Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
The whole health-care system is like a massive catalog of the different sorts of market failure. And then the government's involvement distorts the market (and others -- e.g., through the tax benefits for employers to provide health insurance).

True, but I still prefer the flawd system we have in the US to a single payer system. Our system delivers higher quality care with no rationing or waiting like in the singler payer systems. Of course I have health insurance. If I didn't, I probably would like the tax funded singler payer systems.

I think it is better that we tweak our system than to go to the socialized models.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I admit that I haven't yet had time to read up on this as much as I would like, and I have no reason to doubt Clarke (I did doubt O'neil because I thought he was a boob), but I hesitate to believe him whole heartedly due to the fact that that the guy has an incentive to spruce up the truth in order to sell books.

The White House has been attacking him for injecting himself into the middle of a presidential campaign, which is rich when you learn that the book was held up for three months by the White House review (he had a security clearance). [eta: that's from Kleiman's blog, linked above]

[edited to remove second paragraph on fringey's say-so]

[eta: If they had the book for three months, you'd think they'd have better talking points reading]

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
The White House has been attacking him for injecting himself into the middle of a presidential campaign, which is rich when you learn that the book was held up for three months by the White House review (he had a security clearance). [eta: that's from Kleiman's blog, linked above]

If you have a good story, you don't need to spice it up. On your view you shouldn't believe anything you read -- someone is always selling you something.

If I were you, I woulda stopped after the first paragraph. That, I like. The other thing, I mean, how do you differentiate between actually that good and spiced up so it seems that good?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Not Me
I think it is better that we tweak our system than to go to the socialized models.

We should allow unlimited croutons.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...ain_surgeon_dc

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
We should allow unlimited croutons.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...ain_surgeon_dc

That is the kind of bullsh-- that happens when the state owns the hospitals and doctors are paid by the state. A for-profit hospital gives the doctors food for free. All they can eat!

3 patients didn't get their brain surgery and there is over a month waiting list to get your brain operations in the UK. Could you imagine if that was you he was supposed to operate on? I hope those aren't people with brain cancers that have to wait that long. Could you imagine if you had a brain cancer and it was able to grow an extra month inside of you because of fucking socialized medicine?

[Not Me]

Poll: Most Australians Believe a Terror Attack Likely for Joining US in Iraq War

CANBERRA, Australia (AP) - Two in three Australians believe a terrorist attack is more likely in their country because of the country's participation government's decision to send troops to Iraq, according to a poll released Tuesday.

The survey by the respected polling company Newspoll, conducted for The Australian newspaper, found 65 percent of respondents thought such an attack was more likely, while 30 percent said the Australian role in Iraq made no difference.

The poll results follow a political furor that embroiled Australian Federal Police Commissioner Mick Keelty after he publicly linked Spain's role in postwar Iraq with the terrorist bombings in Madrid that killed 202 on March 11.

Prime Minister John Howard and his senior government ministers have maintained that there is no evidence to support the claim that Australia's risk of terror attack had escalated because 2,000 Australian military personnel invaded Iraq along with the United States and Britain.

[Hank Chinaski]

Sorry Ty, I'm going with Rice on this one.





http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0403/22/ltm.04.html

AMERICAN MORNING

Interview with Condoleezza Rice;
Aired March 22, 2004 - 07:30 ET

O'BRIEN: Well, now to the war of words between the Bush administration and its former counterterrorism coordinator. In his new book, Richard Clarke says President Bush ignored warnings about al Qaeda before 9/11 and pressed him to find a link to Saddam Hussein after the attacks. The White House calls the charges categorically false and politically motivated.

Joining us this morning from the White House with a response is National Security Adviser Dr. Condoleezza Rice.

Nice to see you, Dr. Rice. Thanks for being with us.

CONDOLEEZZA RICE, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR: Good morning. Nice to be with you.

O'BRIEN: Thank you very much.

Richard Clarke is claiming that prior to September 11, the administration essentially ignored warnings from al Qaeda. Let's listen first to a little bit of what he had to say last night on "60 Minutes."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RICHARD CLARKE, AUTHOR, "AGAINST ALL ENEMIES": Well, there's a lot of blame to go around, and I probably deserve some blame, too. But on January 24th of 2001, I wrote a memo to Condoleezza Rice asking for, urgently -- underlined urgently -- a cabinet-level meeting to deal with the impending al Qaeda attack, and that urgent memo wasn't acted on.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O'BRIEN: In addition to that urgent memo, he talks about requesting cabinet-level meetings over eight months, denied each and every time until a week before 9/11. Are those charges true?

RICE: Dick Clarke in that memo responded to my request for initiatives that we ought to be undertaking. And what he did was after we had all been briefed on the al Qaeda threat and understood what the Clinton administration had been doing, he wanted another meeting. I didn't think another meeting was necessary. The principals knew what the threat was. What we needed was a strategy.

And what Dick Clarke gave me in that memorandum was a series of ideas, a series of steps, most of which, by the way, we did within a matter of months -- steps like trying to accelerate the arming of the Predator, steps like increasing counterterrorism funding, increasing counterterrorism support to Uzbekistan. These were steps that he said would bring -- would roll back al Qaeda over a three to five-year period. This was not going to address the -- quote -- "urgent threat" of September 11.

We did ask Dick Clarke for a more comprehensive strategy, one that would not just seek to roll back al Qaeda, but would seek to eliminate al Qaeda that would have real military options, not just options of pinprick strikes against training camps that had already been abandoned. We asked for a strategy that could be effectively funded. We increased intelligence activities by a factor of three in the strategy that was developed.

So, that's what Dick Clarke was supposed to be doing. At the same time, he was to continue the Clinton administration strategy until we got a new strategy in place.

But what's very interesting is that, of course, Dick Clarke was the counterterrorism czar in 1998 when the embassies were bombed. He was the counterterrorism czar in 2000 when the Cole was bombed. He was the counterterrorism czar for a period of the '90s when al Qaeda was strengthening and when the plots that ended up in September 11 were being hatched.

The fact is, we needed a new strategy, and that's what we asked Dick Clarke to give us.

Instead he got himself a book deal.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
We should allow unlimited croutons.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...ain_surgeon_dc

I wouldn't want a doctor working on me who ate empty carbs. What else doesn't he know about the body?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
And the quality of available beer will decline to the lowest common denominator -- Old Milwaukee. S_A_M

Sorry SAM. To have said OM, instead of Falstaff or Buckhorn shows that you were raised in the lap of luxury.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Sorry Ty, I'm going with Rice on this one.





http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0403/22/ltm.04.html



Instead he got himself a book deal.

Interesting -- Rice admits that what Clarke says about the rejected meetings/briefings was true -- but says that doesn't matter. The meetings weren't necessary because all the principals understood the threat. OK. They "wanted a new strategy." Great.

However, none of that is inconsistent with Clarke's asessment that the terror threat from bin Laden was not at or near the top of the Administration's foreign policy priorities in early 2001.

Clarke's assessment is consistent with the quotes from Shelton re Rumsfeld deemphasizing anti-terror military intelligence at the JCS level, because Rumsfeld wanted to focus on restruturing the military, and on missile defemse.

That is also consistent with the quotes from Gen. Kennan (?) (former depty-NSA) that the high levels weren't focused on al Qaeda at that time, despite his urgent warning.

Clarke assessment is also consistent with Rice's very thoughtful piece that appeared in Foreign Affairs magazine during the 2000 campaign -- listing the greatest foreign policy challenges facing the U.S. in the coming years. (Ty cited it yesterday, I read it at the time, and remember thinking that it was very well done.) Terrorism was barely mentioned -- terrorism by non-state actors not at all.

Cheney says, essentially, that Clarke was "out of the loop" (i.e. he didn't know what the admin. was doing on terrorism at the highest levels from Jan - Sept. 2001.). That may be true, but its the Chewbacca defense -- since it is always irrefutable. Were Shelton and Kennan also out of the loop?

Rice then says this about Clarke:

"But what's very interesting is that, of course, Dick Clarke was the counterterrorism czar in 1998 when the embassies were bombed. He was the counterterrorism czar in 2000 when the Cole was bombed. He was the counterterrorism czar for a period of the '90s when al Qaeda was strengthening and when the plots that ended up in September 11 were being hatched."

So, what's your point, Condi? How does that detract in any way from the substance of what Clarke says about Jan. - Sept. 2001. Guess what, Condi, you were the NSA (the boss of the counterterrorism czar) when the U.S. suffered the most serious terrorist attack in its history, costing some 2,500 lives. So, go ahead, blame Clarke. I hate that this intelligent, serious policy-maker is acting as a political flack.

If Shelton or the other general were speaking out publicly now (which they won't), instead of in interviews for that book in 2001-2002, would we be treated to the administration smearing them as well?

S_A_M

[eidted - some typos]

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
However, none of that is inconsistent with Clarke's asessment that the terror threat from bin Laden was not at or near the top of the Administration's foreign policy priorities in early 2001.

Wasn't he still trying to get his cabinet okay'ed at that point?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Interesting -- Rice admits that what Clarke says about the rejected meetings/briefings was true -- but says that doesn't matter. The meetings weren't necessary because all the principals understood the threat. OK. They "wanted a new strategy." Great.

However, none of that is inconsistent with Clarke's asessment that the terror threat from bin Laden was not at or near the top of the Administration's foreign policy priorities in early 2001.

Clarke's assessment is consistent with the quotes from Shelton re Rumsfeld deemphasizing anti-terror military intelligence at the JCS level, because Rumsfeld wanted to focus on restruturing the military, and on missile defemse.

That is also consistent with the quotes from Gen. Kennan (?) (former depty-NSA) that the high levels weren't focused on al Qaeda at that time, despite his urgent warning.

Clarke assessment is also consistent with Rice's very thoughtful piece that appeared in Foreign Affairs magazine during the 2000 campaign -- listing the greatest foreign policy challenges facing the U.S. in the coming years. (Ty cited it yesterday, I read it at the time, and remember thinking that it was very well done.) Terrorism was barely mentioned -- terrorism by non-state actors not at all.

Cheney says, essentially, that Clarke was "out of the loop" (i.e. he didn't know what the admin. was doing on terrorism at the highest levels from Jan - Sept. 2001.). That may be true, but its the Chewbacca defense -- since it is always irrefutable. Were Shelton and Kennan also out of the loop?

Rice then says this about Clarke:

"But what's very interesting is that, of course, Dick Clarke was the counterterrorism czar in 1998 when the embassies were bombed. He was the counterterrorism czar in 2000 when the Cole was bombed. He was the counterterrorism czar for a period of the '90s when al Qaeda was strengthening and when the plots that ended up in September 11 were being hatched."

So, what's your point, Condi? How does that detract in any way from the substance of what Clarke says about Jan. - Sept. 2001. Guess what, Condi, you were the NSA (the boss of the counterterrorism czar) when the U.S. suffered the most serious terrorist attack in its history, costing some 2,500 lives. So, go ahead, blame Clarke. I hate that this intelligent, serious policy-maker is acting as a political flack.

If Shelton or the other general were speaking out publicly now (which they won't), instead of in interviews for that book in 2001-2002, would we be treated to the administration smearing them as well?

S_A_M

[eidted - some typos]

I'll dumb it down, so I can understnad:

Clarke says: AQ is an urgent threat- implied or explicit- We should do something about the threat.

Rice says: What should we do, Czar?

Clarke says: We should have a meeting.

SAM, we didn't need a meeting we needed to go into Afghanistan. As I understand it Clarke did suggest this, and the administration had a plan ready on this before 9/11. At that point, however, how would that have stopped 9/11? The guys were here, they knew how to fly.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by bilmore
Wasn't he still trying to get his cabinet okay'ed at that point?

yes Daschle was fucking with him. He didn't get an FBI head until 9/7. The Dems are such shits on this. They blew the opportunity to take out Afghanistan when it would have prevented 9/11.

edit: preliminary report from panel looking damning to Billy

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/APW...D81G48D80.html

[bilmore]

Kerry , surprisingly, (to us and Chavez) comes out against him on the referendum question (from Kerry's web site):

"Kerry Statement on Venezuela

March 19, 2004
With the future of the democratic process at a critical juncture in Venezuela, we should work to bring all possible international pressure to bear on President Chavez to allow the referendum to proceed. The Administration should demonstrate its true commitment to democracy in Latin America by showing determined leadership now, while a peaceful resolution can still be achieved.

Throughout his time in office, President Chavez has repeatedly undermined democratic institutions by using extra-legal means, including politically motivated incarcerations, to consolidate power. In fact, his close relationship with Fidel Castro has raised serious questions about his commitment to leading a truly democratic government.

Moreover, President Chavez’s policies have been detrimental to our interests and those of his neighbors. He has compromised efforts to eradicate drug cultivation by allowing Venezuela to become a haven for narco-terrorists, and sowed instability in the region by supporting anti-government insurgents in Colombia.

The referendum has given the people of Venezuela the opportunity to express their views on his presidency through constitutionally legitimate means. The international community cannot allow President Chavez to subvert this process, as he has attempted to do thus far. He must be pressured to comply with the agreements he made with the OAS and the Carter Center to allow the referendum to proceed, respect the exercise of free expression, and release political prisoners.

Too often in the past, this Administration has sent mixed signals by supporting undemocratic processes in our own hemisphere -- including in Venezuela, where they acquiesced to a failed coup attempt against President Chavez. Having just allowed the democratically elected leader to be cast aside in Haiti, they should make a strong statement now by leading the effort to preserve the fragile democracy in Venezuela."

Apparently, the Venezuelans are in shock over this, as Chavez has been touting Kerry as his bud.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Mark Kleiman posts:

Just checked in with one of my pro-war, pro-Bush national security expert friends. Here's what I learned:

1. Clarke is the real deal.

2. What he says is convincing.

3. What he says makes the Bush team look very bad.

4. What Cheney says about Clarke is a pack of lies.

My friend's parting comment: "Do I really still have to be for these guys?"

I think what's bothering my people the most is the assertion that Rumsfeld immediately jumped from 9/11 to bombing Iraq as a response. In the big picture, whether Bush should have been prepared where Clinton wasn't is very much subject to partisan debate. Whether Bush and co. were looking for reasons to bomb Iraq, even at the expense of bombing other threatening enemies, is something the American public is, I'm sure, very much interested in hearing about.

Hello