"willfully ignorant"

[Somme]

The Bush Admin. and 9-11: Open Eyes Required
30th March 2004, 11:22 am
Opinion: www.UnansweredQuestions.org
Distribution via the Unanswered Questions Wire
Sign up for the wire at:
http://www.unansweredquestions.org/headlines.php
Unanswered Questions : Thinking for ourselves.

The Bush Administration and 9-11: Open Eyes Required

by Stephen Crockett and Al Lawrence

The recent controversy swirling around the Bush White House, the 9-11 Commission and the Richard Clarke book, Against All Enemies has been very enlightening. Sensing that Bush has almost nothing else to run on in the 2004 elections, the Bush Republican attack machine and their fellow travelers in the Corporate Media have been vigorously trying to change the subject away from their competency in dealing with terrorism before and after the 9-11 terrorist attacks.

Instead of publicly dealing with the serious issues involved, the Bush Republicans have been attacking the character of anyone who raises any questions about their poor performance on national security issues. This has been the Karl Rove approach to anyone standing in the way of Bush obtaining and retaining political power. This tactic was key in defeating John McCain in the 2000 South Carolina Republican Primary Election.

The tactic was used in the 2002 Congressional Elections to give the Republicans control of Congress. The tactic backfired when used illegally by someone highly placed in the Bush Administration to out the CIA agent wife of Ambassador Wilson over the false "African uranium-nuclear weapons" claims that helped Bush sell his invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Most recently, the Republican attack machine went after former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil, when the book The Price of Loyalty was published. This book confirmed many of the charges made against the Bush White House in the Clarke book.

While Clarke did his job in our government under Reagan, Bush (the Senior), Clinton and the current Bush very well, the Bush Republicans are now blaming their failings on him.

As part of any White House team, any highly placed team member will publicly highlight the best-case scenario for the Administration's performance while downplaying their failures. Clarke did this while serving in the Bush Administration. The Bush White House and their allies in Congress are trying to make these comments into a serious contradiction with the Clarke book and public statements of today.

Clarke left the Bush team because they were failing to meet the threat posed by the Bin Laden terrorist network both before and after 9-11. The former FBI lead investigator of Islamic terrorism and Bin Laden, John O'Neill resigned just weeks before the 9-11 attacks because he claimed the Bush Administration was blocking his investigation of Saudi ties to Islamic terrorists attacking the United States.

This hero took the job as head of security for the World Trade Center and died in the 9-11 attack. Clarke to his credit tried to work within the system first. He was probably the only member of the Bush White House effectively doing their job in dealing with the Islamic fundamentalist terrorist threat.

Meanwhile, the Bush team along with Bush and Cheney were using the 9-11 attacks to launch an unrelated war with Iraq. Military and national security resources were diverted to this Oil War in Iraq just when America had a real chance of eliminating the Bin Laden organization in Afghanistan and the Taliban forces. Our enemies in Afghanistan have shown signs of renewed strength while the bulk of our military is tied down in another war in Iraq. The Iraq War has turned into both a terrorist training ground and a recruiting goldmine for our enemies.

Before the 9-11 attacks, the Bush Administration was simply asleep on the job. Instead of planning military actions against Afghanistan, they were negotiating with the Taliban for an oil pipeline designed to financially profit American oil companies.

It has been reported by French intelligence experts in the book Bin Laden:The Forbidden Truth that these negotiations included military threats if the Taliban refused the oil pipeline deal. These negotiations and threats were just before the 9-11 attacks.

The role the Republican attack machine played in undermining public support for Clinton's strong efforts against the Bin Laden network. Republicans chanted, "Wag the Dog" when Clinton took military action against Bin Laden. Republicans claimed Clinton was trying to divert public opinion away from the important threat to national security posed by Clinton having an affair outside his marriage.

The Republican "get Clinton" mania trumped national security. The Republicans smelled political gain and political power in the Clinton sex scandal and would not let a little thing like terrorist attacking American embassies get in the way.

In our opinion, this approach to Islamic terrorism and Bin Laden became part of the conventional Republican mindset until after the 9-11 attacks. They downplayed the threat in their own minds because their had been great domestic political advantage in this way of looking at the issue under Clinton.

The long and financially profitable ties between the Bush organization and Saudi business interests likely played a role in mentally dismissing the urgency of the terrorist threat coming from that nation.

The American people deserve an open investigation and debate on the 9-11 issue! While the public has been calling for Rice to testify publicly, we really need both Bush and Cheney to testify publicly before the 9-11 Commission.

We need a real debate on Bush's role in 9-11 controversy and the terrorist threat in the 2004 Presidential Election. We should have many debates between Bush and Kerry. One entire debate should be on the 9-11 issue and terrorism.

***************

 

[Pure]

Krugman, NYT:

Where will it end [character assassination and suppression of information]? In his new book, "Worse Than Watergate," John Dean, of Watergate fame, says, "I've been watching all the elements fall into place for two possible political catastrophes, one that will take the air out of the Bush-Cheney balloon and the other, far more disquieting, that will take the air out of democracy."

Anybody missing Tricky Dick? His evil was so much more intelligent.

 

[Pure]

James Risen, Mar 29, 2004, NY Times.


''Ghost Wars,'' Steve Coll's objective - and terrific - account of the long and tragic history leading up to Sept. 11, is a welcome antidote to the fevered partisan bickering that accompanied the release of Clarke's book.

Coll, the managing editor of The Washington Post, has given us what is certainly the finest historical narrative so far on the origins of Al Qaeda in the post-Soviet rubble of Afghanistan. He has followed up that feat by threading together the complex roles played by diplomats and spies from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the United States into a coherent story explaining how Afghanistan became such a welcoming haven for Al Qaeda.

In particular, Coll has done a great service by revealing how Saudi Arabia and its intelligence operations aided the rise of Osama bin Laden and Islamic extremism in Afghanistan. Saudi Arabia's alleged involvement in terrorism has been the subject of wild conspiracy theories since Sept. 11; Coll gives us a clear and balanced view of Saudi Arabia's real ties to bin Laden.

The links he reveals are serious enough to prompt an important debate about the nature of the Saudi-American partnership in the fight against terrorism. ''Saudi intelligence officials said years later that bin Laden was never a professional Saudi intelligence agent,'' he writes, referring to Saudi support for foreign Arab fighters against the Russians in Afghanistan in the 1980's. Still, ''it seems clear that bin Laden did have a substantial relationship with Saudi intelligence.''

Coll overlaps with Clarke in his detailed recounting of the mush that was the Clinton administration's counterterrorism policy. Unlike Clarke, however, Coll doesn't have an ax to grind, and so offers a more evenhanded view of the internal battles between the White House, the C.I.A. and other agencies at a time when terrorism was not Washington's top priority.

As a reporter who struggled to cover many of the twists and turns in counterterrorism policy that Coll describes, I find ''Ghost Wars'' provides fresh details and helps explain the motivations behind many crucial decisions.

As Coll seeks to explain why the Clinton team never mounted a serious effort to go after Al Qaeda, even after the 1998 embassy bombings in East Africa, he finds plenty of blame to go around: ''Clinton's National Security Council aides firmly believed that they were the aggressive ones on the Al Qaeda case, pursuing every possible avenue to get at bin Laden over calcified resistance or incompetence within the C.I.A. and Pentagon bureaucracies.

From the other side of the Potomac, Clinton's White House often looked undisciplined, unfocused and uncertain.'' ''Ghost Wars'' also corroborates many of Clarke's assertions that counterterrorism policy was largely ignored by the new Bush administration before Sept. 11. Coll notes, as does Clarke, that the Bush team didn't hold its first cabinet-level meeting on Al Qaeda and Afghanistan until Sept. 4, one week before the twin towers fell. [end excerpt]

 

[Remec]

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.

Thinking of the comparison to Pearl Harbor made me wonder if any of the conspiracy theory groups had espoused the thought that perhaps the intelligence wasn't so far off, but that something was allowed to happen in the same way that the Japanese attack was allowed to go through...despite our having broken their code and knowing an attack was coming...in order to give impetus to a war effort and give the people something to rally around.

Or is that too cynical a thought to have, even in these days...?

 

[Colleen Thomas]

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.

One of the more interesting facets of this all is perception of the public. When we got hit there was demand that we do something about it. Bush did something. The appropriateness or inappropriateness of that response is debateable, but action was taken.

During the Clinton Years when we got hit, no action was taken. You may again argue the approriateness or inappropriatness of the Clinton administration's response. One could even argue that fighting terrorism is mostly an intelligence war and that the Clinton White house may very well have taken lots of concrete action. But the public perception is that he did nothing.

A military response, whatever you personal opinion on the effectiveness of such a response is what the public wanted. Bush gave them that, in spades.

Considering the Foerign Policy of the two parties in recent years you get:

Carter: Iran hostage Crisis: Lots of negotiaion: Failed military response

Regan: several terroritst issues: bombing oflybia, forced landing of plane carrying pal terrorists from the cruise ship, invasion of grenada etc.

Bursh Sr. : Saddam's invasion of Kuwait: Gulf war I

Clinton: bombing of trade center: Lots of rhetoric:
Somalia: Military embarasment and public outrage
Bosnia: some diplomacy, some troops, a lot of helplessness

Bush Jr.: 9/11: invasion of afghanistan, war on iraq

That's pretty much the recent memory of most folks. It isn't hard to see how the democrats can be easily painted as militarily inept and non proactive. Non reactive as well. In fact you can see how it is easy to paint them as soft on terrorism. Their record is extremely bad on both action and results.

The GOP can point to action taken and victories. Imperfect or even inconsequential as those victories may have been.

Now you have John Kerry, who is anti military running for president. It makes perfect sense that the GOP would like to stress that.

-Colly

 

[minsue]

Now you have John Kerry, who is anti military running for president. It makes perfect sense that the GOP would like to stress that.

-Colly

This question has gotten me in trouble before, but not with you, Colly, so I'll ask. You keep saying John Kerry is 'anti-military'. Why?

- Mindy

 

[Colleen Thomas]

This question has gotten me in trouble before, but not with you, Colly, so I'll ask. You keep saying John Kerry is 'anti-military'. Why?

- Mindy

Kerry was a leader in the anti war movement after vietnam. His voting record shows him to be down on the military. Probably most importantly veterans consider him anti military and are vocal about it.

He is a decorated soldier and was wounded, but in conservative papers you will see the assertion again and again that his war wounds were scratches and that his accusations against brother soldiers are equitable to betrayal.

I do not know any vets who think highly of him. Granted, I am not out polling, that's just the feeling I get from informal discussions with the Vietnam vets I keep up with via mail.

-Colly

 

[Boota]

John Kerry, unlike Bush, actually SERVED in the military. In combat. Bush signed up and ran off, with no consequences.

The Republicans stymied Clinton's plans to go after bin Laden, saying it was expensive and unnecessary. It is a matter of public record that Clinton issued and executive order approving the execution of bin Laden. It is also a matter of public record that terrorism was not an issue with the Bush White House before 9/11. On 9/10/01, John Ashcroft issues his seven primary concerns to the Justice Department. Terrorism did not make the list. He was called on this by another official and responded by saying that terrorism was of no real concern to the country.

Clinton had Richard Clarke make a plan for pressuring other countries to work with the U.S. in order to stop terrorism within their borders, freeze the assets of terrorists and their organizations, put soldiers on the ground in Afghanistan, etc. Everything that Bush has done since 9/11. The same exact plan that languished in limbo while Bush spent most of his first year as president asleep at the wheel and on vacation. (The most vacation days by ANY president in the months leading up to 9/11.) The Republican House and Senate stopped the Clinton plan to go after the terrorists before they hit us. Thirty-seven days into Clinton's presidency the World Trade Center was bombed. The man was very aware of the terrorist threat to this nation and was creating a comprehensive plan to eliminate that threat. The same people screaming that he dropped the ball were, in fact, those who fumbled. It is a matter of public record and can proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

In the political climate of the time there was no way that the House and Senate would have allowed us to commit militarily to a war. Only since 9/11 has that been a possibility. Somalia? Not a chance. There no oil in Somalia. They have nothing we need. It would have never been approved. Bosnia? Complete success, with not one American killed. The right way to handle situations like that.

Carter, could not get the hostages freed from Iran. Using diplomacy or the failed Delta op, it just didn't happen. Reagan got it done. How? He broke the law and provided weapons to our enemies in order to get the hostages freed. He subverted the basis of our checks and balance system and ordered illegal black ops to be carried out in order to shore up his political standing.

An interesting fact about terrorist attacks against American interests is that the majority of them happened during the Reagan/Bush years. Before 9/11, the Marine barracks bombing in Lebanon was the worst. How did Reagan respond? He pulled the troops out. Somalia was nothing new. It wasn't politically advantageous to be there. The Marines were only supposed to be a presence there and instead were percieved as taking sides in a civil war. When that barracks was hit and all those Marines were killed, that was the end of our "presence".

I most definitely want to see the U.S. fight back against any terrorist attack. The Clinton plan would have been a great plan to have had in action before 9/11. Who knows? The attacks may have never happened if we had gone in and broke their structure in response to the attacks on the Cole and the Embassy bombings in Africa. Not likely, but possible. It's just too bad that those Republicans, who love and want to protect America so much, didn't see it as necessary. Those evil Democrats were just warmongers who wanted to pick on smaller countries. The voting record after the fact is really interesting to look at. Just look at how the Republicans voted before 9/11 during the Clinton Administration, and then listen to their rhetoric afterwards. It would be funny if it weren't so tragic.

Another interesting point that should be checked out is the military service of the Democrats versus the Republicans in the House and Senate. For a group that is so pro-military, not many Republicans served. A lot of those liberal, America hating, tree hugging, pussy Democrats actually served in the military. The majority of them served in combat even. The Republican with the most impressive military record is Sen. John McCain, and we saw how well the Bush Administration, and by proxy the Republican party, respected his military service. The idea that Republicans are more pro-military and more pro-active is a falsehood put forth by the far right. Maybe more Democrats are anti-war. That's entirely possible. The majority of combat veterans are anti-war, because unlike those who haven't served, they KNOW how terrible war is. I know a lot of Vietnam vets who are anti-war.

I still have trouble seeing a decorated soldier like Sen. Kerry being considered anti-military. That's more right wing propaganda with no basis in truth. Just because you don't want to see our soldiers killed in pointless conflicts, that doesn't make you anti-military.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

John Kerry, unlike Bush, actually SERVED in the military. In combat. Bush signed up and ran off, with no consequences.

The Republicans stymied Clinton's plans to go after bin Laden, saying it was expensive and unnecessary. It is a matter of public record that Clinton issued and executive order approving the execution of bin Laden. It is also a matter of public record that terrorism was not an issue with the Bush White House before 9/11. On 9/10/01, John Ashcroft issues his seven primary concerns to the Justice Department. Terrorism did not make the list. He was called on this by another official and responded by saying that terrorism was of no real concern to the country.

Clinton had Richard Clarke make a plan for pressuring other countries to work with the U.S. in order to stop terrorism within their borders, freeze the assets of terrorists and their organizations, put soldiers on the ground in Afghanistan, etc. Everything that Bush has done since 9/11. The same exact plan that languished in limbo while Bush spent most of his first year as president asleep at the wheel and on vacation. (The most vacation days by ANY president in the months leading up to 9/11.) The Republican House and Senate stopped the Clinton plan to go after the terrorists before they hit us. Thirty-seven days into Clinton's presidency the World Trade Center was bombed. The man was very aware of the terrorist threat to this nation and was creating a comprehensive plan to eliminate that threat. The same people screaming that he dropped the ball were, in fact, those who fumbled. It is a matter of public record and can proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

In the political climate of the time there was no way that the House and Senate would have allowed us to commit militarily to a war. Only since 9/11 has that been a possibility. Somalia? Not a chance. There no oil in Somalia. They have nothing we need. It would have never been approved. Bosnia? Complete success, with not one American killed. The right way to handle situations like that.

Carter, could not get the hostages freed from Iran. Using diplomacy or the failed Delta op, it just didn't happen. Reagan got it done. How? He broke the law and provided weapons to our enemies in order to get the hostages freed. He subverted the basis of our checks and balance system and ordered illegal black ops to be carried out in order to shore up his political standing.

An interesting fact about terrorist attacks against American interests is that the majority of them happened during the Reagan/Bush years. Before 9/11, the Marine barracks bombing in Lebanon was the worst. How did Reagan respond? He pulled the troops out. Somalia was nothing new. It wasn't politically advantageous to be there. The Marines were only supposed to be a presence there and instead were percieved as taking sides in a civil war. When that barracks was hit and all those Marines were killed, that was the end of our "presence".

I most definitely want to see the U.S. fight back against any terrorist attack. The Clinton plan would have been a great plan to have had in action before 9/11. Who knows? The attacks may have never happened if we had gone in and broke their structure in response to the attacks on the Cole and the Embassy bombings in Africa. Not likely, but possible. It's just too bad that those Republicans, who love and want to protect America so much, didn't see it as necessary. Those evil Democrats were just warmongers who wanted to pick on smaller countries. The voting record after the fact is really interesting to look at. Just look at how the Republicans voted before 9/11 during the Clinton Administration, and then listen to their rhetoric afterwards. It would be funny if it weren't so tragic.

Another interesting point that should be checked out is the military service of the Democrats versus the Republicans in the House and Senate. For a group that is so pro-military, not many Republicans served. A lot of those liberal, America hating, tree hugging, pussy Democrats actually served in the military. The majority of them served in combat even. The Republican with the most impressive military record is Sen. John McCain, and we saw how well the Bush Administration, and by proxy the Republican party, respected his military service. The idea that Republicans are more pro-military and more pro-active is a falsehood put forth by the far right. Maybe more Democrats are anti-war. That's entirely possible. The majority of combat veterans are anti-war, because unlike those who haven't served, they KNOW how terrible war is. I know a lot of Vietnam vets who are anti-war.

I still have trouble seeing a decorated soldier like Sen. Kerry being considered anti-military. That's more right wing propaganda with no basis in truth. Just because you don't want to see our soldiers killed in pointless conflicts, that doesn't make you anti-military.

I don't know senator Kerry from Mary Carrie. I am not trying to defend him nor villify him. I am simply saying what I know and what I have gathered from private conversations with vets. Some of those vets are very anti war, some are hawks and some are in between. To a man thus far they have all said they dislike him, some stridently and some cautiously. For those I have spoken to it isn't his politics as much as it is his loud dencunciation of fellow soldiers once he was back in the states. Men who fought there took it personally and time has done little to salve the wound that I have seen. Again this isn't an official reporting agency, I haven't called dispartite groups, it's just the few vets I have been fortunate enough to meet up with and who I correspond with more or less regularly.

I have seen nearly every failing of the Clinton administration blamed on the republican senate and house. That's fine and dandy, if you can prove it that's fine and dandy too. The point isn't that he failed to want to act, the point is he failed to act. To most people that is the fact they see and the majority of the electorate isn't going to go digging though reams of paper to find out the why of it.

I am one of the few conservatives at this forum. But I read both liberal and conservative rags as well asmore main stream news. I try to be as well informed as I can be. In my posts in this thread I have simply presented the view from the toher side of the fence.

-Colly

 

[Boota]

I guess it's only fair that the Republican House and Senate get the blame for everything during the Clinton administration, since Clinton gets the blame for everything that is wrong now. As far as failure to act, that is all part of what I'm talking about. Unless you're Ronald Reagan, you have to go through proper channels to get these things done. Before 9/11 it was a different world. The House and Senate simply would not give the approval for any action that rocked the boat. 9/11 opened the eyes that Clinton and Clarke were trying to open all along.

I agree that the perceived failure to act is what the uninformed masses will see. One of the biggest problems with the Republican party right now is that most of its every day supporters get all their news from Limbaugh, Hannity, and those types of people. "News" that is everything from stilted truths to outright lies. Limbaugh has even been caught leaking stories, that he made up, to the foreign press in order to quote them when they repeat his lie. Then he says that it's because the media in this country simply won't report the truth. No, it's because we have laws that don't allow slander. They can get away with this by something as innocuous as saying "a high level source" in a foreign newspaper, and then all of a sudden it's the truth over here, as far as the dittoheads are concerned.

These talking heads hold way too much influence in our political system.

 

[rgraham666]

I don't know if my opinion of Kerry counts for anything, being Canadian, but I think of a quote I like when I hear of Kerry.

The surest way to become a pacifist is to join the infantry.

Bill Mauldin

In my opinion, Kerry has been there and done that. He was "at the sharp end", knows how unpleasant it is, and will try to go to war when necessary, not in order to puff up his ego.

Shrub II looked forward to all those photo ops that painted him as "A Great War Leader".

As far as perception of action goes, that is one of the main reasons for Iraq. It made great media. Tanks charging across the desert, artillery spitting out shells and rockets, planes roaring through the sky. Oh yes, you could see how much was being accomplished. And we obviously "won" having troops the length and breadth of Iraq, with their leaders in custody.

But an actual war on terrorism would be almost entirely secret. There are no network news teams accompanying an agent infiltrating a terrorist cell structure. The press will never know if we are negotiating (read bribing) some rat of a warlord in Afghanistan, Uzhbekistan or any of the other 'stans. We will never even be able to declare victory.

The best we can do is keep the monsters at arm's length. And we won't always succeed.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I have utterly no confidence in Kerry as a leader against world terrorism. If that were my prime concern I would vote republican again. However, I see the religious right's assault on me as a woman and on my individual liberties as far more dangerous to me, personally, than Al Quadia.

Even so I can't bring myself to vote Democrat. Luckily I live in a state that will go Democrat, so I can afford to waste my vote on a third party.

-Colly

 

[Boota]

I'm with you there, Colly. I consider the religious right a form of domestic terrorism.

 

[shereads]

As far as perception of action goes, that is one of the main reasons for Iraq. It made great media. Tanks charging across the desert, artillery spitting out shells and rockets, planes roaring through the sky. Oh yes, you could see how much was being accomplished. And we obviously "won" having troops the length and breadth of Iraq, with their leaders in custody.

But an actual war on terrorism would be almost entirely secret. There are no network news teams accompanying an agent infiltrating a terrorist cell structure. The press will never know if we are negotiating (read bribing) some rat of a warlord in Afghanistan, Uzhbekistan or any of the other 'stans. We will never even be able to declare victory.

The best we can do is keep the monsters at arm's length. And we won't always succeed.

Well said, r. Thank you.

shereadsistan

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I don't know if my opinion of Kerry counts for anything, being Canadian, but I think of a quote I like when I hear of Kerry.



In my opinion, Kerry has been there and done that. He was "at the sharp end", knows how unpleasant it is, and will try to go to war when necessary, not in order to puff up his ego.

Shrub II looked forward to all those photo ops that painted him as "A Great War Leader".

As far as perception of action goes, that is one of the main reasons for Iraq. It made great media. Tanks charging across the desert, artillery spitting out shells and rockets, planes roaring through the sky. Oh yes, you could see how much was being accomplished. And we obviously "won" having troops the length and breadth of Iraq, with their leaders in custody.

But an actual war on terrorism would be almost entirely secret. There are no network news teams accompanying an agent infiltrating a terrorist cell structure. The press will never know if we are negotiating (read bribing) some rat of a warlord in Afghanistan, Uzhbekistan or any of the other 'stans. We will never even be able to declare victory.

The best we can do is keep the monsters at arm's length. And we won't always succeed.

In many early forms of government there was a caluse that allowed a leader to take dictatorial power in time of war or extreme crisis. I seem to remember with the Romans a dictators term of office was a year, as strange as that sounds.

In many of these sociceties declaring an perpetual state of emergency was the time honored dodge used by unscupulous men to hold onto power. A war on terrorism cannot be won, it isn't meant to be won, anymore than a war on drugs can be won.

The war on drugs is strange because we are basiclly fighting against our own economic system's precepts. I.E. supply and demand and free market forces. As long as there is a demand, someone will step up to supply. The tougher you make it for them to get the supply to the customer, the more the consumer pays for the product.

The war on terrorism is equally unwinable. You can't stomp out terrorism, you can only hope to stomp out state sponsored terrorism. As Doc. Mab pointed out, even that is impossible when some states define a group as terrorist while others define them as freedom fighters.

The war on terror does however provide a war that will go on and on and on. And as long as the terrorists succeed occasionally it provides a powerful vehicle for the Republicans to run campaigns on. A perpetual state of emergency, if you will, whereby our individual freedoms are being insidiously eroded.

-Colly

 

[Pure]

Dems soft on communism; now soft on terrorism.

The Dems are handwringing pussies, The Repubs take action, military action, and *something gets done.

Colly, thats a fine list below, and no doubt accounts for the conclusions of many conservatives, as you say. A closer look, and experience help undermine much of its actual validity. I did a bit of research, to get some critical dates, and events you don't mention.

Let's start a little earlier

For communism:
1945-52 Truman
1947 Truman Doctrine and aid to Greece to fight terrorism. Marshall Plan (GM was T's Secy of State)
Philippine insurgency is addressed, (defeated under Eisenhower).

1949 "Loss of China"--Mao's folks are in complete control
1950 Truman orders troops into Korea.
1951 Under encouragement from Hoover, Truman launches 'Smith Act' trials. Witchhunt.

Action, results.

Eisenhower 1953-60. On this 'watch.'

McCarthy accuses Dems of aiding Communists "Losing China". Is finally censured, but Dick Nixon is launched.

Castro, with a minute force, installs himself in Cuba (1959)

1961-63 Kennedy.War declared on Communism in SE Asia and Latin America.
1962 Kennedy confronts Russian in Cuban missile crisis

1963-1968 Johnson.
Kennedy had started the major build up of advisers, Johnson launches full scale war against 'communism' in Vietnam. Its wisdom is questionable.

1969-74 Nixon Vietnam ceasefire. 1973 Allende toppled; Dictator Pinochet installed in Chile
1974-76 Ford 1975 Saigon falls. Vietnam is entirely 'communist.' Probably this was inevitable.

Islamic Problems; three major events, early on.

1977-80 Carter. 1979 Soviets invade Afghanistan. Shah of Iran falls (gentle push from US). 1979 Khomeini takes over Iran. Hostages seized by 'militants.' 1980 Iraq attacks Iran; long war begins.

1) US was friendly to Khomeini takeover. Carter must bear some blame.


1981-1988 Reagan. Iraq having attacked Iran in 1980, and received US support till the ceasefire in 1988. 2) Saddam having come to power in the 1970s (Nixon/Ford times) is armed and strengthened in this period.

Reagan and Brits help create first 'monster.'

Reagan also sells arms to Iran (Iran gate).

1983 Beirut terrorist attack on US marines

Soviets had invaded Afghanistan in 1979, and eventully withdrew in 1989. 3) In this period, the Taliban was aided and strenghthened by the US, since the Soviets would be hurt by the loss.

US, Pakistan, CIA etc help create the second monster.

1989-1992 Bush. Afghan president deposed.
1990 Iraq, given a green light, through US ambassador, attacked Kuwait.
1991 Bush, with support, orders attack on Iraq. Then sends troops. Liberates Kuwait, and gets within striking distance of Baghdad. (Could have deposed Saddam)

The decisive action of Bush has mixed results. If 'Saddam' was the evil Hitler, *he was not weakened in his grip on power. Further consolidated power against other factions. The Iraq nation was weakened, and thousands of its people died in the embargo.

1993-2000 Clinton.

1992 US offers (and sends) troops in support of UN in Somalia, to distribute food. Troops take casualties; withdrawn 1994. Somalia without effective central goverment.

1993 WTC superbomb.

1996 Taliban in Kabul.

While Clinton did far too little, the main threats 2)[Saddam] and 3) [Taliban] emerged under Republican rule.

I will agree that Republican have often taken 'decisive' military action, as in Reagan invading Grenada. But the general policies, esp. of Reagan, were often not *wise* and aided enemies.

Sound familiar? Bush Jr. has arguably aided terrorists' cause in many areas, including Iraq. Hurt Taliban/Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, to be sure.

There is plenty of blame/resposibility to go around. Overall, however, many problems originated in the proto-neo-conservative actions of the Reagan era.

As to how these facts are perceived, that's another matter.

As to the 'soft on' charges. Much of the problem is the limits of US influence, and inevitable ebbing of US dominance in World History. The setbacks are seen as preventable 'losses' --due to bungling, 'softness', or traitorous activity. Domestic scapegoats, the traitors, are sought, esp. by Republicans, and their public defilement and punishment are thought to be purifying of the body politic.

J.

===
Colleen said,



One of the more interesting facets of this all is perception of the public. When we got hit there was demand that we do something about it. Bush did something. The appropriateness or inappropriateness of that response is debateable, but action was taken.

During the Clinton Years when we got hit, no action was taken. You may again argue the approriateness or inappropriatness of the Clinton administration's response. One could even argue that fighting terrorism is mostly an intelligence war and that the Clinton White house may very well have taken lots of concrete action. But the public perception is that he did nothing.

A military response, whatever you personal opinion on the effectiveness of such a response is what the public wanted. Bush gave them that, in spades.

Considering the Foerign Policy of the two parties in recent years you get:

Carter: Iran hostage Crisis: Lots of negotiaion: Failed military response

Regan: several terroritst issues: bombing oflybia, forced landing of plane carrying pal terrorists from the cruise ship, invasion of grenada etc.

Bursh Sr. : Saddam's invasion of Kuwait: Gulf war I

Clinton: bombing of trade center: Lots of rhetoric:
Somalia: Military embarasment and public outrage
Bosnia: some diplomacy, some troops, a lot of helplessness

Bush Jr.: 9/11: invasion of afghanistan, war on iraq

That's pretty much the recent memory of most folks. It isn't hard to see how the democrats can be easily painted as militarily inept and non proactive. Non reactive as well. In fact you can see how it is easy to paint them as soft on terrorism. Their record is extremely bad on both action and results.

The GOP can point to action taken and victories. Imperfect or even inconsequential as those victories may have been. {my emphasis, pure}

[end]

 

[Colleen Thomas]

My observations were general pure. Not how conservatives or moderates or liberals see things, but merely how I percieve the populous in general to percieve things.

Military responses stick in you rmind. Military blunders do too. Diplomatic victories, unless truely monumental do not. And intelliegence vicotires, more often than not, never see the light of day and reach the public conciousness.

Like it or no, foerign policy is not the Democrat's bread and butter. They hang thier hats on domestic issues. Conversely the Republican's emphasise their foerign policy victories and you can include military action in those, while avoiding domestic issues when possible.

The Democratic party is soft on crime. They were soft on communism. They will be soft on terrorism. That is just the way it is. That isn't because of any particular action or non action, it's because the word soft is intentionally vague. My pillow is soft, my bed is soft, my ass is soft, the look on Renza J's face in her av is soft, Dits's breast looked soft in her av, I put softener in my was to make my clothes soft.

Does that mean the Democratic party's stance on terrorism is comperable to Renza's expression, Dita's tit, the skin on my ass or my clothes? No. The term soft here is used as a comparative to the republican stance which is hard.

The democratic party is filled with liberals, it makes sense that their stance on most any issue is "softer" than that of the republicans. The choice of soft and hard here is a conciet. Being hard or "Tough" appeals to men, Being soft is seen as a feminine trait. It is not accedental that the Dems are labled as soft. It's an intentional play on the connotations of the words. And it's aimed at appealing to men, specifically to "Manly men".

-Colly

 

[Pure]

Colly said,

The Democratic party is soft on crime. They were soft on communism. They will be soft on terrorism. That is just the way it is. That isn't because of any particular action or non action, it's because the word soft is intentionally vague. My pillow is soft, my bed is soft, my ass is soft, the look on Renza J's face in her av is soft, Dits's breast looked soft in her av, I put softener in my was to make my clothes soft.

I do see the point of your analysis, and also agree with your later remark about Rep'n appeals to 'manly men', whose right to rule the 'pussies' of the world (both genders) is unquestioned.


The choice of soft and hard here is a conceit. Being hard or "Tough" appeals to men, Being soft is seen as a feminine trait. It is not accidental that the Dems are labled as soft. It's an intentional play on the connotations of the words. And it's aimed at appealing to men, specifically to "Manly men".


That said, and *accepting the Rep'n definitions of 'tough' and 'hard', as related to military actions, they don't seem to fit.

The Korean War, and Vietnam war were the largest military efforts against 'evil', i.e. 'communism'. Essentially launched by dems.

I do agree that in the present period, the Iraq invasion looks 'hard' and 'tough' and 'manly'. What the 'manly' ones often realize, after a few years of 'manly' sacrifice is that the 'manly' leaders don't know what the fuck they're doing!

What's odd, though, is that our 'manly' leader has a pretty unmanly history, including draft avoidance. The anti-military pussy, actually faced the bullets of the commies, though as the cons point out (from their safe vantage point), the wounds were 'minor'. The other guy's wounds always are, ya know.

As the bios show, Kerry is not unlike Kennedy in cultivating 'manliness' almost to excess (i.e., foolishness, which Kerry was accused of in some of his Vietnam acts.)

In the 'manly' contest, the spin drs. and image makers will carry the day.

PS. To change the subject slightly: Tough on teen crime and misbehavior , lately a hot slogan, often equates to "Send them to boot camps; strict military discipline and harsh physical training."

This having been done for a few years, there is now some evidence, that the result is often: Toughening the young delinquents, without changing their favored pursuits; making them stronger and more fit; AND training them to organize, follow leaders (or lead)--- all useful skills for the 'tough' world of guns, drugs, and crime. The gains of a 'tough' approach, in terms of recidivism, have proven somewhat doubtful. OTOH, if young gangstas could be turned into... pussies, wouldn't the world be safer?

 

[Colleen Thomas]

The Korean war, the vietnam war, these things are as remote as Kubli Khan and Attilla to most people today. You average kid coming out of high school today knows less about the history of his country than I did when I was 11.

I went back only as far as Carter intentionally, because that's as far back as my memories really go. I only vaguely remember Ford and Nixxion I know only from studying history. Some of the population remember vietnam, some can remember Korea and a small number even remember World war II.

These are not however recent events. In recent times the Dems have not done much in the foerign policy arena that stands out as particualarly memorable. Certainly they have done nothing bold or successful militarily.

When no memory of action is present, the human mind will easily leap to the conclusion of no action was taken. Our minds are lazy that way. When the action taken was a spectacular failure, we will remember that, with all it's negative connotations. When it was a success, we will tend to remember the victory and forget about the costs.

It is just the way the human mind is wired. Just like you can not remember pain. You can remember being hurt, but you cannot actually remember the pain. Spin doctors & propagandists from both parties are intimately aware of how the human mind stores and processes information. They take full advantage of it. The best propaganda & the best spin aren't lies, they are the truth, unvarnished, but the secret is in emphasizing what you want remembered and deemphasizing that which you do not.

A perfect example is your man Kerry. The spin doctors don't try to tell us he didn't go to vietnam, or that he wasn't wounded, they instead emphasize the minor nature of the wounds, then jump to the real meat, his anti-military stance when he came home. The even smoother ones point out that he testified he saw atrocitites, but then show he never reported them to his commanding officer. They leave you to make a simple choice.

A. He is an unabashed liar and simply told of atrocities he had heard about but never witnessed. Thus he is a liar.

B. He failed utterly to do the responsible thing and report it, which he was honor bound to do as an officer. Thus he has no honor.

That's how spin works. No lie is told. You just emphasize what you want, present those facts you want considered, and leave the reader to make their own judgement. Of course the reader has been subtly manuvered into a position where either choice they make suits you fine as both are unflattering to Candidate Kerry.

-Colly

 

[amicus]

Human Liberty

After reading all the preceeding posts, I venture with trepidation into the fray.

The first order of business is to offer a sincere appreciation to those who have chosen to offer opinions...it was enjoyable reading on one hand...but rather painful on the other.

Ayn Rand is without question, the most influential Philosopher/Author, world wide...in the past century. I feel safe saying that as no one of even near her stature comes even close to second place.

That is not to say one should, 'believe' in Ayn Rand, or her philosophy, Objectivism; she was not perfect, she erred in many ways and many have offered criticism.

What Ayn Rand did, that was of such great importance, was to finally and fully raise the basic and fundamental questions concerning the nature of man totally absent the existence of a supreme being and a 'divine' morality, or code of ethics.

How does man judge right and wrong, truth and falsity, between knowledge and faith? Can the human mind perceive truth? Does absolute reality exist and can we perceive and act upon it?

In other words, can we, mankind, 'know' what is 'right' and what is 'wrong' and can we live by it?

The World Trade Center attack, Liberals and Conservatives, the History of Partisan Politics in Washington D.C. and around the world for the past century, are all fine subjects for partisan disagreement. And if you advocate that there is no, 'absolute' truth, that all opinions are equally valid, that no one can, 'know', then it remains just that...a Partisan debate between believer's of one 'faith' Left/Right Christian/Muslim, or another...and then there are no answers.

Ayn Rand, along with the discredited Nathaniel Brandon, her 'intellectual heir', (her own words), delved deeply into human psychology. The one point I want to put forth is Rand's concept, that, "...the human mind cannot function in a healthy, rational, logical way, if reality and the existence of absolutes, is denied."


I have personally observed every Presidential election since 1956 and professionally (on radio and in print) commented on each. At every election, each side screams it will be the end of civilization as we know it...if the other guy is elected. Turns out that wasn't so then and it is not now.

There is, however, a moral crisis approaching, one I predict will be as devastating as Christianity was to the remaining Greek and Roman civilizations. It brought about a thousand year long dark ages.

Unthinkable now, you say. Perhaps. But what I see building is a world wide Muslim/Christian confrontation, with sidebars of racial conflict and a renewal or intensification of East/West conflict.

At the core of this approaching crisis are our very best and brightest, some of whom speak in this forum...who will not take and defend, an 'absolute' position on any issue.

Those 'faith based' entities are 'absolute' in their, 'faith'. Those who advocate White Supremacy or Black Supremacy or Asian Supremacy, are also 'absolute' in their quests. They know they are, 'right' in their God's eyes, be it Marx or Kant, Christ, Allah or Gautama Buddha...and they are sacrificing their lives for that faith.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, those intelligent, educated, unfocused individuals wallow about in a world of relativity where nothing is right or wrong and no stands are taken on anything.

Perhaps Humanity is another thousand years or so away from that so easy fundamental axiom: Human life is the supreme value from which all other values proceed; and the rights to that life and the freedom to live it are innate and possessed by all.

Old Tom Jefferson and John Stuart Mill said it somewhat differently but I do not plagarize.

I leave it at this...."Reality exists and it can be perceived without contradiction" That may be a paraphrase of Ayn Rand...if so, credit is given...

regards...amicus...

 

[shereads]

He is a decorated soldier and was wounded, but in conservative papers you will see the assertion again and again that his war wounds were scratches

I haven't been able to stomach any "conservative" comments about a man's war wounds since Ann Coulter's disgusting comments about Max Cleland. The fact is, Cleland and Kerry and even Bill Clinton, who was anti-war and said so, each followed his conscience. The Bush administration consists of two hawks, both of whom verbally supported the war in Vietnam and both of whom managed to keep their precious asses out of the line of fire.

Kerry's wounds are "scratches?" Would he be worthy of conservatives' respect if he had lost limbs, like Max Cleland? No, Cleland is also worthless. Anybody who points out the fact that the emperor has no clothes embarrasses Republicans and other Bush voters. The response is to attack their credibility and courage.

Molly Ivans was right: "The clothes have no emperor."

-Colly [/B][/QUOTE]

 

[Pure]

Hi Amicus,

you said,

What Ayn Rand did, that was of such great importance, was to finally and fully raise the basic and fundamental questions concerning the nature of man totally absent the existence of a supreme being and a 'divine' morality, or code of ethics.

The ethical implications of atheism had been dealt with by Nietzsche and Dostoevsky (If God is dead, every thing is permitted.) among others, as far back as Sade. Camus and Sartre dealt with the questions. Rand's answers of rugged individualism, self regard, and unrestrained capitalism are not among the strongest.

How does man judge right and wrong, truth and falsity, between knowledge and faith? Can the human mind perceive truth? Does absolute reality exist and can we perceive and act upon it?

The possibility of 'objective truth' has long been debated. It's unclear how affirming it's there is supposed to save civilization. Or, let me put it this way. I'm pretty sure I have in my possession lots of 'objective/absolute truth', but I'm not so sure about you.

In other words, can we, mankind, 'know' what is 'right' and what is 'wrong' and can we live by it?

The 'in other words' hides a *large gap. Assuming I knew the 'objective truth' of things, their 'absolute reality,' how would that tell me what to do. Do I dig a hole and crawl in, or do I follow Sysphus' example, and conduct an 'absurd' struggle.

As to the dangers of 'relativism' in morals, the popes of the last 200 years have been warning about it, before Ayn Rand. Again, they're pretty convinced of the 'absolute' justification of their morals, but I modestly think mine are closer. How would one decide?

In terms of this thread, and the US society's and US presidents' appreciation of external threats, be they communist or terrorist. Well we've got a prez now who thinks in terms of absolutes. Although he has his defenders, it's far from clear if he'll make more of a difference that allegedly relativist Billy C.

Reagan dealt in absolutes, and managed to fund both Saddam AND Iran, and extend a helping hand to the Taliban. In foreign policy, absolutes don't take you very far -- neither does complete imperialism or opportunism, of course.

The libertarians, who are kin to Rand, imo, in my impression have a number of good positions regarding civil liberties, and protecting citizens from arbitrary state measures. Also they're good on church state separation. They're *terrible however on giant companies and multination conglomates. They tend not to see a "Halliburton" problem.

 

[Somme]

A long article that may interest...?

http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_6058.shtml#top

 

[amicus]

a continuation...?

Dear Pure....I know you do not expect me to be ignorant of the writings of F. Neitzche and F.M. Dostoevsky; Sade I do not consider relevant and the existentialists J.P. Sartre and A.Camus are more kin to the Nihilists and Kierkegard, oh well...than to existentialism in my view...but...enough name dropping if you agree...

Historiography...the study behind the historians..also applies to philosophy...and the lives of the men and women who thought in serious terms...also play a part...

My intent in replying to this thread...was to expand the discussion..to leave the mundane partisan left/right debate, and look at the essential nature of the differences between 'thinking' people...it seems I did not achieve my goal....

Your references to Rand, Reagan and Libertarians...is telling to me...you have an agenda...a political one...I seek to go beneath that...to discover if one's fundamental assumptions are based on logic and reason...or on faith or family preference...upbringing, or an amicable professor in college....

I would not defend the efficacy of the search for truth and knowledge...to me..it is self evident...my point was...if you do not acknowledge that 'truth', 'reality' exists..and can be comprehended..then we...indeed...no one...can communicate in any real sense...

regards...amicus...

 

[amicus]

Fraud in Florida?

I stopped reading your posted url at that point...this is not a political issue, rather a philosophical one....