Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Tyrone Slothrop]

If you can't keep track of the various ways the administration has tried to discredit Clarke's account and the various flaws with (and contradictions among) those attacks, Ryan Lizza has a good summary of them.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
This Ijaz guy's 1997 Sudan story was discussed a while back on this board.

He wasn't a Clinton advisor, he was a private citizen. In addition, I recall that many doubted the Sudan ties to OBL and Ijaz's Sudan proposal was discredited once it became clear that he was working to become the middleman for Sudan's prospective oil sales to the US once they got on our good side by handing over terrorists. I don't remember reading anything about the Abu Dhabi thing though.

So, since I don't know NewsMax, I went searching.

Washington Times says he's a FOB, and makes him sound credible, but reminds me that this is an old story. Still, it sounds, once again, relevant.

http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/200...0350-3425r.htm

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Gregg Easterbrook:

WHITE HOUSE BLASTS CHENEY MEMOIR, CALLS FORMER VICE PRESIDENT "DISGRUNTLED"
WASHINGTON, DC -- (March 23, 2006).
White House spokeswoman Morgan Fairchild today denounced as the "complaints of a disgruntled former employee" a new memoir by Dick Cheney which asserts that President George W. Bush played Yahtzee during National Security Council meetings.

The former vice president's memoir, Hearsay to History, rocketed to number-one on sales lists approximately 90 seconds after publication--Amazon.com ranks second-by-second bestsellers so that an author need only purchase one of his or her own books to reach top-seller status for a single second--when Cheney appeared on the ABCCBSNBCCNNFOXMSNBCESPNMTV television show "Interrogations and Evasions." Cheney described the chief executive as obsessed with the overthrow of baseball commissioner Bud Selig, whom he described as a "dangerous dictator," and further said that Bush "could not point to Canada on an outline map." Cheney admitted that he also was unclear on the precise location of Canada, but added, "Now that Halliburton owns it, what's the difference?" Cheney spoke to ABCCBSNBCCNNFOXMSNBCESPNMTV from an undisclosed location where he is in hiding with his official biographer, Jayson Blair.

Cheney's memoir joins a progression of embarrassing tell-all publishing projects about the president undertaken by former Bush confidants Paul O'Neill, Richard Clarke, Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, James Baker and twins Jenna and Barbara Bush. Rumsfeld's volume, Thirty Seconds Over Baghdad, alleged that George W. Bush flipped a coin when deciding whether to attack Iraq or Belgium, which secret intelligence reports had described as "annoying, in addition to overrated except for chocolate." The Bush twins' book, Dad Was Late For Our Volleyball Scrimmage, alleged that George W. Bush is sometimes cranky before coffee, forgets the birthstones of family members, and once exclaimed, "Holy fudge!"

Publishing sources continue to speculate on the flood of anti-Bush memoirs. "Paul O'Neill started it," one said of the former Treasury secretary. "First he wrote a book calculated to harm the president he served. Then, as soon as the book started to sell, he got more press by blaming his own ghostwriter for quoting him accurately! What a brilliant sales formula." To date, 427 former Bush administration officials have authored books denouncing the president for slips of the tongue, typographical errors on thank-you notes, or ties that clash with his shirt. The volumes include the page-turner A Thousand Seconds by L. Finster Blundhaven, former acting assistant deputy associate administrator for administration of the Farm Credit Administration. Blundhaven's book asserts that at a state dinner for the crown prince of St. Kitts & Nevis, he overheard George W. Bush say, "Man, I've got a hankering for a --." Blundhaven could not hear the remainder of the president's comment, leading to continuing speculation on the talk-radio circuit.

It is believed that former Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist is working on a tell-all memoir to be entitled, Underneath My Robes. The book is allegedly reputed to rumor that while Rehnquist was Chief Justice, George W. Bush bumped into him at reception and said, "I hope you will always do whatever is in the national interest." Commentators viewed this as an unforgivable breech of protocol--an attempt by the president to influence the Supreme Court. Twenty minutes after Bush's statement to Rehnquist became known, TimeNewsweekUSNews and ClearChannelWestwoodXMSiriusNPR called on George W. Bush to resign.

Rehnquist, now a color commentator for Court TV, was a motive force in the Supreme Court decision that helped put Bush into office in 2000. Bush easily won reelection in 2004 when Democratic nominee Howard Dean carried only American Samoa. Dean was a last-minute replacement for Senator John Kerry, who was forced to withdraw from the presidential race in Upgradegate scandal. It was revealed that Kerry once accepted an airline upgrade on a Cleveland-to-Raleigh flight, but did not declare the difference between the upgrade and the posted fare as income on his federal tax forms. Five minutes after the upgrade was disclosed, the NewYorkTimesWashingtonPostWallStreetJournal-USATodayDailyRacingForm called on Kerry to step down.

As for Cheney, he lost his position on the 2004 Republican ticket when Jennifer Lopez announced her support for the incumbent and was named as Cheney's replacement. Bush-Lopez proved a ballot-box juggernaut, especially after Jennifer charmed national audiences by saying at the vice-presidential debate--pitting her against Dean running mate Ed Asner--"I was like, you know, I was like, so then I said to Justin, like, stop terrorism, you know!" Cheney is rumored to be embittered by his removal from the ticket, though comforted by the $285 million severance payment he received from the Department of Energy.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
[url=http://www.tnr.com/easterbrook.mhtml]Gregg Easterbrook

I looked at that long Easterhouse screed, and decided that reading your sig line was an adequate substitute.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by bilmore
So, since I don't know NewsMax, I went searching.

Washington Times says he's a FOB, and makes him sound credible, but reminds me that this is an old story. Still, it sounds, once again, relevant.

It would surprise me to hear that someone on the Fox News payroll still had his FOB membership card.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
How is "concerns about killing civilians"not moral? Or is it not immoral to kill people as long as they are infidel? This concern would seem to be amplified if the questions about intelligence were whether OBL was actually in the place he was purported to be -- it's even more embarrassing to kill a bunch of civilians if you don't even get the guy.

But perhaps you are watching it live on CNN.com. I dont' know that my system is up to streaming video and the noise might raise eyebrows anyway.

I think Clinton's people would argue that the concern is about a cost/benefit, so that the "concerns about killing civilians" are seen as a "cost", albeit moral. However, the moral cost is not a prohibitive moral cost on killing the intended, er, "civilian", target.

As an analogy, I think what they are saying is more along the lines of what happened after Israel dropped a 2000 pound bomb on an apartment building last year in order to get Rantisi?? or one of those guys. When they started pulling bodies of 8 year old kids out of the building, but no Rantisi, the "cost" suddenly seemed to outweigh the "benefit". If it was just Rantisi though, it would be okay with them.

Similarly, if we could fairly-well-argue that we'd only be risking OBL, Clinton (and I'd hope every last person in this country') wouldn't have a "moral" objection to it.

So, maybe I'm just parsing the type of moral objection that they are talking about compared to the one that S_A_M says exists.

Hello

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
It would surprise me to hear that someone on the Fox News payroll still had his FOB membership card.

Think again.



Other entries in fark.com's "Photoshop Bill O'Reilly doing something improbable" contest today.
{Spree: Includes a far more probable photo of Bilmore in a slingshot thong.}

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Similarly, if we could fairly-well-argue that we'd only be risking OBL, Clinton (and I'd hope every last person in this country') wouldn't have a "moral" objection to it.

So, maybe I'm just parsing the type of moral objection that they are talking about compared to the one that S_A_M says exists.
Hello

Maybe you've been talking about what we would go back to 1996 and do now, knowing what we know now, if we had a magic time machine. Like you said, the calculation shifts with knowledge.

I'm not so sure that the facts known about Mr. bin Laden in _1996_ (which is the time period we were discussing) would have justified the policy decision to murder him. Clinton obviously did not think so -- if that Newsmax quote is accurate. (At the time he was worried about what he could _charge_ OBL with.)

[Even if we had or have decided, post-9/11 to adopt the preemptive assassination approach developed by the Israelis in dealing with palestinian terrorists.]

S_A_M

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
I looked at that long Easterhouse screed, and decided that reading your sig line was an adequate substitute.

Based on your use of the word "screed," you seem to think that Easterbrook is easier to pigeonhole politically than I do. I didn't think he was grinding an axe. Whatever.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
[Even if we had or have decided, post-9/11 to adopt the preemptive assassination approach developed by the Israelis in dealing with palestinian terrorists.]

I am certain that there was not widespread support for hunting down and killing terrorist leaders until 9/11. After the first attack on the WTC people didn't support that. The unfortunate fact of the matter is that it wasn't until we were hit hard that people would support going to those extremes. That is true of the Israelis, too. Look how bad things had to get before they went after the leader of Hamas. And Arafat is still alive. There may be an advantage to keeping him alive now, but at points in the past, the Israelis could have benefitted by taking him out.

It is a big deal for a democratically elected government of a civilized people to hunt people down and kill them. Something as bad as 9/11 or the constant barage of terrorist attacks that go on in Israel have to happen before civilized people will support something like that.

One counterargument advanced pre-9/11 against killing OBL was that you might actually make terrorism worse by killing the leader. You turn him into a martyr and it becomes a recruiting tool. So then what? Invade Afghanistan, too? I seriously doubt the American people would have supported assasinating OBL and invading Afghanistan pre-9/11.

We felt too safe pre-9/11 here in America. We were wrong, but only after it happened to us on that extreme scale did we open our eyes as a people. And only then did we support these drastic measures. I am a hawk and I would have been uneasy about invading Afghanistan pre-9/11. I would have worried that it was going to be like it was for the Russians. Now in hindsight, I see that isn't true. But even post-9/11 many people expressed their fears that the US would have a tough time in Afghanistan like the Russians did.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
I looked at that long Easterhouse screed, and decided that reading your sig line was an adequate substitute.

Don't be such a grouch. It's like a piece from The Onion.

Bush/Lopez in 2004!

S_A_M

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Based on your use of the word "screed," you seem to think that Easterbrook is easier to pigeonhole politically than I do. I didn't think he was grinding an axe. Whatever.

No, I was referring to the whole Onion genre, not specifically to Easterbrooks. Shouldn't have used "screed", as that usually has the wrong aura.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Not Me
I am certain that there was not widespread support for hunting down and killing terrorist leaders until 9/11. After the first attack on the WTC people didn't support that. The unfortunate fact of the matter is that it wasn't until we were hit hard that people would support going to those extremes. That is true of the Israelis, too. Look how bad things had to get before they went after the leader of Hamas. And Arafat is still alive. There may be an advantage to keeping him alive now, but at points in the past, the Israelis could have benefitted by taking him out.

It is a big deal for a democratically elected government of a civilized people to hunt people down and kill them. Something as bad as 9/11 or the constant barage of terrorist attacks that go on in Israel have to happen before civilized people will support something like that.

OK, you guys are scaring me now. Do you honestly believe this has not been done at the order or request of the U.S. government more than 10,000 times since 1950? Do you distinguish whether its the White House asking an ally or agent, or the White House ordering an employee? Is it okay if its a CIA contractor fulfilling a contract with the CIA? A friendly foreign intelligence agency repaying a favor?

How about U.S. military personnel coordinating the hunt for, e.g., 5,000 communist Vietnamese cadres, a la the Phoenix program? Seriously, you guys are scaring me if you think this stuff didn't happen for a long time, while Bubba's defense secretary was saying on TV just today that it was all in play.

And I have no idea why we as a people would ever have been absolutely opposed to these activities, whether preemptive or retaliatory.

Hello

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
OK, you guys are scaring me now. Do you honestly believe this has not been done at the order or request of the U.S. government more than 10,000 times since 1950? Do you distinguish whether its the White House asking an ally or agent, or the White House ordering an employee? Is it okay if its a CIA contractor fulfilling a contract with the CIA? A friendly foreign intelligence agency repaying a favor?

10,000?

You've been reading too many cold war novels, I think.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
OK, you guys are scaring me now. Do you honestly believe this has not been done at the order or request of the U.S. government more than 10,000 times since 1950?

Hello

I'm not used to being aligned with Not Me, but I'll point out that this is not at all what either of us said. Its damn near irrelevant to what we said, except insofar as it points out the hypocrisy underlying some of the stuff we teach small kids.

Holy crap, you mean our government kills people? Without a trial? Horrors!

And for the love of God, if you're hinging all of this blather on my use of what was meant as a throw-away phrase "we as a nation" -- please give me break and let it go.


S_A_M