Politics: J'accuse!

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Now tell us how we would have won in Vietnam had the lefties not undermined the war effort.

If knew anything about VN I would make the argument..

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
What is your devotion to that book? I have read a ton of other accounts during and after the relevant time period.

Then consult one of the other accounts. The guy who wrote that book happened to be the head counterterrorism official by the end of the administration, so it turns out that he discusses what was done.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
It supports his position ergo it must be true.

bilmore?

[Not Me]

Abizaid asks for more Iraq troops

• Abizaid asks for more Iraq troops
  From correspondents in Washington
  April 6, 2004
  
  US Central Command chief General John Abizaid has asked military commanders to give him options for quickly sending more troops to Iraq after a bloody upsurge in violence over the weekend, a senior Centcom official said today.
  
  "The events of the weekend show an obvious potential for more demonstrations and more violence," the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
  
  "We asked our staff to look at what forces might be available in quick-response mode."
  
  But the official said: "We don't believe we'll need additional forces; we're doing this as a matter of planning. We've got adequate forces to do the job."
  
  CNN reported earlier that Abizaid had asked military leaders to supply plans for consideration within the next 48 hours.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Link to trenchantly satirical politics blog thread. Recognize anyone?

Ty?

[Gattigap]

This was only a matter of time.

Bush, Schwartzenegger push new Homeland Security TV show

After getting a wink from President Bush and a full slap on the back by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's antiterrorism office, the producers of a new TV show about federal agents are getting what they always wanted: advice from the Department of Homeland Security. "They are trying to guide us . . . to educate us so we portray it accurately," says Alison Heruth-Waterbury, the star of D.H.S., the series, after meeting with DHS bigs last week. "It's basically just understanding the structure of DHS, which honestly, we were a little bit off before coming here." The series, which CBS is considering for the fall, features DHS agents fighting terrorism all over the world. They've filmed at real-life security facilities in California, thanks to the guv. And Washington officials are expected to give free advice and even play cameo roles; Bush and DHS Secretary Tom Ridge are featured in the show's trailer. Heruth-Waterbury says that when she recently told Bush about it, "he was just like, `Yeah, yeah, it sounds good.' " Some call it The West Wing --Bush style: more butt-kicking, less hand-wringing.

Unclear how this show will serve a need unmet by J.A.G. or Navy NCIS, but hey, I'm not in the TV business.

Shame of it is, though, that in exchange for getting access from the Feds and CA, Heruth-Waterbury had to agree to a few ground rules:

1. In every cameo appearance by W, he gets to look into the camera and say, "bring 'em on."

2. Cheney is played by the voice of John Forsythe, and "appears" only on speakerphone in the Situation Room.

3. Chalabi gets a positive plug every other episode.

4. The CPA gets advance scripts and times press releases proclaiming Iraq accomplishments accordingly.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Then consult one of the other accounts. The guy who wrote that book happened to be the head counterterrorism official by the end of the administration, so it turns out that he discusses what was done.

Right, and all of this happened on his watch, so he is not the most objective.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Right, and all of this happened on his watch, so he is not the most objective.

Oh, jesusgod. Do you realize by that standard we should necessarily disbelieve THE ADMINISTRATION AS A WHOLE?

Clarke wants to sell books, so you're all over his ass for lack of "objectivity." Never mind that Bush wants to be re-elected. God knows he's fallen on his sword and everything and deserves to have bygones be bygones.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Right, and all of this happened on his watch, so he is not the most objective.

He is well informed, and if he says something happened, it probably happened. Since you seem to think he wasn't doing anything, you might disabuse yourself of that notion by reading his account.

Not Me accuses me of liking Clarke's book because I'm a Clintonista. Whatever. Only in this weird polarized place do I get accused of that.

I've been reading books about intelligence and counterintelligence lately, just for the hell of it, and have two others to recommend in addition to the Clarke book: a collection of short pieces, mostly about the Cold War, by Thomas Powers, and The Age of Sacred Terror, by two former officials of the Clinton NSC. Yes, I know, they're Clinton people too, but note that the Bush II crowd hasn't written any books yet. Oops, except for Clarke, but hereabouts we're pretending that he served in the Clinton Administration but not in Reagan, Bush I or Bush II.

Part of the reason people think that nothing happened during the Clinton years is that public sensitivity to these issues was not as great -- certainly that was true before the embassy bombings. Sacred Terror has a lengthy description of Ramzi Yousef's (or, per Mylroie, "Ramzi Yousef"'s) plot to bomb airliners in the Pacific in the early 1990s. The plot was uncovered in the Phillipines, but Yousef got away and a lot of explosives and detonators were unaccounted for, and over the next several weeks unprecedented security measures were put into place. The authors note that the press took little notice of this.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
He is well informed, and if he says something happened, it probably happened. Since you seem to think he wasn't doing anything, you might disabuse yourself of that notion by reading his account.

Part of the reason people think that nothing happened during the Clinton years is that public sensitivity to these issues was not as great -- certainly that was true before the embassy bombings.

You misunderstand me. My contention is not that nothing was happening from a counter terrorism point of view. I'm sure it was, though neither administration correctly understood the magnitude of the threat.

Rather, I thought at the time and still think that our public response was not adequate and that lack of overt response emboldened the OBL's of the world. That is my only bone to pick with Clinton.

My suspiciousness of Clarke is that, according to him, the Bush Administration failed to understand what the Clinton Administration did, and this just coincidentally corresponds to the time when his role was being reduced. My belief is that the two administrations had a roughly equal understanding of the threat (that is to say that both equally underestimated it).

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
You misunderstand me. My contention is not that nothing was happening from a counter terrorism point of view. I'm sure it was, though neither administration correctly understood the magnitude of the threat.

Rather, I thought at the time and still think that our public response was not adequate and that lack of overt response emboldened the OBL's of the world.

Yousef's plot to blow up airliners over the Pacific would have killed more people than died on 9/11. [eta: "[T]he plan was called Bojinka, and it called for blowing as many as twelve U.S. 747s out of the skies over the Pacific." (Sacred Terror, 21.)] The Clinton Administration got this. What they lacked were good ways to make what you call a "public response." We know how belligerent the Bushies are, and yet they were not gunning for Afghanistan until 9/11. There weren't a lot of productive responses to make, and doing the wrong thing can make matters worse.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Not Me
The apology he gave was also unbearable. Who the hell does he think he is to take it upon himself to apologize like that? Self-serving, indeed.

He was THE MAN -- more responsible for trying to stop al Qaeda attacking the U.S. than any other humans except William J. Clinton and George W. Bush.

Of course, no one person (probably) could have stopped 9/11, and no one person bears the responsibility. But, don't you think that -- given the nigh indisputable fact that poor information-sharing between our federal agencies contributed greatly to the 9/11 attacks (i.e. known al Qaeda operatives entering the country under their own names, and flying under their own names on and before 9/11) -- the nation and/or the families of the victims deseve some kind of apology??

Lord knows that none are forthcoming from Clinton or Bush. I'm not sure WJC is really capable of believing he's done wrong, and Bush has show no sign of it either.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Suggested on the way out, exactly. What was happening during the time between the WTC bombing and the way out?

Read a book for the love of God. Even Clarke's -- but there are many others. You and Not Me shouldn't keep counting on Ty to do your research for you.

S_A_M :doh3:

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Read a book for the love of God. Even Clarke's -- but there are many others. You and Not Me shouldn't keep counting on Ty to do your research for you.

S_A_M :doh3:

STP

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Yousef's plot to blow up airliners over the Pacific would have killed more people than died on 9/11. [eta: "[T]he plan was called Bojinka, and it called for blowing as many as twelve U.S. 747s out of the skies over the Pacific." (Sacred Terror, 21.)] The Clinton Administration got this. What they lacked were good ways to make what you call a "public response." We know how belligerent the Bushies are, and yet they were not gunning for Afghanistan until 9/11. There weren't a lot of productive responses to make, and doing the wrong thing can make matters worse.

I am familiar with the plot. Why, pray tell, could Clinton not send troops into Afghanistan? He sent a few cruise missles there, why not troops? I know, I know. Because the GOP was grilling him on a blow job or two, right?