Politics: J'accuse!

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Why you seem think it made them more succeptible to terrorism is even more of a mystery.

Since I never said that, it is a mystery indeed.

But you may have hit on the next Bush slogan: "Reelect Bush: At Least The War Didn't Make Things WORSE!*"



*Except the part about the $100 billion. And all the dead and maimed soldiers and friendly mercs.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
How? I'm not aware we are pulling punches anywhere. There really isn't a need for 100K troops anywhere is there?

Not my fight (at least at the moment), but I'm assuming that Ty's point is that the leap from Afghanistan to Iraq drew many of the best minds in the govt (intel, etc, -- not just infantry) away from Afghanistan, where OBL was (and essentially is still) hanging out. I remember reading this somewhere several months ago, and can try to dig it up if you find this a baffling concept.

And as for the need to find another 100k troops, see my link to the interview with the generals. While it would be nice to have another 100k in theatre (though they don't exist) I think they also mention the fact that Afghanistan is underserved by troops. We've essentially subcontracted a lot of work to the local warlords, with decidedly mixed results.

Gattigap

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I'm sure a lot of them saw "Black Sunday" back in the day, but I'm fairly certain every administration from Carter to W didn't actually anticipate and prepare for blimps full of explosives.

I'm fairly sure the National Security Advisor of every administration didn't try to persuade people that no one had ever thought of putting explosives on blimps. Doesn't the fact that she was saying something so obviously contradicted by materials in the public domain suggest that she was woefully uninformed?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
But you may have hit on the next Bush slogan: "Reelect Bush: At Least The War Didn't Make Things WORSE!*"

*Except the part about the $100 billion. And all the dead and maimed soldiers and friendly mercs.

c.f. "Elect Kerry: At first he voted for it, then he didn't!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Why you seem think it made them more succeptible to terrorism is even more of a mystery.

Read Richard Clarke's book. Maybe you'll start to figure it out.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Not my fight (at least at the moment), but I'm assuming that Ty's point is that the leap from Afghanistan to Iraq drew many of the best minds in the govt (intel, etc, -- not just infantry) away from Afghanistan, where OBL was (and essentially is still) hanging out. I remember reading this somewhere several months ago, and can try to dig it up if you find this a baffling concept.

And as for the need to find another 100k troops, see my link to the interview with the generals. While it would be nice to have another 100k in theatre (though they don't exist) I think they also mention the fact that Afghanistan is underserved by troops. We've essentially subcontracted a lot of work to the local warlords, with decidedly mixed results.

Have you seen the reports about the offensive we're planning into the border regions to go after OBL? Why didn't we do this last year? Units were moved from Afghanistan to Iraq.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone_Slothrop
I'm fairly sure the National Security Advisor of every administration didn't try to persuade people that no one had ever thought of putting explosives on blimps. Doesn't the fact that she was saying something so obviously contradicted by materials in the public domain suggest that she was woefully uninformed?

Yes.

Which doesn't change for one bit what I've been saying all along about this commission - that it should be merely a fact-finding panel intent on cleaning up our woefully unprepared Intelligence community and not that the grandstanding, he-said, she-said, Bush sucks, no Clinton does, useless circus sideshow that it has become.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Read Richard Clarke's book. Maybe you'll start to figure it out.

your devotion to, and blind acceptance of, this guy's opinions is getting scary. In litigation to you rely on expert reports heavily?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
your devotion to, and blind acceptance of, this guy's opinions is getting scary. In litigation to you rely on expert reports heavily?

If you're going to have an informed conversation about counterterrorism, you owe it to yourself to get the basic facts. I'm not saying that you should believe every last fact in that book, or agree with all of his conclusions, but I don't see how you can carry on a meaningful conversation if you're not going to check it out. The man's credentials are unparalleled, and he was in the room for a lot of key decisions over the last decade. It's a little like trying talk about Watergate without reading All The President's Men. Some books are too central to the story to be ignored. This is one of them.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Which doesn't change for one bit what I've been saying all along about this commission - that it should be merely a fact-finding panel intent on cleaning up our woefully unprepared Intelligence community and not that the grandstanding, he-said, she-said, Bush sucks, no Clinton does, useless circus sideshow that it has become.

I agreed that, e.g., everyone might have been better served if the Rice testimony had happened behind closed doors. But the commission had to use public pressure to get cooperation from the White House, so without the circus aspects you deride, it's not clear that there would have been much fact-finding. Welcome to life in a democracy. It's a circus because people care, and because politicians are accountable to us. It's an election year, and until the last few weeks, Bush was running for president on his record of fighting terrorism. Remember those campaign ads with the pictures of 9/11? They weren't running that long ago. (But I don't think you'll be seeing them again.)

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Spanish is the new French, right?

No, they have entirely different sets of fear.

The Spanish simply fear Islamicism, and I can generally understand that. I doubt they took a measure that will make them safer, but, hey, that's their choice.

The French fear being seen as Old Europe. They fear the loss of their world prestige and profit, and yearn for empire. And profit.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
It's an election year, and until the last few weeks, Bush was running for president on his record of fighting terrorism. Remember those campaign ads with the pictures of 9/11? They weren't running that long ago. (But I don't think you'll be seeing them again.)

Want to bet? There is nothing that has stuck, and besides the point of the 9/11 ads has always been that Bush has proven himself capable of repsonding to this challenge- not that things weren't screwed up before.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
It's much easier to criticize when you have a giant ocean as a buffer...

And a big-ass military.

Never forget the military.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by bilmore
The French ... fear the loss of their world prestige and profit, and yearn for empire. And profit.

See? Why can't we all get along?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
your devotion to, and blind acceptance of, this guy's opinions is getting scary.

I think he owns stock in the publishing company, hence his repeated attempts to get us to buy the book.

I find it just a tad bit less annoying than when he cites a 42 page blog with a putative fact in it somewhere.