Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I must say that the attempt to point fingers on the blame for 9/11 strikes me as a very unproductive thing for anyone to be doing right now. I'm happy to trash Bush for what I view as mismanaging and misdirecting the war on terror in the wake of 9/11, but the blame for 9/11 must rest first with the terrorists. Yes, we didn't get them before, but we should not have any illusions that government can in all instances protect us from random violence.

This panel is striking me as heartily partisan, with the R's in particular focused on trashing anyone who criticizes the current administration. Kerrey has struck me as reasonable in those of his examinations I have seen, but most of the folks on this panel seem to be playing political games. It is a poorly composed panel.

This examination of what led to 9/11 really makes sense is to inform us on what we should be doing differently now; let's see an examination into how Bush led us into Iraq rather than who gets blamed for 9/11. That was a decision under our control.

Not the party line, I know. But just some thoughts.

6. President Gilligan


The castaways decide that they need someone to be the leader on the island, and so they hold elections. As you might imagine, both Mr. Howell and the Skipper imagine themselves to be the natural choice to lead the Castaways in their island society. However, when the votes are counted Gilligan is elected president of the island!

b: 31-Oct-1964 w: Roland Wolpert d: Richard Donner

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
let's see an examination into how Bush led us into Iraq rather than who gets blamed for 9/11.

Yes, we really haven't emphasized the "Bush lied!" line enough yet.

(I mean, c'mon. This HAS been the national debate for months. As in most such circumstances, people's readings of and conclusions about the events and statements simply ended with what best served their pre-existing philosophical wants and needs. You've already noted the problems of a panel of pols doing this - why do you think that any conclusion wouldn't simply be determined by the political mix of members? Or that, given an equal split of seats, we'd have two conflicting sets of conclusions?)

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Ok. Do you think that he would have had the slightest chance of pushing those policies though the Republican Congress between 1998-2000. How would Lott, Delay, Hastert, et al. have responded? Maybe Clinton should havea launched a retailiatory strike aftter the election but before the inauguration?

Instead, he stuck to trying to kill bin Laden quietly, and without the benefit of the significant technological advancement in weaponry in the past 4-6 years. That excerpt from Clarke points out -- counter to the stuff we hear from the rabid right (or event he center right nowadays) -- that the Clinton administration did more than a little against terrorism, and foiled many plots.

S_A_M

what policies? Freezing accounts directed to terrorists? Providing support to the Northern Alliance? Did you know in 1999 that a guy who was directing attacks against us was living as the guest of this nut job government? I remember lots of press about blowing up the Buddhas and the lady who snuck in and filmed the executions etc.

I don't remember the President saying these guys are also at the heart of attacks on the US. If he had the public/congress might have given as much support as it did bombing Bosnia.

I agree with GGG (which is why I gave him office) we should not turn this political, but clearly it has been.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I must say that the attempt to point fingers on the blame for 9/11 strikes me as a very unproductive thing for anyone to be doing right now. . . .

Not the party line, I know. But just some thoughts.

Agreed, in general. Why does either party see it as beneficial? Or are we stuck in a repeat-play prisoner's dilemma, and both parties taking the tit-for-tat strategy in the "rat" box?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Agreed, in general. Why does either party see it as beneficial? Or are we stuck in a repeat-play prisoner's dilemma, and both parties taking the tit-for-tat strategy in the "rat" box?

This is an election campaign, nothing more. So, yes, tit for tat. Expect many months of this.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by bilmore
I mean, c'mon. This HAS been the national debate for months. As in most such circumstances, people's readings of and conclusions about the events and statements simply ended with what best served their pre-existing philosophical wants and needs. You've already noted the problems of a panel of pols doing this - why do you think that any conclusion wouldn't simply be determined by the political mix of members? Or that, given an equal split of seats, we'd have two conflicting sets of conclusions?

There are sources for less biased views, and there have been panels that struck me as being significantly less political. Certain events deserve an airing that is at a higher level.

Are we simply conceding that the inquiry into 9/11 is going to be a hack job where Ds and Rs jockey for political gain? That's what it looks like right now.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Are we simply conceding that the inquiry into 9/11 is going to be a hack job where Ds and Rs jockey for political gain? That's what it looks like right now.

Much as I'd like to think that our "government" is a unified, noble, and purposeful entity, I think we're so incredibly polarized right now that, yes, it would be a hack job for partisan political gain.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by bilmore
This is an election campaign, nothing more. So, yes, tit for tat. Expect many months of this.

Of course, but didn't Bush and Clinton swear off mistress tit-for-tat in 1992? The Dems figure it will undermine Bush's claim to be tough on terror, but they had to know that the R's would come right back and say Clinton fucked up too, by failing to take out OBL. So where does that leave us, with Kerry as the untainted one? Hardly.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Of course, but didn't Bush and Clinton swear off mistress tit-for-tat in 1992? The Dems figure it will undermine Bush's claim to be tough on terror, but they had to know that the R's would come right back and say Clinton fucked up too, by failing to take out OBL. So where does that leave us, with Kerry as the untainted one? Hardly.

Agreed. I didn't say it was SMART campaigning.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
what policies? Freezing accounts directed to terrorists? Providing support to the Northern Alliance? Did you know in 1999 that a guy who was directing attacks against us was living as the guest of this nut job government? I remember lots of press about blowing up the Buddhas and the lady who snuck in and filmed the executions etc.

Yes, I knew. It didn't get much press coverage at all, though.

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I don't remember the President saying these guys are also at the heart of attacks on the US. If he had the public/congress might have given as much support as it did bombing Bosnia.

Maybe. I think not for the more aggressive policies, and not for anything involving actual use of force given the ongoing slow motion Starr investigation and the resulting impeachment crisis. The GOP leadership didn't trust Clinton enough to believe that he ever acted in the best interests of the country -- or did anything not out of self-interest.

To some extent I think that it was also an issue of just so much energy -- so many hours in the day for the President to spend on other crises when he is in the midst of one that he _must_ respond to on an almost daily basis.

S_A_M

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Agreed, in general. Why does either party see it as beneficial? Or are we stuck in a repeat-play prisoner's dilemma, and both parties taking the tit-for-tat strategy in the "rat" box?

I'd say I'm fairly representative of a significant portion of the right and, if nothing else, the mindless trashing of Clarke is pissing me off. Whether he was in or out of the loop, he has made allegations that have not been adequately addressed. And attacking him is not a good way of adequately addressing his allegations. If he was out of the loop (which I find sincerly doubtful given his position), then what were they doing about this stuff?

In terms of warnings and context of 9/11, I'll merely note for the board (again) that immediately prior to 9/11, western "aid" workers were arrested by the Taliban and charged with proselytizing. Thats all well and good, but when the Taliban offered to trade the aid workers for the Sheikh responsible for the first WTC bombing, that seems like something that should make somebody's neck-hair stand up straight. This was all in the week or two or three before 9/11.

Coupled with the admissions of the unprecedented volume of terrorist traffic in the months prior to 9/11, it seems like there were fairly clear signals for the government to pick up.

The question becomes what they could have done about it. So far, I haven't seen any evidence that anybody did so much as to call a meeting. So, again, I don't care whether he was in or out of the loop. Those in the loop can show all the clues they had, but they aren't showing one significant policy-maker level acknowledgement that anyone at the top was paying attention.

I simply won't vote for Kerry, but I'd love to see any decent alternative to Bush these days.

Hello

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
I'd say I'm fairly representative of a significant portion of the right and, if nothing else, the mindless trashing of Clarke is pissing me off. Whether he was in or out of the loop, he has made allegations that have not been adequately addressed.

How so? He has said, basically, "they didn't take these issues seriously enough". Then, he gives his reasons for thinking this. Rice, among many others, has directly contradicted what he said, both in terms of factual allegations, and what she was doing while he thought she was doing something else. Is that mindless trashing? How else do you deal with someone who (allegedly, for our purposes here) is mis-stating past occurrences and mischaracterizing your work? Would you rather she simply roll over and speak politely about her fomer employee who now sees fit to publish his tales of woe and get rich doing so? I'd feel a bit more compassion for the guy had he not set out pretty much the opposite case a few years ago than what he's claiming now.

And, nobody who's "fairly representative of a significant portion of the right" uses a Jay-Z line for a sig. Get real, you liberal scab.

(For the sake of the literal-minded this morning, that last was a joke.)

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by bilmore
How so?

The rest of my post which you didn't quote stated how so. He says they didn't take it seriously. They say they he sucks and he's a closet liberal pussy yada yada yada and, oh yeah, we didn't take it seriously. More or less.

Hello

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I think not for the more aggressive policies, and not for anything involving actual use of force given the ongoing slow motion Starr investigation and the resulting impeachment crisis.
S_A_M

So you blame Clinton's perjury for 9/11? Is perjury a felony? Is forseeability an element of felony murder?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me

I simply won't vote for Kerry, but I'd love to see any decent alternative to Bush these days.

Hello

Nader?