leap. Bush indicated, just like many commentators have in the past few days, that statements like Teddy's serve to reinvigorate an enemy who looks to our media coverage for information on the impact they're having. He said it reasonably. I think it's true. That's a far cry from "he's a traitor!" Kos knows that. He's an ass. (Oops. A.H. again. Damn.)

Then, "He also kept talking about the war on terror, as if it's still the shibboleth that signals to the press that he knows they're not going to ask uncomfortable questions." Um, he was supposed to be talking about that. Does Kos imply that Bush shouldn't talk about it? Does Kos believe that Kos's rejection of the war should be a mandate to Bush to not speak about it? Kos is a loon. (Damn. Keeps slipping out.)

It gets better. "Bush approaches the world as if the good things that happen to him are the result of virtue and the bad things the result of environment, but with other people it's the exact opposite. We're all susceptible to that mistake. But with Bush it's reached a truly bizarre level, and makes listening to him an unsettling experience. When he's not questioned or challenged, or things are going swimmingly, he comes across as confident and resolute. But when the environment changes--like tonight, when even NYT correspondent Elizabeth Bumiller (!) asked a slightly pointed question, and the White House press corps showed signs that they're embarrassed about their performance over the last three years, Bush resumes smirking and becomes that smug jerk we all hated in high school." I can't even read this with a straight face. A psychologist would love it. Remember the "why we hate Bush" blog threads a while back? It's like Kos isn't conscious that he read it, but he did absorb the theme in his sleep. What he just wrote was just like several of the poster-child examples given in those blogs, by both sides. What a dipwad.

Okay, no more. Kos isn't worth the time. I did this simply so you would stop saying "but the chimpanzee shook his head in the negative when shown a picture of a Republican! But, will you deal with the substance? Nnnnooooo! You insist on attacking the credentials of the Chimpanzee to make political comment! Attack the Messenger!!"

Get a new theme. Even Josh was better than this guy.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
If Not Me were capable of criticizing a fellow traveler, she would observe that you responded with an ad hominem attack on Kos rather than to his substance.

Bilmore critcizing and discrediting a source of yours as biased isn't the same as Sidd attacking people he is actually discussing things with. What would be the same is if bilmore criticizes the way you look instead of debating you on substance.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
What he said was wrong, misguided, and in poor taste. Surely we can all agree on that.

You're responding to the wrong poster. Bilmore't the one who thinks Dems can't criticize Dems ENOUGH.