"willfully ignorant"

[shereads]

Excerpt from salon.com interview with Richard Clarke:

March 24, 2004 _|_ NEW YORK -- After more than 30 years of dedicated service, including stints as the National Security Council's counterterrorism chief under President Clinton and Bush, Richard A. Clarke has delivered a scathing assessment of Bush administration policy and personnel in his new memoir, "Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror."

Clarke portrays the president and his top aides as arrogant, insular and uninformed about the changed world they faced when they entered the White House in January 2001. They did little about the growing peril from al-Qaida, despite urgent briefings from the outgoing Clinton national security team, and remained willfully ignorant despite repeated, even obsessive warnings from Clarke and CIA director George Tenet.

------

sr adds: Anyone else see Clarke on Meet The Press this morning? Not the witness you'd want to cross-examine if you needed to discredit him or make him stumble. Whoever dropped the ball before 9/ll - and there seems to be plenty of blame to go around - three things are evident: the "Patriot Act" and its attack on our civil liberties cannot be justified by the events of 9/ll, because there was no shortage of information; Condi Rice's statement after 9/ll that "nobody expected the use of aircraft as terrorist weapons" was simply untrue; and that the adminstration, as some of us have believed from the beginning, used 9/ll as an excuse for an Iraq invasion that it had wanted all along. Clarke's assertion is that Bush/Cheney did incalculable damage to the "war on terror" by diverting attention from Al Queda and bin Laden to Saddam Hussein, and by turning Iraq from a police state into something even more dangerous: a lawless territory that's become a perfect operating arena for fringe extremists & terrorist wannabes.

Sometimes it sucks to be right.

 

[Somme]

Amen.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I'm very anti-Bush. I think they've done a horrible job in dealing with the aftermath of 9/11 and that we're less safe now than we were before the Iraq invasion. I also think that their defense priorities prior the 9/11--getting star wars funded--was way out of touch with reality and was, like so much they've done, politically driven.

But in all fairness, I don't think 9/11 was entirely a result of their negligence. I'm sure there were warnings, but I'm also sure that there were warnings of all sorts of things, and it was probably impossible to know which ones to take seriously. You know how bureaucracy works: everyone has their own little agenda and everyone's clamoring for attention. It's hard to know whom to listen to. There's no doubt that when Bush took office terrorism presented a more serious threat to the US than did North Korean nukes, and that their priorities were seriously out of whack, but I really doubt whether 9/11 was preventable given the level of US intelligence at the time.

I think that the US response to 9/11 is certainly a fit topic for debate, but I also think that trying to pin the "blame" for 9/11 on this or that administration is just politicking, and I don't think it serves much pupose.

---dr.M.

 

[Somme]

I don't think that pinning the blame serves much use either, Doc, except .................there was too much that happened on that particular day to just let go by. Mild lad that I am, I want their sodding gizzards. Fried.

It isn't the insider dealings, the mendacities, the subsequent wars or the willingness to accept the Patriot Acts that makes me boil but the unneccessary nonsense forced on the rest of the free world. The Orwellian blueprint, if you will.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Who knew what and when? Who can say? Did someone drop the ball or was it simply a matter of not being able to fit the information that was available into the right sequence?

Obivously some people did forsee the possibility, but what credibile risk assessment could have prevented 9/11? Perhaps the ones we have in place now, but who would have accepted them without complaint ?

Trying to assign blame here makes the fundamental assumption that somone could have realisticaly anticipated something so insanely horrendous. I think it's a politcally motivated witch hunt, being conducted not in the hope of finding truth, but in the hope of gaing political advantage.

-Colly

 

[Somme]

Colly, I'm daily reading stuff like the following:-
An Overview of American Conservatism
March 27, 2004
By Violet Lake

On the surface, modern American "conservatism" seems to be what Ayn Rand once described as "...that embarrassing conglomeration of impotence, futility, inconsistency and superficiality...". Ideologically, there seems to be no principle that binds the various conservative groups together. If not ideology, then what is it that unites and drives them? The answer can be summed up in one word: liberals.

Rand gives us a clear view of the "enemy":

"The goal of the 'liberals'--as it emerges from the record of the past decades--was to smuggle this country into welfare statism by means of single, concrete, specific measures, enlarging the power of the government a step at a time, never permitting these steps to be summed up into principles, never permitting their direction to be identified or the basic issue to be named. Thus, statism was to come, not by vote or by violence, but by slow rot--by a long process of evasion and epistemological corruption, leading to a fait accompli."

Rand's observation captures the essence of the reasoning that drives conservatives to this day. This is the dogma that won for conservatives the virtual tyranny that they currently exercise over the American people. It is clear now that this brand of "conservatism" is simply statism by other means. Fait accompli, Ayn.

Who are these "compassionate conservatives" that are making the rest of the world so nervous? Is there a method to their madness? Comprehensive answers to these questions are beyond my immediate means, but I can offer several observations and ideas that I hope you'll find useful.

The conservative gradient can be divided into four basic groups: "neoconservatives," moderates, the Christian Right, and extremists. Although they share a common adversary, the groups have widely divergent ideals and goals. Together, they form a combustible mix of power politics, nationalism, religion, and mutual appeasement. In order to understand this dynamic, one needs to look at each group in more detail.

Neoconservatives - The neoconservatives are at the top of the conservative establishment. They are Reagan-era hawks, ex-Marxists, disgruntled liberals, and assorted GOP opportunists, guided by the philosophy of Leo Strauss. Strauss believed that morals don't apply to clever people, and he advocated the right of the powerful to rule the weak. The Straussian ideal can be summed up as absolute domination by "superior" people, achieved by means such as "noble lies," physical force, perpetual warfare, and religion. According to Strauss, the gravest threats to civilization come from ideas like secularism, eclecticism, and liberalism.

Judging the "neocons" by their philosophy, one has to conclude that they're capable of doing anything in order to maintain their grip on power. Judging them by their actions, one has to arrive at the same conclusion. By operating beyond the bounds of morality, the neocons are directing one of the most shameful episodes in American history. The proof is in the spin. They resist honestly accounting for the failures of their "policies" because doing so would unravel their web. So instead, they continue to spin frantically, not realizing that they're trapping themselves in a silky casket of their making.

They are getting more vicious as their day of reckoning gets closer--as evidenced by their treatment of the Spanish people after the 3/11 tragedy. Two hundred million dollars won't be enough money to fool the American people into voting for something that's so inherently against their nature. The truth is becoming more apparent by the day. People are beginning to demand accountability. Exactly how far the neocons will go to conceal their crimes is anyone's guess. Nothing short of a disaster will save them.

It seems the neocons didn't realize that Strauss is a one-way ticket to history's hall of villains. The remarkable thing is that "Straussianism" is little more than the latest attempt at justifying the unjustifiable. It is evil in a trendy new package. Once again I quote Ayn Rand (who is on target this time):

"The moral cannibalism of all hedonist and altruist doctrines lies in the premise that the happiness of one man necessitates the injury of another."

Moderates - Moderates are the heart of the conservative establishment. They are the educated, middle & upper class, small government idealists and civil libertarians that are most likely to feel betrayed by the Bush administration. They are torn between their loyalty to a party that doesn't respect their values anymore, and capitulating to the "tax & spend" Democrats in order to do the right thing. To understand the difficulty of their choice, one has to take into account a mindset that has been engaged in an exaggerated ideological battle with Democrats and "liberals" for decades. After fighting the "slow rot" of "socialism" for so long, they find themselves in an untenable position.

Moderates still exercise a disproportionate amount of influence over the conservative establishment, although their influence has waned considerably with the ascendancy of the neoconservatives, and the "promotion" of the Christian Right. Moderates used to be conservatism's favorite children. They would be natural allies for a Democratic Party that could redefine its ideology more along the lines of classical liberalism--which is basically the ideology that moderate conservatives are forever fighting to preserve.

Christian Right - The Christian Right is the muscle of the conservative establishment. It is the most populous right wing group. One can reasonably place the president in this group. The Christian Right is predominant in southern states, and is a growing influence in northern and western states. Without the Christian Right, the Republican Party would be little more than "the loyal opposition." It is the "culture war" army of the neocons--who perform the dangerous balancing act of inciting it to political action while struggling to keep its uglier propensities in check.

Like the Straussians at the top, the Christian Right considers secularism, eclecticism, and liberalism to be the gravest threats. Politically, its goal is to turn the U.S. into a fundamentalist Christian theocracy, where "believers" can shape the future by enforcing a medieval version of Christian morality. This goal is clearly at odds with the ideals of the moderate Right, but it seems that the moderates are willing to appease them in return for the grassroots support that fuels the Republican Party. One has to wonder where the line between them will ultimately be drawn.

Extremists - Right wing extremists aren't part of the "official" conservative establishment. Nevertheless, they can be counted on to support the Republicans as the "lesser of two evils." This group is a loose collection of extremist groups such as anarchists, paramilitary militias, and white supremacists. The folks in this category are manipulated through issues like guns, immigration, and national sovereignty. They're relatively small in numbers, and the political influence they exert is limited by the fact that mainstream conservatives publicly disown them.

Right wing extremism is the deranged child of conservatism. Instead of working to cure its illness, conservatives prefer to keep it chained in the basement. Many of the "right to bear arms" arguments that conservatives use are inspired in large part by the spectacular homicides committed by right wing extremists--and their troubled offspring. Go figure... Talk about a vicious cycle.

Anti-liberalism is the "principle" that holds conservatives together. Moderates are specifically against 20th century "socialist" liberalism, and the other three groups are against all liberalism. Amoral intellectuals, who cynically manipulate "inferior" conservatives through fear, drive the machine. "Liberals" are still their favorite target, but now they have other villains to promote, and other battles to provoke. Bush was chosen as the figurehead of this "new conservatism" because he knows conservatives of every stripe. He's the "uniter."

The Democratic Party would do well to reach out to moderate Republicans, and reassure them that their values will be respected. Their help is needed to bring our country back from the brink of disaster. Moderates from both sides have more in common than either side seems to realize. Together, they represent the most significant majority in the nation. As the natural advocates of social stability, it is the responsibility of moderates to address the problems that are threatening the stability of American society. At stake is the ripest expression of classical liberalism on earth. If Bush is reelected, America will be one step closer to discarding the fruit that most of the world hungers for. The circumstances call for a new, more enlightened era in American politics.

I don't know where the 'truth' lies either...but I'm becoming more and more cynical every day.

Just the fact that it took two and a half YEARS to come up with a half-way credible investigation into the flights is beyond my, and many others' comprehension. I posted in the weekend; I'll try and find them again - perhaps it may be of consequence.


Try the pieces here:-https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=8001359#post8001359

 

[minsue]

My cynicism towards the current administration knows no bounds, but I do not believe anyone could have stopped the tragedy of September 11, 2001.

 

[Somme]

mmm... 'belief' .

I wonder what, if anything, I believe?

 

[Pure]

Mindy,

I think there will always be human error, but certain people were asleep at the switch AND/OR desirous of a galvanizing disaster, as at Pearl Harbor.

"Could have been" is always speculation. Suffice it to say that "Al Qaeda" and Islamist extremism was slighted by most political analysts, including the so called intellectual neo-cons, where weren't exactly busy warning us about Osama in the late 90s.

Further, the CIA, DIA, and others have been doing what is a tendency going back to the Viet Nam era and the "ugly American" before that. "Analysts" sit in chairs and look at what selected 'informants' (who don't often reside in the country at issue, or are disconnected from its 'street'/'jungle'/village level) have to say.

In the case of Iraq and that war, Chalabi, was relied upon extensively. The intelligence services have NO agents inside these organzations, and almost NO persons who speak the language of Islamic ethnic, including militant groups.

GWB, imo, just provides a cherry on the cake of ignorance and arrogance. A bit like Reagan, but ineffective, he believes slogans, and good/evil prophecy, and sabre rattling can obscure the details of situations that are basically quagmires or out of control. And that ones needing a 'fix', bare military might will solve the problem in a hurry (Hit at the fly with a hammer.).

 

[Pure]

Miss Lake quoted by Somme, said,

It seems the neocons didn't realize that Strauss is a one-way ticket to history's hall of villains. The remarkable thing is that "Straussianism" is little more than the latest attempt at justifying the unjustifiable. It is evil in a trendy new package. Once again I quote Ayn Rand (who is on target this time):

"The moral cannibalism of all hedonist and altruist doctrines lies in the premise that the happiness of one man necessitates the injury of another."

Huh? Neo cons have 'hedonist' and 'altruist' doctrines?

Because Rand thinks liberals are evil, she and/or Lake, her follower, make all evil folks liberals!! (That aint' fair.)

Further, Lake misses the obvious point, given her liking for small government and lots of capitalism: The neocons want LARGE government, LOTS of government run "homeland security", AND a corrupt system of quasi capitalist cronyism (preferred companies who have contracts which were never bid on, in the 'rebuilding' of Iraq, so called.)

I think the root of the defect is that most Randians have black/white moral thinking (clearly identified 'good guys' and 'evil guys), not unlike the neocons or the religious right; hence the critiques greatly or substantially miss the mark.

 

[minsue]

A bit of clarification -

There were a great many people asleep at the switch, as you say, and an unconscionable amount of intelligence was ignored. The infamous memos out of the Phoenix FBI office immediately spring to mind bringing with them, as always, shudders at the thought of those men training at flight schools here and anger at the thought of the agent's concern being swept aside.

What I mean in saying I don't believe the horror of that day could have been averted is simply that, imo, there is nothing really that can stop such acts. They can be made more difficult, but only with the loss of the freedom that we claim to be trying to protect. And even then, there is no guarantee.

 

[gauchecritic]

I'm constantly surprised when the eleventh of september thread is resurrected yet again amid more speculation, leaks and 'new' information that the conspiracy theorists don't jump in.

I'm just going to wait for the film a la JFK then we'll get to know the truth.

Gauche

 

[Pure]

My gosling

Facts such as those below indicate that 9-11 should NOT have been a surprise:

1993 World Trade Center bombing

The World Trade Center bombing refers to the February 26, 1993 attack in the garage of the New York City World Trade Center. A bomb exploded in the underground garage of the north tower, opening a 30m hole through 4 sublevels of concrete. Six people were killed and over a thousand injured.

Before the attacks

A man named Ramzi Yousef entered the United States with a false Iraqi passport in 1992. Police found instructions on making a bomb in Yousef's partner's luggage. The name Abu Barra, which was an alias of Mohammed Jamal Khalifa, appeared in the manuals.

The bomb

Yousef's complex 600 kilogram bomb was made of urea pellets, nitroglycerin, sulfuric acid, aluminum azide, magnesium azide, and bottled hydrogen. He added sodium cyanide to the mix as the vapors could go through the ventilation shafts and elevators of the towers. The van that Yousef used had four 6 m (20 ft) long fuses, all covered in surgical tubing. Yousef calculated that the fuse would trigger the bomb in twelve minutes after he would use a cheap cigarette lighter to light the fuse.

After an initial inspection of the underground parking area, FBI explosive unit personnel were able to determine that a crater had been formed, measuring approximately 150 feet in diameter at its widest point and over five stories deep.

---
Note: The FBI calculated that this bomb had the second most explosive power of any previous one they had encountered.

refs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_bombing_attack_of_the_WTC#The_bomb

http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cach...rade+Center+1993+bomb+hydrogen&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

http://www.interpol.int/Public/Publications/ICPR/ICPR469_3.asp

 

[rgraham666]

One of my favourite writers has an interesting take on neo-conservatives.

NEO-CONSERVATIVE The exact opposite of a conservative.
Neo-conservatives are the Bolsheviks of the Right. Like the Bolsheviks, they appear in restrained groups driven by a simple ideology. They seek practical ways to achieve real power in order to make revolutionary changes. These "practical ways" usually involve creating a misunderstanding over the "revolutionary changes" to follow.

…It is not unreasonable to place them among the last true Marxists, since they believe in the inevitabilty of class warfare, which they are certain they can win by provoking it while they still have power.

The Doubter's Companion - John Ralston Saul

As far as being willfully ignorant goes, Shrub II and his cronies and acolytes are all True Believers of one sort or another. This means they think they already know everything of importance.

They've never heard the aphorism, "It's what you learn after you know it all that really counts."

As far as belief goes, I only believe two things.

First, there's enough pain in the universe without us adding to the sum total of it.

And I believe that empathy, wisdom and courage are the primary traits a human being should cultivate in themselves.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Colly, I'm daily reading stuff like the following:-
An Overview of American Conservatism
March 27, 2004
By Violet Lake

On the surface, modern American "conservatism" seems to be what Ayn Rand once described as "...that embarrassing conglomeration of impotence, futility, inconsistency and superficiality...". Ideologically, there seems to be no principle that binds the various conservative groups together. If not ideology, then what is it that unites and drives them? The answer can be summed up in one word: liberals.

Rand gives us a clear view of the "enemy":

"The goal of the 'liberals'--as it emerges from the record of the past decades--was to smuggle this country into welfare statism by means of single, concrete, specific measures, enlarging the power of the government a step at a time, never permitting these steps to be summed up into principles, never permitting their direction to be identified or the basic issue to be named. Thus, statism was to come, not by vote or by violence, but by slow rot--by a long process of evasion and epistemological corruption, leading to a fait accompli."

Rand's observation captures the essence of the reasoning that drives conservatives to this day. This is the dogma that won for conservatives the virtual tyranny that they currently exercise over the American people. It is clear now that this brand of "conservatism" is simply statism by other means. Fait accompli, Ayn.

Who are these "compassionate conservatives" that are making the rest of the world so nervous? Is there a method to their madness? Comprehensive answers to these questions are beyond my immediate means, but I can offer several observations and ideas that I hope you'll find useful.

The conservative gradient can be divided into four basic groups: "neoconservatives," moderates, the Christian Right, and extremists. Although they share a common adversary, the groups have widely divergent ideals and goals. Together, they form a combustible mix of power politics, nationalism, religion, and mutual appeasement. In order to understand this dynamic, one needs to look at each group in more detail.

Neoconservatives - The neoconservatives are at the top of the conservative establishment. They are Reagan-era hawks, ex-Marxists, disgruntled liberals, and assorted GOP opportunists, guided by the philosophy of Leo Strauss. Strauss believed that morals don't apply to clever people, and he advocated the right of the powerful to rule the weak. The Straussian ideal can be summed up as absolute domination by "superior" people, achieved by means such as "noble lies," physical force, perpetual warfare, and religion. According to Strauss, the gravest threats to civilization come from ideas like secularism, eclecticism, and liberalism.

Judging the "neocons" by their philosophy, one has to conclude that they're capable of doing anything in order to maintain their grip on power. Judging them by their actions, one has to arrive at the same conclusion. By operating beyond the bounds of morality, the neocons are directing one of the most shameful episodes in American history. The proof is in the spin. They resist honestly accounting for the failures of their "policies" because doing so would unravel their web. So instead, they continue to spin frantically, not realizing that they're trapping themselves in a silky casket of their making.

They are getting more vicious as their day of reckoning gets closer--as evidenced by their treatment of the Spanish people after the 3/11 tragedy. Two hundred million dollars won't be enough money to fool the American people into voting for something that's so inherently against their nature. The truth is becoming more apparent by the day. People are beginning to demand accountability. Exactly how far the neocons will go to conceal their crimes is anyone's guess. Nothing short of a disaster will save them.

It seems the neocons didn't realize that Strauss is a one-way ticket to history's hall of villains. The remarkable thing is that "Straussianism" is little more than the latest attempt at justifying the unjustifiable. It is evil in a trendy new package. Once again I quote Ayn Rand (who is on target this time):

"The moral cannibalism of all hedonist and altruist doctrines lies in the premise that the happiness of one man necessitates the injury of another."

Moderates - Moderates are the heart of the conservative establishment. They are the educated, middle & upper class, small government idealists and civil libertarians that are most likely to feel betrayed by the Bush administration. They are torn between their loyalty to a party that doesn't respect their values anymore, and capitulating to the "tax & spend" Democrats in order to do the right thing. To understand the difficulty of their choice, one has to take into account a mindset that has been engaged in an exaggerated ideological battle with Democrats and "liberals" for decades. After fighting the "slow rot" of "socialism" for so long, they find themselves in an untenable position.

Moderates still exercise a disproportionate amount of influence over the conservative establishment, although their influence has waned considerably with the ascendancy of the neoconservatives, and the "promotion" of the Christian Right. Moderates used to be conservatism's favorite children. They would be natural allies for a Democratic Party that could redefine its ideology more along the lines of classical liberalism--which is basically the ideology that moderate conservatives are forever fighting to preserve.

Christian Right - The Christian Right is the muscle of the conservative establishment. It is the most populous right wing group. One can reasonably place the president in this group. The Christian Right is predominant in southern states, and is a growing influence in northern and western states. Without the Christian Right, the Republican Party would be little more than "the loyal opposition." It is the "culture war" army of the neocons--who perform the dangerous balancing act of inciting it to political action while struggling to keep its uglier propensities in check.

Like the Straussians at the top, the Christian Right considers secularism, eclecticism, and liberalism to be the gravest threats. Politically, its goal is to turn the U.S. into a fundamentalist Christian theocracy, where "believers" can shape the future by enforcing a medieval version of Christian morality. This goal is clearly at odds with the ideals of the moderate Right, but it seems that the moderates are willing to appease them in return for the grassroots support that fuels the Republican Party. One has to wonder where the line between them will ultimately be drawn.

Extremists - Right wing extremists aren't part of the "official" conservative establishment. Nevertheless, they can be counted on to support the Republicans as the "lesser of two evils." This group is a loose collection of extremist groups such as anarchists, paramilitary militias, and white supremacists. The folks in this category are manipulated through issues like guns, immigration, and national sovereignty. They're relatively small in numbers, and the political influence they exert is limited by the fact that mainstream conservatives publicly disown them.

Right wing extremism is the deranged child of conservatism. Instead of working to cure its illness, conservatives prefer to keep it chained in the basement. Many of the "right to bear arms" arguments that conservatives use are inspired in large part by the spectacular homicides committed by right wing extremists--and their troubled offspring. Go figure... Talk about a vicious cycle.

Anti-liberalism is the "principle" that holds conservatives together. Moderates are specifically against 20th century "socialist" liberalism, and the other three groups are against all liberalism. Amoral intellectuals, who cynically manipulate "inferior" conservatives through fear, drive the machine. "Liberals" are still their favorite target, but now they have other villains to promote, and other battles to provoke. Bush was chosen as the figurehead of this "new conservatism" because he knows conservatives of every stripe. He's the "uniter."

The Democratic Party would do well to reach out to moderate Republicans, and reassure them that their values will be respected. Their help is needed to bring our country back from the brink of disaster. Moderates from both sides have more in common than either side seems to realize. Together, they represent the most significant majority in the nation. As the natural advocates of social stability, it is the responsibility of moderates to address the problems that are threatening the stability of American society. At stake is the ripest expression of classical liberalism on earth. If Bush is reelected, America will be one step closer to discarding the fruit that most of the world hungers for. The circumstances call for a new, more enlightened era in American politics.

I don't know where the 'truth' lies either...but I'm becoming more and more cynical every day.

Just the fact that it took two and a half YEARS to come up with a half-way credible investigation into the flights is beyond my, and many others' comprehension. I posted in the weekend; I'll try and find them again - perhaps it may be of consequence.


Try the pieces here:-https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=8001359#post8001359

I believe Somme that the lesson here is not to believe everything you read. Most of the articles quoted on the Lit. boards have a very liberal biase. A subtle, but very real biase.

Here in the hang out there were several articles posted about the records of an antiwar demonstration being seized. We, and I am as guilty as any, went off on Ashcroft and about our rights, etc.etc. ad infinitum. When I mentioned this to a conservative friend he was all for it. Knowing him to be far less than reactionary I asked for an explanation. Seems like this particular anti-war group is suspected of having tresspassed on a U.S. Military base. A fact that not one of the articles posted here mentions. Information? or dis information? or perhaps just telling a half truth and hoping the reader will draw the desired conclusion and not look further.

The posted article had me smiling and not frowing or upset. The reason is the simply splendind irony of attacking the right by quoting Ayn Rand. This woman was so down on human nature she was boderline misanthropic and she was anything but liberal, yet a few quotes, delivered out of context, in an article that is basically just an attack on conservatism and she seems a Wilsonian Democrat. I can tell you if Rand were around now she would be voting Republican, but only because they were the lesser of two evils.

The delima of moderate conservatives is not whether to vote Democrat or Republican. The delimma is can we take control of our own party back or do we need to form another. The Democratic party has completely lost touch with mainstream america in the heartland. Thats just the reality of it. Their agenda is anathema to conservatives of all stripes and that won't change.

The author of this article, very much like Sher and Mindy can see the evils of the Republican Neo-cons so clearly that they cannot understand anyone who can't see it. The problem here is that most conservatives can see the Evils of the Democratic party (many of them the exact same evils, I might add) so clearly that they can't see anyone supporting them. In the end most moderate conservatives will vote for the GOP simply because the party at least pays lip service to their ideals.

The Democrats reaching out to moderate conservatives is something akin to the KKK reachingout to conservative blacks. It passes from the sublime to the rediculous. The Democrats have far more incommon with the Neo-cons than with moderate conservatives.

This article amounts to nothing more than leftist propaganda. Like all propaganda it is a liberal mix of Half truths, generalizations and emotional appeals, wrapped up in a psuedo intellectual dressing as simply the author's observations. It dosen't pass muster with me and I am not a hardline conservative by any means. It isn't going to do anything to influence moderate republicans either. It basically amounts to preaching to the chior. Those who will read it and be in agreement already vote democrat.

I begin to wonder if the Democrats are even trying, or if they are just content to let Bush have another four years to see if he will hang himself for them. Lets see, John Kerry, anti-military liberal from the northeast. He's going toplay real well down in dixie, where we don't generally vote for yankees anyway and we darn sure don't vote for anti military people too often. Should play great in the middle of the country too. Anyone who is counting on conservative moderates to jump parties for him is hopeful bordering on delusional.

The Dems are the party of high taxes, minoritites and liberals. That's the Republican line and the Dems seem happy to let themselves be painted that way. Until they wake up and realize you can't let your opponent define you they are going to keep loosing across the middle of the country. This party continues to rely on California & New York to deliver it the majority of votes needed to win and it has crafted it's image to appeal to the urban poor in highly industrialized states to pick up the extra electoral votes needed. A charismatic man, with broad personal appeal might make it a landslide for them, as Clinton did. An uncharismatic man, with no appeal outside the areas you already know are yours could very well loose it for them.

I don't see Kerry as being very Charismatic and I don't see him having much appeal outside of New England. I defintely do not see anything in him that appels to me. His sole appeal is that he isn't Bush, and I am not sure that is enough to win the election.

-Colly

 

[shereads]

My interest in Richard Clark's testimony is what he's had to say about the Bush administration's reaction, after the fact.

Forget about who's to blame for 9/ll; put it down to the failure of competing bureaucracies to share information, and hope that the problem can be fixed.

What sickens me is the knowledge that what happened that day was greeted as an opportunity by people in this administration. They used what we all felt in the aftermath of that day; they promised retribution, and channeled this country's anger and revulsion in a direction that they had every reason to believe was the wrong direction.

They used their country's most shocking tragedy for political gain. That's unforgiveable. If I had to vote for Michael Jackson to get these repulsive human beings out of the White House, I'd consider it.

 

[Boota]

That's what bothers me about it too, shereads. Of course they knew it was coming. It has been known and stopped several times in several different guises. The fact of the matter is that the airlines wouldn't change their policy without a specific threat. Until 9/11 happened no one would have spent the money to fix any security. (Not that they've really done that much so far, either.) But still, that's not what bothers me.

What bothers me the most is the way that the current administration squandered the goodwill of the nations of the world after the attacks, and the way they used it to divide this country even further. It was a horrible event, but the silver linging was that it could have been a true rallying point for unity. Instead, it was used as an excuse to carry out a war they were itching for. I hated, and now hate worse, George W. Bush. But I would have given him infinite credit had he done the right thing. I wanted him to do the right thing. And he hasn't.

I just want America to be right again. Things are as far from right as they have ever been in my lifetime. There was so much potential for good to come out of the tragedy of 9/11 and it was pissed away on politics.

 

[Pure]

Boota said, ''What bothers me the most is the way that the current administration squandered the goodwill of the nations of the world after the attacks, and the way they used it to divide this country even further. It was a horrible event, but the silver linging was that it could have been a true rallying point for unity. "

It's a great squandering. An even like Pearl Harbor galvanizes a country and presumably Repubs and Dems, in such times, mostly agree on what's to be done. That *could* have happend here, but the bushwhackoffs, decided to go for a partisan agenda, toppling Hussein, etc.

And, of course the plan is to hold the Republican convention near the 9-11 site. (Already it's been exploited in Rep'n ads). Hopefully it will backfire. But todays latest poll shows that despite GWB"S lying, he's by great majority thought the 'best able' *in the future* to lead the war on 'terrorism.' ('Cuz Kerry's an antiwar pinko, I guess, who'd French kiss Osama's ass.)

The squandering of Int'l good will, from such difficult countries as France and some Arab places is again a monumental gaffe.

I don't know what to call this --dating from Gingerich?--Right Republican complex of "I'm good and right, you're evil, and I'll do whatever I damn well please." Utter tyrannical, even lying, self righteousness, reminds of Calvin.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

That's what bothers me about it too, shereads. Of course they knew it was coming. It has been known and stopped several times in several different guises. The fact of the matter is that the airlines wouldn't change their policy without a specific threat. Until 9/11 happened no one would have spent the money to fix any security. (Not that they've really done that much so far, either.) But still, that's not what bothers me.

What bothers me the most is the way that the current administration squandered the goodwill of the nations of the world after the attacks, and the way they used it to divide this country even further. It was a horrible event, but the silver linging was that it could have been a true rallying point for unity. Instead, it was used as an excuse to carry out a war they were itching for. I hated, and now hate worse, George W. Bush. But I would have given him infinite credit had he done the right thing. I wanted him to do the right thing. And he hasn't.

I just want America to be right again. Things are as far from right as they have ever been in my lifetime. There was so much potential for good to come out of the tragedy of 9/11 and it was pissed away on politics.

Doing the right thing is in the eye of the beholder. I know several people who think he is doing the exactly correct thing. I know two who voted for Gore who are voting Bush this time around. In both cases the events in Spain actually made them decide they had to vote Bush.

The feeling among these people, one who considers himself a moderate democrat and the other an independant, is that John Kerry and the Democrats won't be tough on terror. I tend to agree with that assessment.

The good will of the world seems to me to be an extremely transitory thing. I see anti-americanism everywhere I look outside our borders.

They say doing the right thing isn't always easy. I think in this case deciding what the right thing is or was isn't easy. One thing I think is for sure, if terrorism is the primary concern of people who walk into the voting booths in Nov, we will have four more years of GW. Like it or not most of the people in this country wanted and needed to see a show of force on our part, even if the target was murkey.

-Colly

 

[Boota]

I agree Colly. A show of force was definitely needed. In Afghanistan. Not in Iraq. The war in Iraq is not a war on terror. It's W. finishing his daddy's business. Bush messed up in going after Iraq when he did. The job should have been finished in Afghanistan before anything else was taken on. There was no relation to Al Qaeda through Iraq until after the fall of Hussein's regime. Now Iraq is a totally lawless territory and more of a safe haven for terrorists.

My biggest problem isn't that Hussein was dethroned. Absolutely, he was a bastard and deserved it. My problem is that Bush lied to the Senate and the Congress to get their support for the invasion of Iraq. He lied to the other countries to get them to support the invasion. He did everything he could to try to connect Iraq and 9/11 in people's minds so that he could have his war. The first point of business when Bush took office was to find a way to go to war with Iraq. It was brought up to his cabinet on the first day. 9/11 was a godsend to him. The greatest thing that ever happened to him.

Bush thrives on innocent blood and fear. That fear is the only hope he has of getting re-elected. He finds ways to work a 9/11 reference into any speech he can, no matter how out of place it might be. I have yet to see one redeemable quality in the man.

To me, right and wrong aren't really subjective terms. To Bush they are apparently irrelevent terms. It's only about what he wants. About how he and his friends will benefit from this war. Halliburton among them. The financial windfall of the companies who win the rights to rebuild Iraq are his true concern.

As far as Bush doing things helping the war on terror, he has done nothing that no other president wouldn't have done. All he has really done is put the plan that Clinton had Richard Clarke working on into action. The only difference is that Bush ignored all the information until the attacks happened. The Clinton plan, which was shot down by the Republicans as too expensive and unnecessary, is pretty much the identical lpan that went into effect after 9/11. It's kind of weird how Clarke was good enough to plan the response to the terrorist attacks, but now that he has come out against the administration he is not a credible person. He served this country his whole life and now he is supposedly trying to subvert it. Slandering good people is the Bush gangs modus operandi. They did the same thing to John McCain during the Republican primary a couple years ago.

 

[rgraham666]

So there are five ways of knowing who will win. Those who know when to fight and when not to fight are victorious. Those who discern when to use many or few troops are victorious. Those whose upper and lower ranks have the same desire are victorious. Those who face the unpepared with preperation are victorious. Those whose generals are able and not constrained by the government are victorious. These five are the ways to know who will win

The Art of War Sun Tzu Chapter 3 - Planning a Siege

Do we know when to fight or not? Debatable, highly.

Iraq shows we don't know when to use many or few.

Our upper and lower ranks don't have the same desire.

Were we prepared? No.

My opinion of Western generals is low, and they can't shit without checking with Washington first.

This does not look good.

In my opinion, the War on Terrorism is an intellgence war. It is very low intensity. It doesn't really require a lot of people. High tech is only of minimal usefulness. It is likely to be going on for a very long time with nothing resembling a clear victory. Much of it will have to be done in secrecy. And it will be severely 'irrational'.

This makes it very unsuited for the current Western style of warfare. We are still trying to fight The Cold War becoming hot. Hell we're still trying to refight WWII. This means big, high tech armies. We like quick ends and clear cut victories. We like to have great media generated by our wars, lots of pretty pictures and sound bites. And we like wars to generate reams and reams of statistics and numbers proving what a great job we did and how 'rational' our wars are.

This is one of the main reasons for the invasion of Iraq. It fit into our paradigm of warfare.

However Iraq distracted us from the War on Terror. And conciously or unconciously, our leaders know we can't fight the War on Terror well with our current warmaking philosophy, and they are unwilling to make the changes required to fight it properly.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I agree Colly. A show of force was definitely needed. In Afghanistan. Not in Iraq. The war in Iraq is not a war on terror. It's W. finishing his daddy's business. Bush messed up in going after Iraq when he did. The job should have been finished in Afghanistan before anything else was taken on. There was no relation to Al Qaeda through Iraq until after the fall of Hussein's regime. Now Iraq is a totally lawless territory and more of a safe haven for terrorists.

My biggest problem isn't that Hussein was dethroned. Absolutely, he was a bastard and deserved it. My problem is that Bush lied to the Senate and the Congress to get their support for the invasion of Iraq. He lied to the other countries to get them to support the invasion. He did everything he could to try to connect Iraq and 9/11 in people's minds so that he could have his war. The first point of business when Bush took office was to find a way to go to war with Iraq. It was brought up to his cabinet on the first day. 9/11 was a godsend to him. The greatest thing that ever happened to him.

Bush thrives on innocent blood and fear. That fear is the only hope he has of getting re-elected. He finds ways to work a 9/11 reference into any speech he can, no matter how out of place it might be. I have yet to see one redeemable quality in the man.

To me, right and wrong aren't really subjective terms. To Bush they are apparently irrelevent terms. It's only about what he wants. About how he and his friends will benefit from this war. Halliburton among them. The financial windfall of the companies who win the rights to rebuild Iraq are his true concern.

As far as Bush doing things helping the war on terror, he has done nothing that no other president wouldn't have done. All he has really done is put the plan that Clinton had Richard Clarke working on into action. The only difference is that Bush ignored all the information until the attacks happened. The Clinton plan, which was shot down by the Republicans as too expensive and unnecessary, is pretty much the identical lpan that went into effect after 9/11. It's kind of weird how Clarke was good enough to plan the response to the terrorist attacks, but now that he has come out against the administration he is not a credible person. He served this country his whole life and now he is supposedly trying to subvert it. Slandering good people is the Bush gangs modus operandi. They did the same thing to John McCain during the Republican primary a couple years ago.

I am not going to defend this administration. I feel that in it's misogynistic agenda it has made me an enemy.

From a personal point of view I feel the response of the administration to 9/11 in attacking the taliban was totally justified. I also have no trouble with removing Saddam, he was a monster of our creation and I feel better knowing no more blood will be spilt by him that ultimately is upon our collective hands.

The idea that any president would have responded similarly is highly debateable and it would be a fruitless debate. The concrete issue is that the perception of most of my freinds is that the Dems will be as soft on terrorism as they are on crime and it will get us hit again. The truth of that assertion is debateable, but the fact that it is the perception of most of my conservative and even a few moderate freinds is not. The issue is touchy and not one where the Democratic party is on solid ground, they are much better at hammering away at domestic problems then they are at foerign policy issues. If the president's campaign can keep domestic issues as secondary and the threat of terrorism primay in the minds of the voters, I think the GOP will win.

I am a registered republican, I will be voting against my party for the first time in my life in Nov. I think it is telling that I will be voting for a third party candidate. John Kerry isn't inspiring to me in any way. My vote matters very little. NY will go to the democratic candidate even if the ticket were Bart Simpson and Cartman.

If the GOP using 9/11 for political gain sickens you, then the Dem's trying to assign blame for it on the current asministration should sicken you as well. 2 sides to the same coin. Rather than going after the very real weaknesses in the Bush administration's foerign policy they are falling back on 9/11 every bit as much as the GOP. They pay pundits and pollsters and analysts and consultants millions and those people are supposed to know what works, but it seems to me that both parties are trying to cash in politically on a national tragedy and it is no less sickening from the mouth of Kerry than it is from the mouth of Bush.

Sadly for us all, politics is all about reaching the mases and nothing quite gets to our hearts and minds like that one moment in time. I suspect it will be a centerpiece in campaings for years to come, simply because it touched us all and nothing in recent history has done that in such a heartfelt way.

-Colly

 

[Boota]

I can relate to your situation with your home state. Being from Indiana, my state always goes Republican in the presidential elections. I nearly always vote Democrat, although I have never voted a straight party ticket. What is weird about Indiana is that while the state always goes to the Republicans in national elections, our governors are nearly always Democrats. I'm not sure why that is.

I would vote for a third party candidate if there was one that really stood out to me, but there isn't. Kerry wasn't my first choice, either. I liked Clark, Edwards, and Gephart. But now I would vote for Satan if it would get Bush out of the White House. LOL.

I would love to see a truly viable third party candidate sometime. I was really into the ideas behind the Libertarian Party, but they always seemed to put up some crackpot for national office. I would love to see a third party candidate who didn't make me feel like I was throwing my vote away.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I can relate to your situation with your home state. Being from Indiana, my state always goes Republican in the presidential elections. I nearly always vote Democrat, although I have never voted a straight party ticket. What is weird about Indiana is that while the state always goes to the Republicans in national elections, our governors are nearly always Democrats. I'm not sure why that is.

I would vote for a third party candidate if there was one that really stood out to me, but there isn't. Kerry wasn't my first choice, either. I liked Clark, Edwards, and Gephart. But now I would vote for Satan if it would get Bush out of the White House. LOL.

I would love to see a truly viable third party candidate sometime. I was really into the ideas behind the Libertarian Party, but they always seemed to put up some crackpot for national office. I would love to see a third party candidate who didn't make me feel like I was throwing my vote away.

The less extreme libertarian view is appealing. Unfortuneatly they always seem to run whatever nutter they can break out of the booby hatch in time to sign the papers.

-Colly

 

[Pure]

How odd that the Repubs have succeeded, in the 50s in laying the 'soft of communism' charge against dems, and now in the 1900s, 2000s, 'soft on terrorism'.!

It is incredible, esp. since Republicans opposed federalizing the passenger and baggage checking at airports, etc.

It appears the 'top gun' talk sells.

CT:
//The concrete issue is that the perception of most of my freinds is that the Dems will be as soft on terrorism as they are on crime and it will get us hit again. The truth of that assertion is debateable, but the fact that it is the perception of most of my conservative and even a few moderate freinds is not. //

Incredible if it were not believable.!

The idea that 'terrorism' is an entity to fight, like 'drugs,' is very appealing, and everyone forgets that actual efforts against actual terrorists (like actual drug lords) require sophistication, not lots of aircraft carriers and laser bombs.