Cutting Off An Arm to Cure A Brain Tumor
That's pretty much what George Bush did, in going to war with Iraq, as supposed retribution for 9-11. I'm not one of those doves who thought we should sit around picking our collective nose after the WTC and the Pentagon were attacked. But it made sense to me to go directly after Bin Laden. And yes, we have done a humanitarian thing, freeing the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein. And I support our military people fighting in Iraq (and even sent the soldiers a case of tuna fish [via an army chaplain]) and I have a box of goods I'm packing to send to an orphanage in Iraq (per the suggestion of another army chaplain [via a blog ad on Instapundit]).
That said, there are many countries that could use a humanitarian overthrow of their repressive, murderous, and anti-democratic regimes. If it's on that basis we went into Iraq, we have a whole lot of other countries to invade. If it's truly about Weapons Of Mass Destruction; well, when are we going to take over North Korea?
Former Security Advisor Richard Clarke has a few harsh words (on 60 Minutes Sunday night) for the Bush administration about how they ignored pre-9/11 warnings about al Qaeda, and about their manic panic to find justifications for invading Iraq:
"Frankly," he said, "I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11. Maybe. We'll never know."Clarke went on to say, "I think he's done a terrible job on the war against terrorism."
Is the Bush administration as tough on terror as they make themselves out to be? Probably not. But they sure are hell on DJs and rock stars using dirty words! (Unfortunately, it's airborne bio-weapons, not flying fucks, that we really need to worry about.)
Finally, the truth is out! I've been so bitter over the whole issue, frankly. Even as the towers of the WTC were crumbling, there was a mad dash among Republicans to blame Clinton, such as Sen. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) and Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah). Gingrich joined in, and so did Limbaugh, Hannity and the rest of the lying zoo crew. To say nothing of the fact that Cheney and his ventriloquist dummy Dubya (emphasis on "dummy") blocked every investigation into the security leaks that led to 9/11.
Vote 'em out, folks. I don't care if they produce bin Laden on a silver platter. Vote them out! They are failures across the board. National security, health care, education, the economy. Name one area that they haven't failed in.
Patrick at March 21, 2004 8:47 PM
Clark's bitching will likely melt under the glare of dispassionate review, as did O'Neill's (from the selfsame venue) a couple months ago. These old beltway fucks get pissy when they retire. Nothing to get rattled about.
Clinton squirted a few missiles and called it a night; Bush liberated 50 million Muslims from tyranny, pulled us out of Saudi Arabia, rattled the poisons from Libya and set the Iranian mullahs on edge. Who do you think history will judge harshly?
Crid at March 21, 2004 9:28 PM
Who do I think history will judge harshly? Probably Dubya. Clinton will be a bit of a conundrum to the historians of tomorrow. They will wonder why the Lewinsky scandal was hyperboled out of all reason. As for Clinton's anti-terrorism record, you need to research the facts a little better, Crid. The hostile Republican congress stonewalled virtually everything Clinton attempted to do to fight the terrorist threat.
In spite of opposition from a Congress who thought more of opposing Clinton with their dozen or so hostile investigations than for the good of our nation, Clinton still accomplished much.
Clinton developed the nation's first anti-terrorism policy, and appointed first national coordinator of anti-terrorist efforts. He also stopped cold the al Qaeda millennium bombing plot and ordered the assassination of Osama bin Laden and disrupt Al Qaeda through preemptive strikes (efforts denounced by the G.O.P.). Most importantly, he brought perpetrators of first World Trade Center bombing and CIA killings to justice, which enabled him to thwart a number of other terrorist plots, such as those to blow up the George Washington bridge, the Lincoln and the Holland tunnels. Clinton also named the Hart-Rudman commission to report on nature of terrorist threats and major steps to be taken to combat terrorism.
George Dubya Bush, by contrast, prior to 9/11, has a legacy of neglect that should serve at least as considerable embarassment. Why do you think he was fighting so diligently to block every investigation into the security leaks that allowed 9/11 to happen?
He backed off Clinton administration's anti-terrorism efforts and shelved Hart-Rudman report. While spending three out of his first seven months, he appointed new anti-terrorism task force under Dick Cheney, which never held a meeting before 9/11. He called for cuts in anti-terrorism efforts by the Department of Defense, in contrast with Clinton who TRIPLED the counterterrorism budget for the FBI and doubled anti-terrorism funding overall. He gave no priority to anti-terrorism efforts by Justice Department, and ignored warnings from Sandy Berger and Louis Freeh about the urgency of terrorist threats. He also halted Predator drone tracking of Osama bin Laden. He also did nothing in wake of August 6 C.I.A. report to president saying Al Qaeda attack almost certain. By failing to order any coordination of intelligence data, missed opportunity to stop the 9/11 plot as Clinton had stopped the millennium plot.
History will remember this as a time when partisanship stood in the way of national security, and a time we paid dearly for it. And if we continue on this present track, it will also remember this as a time when we didn't learn from our mistakes. They will also look at Bush and wonder how such a moron managed to get into the White House.
Patrick at March 22, 2004 4:38 AM
>> Clinton developed the nation's first anti-terrorism policy...
Um... It didn't work. Liberals, like Europeans, are enchanted with "policy," and consensus, and technocracy. But no clear thinker is ever going to believe that Clinton is less responsible than Bush for the atrocities of 9-11. As the Democratic revisionism machine swings in to high gear, isn't interesting to learn that CBS was selling its own books with Clarke's interview last night? A Twofer!
Crid at March 22, 2004 10:50 AM
Richard Clarke, your glass house is waiting.
Take a look at Mr. Clarke's Clinton Administration record, look into why the Bush administration fired him and then ask why he's suddenly so vehement. Oh, and ask why he'd be saying some of these things if he wasn't an adjunct member of the Kerry campaign.
I'm not saying anything, I'm just sayin'.
Jeff at March 22, 2004 3:46 PM
Crid: >>But no clear thinker is ever going to believe that Clinton is less responsible than Bush for the atrocities of 9-11.<<
Dream on, Crid. Oh, by the way, about CBS having a stake in the publication in Clarke's book, why yes. CBS will have to sell at least 10 seconds of airtime in one commercial to equal what they stand to make from the sale of Clarke's book.
I notice that you pretend not to read my listing of Clinton's accomplishments and instances of Bush's negligence. It's okay. I've come to expect that from you, actually. When you don't have an adequate response to an argument, you simply pretend it never got posted. That's fine. That's TWO areas you've been demolished in: Gay marriage and the president's soi-disant war on terrorism.
Patrick at March 22, 2004 7:26 PM
Speaking of intelligence, terrorism and oil....oh did I say oil? The New Yorker had a penetrating article post the Iraqui invasion that details U.S. acceptance of flawed British intelligence documents in exchange for pipeline routes. I wonder if information of this nature has anything to do with Tony Blair and Dubyous scrambling to cover up their snafus.
Sheryl at March 22, 2004 8:39 PM
I find it very liberating to identify neither as a Democrat or a Republican, liberal or conservative. At best, I'm libertarian...ish. What's disappointing is the partisanship I see -- everybody from the ordinary Joe to talk radio hosts standing up for everything the Republicans do because they're Republicans, or everything the Democrats do iif they're Democrats. It's extremely damaging and dishonest. I like Larry Elder, for example, and feel he's right on many issues. But he's an example of somebody who bends over backward to stand up for George Bush -- and I respect him less because he does that. Too many people suspend their ability to reason in a very junior high-esque effort to root for their "team." Unfortunately, the world (and national) situation at the moment, is a little more dire than the seventh-grade state soccer championship.
Amy Alkon at March 23, 2004 4:18 AM
Beautifully said Amy.
Those have been my sentiments for a long time as well. The Republicans, Dems all suspend their thinking to follow in lock step with each other on issues. I don't identify with any party, and wouldn't want to. I find it interesting, people debate about Bush and Clinton, they're both horrible. But people always find, and have deep seated emotional reasons, to find reasons to believe and so every 2 or 4 years we get the new dog and pony show and people are able to renew their inexhaustable faith in the new buffoon. Of course it's part of the good citizenship training that we received as children to always take seriously and participate fully in the political process. I think the great philospher George Carlin has it right. Paraphrasing-I figured out a long time ago that people are fucked and nothing that we do is gonna change that. All the rest is just wishful thinking, hope and fantasy.
chris at March 23, 2004 8:07 AM
this says it all:
http://206.14.217.112/thoughts/doc1083.html
Kim L. Ground at March 23, 2004 11:03 AM
Contention is underated. I like polarity. Teams are picked for a reason. Time and again partisanship is bemoaned by an author transparently distressed that someone has chosen a team besides his own. Shortly thereafter he mumbles that this freedom thing is getting out of hand, because no one could POSSIBLY reach another conclusion from the information he's provided... Nor should they be *allowed* to.
"We are the world" is not just a shitty song with an inane lyric; the sentiment sucks as well.
Crid at March 23, 2004 3:48 PM
hey Kim -- I checked out that website. Paris is a fucking babe. Lena
Lena at March 23, 2004 10:21 PM
Maybe we are so polarized because the citizens are the only ones who seem to be doing any meaningful debating. If you ever watch the Britsh Parliment it is a rousing mish-mash of ideas held up to ridicule or acceptance. The members are generally very articulate and are accountable for every word and thought. Here our politicians hide behind podiums and snipe in sound bites at each other.
Also, I completely understand the partisanship we are seeing today. There is desperation amongst tens of millions of us over the policies of this administration that are only in the best interests of a very few. If Bush is given another four years, I think we should storm the gates of the White House and have a French style revolution.
(Note to the secret service: This is just a light hearted comment and should be in no way taken as a threat to do harm to any member of the government.)
eric at March 24, 2004 9:53 AM