 | ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
|
« NYT To Begin Correcting Columnists' Errors | Main | LLC Data Project Update #10 » March 29, 2004Exactly RightGlenn Reynolds is exactly right about what Condi Rice ought to say in her opening statement if she testifies in public before the 9/11 Commission. This administration came into office to discover that al Qaeda had been allowed to grow into a full-blown menace. It lost six precious weeks to the Florida recount – and then weeks after Inauguration Day to the go-slow confirmation procedures of a 50-50 Senate. As late as the summer of 2001, pitifully few of Bush’s own people had taken their jobs at State, Defense, and the NSC. Then it was hit by 9/11. And now, now the same people who allowed al Qaeda to grow up, who delayed the staffing of the administration, who did nothing when it was their turn to act, who said nothing when they could have spoken in advance of the attack – these same people accuse George Bush of doing too little? There’s a long answer to give folks like that – and also a short one. And the short one is: How dare you?The Democrats' politicization of the 9/11 Commission is appalling. And in politicizing it, they are undermining the ongoing War on Terror. CLARIFICATION: Glenn Reynolds didn't author the above hoped-for statement from Condi Rice. He linked to and quoted from a David Frum column. Comments
The Democrats' politicization of the 9/11 Commission is appalling. And in politicizing it, they are undermining the ongoing War on Terror. It's funny how if you make the mental substitution of "War on Terror" with "frighteningly wasteful and dangerous diversion", statements like these and others make a lot of sense. And the short one is: How dare you? He forgets to finish it: "How dare you ... question The Administration?" Thank you, Glenn, for being a willful voice in a chorus of sheep baah-ing for compliance and un-questioning subservience. Posted by: Chris Wage at March 29, 2004 11:53 PMNope. He's right. The object is clearly not to improve security, it's to get the administration--period. All other concerns are secondary. It's sickeningly transparent. If they really wanted to make this about ideas, they'd be more forthcoming with proposals for change. They aren't. They just want to hurt the administraiton. The hate they exhude is excruciating. Posted by: Dean Esmay at March 30, 2004 3:56 AMThere is nothing either administration could have done to prevent the WTC/Pentagon attacks. The current administration is likewise powerless to prevent the next one. The enemy is operating on its own timetable and will choose the time, place, and method. It appears that they only need to attack infrequently, but strategically to gain the desired effect. Posted by: SemiPundit at March 30, 2004 4:15 AMWell said, Semi. Chris, there has been no diversion from the War on Terror. The war in Iraq is part of the WoT. Apparently you haven't been paying attention, so I'll explain how: THe old strategy was to treat terrorism as a law enforcement problem. That didn't work. (See: 1993 WTC bombing, Cole, embassy bombings, 9/11). The new strategy is to democratize the middle east, by force in Iraq, and through intimidation of Syria, etc., into giving up their role in terror and allowing their people more freedom. Because George Bush undertstands that the root cause of Islamist terrorism is oppression of Muslims by other Muslims. Iraq's evident violations of a series of UN resolutions vis a vis WMD was a good legal pretext for war, but it was never the underlying reason for war. The underlying reason was the strategy of reshaping the Middle East to make it less amenable to and less of a breeding ground for terrorism. And, ahem, it's working. Iraq is democratizing, and Iraqis are helping kill terrorists in their midst. Iran is on the verge of internal pro-American revolution, Libya is tap-dancing to our tune, Pakistan is hunting al Qaeda terrorists in its midst. The Saudis are cracking down on the Wahhabist Islam sect that teaches fundamentalist Islam and encourages terrorism. Bush has managed to get nuke inspectors into Iran and North Korea without firing a shot. The illicit Pakistan-centered nuclear arms and nuke technology trade has been exposed and is being shut down. The UN/Iraq Oil-For-Food scam is being exposed (and the document trail may well lead to the fall of some Euro leaders who were in bed with $addam). Saddam is in a jail, thousands of al Qaeda are dead, and bin Laden and all of his top associates are on the run or dead or jailed. Two years after 9/11, that's a fairly long and growing list of successes. Posted by: Bill Hobbs at March 30, 2004 6:14 AMSemi, You said;
Those plans were aborted mainly because of the decisive U.S. response to the New York and Washington attacks, which disrupted the terrorist organization's plans so thoroughly that it could not proceed, according to transcripts of his conversations with interrogators. . . . Mohammed then decided to conduct two waves of attacks, hitting the East Coast first and following up with a second series of attacks. "Osama had said the second wave should focus on the West Coast," he reportedly said. But the terrorists seem to have been surprised by the strength of the American reaction to the September 11 attacks. "Afterwards, we never got time to catch our breath, we were immediately on the run," Mohammed is quoted as saying. Ummmm...you might be wrong on this one. Posted by: Jim G. at March 30, 2004 7:36 AMUm...Chris, one major problem with your criticism (and Bill, you're guilty here too) is that statement wasn't uttered (er, typed) by Glenn Reynolds. It was from David Frum at National Review Online. Glenn actually links to it in his post, so go back and check it out yourself. Posted by: Joe Jones at March 30, 2004 11:24 AMAnd, ahem, it's working. Not really. If democratic elections (real ones, not the US directed ones)were held in Iraq today---we in the US would likely be very displeased with the outcome. But, again, we didn't go to war for humanitarian reasons.
OK, Jade. Prove that Bush knew that Saddam didn't have WMD. Prove that the intelligence provided by not only our own Intel people, but the British, the French, the Russians, and every other major country in the world was all BS, and that Bush knew it. The only liar here is YOU, Jade. You're utterly pathetic and completely dispicable. Posted by: Raging Dave at March 30, 2004 11:25 PMBill, good post & post on "it's working". Today, I can dream of World Without Dictators! Note that Jade is unwilling to state what "working" would look like -- it's clear that Clinton's actions were NOT working; and his treaty with N. Korea was worse than nothing. I fantasize about Condi, in response to rhetorical attacks, having rhetorical counter-attacks against the particular Senator -- how they voted, their stances on issues, etc. It's still a bad precedent for her to testify. There is at least one, huge, real failure of Clinton that was continued by Bush, even after 9/11 -- Arabic language training. The whole army should probably be getting some introductory classes (and the Army should be studying what methods work best for what kinds of people); and those who have language learning talent should be found and put in special fast tracks. I don't this failure has yet been seriously addressed. An extra $20-100/ month salary to Army personnel who can read/ speak/ write in Arabic (Farsi?) should rapidly solve the problem. Posted by: Tom Grey at March 31, 2004 2:53 AMMr. Grey: The topic is not my view of what 'working' would look like. The operative issue is that the invasion of Iraq has harmed the war on terrorism and the plan (whatever that is) is not working in Iraq. This world, unfortunately, has no shortage of dictators. Some of these dictators do, or might, pose a real threat to US security. Iraq was not one of these. For example, let's say Kim Jong Il has`a complete mental collapse and decides to attack So. Korea. The US currently could not meaningfully respond because we're overextended in Iraq. By the time we could deploy in force against No. Korea, the entire Korean peninsula would be the "lake of fire" Kim is always blathering about. That's just an example; there are others. What if the PRC and Taiwan get feisty? We're simply unready to respond to a real threat because Bush is off on a misadventure. But, I reiterate, Iraq wasn't about getting rid of dictators. It was about pusuing the lies of WMD and al Qaeda. Posted by: JadeGold at March 31, 2004 11:49 AMI recall reading somewhere, but can't find the link, that shortly before the invasion of Iraq last year, Bush deployed 24 B-1 bombers to a forward base within striking distance of Pyongyang, to send Kim Jong Mentally Il a message: Don't make trouble. Interesting isn't it that ever since then, NoKo has been fairly compliant with U.S.-led efforts to settle the disagreement over their nuke program peacefully. 24 B-1 bombers can't stop an invasion of the South by the NoKos, but they are more than sufficent to wreck Pyongyang. Posted by: Bill Hobbs at March 31, 2004 12:56 PMI wouldn't worry too much about NK. The SoDaks have a 600K man standing army, Block 50 F-16s, Bradleys, lot's o' tanks, and plenty of other mil hardware. I think the ROK Army can take the DPRK in a non-chem fight. Many of the North's 1.1M man army are "reservists," alot of whom I'd wager don't even know they're reservists. They're farmers who will grab the old carbine adishi used in the first Korean War and head south. Of course, Jade will probably say everyone is lying about the DPRK's WMD and nuke reactor at Pyonyang. Prove the North lied about the Agree Framework! Bill Clinton is a genuis! Madeline Albright used diplomacy to cow the North! Diplomacy worked! Diplomacy worked! US Imperialists off the Peninsula! Bush Sucks! Posted by: Ivan at March 31, 2004 3:12 PMJade, do you even know what forces we have in Asia? Probably not, since you haven't been right about a single military matter in all the times I've seen you. You're full of BS and hot air. By the way, instead of trying to keep the same old lie, why don't you prove it? Prove that Bush knew about the lack of weapons. Prove that world intel was wrong. Prove that even though every almost every country in the world said Saddam had his weapons, Bush knew otherwise. Prove it, you lying twit. Posted by: Raging Dave at March 31, 2004 3:27 PMPost a comment
Comments Policy: Your comment is subject to deletion if it is off-topic or includes foul language or personal attack. Readers, please email me if you find comments that include egregious violations of this policy. Comments may not post immediately - do not post twice!
|
|||||||||||
