Politics: A new beginning

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Thank you for causing me to re-read the article. it appears to be a reprint from the guardian (A leftie UK rag), the article paraphrases what a Time story tells. Ty, this is not a Time article.

They told me you wouldn't get it, but I said, give him time, he'll work it out.

There are NO details, nada about the prominence of the "plan" or its detail.

True. You get what you pay for. Invest 15 seconds in your own Google search and you might even turn up the original Time article.

I have no doubt that in an overall "hand the keys" over someone said "there is a shit pile we let grow, you can take care of it," maybe the somebody even said "here is a plan." but to imply more takes more than reading comprehension. a health sense of fantasy would be required, even accepting the article's hyperbole.

You can always try reading about what actually happened, although I can understand why fantasizing works better with your political views.

Suggesting that OBL is Clinton's fault, as you do here, is really beneath you. Save that for the return of Fluffer, etc. Who was suggesting that we invade Afghanistan after the embassy bombings? That's right: nobody. But now you know that the Clintonistas proposed going in with Special Forces in late 2000, but that the Bushies sat on their ass until 9/11. Kinda makes you understand why they don't want Kean and Cleland et al. checking things out -- we only know about this because Sandy Berger got pissed that they were pointing the finger at him.

the second of your supporting "hits" uses Al Franken as its "supporting facts." Can i stop now?

It's a free country. Type a plausible search into Google yourself and you may find all sorts of interesting stuff.

Fuck. That means you'll be really mean when you reply.

Went with a Seghesio (sp?) zin instead.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
It's funny to me how often people -- usually avowed supporters of the President, and not swing voters or Democrats -- repeat this idea about how glad we all were that Bush was the President on 9/11. I don't recall feeling glad that he flew from Florida to wherever to Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana, or that he and his people seemed out of their league in the first several days. Giuliani made a much better impression. Then Bush gave a half-decent speech -- not particularly good in my book, but not bad, either -- and people rallied around him, because we were upset and shocked and wanted to come together and he was in charge.

I honestly don't think that most people cared too much who was President then -- or that almost anyone said (in the first few weeks) -- "Thank God its Shrub and not that weenie Gore!"

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
If Gore had been in charge, and had kept the people in the Clinton Administration who had focused on terrorism, maybe something would have been done in the several months before September that might have averted the attacks. Hindsight is 20/20, but it's pretty clear that terrorism was a low priority for the Bushies until 9/11.

Anything is possible -- but this is an inflammatory bit of counterfactual speculation.

I think that it is almost unimaginable that a Democratic President pre-9/11 would have taken the drastically-heightened border security and counter-terrorism steps that could potentially have kept many/most of the hijackers out.

Also -- the airlines/Congress would _never_ have gone for the drastically heightened and monumentally expensive pre-screening prior to 9/11.

These are all reasons why those on the right and left who talk about this Clinton/Bush "should/could have done more" issue are just masturbating. You can't take a country where it doesn't want to go; in my view, there is no realistic scenario by which the American people could have been convinced of the need for and value of all of these new security measures between (say) 1996 and 9/2001 without the 9/11 attacks or something similar.

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
It's hard to see how things would have been any worse under Gore. It's equally hard to imagine that Gore would have done any worse in invading Afghanistan.

Since we're going counterfactual -- I think/hope that Gore would have invaded Afghanistan. Are you suggesting that it was poorly done? It seems to me to have been a raging success -- at least as compared to prior foreign interventions in that country. I don't see that Bush/Gore would have made much difference.

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I suspect that when conservatives are talking this way, it's because they imagine that they would not have been able to support a Gore Administration in the days after 9/11 in the way that we all supported the Bushies.

I don't question your feelings post-9/11. However, you must admit that, coming from you, this seems a little rich.

S_A_M

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I honestly don't think that most people cared too much who was President then -- or that almost anyone said (in the first few weeks) -- "Thank God its Shrub and not that weenie Gore!"

Yes.

Anything is possible -- but this is an inflammatory bit of counterfactual speculation.

I think that it is almost unimaginable that a Democratic President pre-9/11 would have taken the drastically-heightened border security and counter-terrorism steps that could potentially have kept many/most of the hijackers out.

I agree. I don't think we have any reason to think that Gore would have stopped 9/11 before it happened. But maybe he would have done something with the plan to take out OBL. Bush didn't.

Also -- the airlines/Congress would _never_ have gone for the drastically heightened and monumentally expensive pre-screening prior to 9/11.

Agreed.

These are all reasons why those on the right and left who talk about this Clinton/Bush "should/could have done more" issue are just masturbating. You can't take a country where it doesn't want to go; in my view, there is no realistic scenario by which the American people could have been convinced of the need for and value of all of these new security measures between (say) 1996 and 9/2001 without the 9/11 attacks or something similar.

Hank and I were talking about doing more to go after Al Qaeda, which is a little different.

Since we're going counterfactual -- I think/hope that Gore would have invaded Afghanistan. Are you suggesting that it was poorly done? It seems to me to have been a raging success -- at least as compared to prior foreign interventions in that country. I don't see that Bush/Gore would have made much difference.

I agree.

I don't question your feelings post-9/11. However, you must admit that, coming from you, this seems a little rich.

Que? He was my President, too.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
You understand the timeline, right?
August 1998 OBL blew up 2 embassies- we sent cruise missiles to hit some mountains.

* * *

The fact is, Bush was going to take out Afghanistan, before 9/11, unfortunately, for 3000 people, the plan should have been put in place in 1998, and it was too late.

Explain this to me Hank : How _could_ Clinton have implemented this plan in 1998? You and the GOP shock troops were busy impeaching him. I recall sreeching from the GOP side about "wagging the dog" even in response to the few cruise missles. Yes, I'm sure you're right, Clinton could have marshalled national and international support behind a plan to cripple al Qaeda in 1998.

Like I've said - the conservatives wanted to cripple his administration, and were successful. Now you have to live with the results.

P.S. I like it that you've retreated from "Clinton wasn't doing anything and Bush couldn't have known anything" to "It was too late". Do you disagree that the Bush administration had many priorities higher than fighting terrorism prior to 9/11 (perhaps including cracking down on the use of medical marijuana)?

S_A_M

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
You get what you pay for. Invest 15 seconds in your own Google search and you might even turn up the original Time article.

If the Time article had the detail i request, certainly the screeds would have quoted it.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

the second of your supporting "hits" uses Al Franken as its "supporting facts." Can i stop now?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's a free country. Type a plausible search into Google yourself and you may find all sorts of interesting stuff.

Oh, you're wily!
I say what you've shown lacks context and detail. You tell me if only I'd google more, the "facts" would come out. Basically, I am asked to ignore that you own google search didn't answer context or details, and suspend disbelief that mine will.
I am not willing to play your lawyer's trick games. What; if I find the "facts" to support your argument- great. If I fail to find any support, then it is not that your argument does not hold water. No! If I fail to find support for your position, it is merely that my google skills are suspect.


Judge: Mr. Slothrop, I have here your motion for Summary judgement, that Plaintiff's claim is barred by laches. Your papers allege that certain conversations occurred, and started a clock running, but I do not see that you've pointed to the content of these conversations. For your point to be proven, isn't it to you to show such facts as to support your contention?

Mr. Slothrop: i'm glad you asked me that , your honor. I have here the 28 boxes of documents that Plaintiff has produced in this matter, and I will leave the boxes here so the Court has access. I assure you that if you have your law clerk sort through these boxes those supporting facts you mention will be quite clear. You do have competant law clerks this year, don't you, your honor?

Judge: Hmmm, oh. Yes, Yes! Quite adequate law clerks, I'm sure they will find this support you mention. Very well, i'm inclined to grant Mr. Slothrop's motion. I am troubled, Plaintiff, that you oppose this motion at all. Are you fantasizing about what happened here, and just how weak your client's case is?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Explain this to me Hank : How _could_ Clinton have implemented this plan in 1998? You and the GOP shock troops were busy impeaching him. I recall sreeching from the GOP side about "wagging the dog" even in response to the few cruise missles. Yes, I'm sure you're right, Clinton could have marshalled national and international support behind a plan to cripple al Qaeda in 1998.S_A_M

My boy attacked Bosnia in that time frame, and those guys weren't blowing us up.

As to Bush priorities, I'm sure first priorities were in gearing up to gear up. That takes time. He didn't even get his FBI nominee approved until, what 9/7/01?

My issue isn't with Clinton not doing enough. i just think its absurd for people who sat on their hands as our stuff was getting blown up, to complain that as they were cleaned out their desks after 8 years, and in between stealing "W" from their keyboards, they handed off this grand plan that compelled immediate attention.
It is silly.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
stuff

Who died and made you judge?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Bitch. Please...

Bitch, please?

Edited to add:* Board motto!

*Not really.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Bitch, please?

Edited to add:* Board motto!

*Not really.

Don't sound so plaintive when you say that. Say it like you mean it. Emphasis on the bitch, not the please; make the please a disgusted afterthought, not a wimpy pleading.

I'm here to help you.

(Note: Bitch, please! is like Greedy, Greedy, Greedy -- its meaning is conveyed entirely by how you say it).

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
(Note: Bitch, please! is like Greedy, Greedy, Greedy -- its meaning is conveyed entirely by how you say it).

I tend to say it like Masha Marsha Marsha from the brady bunch.

[sgtclub]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20031230/D7VOS9TO0.html

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20031230/D7VOS9TO0.html

This is very interesting. It suggests that they're coming up with something.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
... and in between stealing "W" from their keyboards....

I just wanted to note that, still, 3 years on, every time I am reminded of this prank I laugh. Destruction of gov't property blah blah etc. notwithstanding, that was pretty goddamn funny.

BR(not that you care, but I thought that I'd share)C

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
This is very interesting. It suggests that they're coming up with something.

Right, but what could it be which would cause the conflict? Haven't been able to figure that out yet.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Right, but what could it be which would cause the conflict? Haven't been able to figure that out yet.

Initially, there were a lot of calls for Ashcroft to recuse himself because -- among other reasons -- Rove worked for him. As CNN reported in October:

• Rove's ties to Attorney General John Ashcroft have led some lawmakers, including one senior Republican, to say he should consider recusing himself from the investigation. Rove was a political adviser during Ashcroft's gubernatorial and Senate campaigns in Missouri.
  
  Asked whether Rove's relationship with Ashcroft would present a conflict of interest, senior Republican Sen. Arlen Specter said Ashcroft should consider stepping aside.