Say Anything Blog

Rob, you’re a relatively smart guy, right? I don’t know what Clinton’s position is, but doesn’t it ring a little alarm when there isn’t a single solitary quote in the story that supports the headline? The only other reputable source that seems to have the story at the moment is Voice of America, and they seem to have missed the part where President Clinton called for anyone to be convicted (which would be news), as has the BBC.

"Whose side are these guys on?"

Both Clinton and AlGore are clearly each on their own side.  Gore still thinks he should be President of the US, instead of Bush or Hillary, and Clinton is just as intent on becoming president of the world… that is UN Secretary General, once Kofi Annan stumbles through this last year of his inglorious term in office.

Fact is, Clinton has been campaigning for the UN post for 2 years at least. 

Well, Clinton didn’t take UBL when he had the opportunity, and sent US forces to bomb the Serbians in support of the Bosnian Muslims, so he is acting in character, IMO.  It could be a misquote, but it is consistent with his prior behavior.

robert108,

That story about Clinton being offered OBL is an urban legend started by Newsmax and oft-repeated by Sean Hannity.  It’s not supported by facts. 

but doesn’t it ring a little alarm when there isn’t a single solitary quote in the story that supports the headline?

I’m glad I wasn’t the only one who noticed that. This seems really questionable right now, and even if it is true, this is some really shoddy journalism.

Facts? A leftie site attacks Sean Hannity and that is your "facts"? How about the other terrorist incidents that he did nothing about? 

Sorry, rick, the Dept. of State and Dept. of Justice have both, seperately, admitted they had 3 different opportunities to accept custody of UBL and were told by the Administration not to do so, on the grounds the case was not sufficiently tight to gain conviction. A point which has considerable merit. Running UBL through our judicial system and then having to turn him lose would have been a less than optimum outcome. No one in either Administration had the courage to walk into the Ministry of Justice building in Khartoum and slit his throat during the initial interveiw and call it suicide. By all indications taking in UBL anytime after ‘97 would not have stopped 9/11 or the Embassy bombings or the attack on the USS Cole. And which part of urging countries to convict publishers involved in printing these cartoons is not calling for the convictions of those publishers of these cartoons? It is in the first paragraph. I read the whole piece, and that is what he is claimed to have said, that and groveling&kissing feet to endear himself to Muslims.

When Clinton lost after his first term of governor he joined the choir in the Baptist church that had their services broadcast over the state of Arkansas.  That way all of the good baptists could see him every Sunday.

 Bill Clinton uses religion to pander.  What’s amazing to me is that he get’s away with it when he’s so transparent at it.

It seems Clinton is clearly against a free press. I hope he does not try to convict me then. You can find the 12 Danish cartoons at http://www.obber.com. I also created a game that begins with an introduction from "Prophet Bomb". It is called Shoot Gallery, and you can try to gun down Bin Laden for giving the West such a terrible image about Muslims.

2h9: I remember the same report.  I remember thinking at the time tht UBL is a bit more than a mugger, to be arraigned and let go on bail.  The Clinton admin just wasn’t ready to declare war on terrorists, since they were so poll-driven, so your conclusion is probably right.  They just "went legal" on the whole terror thing, which was probably partly responsible for the growth of Al Qaeda into what it is today.  It took a real leader to declare war and take it out of the legalistic realm.

Selective quoting is a common practice by media on both the left & right side of the media.  It would be hardly surprising that BBC or any other left-leaning media would leave out quotes that undermine their story.  Rob has given plenty of examples of where that has happened in the past.

I agree with Oliver that there is a basic issue with the believability of an article when one of the key points is paraphrased, rather than given as an in-context quote.  This holds regardless of who is doing the reporting.  That said, I’m pretty skeptical of Newsmax in general. They do exactly this type of paraphrasing a bit too much (in contexts where you can’t ever verify the original quote) for me to be comfortable accepting them as a reliable news source.

Good point about the lack of quotations.  Though this isn’t Newsmax, this is an English translation of a Pakistani newspaper.  Which might explain the lack of direct quotes.  Though I doubt anyone here can accuse a Pakistani newspaper of having an anit-Clinton bias either.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Umm, Robert108, still untrue.  Here’s the Pulitzer Prize winning story about it.  Bin Laden wasn’t ‘offered’ to the U.S.  He was offered to Saudi Arabia (incidentally, the world’s biggest sponsor of terror) and they refused.

I’ve updated the post.  It appears as though Clinton didn’t call for conviction, but he did condemn the cartoons as blasphemous and said that he was against them.

Which is still the wrong position, as far as I’m concerned.  Pandering to these unreasonable Muslim sensibilities isn’t going to get us anywhere. 

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

CV Rick: UBL was available, and Clinton did nothing to get him, citing legalistic reasons.  He was soft on terrorism. Whether or not he is still kissing the *ss of the Muslims who financed his Presidency is an issue, to be sure, but the sum of his (in)actions on terrorism are bad enough without this story.

You’re right.  Soft on Terror.  That’s why nothing was done about the ‘93 trade center attackers.  Oh and the Murrah Building - - - nothing was done about those bastards either.  Which, by the way, I was working in an oil processing facility less than 3 miles from the Murrah Building when that thing blew - - my roommate and I volunteered with the Red Cross for a week.  Nothing . . . soft on terror . . . made me scared for my country.

come on. 

CV Rick: Well,  he was tough on the American who committed a terrorist act;  not only that, but he used it as an attack point on all Republicans, branding all of us as "right-wing" extremists.  So, I should have been more clear.  He was soft on Islamic terror.  He tried the ‘93 terrorists and put them in prison, from which they will likely be released eventually.  Not the way to deal with terrorists.

Maybe not how you’d deal with them, but within the rule of law.

What would you have had him do?  Invade an unconnected country? 

CV Rick: Your method of dealing with terrorism guarantees defeat.  They are at war with us, and if we are not willing to wage war against them, we lose.  Iraq is connected; you just refuse to deal with that reality.

Read this, and wake up: 

http://austinbay.net/blog/?p=929

No, my method of dealing with terrorists doesn’t guarantee defeat.  I supported going into Afghanistan . . . and I want to know:  Where is Osama Bin Laden?  I was promised that we’d have him dead or alive, that we’d hunt him down. 

I believe in the rule of law and I believe in treating murderer like murderers and thieves like thieves and not empowering them with talk of a holy crusade.

Where is the clause in our constitution which says that we can kill people for what they might possibly do or what they have the potential to do?   Because if that clause exists, you should do a comprehensive search on this very site for the term "and I’ll shoot them" . . .

There are terrorists (a whole lot more now than there were in 2001) and they want to kill Americans.  I don’t disagree with that.  We have to combat them.  I don’t disagree with that.  Outing CIA operatives working on intelligence gathering with respect to Nuclear Proliferation, specifically regarding Iran and burning a whole team of resources doesn’t help us with that.  Diverting personell away from an actual fight against those terrorists with the opportunity to capture the ringleader and admitted mastermind of the largest terrorist attack against the United States so that a nation can be invaded doesn’t help us with that.   

CV Rick: Nice talking points.  The rule of law is for our citizens, as is the constitution;  the terrorists are outside any national boundaries, and therefore outside any rules or any laws;  that’s the point of the war on terrorism.  You excuse Clinton for not getting UBL, but blame the present President for not directing all of our resources against him; curious!  We have exposed the terrorists since 9/11; before that, they enjoyed the legalistic benefits given to them by Clinton.  Killing UBL won’t end terrorism, but creating a modern state in the heart of Islam will be much more effective.  I’m sad that you and the other lefties see fit to ignore that out of your hate for the President.  We will survive anyway, because we now have a real leader.

"Killing UBL won’t end terrorism, but creating a modern state in the heart of Islam will be much more effective"

 We are creating terrorists. Al queda was on it’s last leg and we jump started it. They had been rejected by Muslim countries (except afghanistan, of course with our help) and now our Iraq invasion has done bin laden’s recruiting for him. The law enforcement option works.The Military alpha male chest thumping option of "taking it to them" further radicalizes the muslim world. Without the US occupation of Iraq, the cartoons wouldn’t have got the reaction they did. I am convinced of that.

r108 said,

Killing UBL won’t end terrorism, but creating a modern state in the heart of Islam will be much more effective.

This is what you really, truly, honestly believe?  I mean, really?  See, at first this war was about an "immediate and imminent" threat to the citizens of the United States of America.  Then it’s about fighting terrorists where they live.  Then it’s about our obligation to spread freedom.  Now it’s a modern state in the heart of Islam.

I have news for you . . . a modern state has already been created in the heart of Islam and it did nothing but increase terrorism.  That country is Israel.   

Gosh, Rick, I wonder why Israel hasn’t acted to cure terrorism?  It might just be the unreasoning and seemingly eternal hatred between Islam and Judaism, don’t you think?  Did you really not know that?  That hatred existed long before the existence of the state of Israel.  Or perhaps you think that Israel caused that terrorism?  Try reading ancient history.

GraemeA:  Here’s a link for you.

http://austinbay.net/blog/?p=929

Al Qaeda on its last legs?  They grew and prospered under Clinton.

 So they had a mission statement. So did Enron before it collapsed, what’s your point?

 They prospered under Clinton? They were made by Reagan. He compared them to our founding fathers for christ sake.  

GraemeA:  What does Enron have to do with this?  Just smear.  Reagan supported the freedom fighters in Afghanistan against the Soviets, if you remember. Remember the Cold War? Then they turned against us in the nineties, under Clinton, who took no action whatsoever, even though he knew what was happening. 

Robert, don’t patronize me please.  I’m familiar with ancient history.

You’re all over the map here. 

I think what you’re saying is that you wanted Clinton to violate international and U.S. Law to get Bin Laden, but as we have seen you jump all over Clinton for the law he did violate and I see no evidence that your partisanship would have allowed for a free ride on any other law breaking. 

I also think what you’re saying is that Al Queda thrived under Clinton and you are accusing Clinton of abdicating his responsibilities in that regard.  But, you keep posting a link showing that Al Queda has grown during the Bush administration and legitimized itself so much that its offering its terrorists (soldiers) benefits including vacation.  But you are not saying that this strengthening of Al Queda under Bush is not an example of Bush abdicating his own responsibilities.  Is this an example of a double standard?

I also think that what you’re saying is that staying the course in Iraq, despite all the experts claims that its a civil war, will produce a modern democracy and that this is enough to reverse the violent course of Islam.  I don’t see any evidence that the Iraqi people, providing they get through their civil war intact, will make choices more acceptable to you than the Palestinian people have.  So, is it that you are saying, "this time it’ll be different" or are you saying, as Rumsfield has, "we won’t let that happen" which would be not so free and not so modern, would it?  So, are you saying that you’d be happy as pie with whatever choices the Iraqi people make in the future even if those choices include telling the United States to pack up those 14 permanent military bases they’ve built and get the hell out?  I guess I’m just unsure what you are saying here.

Perhaps I’m just getting a passal of mixed messages from you, Robert. 

 Your argument was that Al Qaeda was going strong because it had sick days, vac time, mission statement, etc… I was pointing out that that doesn’t necessary mean it is not struggling; hence the Enron reference.

 SO you think the mujahideen were freedom fighters?

Just a thought, you think that Clinton would have balls enough to say the same things to a cartoonist convention in Denmark?  I didn’t think so either.

CV Rick said, Where is the clause in our constitution which says that we can kill people for what they might possibly do or what they have the potential to do?  Because if that clause exists, you should do a comprehensive search on this very site for the term "and I’ll shoot them" . . .

Wait, we extend the Constitution to include the entire worlds’ peoples? Since when?

There are terrorists (a whole lot more now than there were in 2001)...

How do you know this? Where do you get such a figure from? Note that any possible increase in terror attacks doesn’t necessarily equate to "more terrorists" nor does it equate to a failure. It seems that I have to state the obvious: we are at war. Expect attacks during a war.

Diverting personell away from an actual fight against those terrorists…

Ahh! You’re either disconnected from reality or making it up. Or both.

Iraq is part of the "actual fight". Or did you miss all of the terrorists we’ve been killing?

I have news for you . . . a modern state has already been created in the heart of Islam and it did nothing but increase terrorism.  That country is Israel.

Pssst: the reason the hate Israel is because they hate Jews. I can’t believe that I had to tell you that.

But, you keep posting a link showing that Al Queda has grown during the Bush administration and legitimized itself so much that its offering its terrorists (soldiers) benefits including vacation.  But you are not saying that this strengthening of Al Queda under Bush is not an example of Bush abdicating his own responsibilities.

Whoa! Hold on a minute. You haven’t proved that Al Queda is "strengthening". Benefits offered isn’t proof of any strengthening.

GraemeA dribbled, We are creating terrorists.

Fighting them creates them? Then how do we defeat them?

Al queda was on it’s last leg and we jump started it.

Really? I am sure that our military would like to know this important information. As far as they know, somewhere along the lines of 90% of Al Queda’s leadership is detained or dead. Al Queda is having such a hard time that they have to resort to getting literally retarded people to blow themselves up.

They had been rejected by Muslim countries (except afghanistan, of course with our help) and now our Iraq invasion has done bin laden’s recruiting for him.

Where do you get this info from?

The law enforcement option works.

Hello!?! McFly?! Remember 9/11?! What’s wrong with you? Pay attention to the recent French riots by chance? Still think that "the law enforcement option works"? Good grief.

The Military alpha male chest thumping option of "taking it to them" further radicalizes the muslim world.

That’s what your type said about the Japanese and Nazis during WW2. In fact, it is what lead to the rise of the Nazis. Your way fails miserably.

Without the US occupation of Iraq, the cartoons wouldn’t have got the reaction they did. I am convinced of that.

Bullshit. You’re convinced of a whole lot of nothing at this point.

They prospered under Clinton? They were made by Reagan. He compared them to our founding fathers for christ sake.

*sigh* You’re a hopeless moonbat.

Gramea:

SO you think the mujahideen were freedom fighters? 

So, a lack of accuracy and ignorance of history are both prerequisites for your world view. Not everybody who was a resistance fighter against the Soviet Union was associated with al Qaeda (a group which came into existence after the end of Soviet occupation, and after the fall of its puppet government in 1992.)

Indeed, there were groups aligned pro and against the Taliban, and many who fought against the Taliban were secular groups. The Taliban did not come into power in 1996, when they overthrew the previous secular government. The increasing prominence of the religious extremists, especially al Qaeda, occurred entirely during Bill Clinton’s leaderships, and all of your bloviating to the contrary will not change that basic fact.

Not that a single person on this blog would expect relevant historical facts to sway your opinions. But it is useful for the rest of us to review pertinent facts before realizing what a serious f**k-up Bill Clinton really was.

Muhajadeen were freedom fighters. Once Russia pulled out UBL, Zawahiri, et al engineered a"night of the long knives" and killed all the seniour leadership in Afghanistan. Giving rise to the Taleban. And taking control of all opium production and export. Taleban leadership decryed the drug trade while making millions of dollars, which they funnelled into international terrorist organisations, such as the fledgling Al Queda. Also, they were operating in close co-operation with nation-state sponsored terrorist groups from Iran,Syria,Egypt,Libya,Saudia Arabia, and,,,wait for it,,,,,IRAQ!!! And this is not US Intel information. United Nations and Interpol!! Interpol haranqued US Intel agencies over their complete failure to take action on these issues. Bury your heads in the sand, that puts your ass right up where the Wahabists can screw it. Dumbshits.

Honestly,... I am not seeing where Bill Clinton or Rumsfeld were wrong? Our country is becoming more divided each day. Soon, we are going to have to stop and AGREE. We have a group of people who are not going to like a damn thing we do! We need to AGREE that it is necessary to come together and STOP the f#!!!g Political partisan BS. We are dealing with a group of people who would kill us just as soon look at us! Their tantrums and outbursts are to be expected and THAT IS WHAT THEY DO! ... Cartoons you name it these people don’t need much coaxing to rile them up! George W. Bush is not evil. Being President of the USA is not a pleasent job and anyone who is in office deserves better treatment! The Pres. certainly can not please everyone. Whatever it takes we as the people of the USA need to stop the division before civil war breaks out! Take a breather stop the anger and hatred for each other. We have a big enough battle without having to fight our own selves. I am sure Clinton did not try to upset anyone!... However, Al Gore is an entirely different subject! My point is we have a war on like it or not! We need to support our country and do what we have to do! So snap out of it!

"The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact."

 
Justice Robert H. Jackson, in a 24 page dissent of a 4 page majority opinion in Terminiello v. Chicago.  This is the famous “suicide pact” opinion, and if Jackson’s words were prescient in a domestic sense in 1949, they are hardly less so on an international stage in 2006, with the specter of nuclear and biological weapons across the dim divide, and an enemy who glorifies his (or her) own death in their effort to slay the infidel.
 
The US Constitution is about how we govern ourselves, and not how we conduct war against those who have sworn a blood oath to destroy us.  To think otherwise is adolescent drivel of the most dangerous and self-delusional kind.  The fact that some of us may regard themselves as too civilized for war, is no deterrent to those who would bomb us all to oblivion, or cut of our heads in the name of Allah as we squeal and squirm.

Like it or not, Colonel Kurtz (“… the horror… the horror!”) was correct in his assessment.  And those who bray and yammer about the ghastly nature of what must be done to win, should instead say a little prayer of thanks that there are still men who would behave in such a manner so that they still have the chance to continue their complaints tomorrow.

The days of waiting patiently until we are attacked before striking, are long over.  That is, unless you are willing to sacrifice an Indianapolis, or a Sacramento, or a Raleigh,  NC, before deciding to act.  Besides, we have already been attacked.  Numerous times over the past 13 years.  So whatever it was we were doing, hasn’t worked out so well.  Nor is killing UBL and Zawahiri, and Zarakawi the end of it either.
 
There may or may not be more terrorists today than there were five years ago, as CV Rick has alleged.  But to tie that fact, if it is indeed fact, to any actions of the Bush administration is ludicrous and petty.  Most rational people would assume that Al Qaeda would have been recruiting more members regardless (check that AQ HR manual… and the benefits package too!)

Those who are too blinded by their partisanship or simply too timid and fearful to grasp the reality of the horror that we face, are all certainly entitled to express their feelings and opinions.  But in the end, partisanship and timidity are luxuries which the rest of us can’t afford just now.

Hey! Why the update full of weasel words? Go to the source, dailytimes.com.pk, the story is right there. And that is what they reported, a qoute, from Willie Jeff, calling for the convictions, by EU states, of the publishers of those cartoons.

likwidshoe, you are kidding, right?  The experts overwhelmingly agree that terrorism and terrorist recruiting is on the upswing, not decreasing.  Do you read Foreign Policy?   If not, I’d recommend it - their are several good articles over the past three years on the issue of terrorism and our response to it. The State Department’s report on Terrorism last year showed a sharp increase worldwide.

Iraq might be a focus for terror organizations now, but it wasn’t before we invaded. 

So, rick, what is your BIG PLAN? How you going to save us from terrorism? Submission? You really think that is going to work, fiction writer?

2H9,

you’re really going have to tone down the anger if you’d like to have a conversation with me. 

Um Rick, they attacked us first, second, third….. so your "Let Terrorists be Terrorists" strategy doesn’t sound very good.  On the other hand if it comes down between them and us, I’m for us.

ricki, I don’t want to have a conversation with you, you have chosen Dhimitude. Crawl to your new masters and beg scraps at their feet. You are a coward. This conversation is over.

Reality is, WE have Goals and in order to reach these Goals we have to support our Troops and Stand behind our President. Classified information is just that. CLASSIFIED! When 3000 people were killed in our country that’s when WE had to do Something…? Critics are easy to find. They are every where! Our country keeps shifting apart. I believe the Troops have a task and they are going to find the enemy! I believe GITMO is a place for prisoners of war and these people would kill us as soon as they were released! They should feel fortunate that they are still alive! These prisoners Should not enjoy the same Rights as Americans! Abuse accusations are stupid! Terrorism is a cowardly, deadly, organized ,criminal group of people who are eager to kill each one of us! We need to examine our freedoms and understand that these prisoners DO NOT HAVE THE SAME compforts that we enjoy. Saddam is on trial for gosh sakes! WHY should this prisoner of war be allowed a trial! I am getting irked how Americans are expected to treat these idiots with kid gloves and we are being treated like poop!...

Whistler,

That’s not what I’ve said at all. 

Zsa Zsa,

When we sink to their level, when we’ve become what they are, then they’ve won.  That’s what they want - - they don’t want us to abide by the rule of law, they don’t want us to have or give civil rights.  

I believe that we can have goals, achieve those goals, and still maintain those things which distinguish us from them.

2Hotel9 said, "This conversation is over."

good. 

So if we said ... WE Are mad as hell and WE aren’t going to take it anymore, that would be wrong????...

Was Mohammed a warrior? I honestly don’t know? I don’t understand anything about these people accept that they have got terrible tempers ,rage, hatred in there hearts and need to be put to sleep!

What was that wimpering sound? A slave crying that real human beings should join it in slavery? Drag your groveling ass back to your masters, Dhimmi. No one here is interested in your lies.

Foreign Policy magazine is the premier publication of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a decidedly liberal institution whose board of directors includes  former Clinton Defense Secretary William J. Perry (Clinton), former Clinton SEC Chairman, Willam H. Donaldson, former Democratic Senator and presidential candidate, Bill Bradley, Gregory P. Craig, a partner in the Williams and Connolly law firm (CBS/Rathergate whitewash), and the infamous Jamie Gorelick, former Deputy Attorney General, vice chairman of FNMA, and author of the now-discredited Clinton-era “wall” between intelligence and law enforcement (an ironically appropriate description, when you think about it).

To be sure, there’s nothing wrong with reading up on contemporary liberal thought.  On the contrary, knowing what your opponent is thinking or planning is called intelligence, in both politics and real warfare. Had Clinton, Clark, and George Tenent actually been doing so, listening in on Al Qaeda instead of listening to Gorelick, 9-11 might have been prevented.

BatOne,

You forgot that it’s also one of the most well-respected policy journals in the world and has published papers from experts regardless their political leaning.

However, if you’d like something from a different side of the political spectrum, the journal Foreign Affairs, published by the Council on Foreign Relations recently published a piece by Greg Gause which argued that increasing democracy in the region will not impede terrorism.  I believe it was in the 5th, or maybe the 6th issue of last year.

Your source nitpicking didn’t address the report by the State Department (that’s the BUSH State Department) and Terrorism is waxing, not waning.   

 Carrick and 2hotel9,

  Freedom fighters huh? They were a diverse group of fighters that once the soviets left, started fighting each other. The people welcomed the Taliban to stop the bloodshed from warlords. The enemies of the taliban formed the Northern alliance. The freedom fighters were quite a diverse group.

From the SFchronicle:

The group consists of communists, anti-communists and moderate Muslims who have only one goal in common: to oust the Taliban. Outside of that aim, the coalition’s members are so diverse that experts fear a new civil war if they manage to topple the Taliban.

Uzbek Gen. Rashid Dostum is known for his cruelty and reportedly has killed political foes by tying them to two tanks headed in opposite directions. During the chaotic conflict that ensued after the Soviet withdrawal, Dostum’s forces rampaged through Kabul, destroying much of the city with rocket fire, looting businesses and terrorizing women and children.

The alliance’s political leader is Burhanuddin Rabbani, who was driven from power by the Taliban but is recognized as Afghanistan’s president by the United States and other Western powers.

His deputy prime minister, Abdul Rasul Sayyaf, is held responsible for the deaths of thousands of Shiite Muslims who reside mainly in northwestern Afghanistan, a minority he considers to be outside the pale of Islam.

Human rights groups have accused Sayyaf’s troops of committing large-scale summary executions and rapes of Shiites during the 1992-96 civil war. Sayyaf also backed Iraqi President Saddam Hussein during the Persian Gulf War and has advocated war to remove U.S. troops from Saudi Arabia, the site of Islam’s holiest shrines.

 Yes, the FREEDOM FIGHTERS.

CV Rick:

Your source nitpicking didn’t address the report by the State Department (that’s the BUSH State Department) and Terrorism is waxing, not waning.

Got a source for that?  I’d be interested in reading it.

Editted the html tags of GramaeA’s comment above.

That was some ugly code dude.

GraemeA: To start with, I didn’t characterize any of them as "freedom fighters".  However to take your argument to it’s conclusion, everybody in Afghanitstan is a bloodthirsty monster, because once you subtract off the Northern Alliance, who do you have left besides the Taliban and their allies, the Al Qaeda? Unless of course you feel like defending the Talabin of course!

It’s been my observation that so-called liberals like yourself are everybit as prejudiced, if not more so, against the Islamic community as those you accused of having closed minds. Interesting paradox.  I’m not the one trying to  paint everybody who lives in Afghanistan (or at least picks up a gun at least) a monster, afterall.

thanks likwid, I don’t really know what I am doing

Carrick,

The archive: here.

Last year’s (2004) wasn’t released to the public, so you have to read an article about it: here. 

This year’s (2005) is due in 2 months. 

CV Rick,  I have forgotten no such thing… although I will admit that I am less often impressed by reputation, than by my own analysis.

I am familiar with both Foreign Affairs and the Gause article you cite.  The problems I see with his conclusion are his short-sightedness (not a particularly uncommon disability in this field), and secondly, the obvious hopelessness of any other course of action.    Look, this is not going to be either quick or easy.  On the contrary, we are likely in the fight of our lives… and the lives of our children and their children, and their children’s children as well.   The world’s biggest supporter of islamist terrorism is on the verge of obtaining nuclear weapons, and the ideology which controls every facet of their lives, and those of their terrorist clients and supporters as well glorifies martyrdom for the sake of killing infidels.

During the Cold War, the doctrine of MAD worked (sort of…) because in the final analysis neither side wanted to be destroyed, nor to be responsible for the decimation of the other.  The enemy we face today operates from exactly the opposite paradigm.  And no amount of wishful thinking is likely to change that fact. 

The Oslo "Peace Process" accomplished nothing… other than to allow the foreign policy fraternity an opportunity to pat each other on the back in one round of smarmy self-congratulation after another.  Dialogue, negotiation, accomodation, and apologies have accomplished nothing.  Meanwhile, the nuclear clock keeps ticking.

BatOne, Saudi Arabia is getting nukes?

CV Rick,  Trivializing the discussion, although an all too common leftist tactic, does nothing to address the problem, not does it do much to enchance your reputation.. at least not among those of us who regard thinking as a worthy endeavor.  I have a pair of 16 year olds, and while they are not as conversant with foreign affairs (not yet), still they are well past the level of adolescent quibbling you display.  A kind of online version of sticking your tongue out at your rhetorical adversary.

The White House, the State Department, the CIA, and even Harvard, have all labeled Iran as the world’s biggest supporter of terrorism.  Absent any evidence to the contrary, I suggest you should consider their respective assessments to be valid.  Perhaps that would enhance your reputation. 

Is this the same White House, State Department, and CIA who gave us a Slam Dunk on Iraq’s WMDs?  You might not have liked my comment and you might think that I made it inappropriately, but the fact of the matter is that Osama Bin Laden was the ringleader for 9/11 and the majority of the terrorists were Saudi, and the majority of funding for terrorist enterprises comes from Saudi Arabia. 

While I’m not saying that Iran isn’t a problem for us, I believe that our ‘friends’ over in Saudi Arabia are not good for America. 

It is a leftist technique to tell the truth - and it’s a rightie habit to dislike that. 

Stop it, please!  You’re killing me!!

"It is a leftist technique to tell the truth - and it’s a rightie habit to dislike that."

That is without a doubt the best one-liner since the deaths of Henny Youngman and Lewis Grizzard.  If you could manage about six or seven minutes more of that stuff, you could probably get a guest shot on the Letterman show… or maybe even the Simpsons.

As for our "friends" over in Saudi Arabia, they may not be "good for America" as you suggest, but then the same could certainly be said for the UN.

Look!  One more time.  Trading quibbles, or insults,  may do as a substitute for reasoned, thoughtful discussion on your side of the aisle… particularly when it come tiime offer something more substantial than the usual leftist diatribe… something like a reasonable, sentient solution to a problem.

The fact is that despite five years of petty one-liners in opposition, and the previous eight years of ponderous pontifications, all diligently processed through the requisite focus groups, the left has yet to offer one halfway helpful suggestion regarding the clash between Islamsit terror and Western civilization.

Your efforts here have not done anything to improve your side’s record of adolescent ineptitude. 

Doh!

Bat One,

I agree that this gets tedious.  But what you don’t realize is that your problem with terrorism isn’t with the "left" in America.  Your problem with terrorism is that while the left didn’t do much to decrease it, the right has made the situation, worldwide, grow exponentially.  

You might take that up with the Administration and quit blaming us. 

CV Rick: Sorry it took so long to get back to you.  My computer has been down all day.  I didn’t mean to be patronizing, but I was incredulous that you would use Israel as an example the way you did.  I don’t know what you were thinking.  I don’t give any mixed messages, but that doesn’t mean you aren’t receiving them.  I don’t know the contents of your mind.  Everyone else has covered my points very well, but to sum up:  We aided the freedom fighters in Afghanistan against the Soviets, who were our sworn enemy in the Cold War at the time.  After the Soviets were driven out, after a few years, Al Qaeda came into existence, around 1992, the year of Clinton’s first election.  I don’t blame him for the path that Al Qaeda took, but I do blame him for not taking covert action against them.  It is the duty of the Commander in Chief to do that, but Clinton loathes the military, so he took no action against a growing threat.  I hold him indirectly responsible for 9/11.  The invasion of Iraq has concentrated the terrorist threat there, which was one of the purposes of going there.  I didn’t write the Koran, nor do I support any religion that requires its adherents to kill or subjugate all those who don’t practice that religion.  We are dealing with such people, who were allowed to grow and prosper, and that is who and what we are dealing with, and we have to take appropriate measures to defeat them, or they will certainly defeat us, with the willing if unconscious support of the "useful idiots on the left in this country.  It sickens me, to be perfectly frank.

CV Rick: One question: What did Clinton do in his eight years in office about Saudi Arabia and UBL?  Answer: Nothing.  In fact, he pandered to the Islamists, hoping to get them to like him.  Didn’t work, did it?  Now, we have a real man in the White House, and he is pissing them off, which is the right thing to do.  Leftie weakness and appeasement doesn’t work against tyrannical dictators.  Without Ronald Reagan, the Soviet Union would probably still be in business.

robert108 pooped out of his mouth "Without Ronald Reagan, the Soviet Union would probably still be in business."

  Were you a member of Team B or something? Reagan did nothing (except support our enemies now) the soviet planned economy was bound to fail.

 If you look at the history of islamic extremists, you see that they have tried to get the people of muslim countries to overthrow their governments and have a strict muslims society before. they assassinated Sadat in Egypt hoping the egyptians would revolt. A funny thing happened, no one wanted that kind of crazy theocracy. That is when they decided it was ok to kill other muslims because they were too corrupted by western influence. this, for obvious reasons, alienated them from the common people. One of the few governments they found refuge with was the former Muhajadeens that were fighting the russians in afghanistan.the ones we all discussed above, the ones we supplied with money, weapons and intel. After those murderous right wing assholes purpetrated 9/11, we had an unprecedented chance to catch and bring them to justice. There was candle lit ceremonies in Iran, mourning the deaths of Americans. Can you imagine that now? Instead we chose to invade countries and do bin laden’s recruiting for him. We turned support from muslims into support for bin laden by invading iraq.And that isn’t even the worst part! We killed at least 30,000 Iraqi civilians to try some grand foreign policy experiment. I wonder how many of them were willing to die to take part in our game of risk? It makes me sick

Robert, you know who I hold responsible for 9/11?  I hold Osama Bin Laden responsible for 9/11.  I think he ought to be caught, (captured if you will), put on trial, sentenced, and punished just like a common criminal.  If that’s done, it will humiliate him and hurt his movement.  Don’t make him a martyr or a hero, just another number on a jumpsuit in a prison - like Yousef.

I hold Bin Laden responsible.  I don’t hold Clinton responsible, nor do I hold Bush responsible.  Bad things happen sometimes - horrible, awful things.  

I think that your partisan hatred for Clinton gets in the way of what’s really going on here.  Bin Laden, the head of Al Queda, planned and ordered the mission that attacked the U.S.  on 9/11.  

Had President Bush continued the mission to hunt him down and capture him, I’d have been supporting him.  But, he didn’t.

Hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives later, the terrorists aren’t weaker.  I talked to a good friend of mine in Tallil tonight.  In two tours there, the insurgency hasn’t gotten weaker, they’ve gotten stronger, smarter, better-trained, harder to find, etc.  This from a marine over there - granted, just one, but a real voice in the field.

You asked me what Clinton did about Saudi Arabia?  Nothing.  He didn’t do anything about them.  Bush hasn’t either.  I never said that Clinton had done anything about them.  But, given a choice and a mission - protect America, remove terrorist supporters from power, reduce WMDs in the world, and spread Democracy, I can think of a lot of countries that would meet those goals - are we going to invade all of them?

I supported the military action in Afghanistan because I believed it to be the right thing to do.  I did not support the military action in Iraq because I do not believe that it was the right thing to do, and didn’t believe that from before our invasion.  I don’t believe that it has made the world safer, made the U.S. safer, made the region more stable, nor accomplished the objective of removing an "immediate and imminent" threat.  I think Saddam Hussein was a nasty despot and a horrible man, but I also don’t think he was the most dangerous man in the world either.

There’s a reason we’re in Iraq - a couple reasons, I’m sure.  But none of them are worth the cost to the taxpayers.  None of them are worth the lives that have been lost. 

GraemaA: I respect your logic, I don’t agree with your premises.  I am right about Ronald Reagan.  I am glad to hear you admit that the Soviet planned economy was destined to fall.  I knew that after I switched from Math to Econ in 1962, but almost no one else thought so, especially the lefties.  It’s easy to see it now, after RR pushed them over the edge.  I’m curious;  did you think that before the fall?

CV Rick:  If we had had a President with balls in the nineties, UBL would have been taken out covertly.  As a military man, you should know that better than any civilian.  That’s why I said I blame Clinton indirectly.  No partisan hatred, just cold facts.  He failed to do what he should have done as the protector of this country.  I hate what Clinton did to my country, but I don’t hate him, anymore than I could hate any pathological liar.  He’s just sick. 

I was only a nine when it fell, so I didn’t pay much attention. I admit I am a novice at best when it comes to economics, but from what I have read, their economy was fine at producing a lot of industrial goods, but lacked in producing consumption goods.

The free market works fine for a lot of things. Some things not so well.I am for a mixed economy, I just think the mix should be more to the left than the right. Safety nets in the market should be set up to favor the worker not the corporation. Businesses should not be run like a dictatorship. the more co’ops and worker run businesses the better. There needs to be democracy in businesses too. From my experience working on farms to restaurants to factories, if you involve the worker in the companies decision making process, the more they will “own the company” so to speak. The more they will invest their time and energy to the sucess of the company. They are not just there from 9 to 5 to get a paycheck, they are all owners working together so they all can achieve a bigger paycheck. Some businesses are run that way, the vast majority aren’t.

actually I was 12 when the Soviet Union ceased to be, I was thinking it fell in ‘89 for some reason. Probably because of the Berlin wall

GraemeA said, The free market works fine for a lot of things. Some things not so well.I am for a mixed economy, I just think the mix should be more to the left than the right.

How is that working in the European countries? They have stagnate and/or shrinking economies.

Safety nets in the market should be set up to favor the worker not the corporation.

How is that working in European countries? It is damn near impossible to fire workers in some European countries. This tells the companies to do business elsewhere where they have a bit more control over the content and production of their goods. Capital moves to where it is treated best.

There needs to be democracy in businesses too.

There is. The free market has already taken care of this. It is called the stock market. The premise is simple: you buy shares (ownership) in the company (this allows the democracy), become a stakeholder, and make your voice heard. The more shares owned, the bigger voice one has.

robert108,

That’s where I’m confused - where the mixed signal comes.  You hate Bill Clinton and one of the reasons is that he didn’t take Osama Bin Laden out when "he had the chance."  But, you don’t hate George Bush (sr. or jr.) for not taking him out.  Clinton you hate, Bush you love . . . but neither of them have gotten Osama.

You can see where i’m getting these mixed signals, right? 

CV Rick, I can see where you are taking it… I am not a Big Clinton fan myself. I don’t hate him.(his wife is another story!) BUT…I am feeling that partisan vibe in all of us. It is easy to be a critic. Even harder to see our country become more divided…

CV Rick wrote, But, you don’t hate George Bush (sr. or jr.) for not taking him out.

What was Bush Sr. supposed to do? Osama was just then making a major name for himself and really wasn’t too big on the national radar. And Bush the junior is implementing policies designed to find and take Osama out, so I don’t really see what your criticism is supposed to entail.

You can see where i’m getting these mixed signals, right?

No.

Zsa Zsa,

I do think there is too much partisanship.  I think there is too much hate - - and hating Clinton is as pointless as hating Reagan, don’t you think.

Personally, I don’t hate Bush (at least not all the time), but I think there are several reasons why don’t think he’s been good for this country, and with reason, I might add - 1. the war in Iraq 2. the rising political influence of evangelical conservatism 3. the favoritism and preference shown to corporatists who’ve cheated, stolen, lied and still get no-bid preferential treatment.  etc.

But, those are real reasons, and debatable, tangible policy choices.

I’ve written quite a bit about our election systems in other places, but the snapshot is that under a plurality system the trend is overwhelmingly to elect the candidate who is most despised by the majority of the electorate.  Bush and Clinton are the two most recent examples.  You don’t have to take my word for it, of course - solid mathematical studies have backed that up many times.  I think many of our issues can be reduced through IRV or Borda voting systems and there would need be no constitutional changes to implement said systems. 

But, back to the matter at hand.  I think its time to stop blaming Clinton and start working toward agreement on issues, not disagreement on the propoganda about the issues. 

GraemeA:  This is not the place to explain it, unfortunately, but your idea about why the Soviet Union failed is not correct.  I recommend a first-year econ textbook, which will explain how the market works under the various systems. Because you believe as you do, your conclusion about what you call an economy more to the left is understandable. BTW, a safety net encourages risky behavior.  Just watch "Fear Factor" some time.
 

CV Rick: I reiterate: I don’t hate Clinton.  My objections to him and his administration are based on his perversion of American principles, nothing else.  I could care less about his personal habits.  He was an attention hog, so he cheerfully broadcast his peccadillos to the public, thinking it made him look cool, like a frat boy braggart.  It is true that he wasn’t the only President who ignored terrorism.  No President until this one has had the stones to tell the truth about what is really happening with worldwide terrorism, and to do something about it besides talk.  I think it’s pointless to debate strategy when so much needs to be done to address this threat.  We need to make a lot of moves;  Afghanistan was the first, Iraq the second, and on and on, until this threat is no longer.  I know it’s hard to take, but that is the truth.  Clinton needed to be loved so much that he would never have given us the bad news.  He was uniquely positioned in time to have erased Bin Laden, but that would have been the beginning, not the end, as you hope.  We just got a later start on the job that always needed to be done.   

CV Rick, Glad to hear we agree on Hate and Partisanship. Our election system has some kinks so does our Judicial System! (Yikes) How to alleviate our situation with the Mideast? Allegiance and loyalty against our countries enemies might help?? Realizing we have a situation on our hands, whatever whom ever is to blame doesn’t matter at this point. Our troops have a job to do and need our support. The President needs backing without interference from Congress every step of the way. IF this were Bill Clinton’s war I would have to accept and trust what he and his advisors were doing. CV Rick,...Do you agree that paolitical partisanship has interloped with a wrath on the businness of our country? Besides the war in Iraq?

ZZ: I know you didn’t ask me, but here’s my answer anyway:  In order to prevent the consolidation of power, this country was founded on the idea that partisanship was necessary.  The govt is supposed to be constantly wrangling and arguing over everything.  It slows them down in their thirst for power over us.  Hate is always bad, of course, and the constant hate directed at this President over the last five years has sapped a lot of time and money that could have been spent being productive and fighting terror.  I think it is always wrong to hate the person, but it is quite appropriate to hate their actions or the consequences of those actions, if they bring harm to us and to our country, like the terrorists, for instance.  No one seems to object to the hatred directed at UBL, for example.  It is well and truly deserved, but even then, getting involved in hating the person is counterproductive.  When we understand the entire process of how he came to power, we will know more about how to defeat him.  The same is true of terrorism.  We must study the real roots, not the politically correct version.