Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://news.independent.co.uk/low_re...host=3&dir=508

"Mr Carter's criticisms coincided with damaging claims yesterday from a former White House anti-terrorism co-ordinator. Richard Clarke said that President Bush ignored the threat from al-Qai'da before 11 September but in the immediate aftermath sought to hold Iraq responsible, in defiance of senior intelligence advisers who told him that Saddam had nothing to do with the conspiracy."

Sounds right to me.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Not Me
That is the thought. That we could have prevented the establishment of a militant Islamic regime and that we would have forced the Shah to implement democratic reforms in return.

Unfortunately, the only Iranians left supporting the shah at that point were the ones carrying his guns.

(There was NO saving that particular regime.)

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Can't hope to compete with Bilmore, but these two from yesterday are worth a look:

http://www.ucomics.com/boondocks/2004/03/21/


http://www.ucomics.com/doonesbury/2004/03/21/

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Jimmy Carter let a friend of the US be thrown out.

And Truman let the Reds take over China, right?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
"Mr Carter's criticisms coincided with damaging claims yesterday from a former White House anti-terrorism co-ordinator. Richard Clarke said that President Bush ignored the threat from al-Qai'da before 11 September but in the immediate aftermath sought to hold Iraq responsible, in defiance of senior intelligence advisers who told him that Saddam had nothing to do with the conspiracy."

Sounds right to me.

Ms. Rice has a fairly cogent rebuttal of Clarke this morning:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Mar21.html

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
"Mr Carter's criticisms coincided with damaging claims yesterday from a former White House anti-terrorism co-ordinator. Richard Clarke said that President Bush ignored the threat from al-Qai'da before 11 September but in the immediate aftermath sought to hold Iraq responsible, in defiance of senior intelligence advisers who told him that Saddam had nothing to do with the conspiracy."

Sounds right to me.

Should also add these for you quote-hounds:

"Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., said Sunday he doesn't believe Clarke's charge that Bush - who defeated him and former Vice President Al Gore in the 2000 election - was focused more on Iraq than al-Qaida during the days after the terror attacks.

"I see no basis for it," Lieberman said on "Fox News Sunday.""I think we've got to be careful to speak facts and not rhetoric."

And Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., told ABC's "This Week" that while he has been critical of Bush policies on Iraq, "I think it's unfair to blame the president for the spread of terror and the diffuseness of it. Even if he had followed the advice of me and many other people, I still think the same thing would have happened.""

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Ms. Rice has a fairly cogent rebuttal of Clarke this morning:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Mar21.html

That's very short on answers to the real attacks on her and the President, and long on efforts to point the finger at Clinton. If you go back and look at what Rice was saying before 9/11, you'll see that she was in favor of focusing on a few priorities, and Al Qaida was not one of them.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by bilmore
Unfortunately, the only Iranians left supporting the shah at that point were the ones carrying his guns.

(There was NO saving that particular regime.)

It has been a long time since I thought about the fall of the Shah, but I thought Iran under the Shah was not as oppressive as many of the other totalitarian regimes in the Middle East. I thought there actually was a parliment and that it was precisely because there was some freedom in Iran that a revolution could take place.

Not that any of that matters if there was no way to prevent an Islamic state.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Should also add these for you quote-hounds:

"Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., said Sunday he doesn't believe Clarke's charge that Bush - who defeated him and former Vice President Al Gore in the 2000 election - was focused more on Iraq than al-Qaida during the days after the terror attacks.

"I see no basis for it," Lieberman said on "Fox News Sunday.""I think we've got to be careful to speak facts and not rhetoric."

You attach some weight to Mr. Lieberman's words why? I mean, other than that he's a Democrat.

And Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., told ABC's "This Week" that while he has been critical of Bush policies on Iraq, "I think it's unfair to blame the president for the spread of terror and the diffuseness of it. Even if he had followed the advice of me and many other people, I still think the same thing would have happened.""

I don't think Clarke is saying that 9/11 wouldn't have happened, but maybe he is. Who knows. I personally wouldn't be inclined to go that far. OTOH, Bush is running for President on the basis of his leadership of the war on terrorism, so it's fair to ask whether he can smell rotting fish before it hits him in the face.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
That's very short on answers to the real attacks on her and the President, and long on efforts to point the finger at Clinton. If you go back and look at what Rice was saying before 9/11, you'll see that she was in favor of focusing on a few priorities, and Al Qaida was not one of them.

I just wanted to comment on the perpetuation of the re: line. I'm amazed no one has changed it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
It has been a long time since I thought about the fall of the Shah, but I thought Iran under the Shah was not as oppressive as many of the other totalitarian regimes in the Middle East. I thought there actually was a parliment and that it was precisely because there was some freedom in Iran that a revolution could take place.

Not that any of that matters if there was no way to prevent an Islamic state.

De Tocqueville wrote that the French Revolution happened only after things started to improve for most people. He thought it came when improvements could not keep up with rising expectations.

I'm inclined to think that the revolution in Iraq is one of the more important developments of the second half of the last century, and I'd like to read an account that gives some perspective on it, but it's obviously been tough for Western writers to write that book. Still, I'd appreciate recommendations.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default...-3-2004_pg1_10

for sale in department stores in Pakistan

Interesting. Though not likely to displace:



Diane (okay, okay) Keaton

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Bush is running for President on the basis of his leadership of the war on terrorism, so it's fair to ask whether he can smell rotting fish before it hits him in the face.

Well, Bush does have cause to be worried, what with the widespread and deadly attacks in the US post-9/11, the quagmire holding up our invasion of Iraq, Saddam's continued threat, the still-rampant base of terrorist operations extending world-wide from Afghanistan, Libya's WMD threats against us, Syria's continued belligerence, the failure to show that Old Europe's opposition to us had a financial impetus, and the Canadian invasion of Wisconsin.

But I'm hoping things settle down before November.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Still, I'd appreciate recommendations.

Best I read was by M. Ganji.

But, can I remember the name?

Of course not.

(More coffee.)

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
Well, Bush does have cause to be worried, what with the widespread and deadly attacks in the US post-9/11, the quagmire holding up our invasion of Iraq, Saddam's continued threat, the still-rampant base of terrorist operations extending world-wide from Afghanistan, Libya's WMD threats against us, Syria's continued belligerence, the failure to show that Old Europe's opposition to us had a financial impetus, and the Canadian invasion of Wisconsin.

But I'm hoping things settle down before November.

At least he saved a bunch of money on his car insurance!

[Sorry, that one just tickled me . . . I'll sit here and laugh to myself.]

S_A_M