9/11 Report Undermines Bush’s Case for War and his 9/11 Spin
The final report of the 9/11 commission confirms many of the panel’s preliminary findings that have–or should have–embarrassed the Bush administration. The commission does note, “Our aim has not been to assign individual blame. Our aim has been to provide the fullest possible account of the events surrounding 9/11 and to identify lessons learned.” And it is true that the report does point to screw-ups and negligent policymaking committed during both the Bush II and Clinton administrations. But George W. Bush is the incumbent president who has to face the voters in November. Although Republicans in recent days have been highlighting the mistakes of the Clinton years, it is not inappropriate for voters to focus on what report tells us about Bush and his administration. As a public service, here is a look at several of those critical portions….
next post: Shining, Happy People: The Dems Hit Boston
The thing that pisses me off about this whole deal is the refusal by anyone - Kerry, Bush, the 9/11 Commission, Tucker Carlson, David Corn, Mick Jagger, Alfonzo Soriano, Barbara Bach, Loren Maazel, Mr. Noodle, etc., etc. - to address the most important issue at hand, that being, why are the terrorists coming after the US and not, say, Germany? Is it because they hate us and our freedoms or because they hate the way America fucks the world over on a daily basis?
Comment by Romdinstler Jones — 7/23/2004 @ 6:53 am
Right on Romdinstler Jones! We have been too involved in Saudi Arabia and Israel for the Arabian and Muslim world. Rightly or wrongly, we are perceived as against Islam (which equals the religiosity of a Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell here in the USA). Osama Bin Laden and al Qaeda has been telling us that our presence in the Middle East was resented. Where our country really fucked up was in Iran. We were (and in some circles there still are) thought highly of in Iran. Because they insist that they have the right to pursue nuclear weapons our country’s leaders will want us to see Iran as the enemy. We in fact are not. Our involvement in Saudi Arabia created hatred of America not because of religion but because exploitation of the oil interest. The people were hurt by the Saud government. The same could be said of Iran. The fallout of Iraq remains to be seen. All this turmoil because of oil. American has no one to blame but itself when it comes to hatred among the Arabs and Persians. The 9/11 report reveals no new news. The report simply informs the public about what our leadership has done on our behalf (oops, I mean on the behalf of our oil corporations).
Comment by Joe Tully — 7/23/2004 @ 8:36 am
It seems to be a quandy that so much time, effort and money is being spent to sway the votes of such a small percentage of the population. Both political parties are going full out to cajole, beg, borrow, steal, frighten or outright lie for the votes of the mere million or so people who’ll make the difference in the upcoming Presidential election.
I got spammed today, forwarded from a former soldier who’s now a nurse in my hospital ER. It was a long diatribe ostensibly by a USAF pilot who claimed to have encountered JF Kerry while flying him around SE Asia during one of his MIA, POW efforts. It made a point of emphasising that he ate some of the crew’s pizza, complained about the temperature in the plane and didn’t show any enthusiasm toward the pilot’s 25′ sailboat in Okinawa. “Who do YOU want for a President?” it asked, (paraphasing here)
“…an ultra-rich bleeding heart who snobbily complains about the heat, or a God-fearing man of the people, dedicated to keeping this nation safe from fundamental religious fanatics.”
I then got spammed by a cousin, with the same letter, but with a different author’s name attatched. Neither note mentioned any praise for Kerry being there in the first place, attempting to solve the mysteries of many still missing MIA/POW’s. Black or White, no room for gray.
I noticed a letter to the editor of “The Greenville News” on Wednesday 7/21 that started out: “Just exactly what marriage will mean a year fro now is anybody’s guess. But Sen Ernest “Fritz” Hollings of South Carolina is partly to blame for the uncertainty.” Submitted by “Rebecca J. Wood of Mauldin, SC”
On the same day USA Today Published this: “Just exactly what marriage will mean a year from now is anybody’s guess. But Senator Hillary Clinton…etc. -from somebody in New York. I’m sure facimilies appeared in countless newspapers across the country.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that it saddens me the way so many people choose a spokesperson from one side or the other and just reguritate their word and opinions as their own. I guess that is the nature of a “ditto-head” or “Air Rational Guardsperson” these days.
I’d like to thank all of you who bother to put it in your own words, even when quoting others, no matter what side of an issue you find yourselves on. So many of you express your minds so much more eloquently than I. This forum has travelled a long way in the recent past from “see post #87, you Socialist Fellator” and “So’s yer ‘old lady!”
It is a pleasure to read and, occasionally, contribute.
-Tom Hodges,
Pickens, SC
Comment by Hajji — 7/23/2004 @ 9:26 am
While it is objectively true that anyone who actually reads the report and is otherwise well informed and thoughtful would find it deeply embarassing to Mr. Bush, that is not the story the people are hearing. From the NYT to the network news to NPR to my hometown bird cage liner The Boston Globe, the story is the same: the report is good news for Bush, it exonerates him of all blame. And he has taken the podium to say so himself. Of course we’ll have the he said-she said aftermath, “The report really means it’s Bush’s fault,” “No it really means it’s Clinton’s fault,” and the commissioners themselves have decided to take the united public stand that it’s nobody’s fault. So there you are then.
Comment by Bart Laws — 7/23/2004 @ 9:43 am
David,
The interesting thing about this report, or at least the coverage thereof, is that we need to take into account the “official” story, but then juxtapose that against what is not being told to us. For instance, what is in the 28 pages redacted from the Senate Intelligence Committee report? What is the relationship between Pakistan, the ISI, Kaleed Sheik Muhammad and 9/11- which obviously, given KSM important role in 9/11, there must be more to this story than is being told (and if we really want a complete picture, we must be able to understand this particular relationship in full). Even further, what’s Iran and Saudi Arabia’s relationship to 9/11. Aside from the obvious in Saudi Arabias case (i.e. 15 of the 19 highjackers being from there), what are the official roles. The severe derth of attention being paid to either of these nations is, to a healthy skeptic, something that must be explored more vigorously, especially given that we have so many indicators, both historical and specific about their relationships to terrorism. Moreover, one should also look at an seriously contemplate the non-official records, such as the book Imperial Hubris, which further bolsters the notion that we are looking at this whole “debacle", if you will, the wrong way. For instance, BushCo’s ability to cast this whole thing in ‘good’ v.s. ‘evil’ completely distorts the reality and complexity of the situation. As pointed out by I.H, and by others such as former career CIA agent Ray McGovern, but has already been well known for centuries, is that, these middle eastern countries are theocracies and as such they have a fundamentally different perspective than we do and, accordingly, the end result being they do not hate us for our being “free” (which is both a simplistic and purile understanding of complex issues Mr. Bush), but rather, they hate our policies, and helicopters, and warships which they perceive as coming to take over their lands. And, I might add, by invading Iraq, we have only confirmed their worst suspicions. Last night on C-span, McGovern pointed out also the relationship between pulic preaching by Christian religious fundamentalists such as Falwell aid to this negative perception since most Muslims (who undesrstand life in terms of theocracy) do not draw any differences from religious prostheltyzing and governmental rhetoric, though over the past four years, neither have I. In short, if one truly wants to begin to understand this situation we find ourselves in without feeling the need to be partisan, it would help by not reading these reports as passive observers (nor would it help by just philosophising over it either), but by seeking out what is not being said and trying to understand this in terms of how governments act (always in terms of power- which is not necessarily in line with public good) and with the understanding that there is an essential need to go beyond mainstream media to get the full story. Which, from my own academic training, requires a less partisan framework and the ability to step back from our own preconceived biases. Only then can one truly appreciate the enormous complexity of the current state of affairs.
John Reitzel
Comment by John Reitzel — 7/23/2004 @ 9:46 am
David,
Just to add a bit more blabbering to your blog than I already have…a few more key points, of which you touch on are really important in this whole mess. First, the fact that both Richard Clarke and George Tenet were stonewalled even though their “hair was on fire” over Al Queda (pre 9/11)– the administrations unwillingness to take them very seriously points to two things, a very different agenda as being pushed by Wolfowitz and other neocons (Wolfowitz is quoted as having said so himself), and relatedly, because the administration had other pre 9/11 priorities, it is any wonder that a PDB entitled “bin Laden determined to strike inside the US” was not treated with the gravity that had it might if one were not predisposed to an extreme ideological vision (not to be mistaken with a sound vision of advancing U.S. society). There are also credible reports that suggest that FBI agent (forgot name) blocked investigations into Zacharias Moussoui even after he was arrested, that at least five of the hijackers had used false passports and other id’s and may not be who are listed as the official terrorists for 9/11. Couple this by the many points you make and those I made above and one begins to get a strong sense of an alternative story that certainly needs to be put together. While I am no conspiracy theorist (Im an academic by trade), I cannot ignore the many loose ends and the fact that there is much more information that we “know we don’t know” and perhaps even more that we don’t know that we don’t even know (to steal a line from Rummy), that is really troublesome for me.
John Reitzel
Comment by John Reitzel — 7/23/2004 @ 10:26 am
If Bush wants this election to be a referendum on how he has handled the threat posed by al Qaeda, this report–available now in local bookstores and online at the 9/11 commission’s site–ought to be read by those 49 swing voters in Ohio who will be deciding the election for the rest of us. David Corn
Isn’t this one of the most poignant calls for the elimination of the electoral college and the move to a truly national electoral system you’ve heard in a while? Whether of not Mr. Corn intended it to be, I’m not sure.
Comment by Robert Schwartz — 7/23/2004 @ 10:28 am
David, your ‘Ohio 49-swing voter’-comment was both clever and frightening when you consider how true it may work out to be. I gave mention of your Nation article at my weblog today. The video of those seven “My Pet Goat ate my Decisiveness” moments in that classrrom on the morning of 9/11 should also be viewed by the “Ohio-49″ .
Comment by Iddybud (Jude) — 7/23/2004 @ 10:59 am
YOU GUYS ARE ALL A BUNCH OF HATING AMERICA LEFTYS!!. I AM NOT BLAMING CLINTON OR BUSH ON 9/11, HOWEVER, I FIND IT EXTREMELY IRONIC THAT DAVID CORN, WHO WAS AGAINST THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN WOULD BE LOW ENOUGH TO BLAME BUSH ON 9/11. I WILL TELL YOU THIS, BILL CLINTON HAD 12 OPPORTUNITIES TO CAPTURE OR KILL OSAMA BIN LADEN. HE WAS OFFERED BIN LADEN 4 TIMES ON A SILVER PLATTER BY THE SAUDIS AND REFUSED THE OFFERS. HE DIDN’T DO SHIT AFTER THE 1993 WORLD TRADE CENTER BOMBINGS, THE 2 US EMBASSYS IN AFRICA OR THE USS COLE BOMBING ALL DONE BY ALQEADA. BIN LADEN WAS EVEN SHOWN ON REAL TIME TV, AND CLINTON HAD MANY CHANCES TO TAKE HIM OUT, BUT INSTEAD, HE WAS TOO WORRIED ABOUT CIVILLIANS LOL. I’M NOT SAYING 9/11 WOULDNT HAVE HAPPENED IF CLINTON WOULD OF GOTTEN BIN LADEN, BUT FOR GOD SAKE, HE HAD PLENTY OF TIMES TO GET HIM AND HE DIDN’T.
Comment by Tim L — 7/23/2004 @ 11:05 am
David,
Your article was coincident with thoughts I typed yesterday, and have had, as if we are beginning to see through the clouds of 9/11. Here is what I’ve said:
“As for the President’s strange behavior after being informed “America was under attack,” after the second jet hit the WTC, film footage is in Moore’s movie. Bush, and his security apparatus, had the President read a children’s book about a pet goat, despite NOT knowing if the attacks had ended, and despite NOT having yet given orders to shoot down any hijackers. Bush had NO questions after hearing the terrifying statement, “America is under attack,” he just sat there… If anyone else did this at their place of work during an unprecedented crisis, and it was all caught on tape, when thousands were literally burning alive in the WTC, and attacks could still be in progress, what would happen? This is not about left or right, but what people left, right, and center want from their government. Seconds could have literally meant tens-of-thousands of more lives, and both Bush and his trained security apparatus did nothing. The President himself was left vulnerable in a pre-disclosed location, surrounded by children, and not shuffled off. A children’s book was prioritized above national security, and by the look on Bush’s face, not with a clear conscience. After the frist jet hit the WTC Bush also attrbuted it to one terrible pilot, despite prior warnings(eg. Aug. 6th PDB, G-8 Genoa), and the symbolic significance of the WTC which had been attacked before.
Add the following:
Hold this fact in your mind:
The Honourable Paul Hellyer(sic), former National Defense Minister of Canada: “As a former Minister of National Defense, when the news came out I had to wonder. Why did airplanes fly around for an hour and a half without interceptors being scrambled from Andrews [Air Force Base]?”
Don’t you think it pushes credulity that four jets could be hijacked in heavily monitored U.S. air space, and that the nerve center for its defense(ie. Pentagon) could be struck approximately 45 minutes after the first two jets hit the WTC? Talk about a wake-up call: Two jets hitting the WTC. These jets went 1 1/2 hours without any confrontation. Think about it. It is enough to make you go hmmmmmmmmmmm… Standard procedure in the event of hijackings was not implemented…. Why???????
http://www.911citizenswatch.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&si d=344&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
In JUNE 2001, just a FEW MONTHS before 9/11, Rumsfeld assumed CONTROL over DECADES old procedures to scramble jet fighters in the event of hijackings. On 9/11 he was interestingly ‘out of the loop’, leaving America at risk:
Observer: “What’s more, the decades-old procedure for a quick response by the nation’s air defense had been changed in June of 2001. Now, instead of NORAD’s military commanders being able to issue the command to launch fighter jets, approval had to be sought from the civilian Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld. This change is extremely significant, because Mr. Rumsfeld claims to have been “out of the loop” nearly the entire morning of 9/11. He isn’t on the record as having given any orders that morning. In fact, he didn’t even go to the White House situation room; he had to walk to the window of his office in the Pentagon to see that the country’s military headquarters was in flames.”
Ground control was also rendered confused by military exercises, authorized, no doubt, by the Department of Defense:
http://www.observer.com/pages/frontpage2.asp
Did Rumsfeld have a motive for 1) Changing decades old protocol, 2)Assuming control over these powers, and 3) being ‘out of the loop’ on 9/11? What is the likelihood of this being chance, and the President priorityzing reading a children’s book after learning of an unprecedented national crisis?
A ‘catastrophic’ and ‘catalyzing’ event like a ‘new Pearl Harbor’…
ABC’s Nightline:
The Plan
Were Neo-Conservatives’ 1998 Memos a Blueprint for Iraq War?
March 10 — Years before George W. Bush entered the White House, and years before the Sept. 11 attacks set the direction of his presidency, a group of influential neo-conservatives hatched a plan to get Saddam Hussein out of power.
The group, the Project for the New American Century, or PNAC, was founded in 1997. Among its supporters were three Republican former officials who were sitting out the Democratic presidency of Bill Clinton: Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz.
In open letters to Clinton and GOP congressional leaders the next year, the group called for “the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power” and a shift toward a more assertive U.S. policy in the Middle East, including the use of force if necessary to unseat Saddam.
And in a report just before the 2000 election that would bring Bush to power, the group predicted that the shift would come about slowly, unless there were “some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor.”
That event came on Sept. 11, 2001. By that time, Cheney was vice president, Rumsfeld was secretary of defense, and Wolfowitz his deputy at the Pentagon.
The next morning — before it was even clear who was behind the attacks — Rumsfeld insisted at a Cabinet meeting that Saddam’s Iraq should be “a principal target of the first round of terrorism,” according to Bob Woodward’s book Bush At War.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/DailyNews/pnac_030310.html
Neri Yarkoni, former head of Israeli Civil Aviation Administration:
“The first two planes which hit the World Trade Center may have surprised the authorities, but he said the third plane should have been found and shot down before crashing into the Pentagon 45 minutes later.
Israeli warplanes would have been airborne within minutes, he said, while it took the U.S. air force an hour to launch its fighters. “We live in a different reality,” he explained. “Here, this is routine.”
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2001/09/12/israelisecurity.htm
In the nearly three years since the attacks there have been no attacks on U.S. soil even 1/4 the size of 9/11(ie. one jet or equivalent attack), despite an all out declaration of war against al-Quaeda, rogue states, and all other terrorist networks world-wide.
Comment by Emerson — 7/23/2004 @ 11:07 am
ACTUALLY, THE BIGGEST PERSON’S FAULT IS JANET RENO AND JAMIE GORELICK,(WHO IS SHOULD BE TAKING QUESTIONS, NOT ASKING THEM) WHEN SHE INITIATED THE STUPIDEST PLAN IN THE WORLD TO PUT A WALL TO SEPERATE THE CIA AND FBI. THOSE 2 ARE THE ONES THAT SHOULD BE BLAMED.
Comment by Tim L — 7/23/2004 @ 11:07 am
This is by far the most well researched, composed, and damning evidence against the Bush admin I have read in a public document.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1266317,00.html
There is evidence of foreign intelligence backing for the 9/11 hijackers. Why is the US government so keen to cover it up?
Regarding the conclusions of the 9/11 report Richard Clarke said it was typical Washington fare:
“To get unanimity they didn’t talk about a number of things, like what effect is the war in Iraq having on our battle against terrorism. Did the president pay any attention to terrorism during the first nine months of his administration? The controversial things, the controversial criticisms of the Clinton administration as well as the Bush administration just aren’t there. What they didn’t do is say that the country is actually not safer now than it was then because of the rise in terrorism after our invasion in Iraq.”
Comment by standa — 7/23/2004 @ 11:08 am
I admit to being generally conservative. I admit to thinking Saddam Hussein is an evil person. I admit to wishing BushCo wasn’t the standard bearer for ‘my’ point of view.
Of all the mistakes made in the lead up to 9/11, one wonders how many recomendations truly would have made a difference? Afghanistan and Pakistan were alredy under trade embargos. People were already complaining about gasoline prices. How much more pressure could the USA place on the Taliban? How much could any President dictate terms about Al Quaida to a Saudi Royal Family who essentially dictates oil prices?
I agree that BushCo should be gone. But I’m not convinced there was a path possible to prevent 9/11. (Not to pin this on any previous administration. It would be the sum of the last 3 or 4 administrations. More republicans than democats if you think about it…)
Comment by Charlotte McDonald — 7/23/2004 @ 11:08 am
IN FACT, WHEN ASKED IF 9/11 COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED, RICHARD CLARKE SAID “NO". SO THAT SETTLES IT.
Comment by Tim L — 7/23/2004 @ 11:13 am
And so, Tim, how exactly does that make the excellent, intelligent discourse shared above by Robert, John, Bart, and Tom the rantings and ravings of, as you so “eloquently” put it, “hating America Leftys” [sic]? My friend, my friend, my friend. I fear for our country whenever I contrast the rational conversations exemplified here with those angry, avoidant, superficial ravings that you have graced us with.
Let us all say it together again: dissent is patriotic. I love my country, and I protest the abuses of power by this current administration for precisely that reason. Please try to see out of your narrow box, or else I for one must really question why you bother to post here.
Comment by Karen in Texas — 7/23/2004 @ 11:13 am
Ask Romdinstler Jones and Joe Tully that Karen. This isn’t dissent, it is blaming America for why we were attacked. The terrorists hate us for what we stand for, not for what we do. STOP BLAMING AMERICA. ALSO, YOU GUYS NEED TO STOP BEING HYPOCRITES, WHEN ASKED IF 9/11 COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED, RICHARD CLARKE SAID “NO". BUT YET DAVID CORN USES HIM AND YOU GUYS USE HIM FOR YOU BLAMING BUSH ON 9/11.
Comment by Tim L — 7/23/2004 @ 11:19 am
ALSO, CLARKE HAS BEEN DISCREDITED BY THE 9/11 COMMISSION FOR BEING A LIAR. IN 2002, HE SAYS THAT THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION INCREASED DEFENSE RESOURCES FIVE FOLD FROM THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION, THEN WHEN HE GETS FIRED BY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION AND WHEN HE IS WORKING W/ A KERRY CAMPAIGN ADVISER, HE DECIDES TO MAKE A FEW BUCKS W/ A BOOK TO HURT BUSH.
Comment by Tim L — 7/23/2004 @ 11:22 am
I wholeheartedly support Tim L.’s 1st Amendment right to make an utter fool of himself.
Comment by Robert Schwartz — 7/23/2004 @ 11:23 am
Good point, Robert. I stand humbled. Mea culpa.
Comment by Karen in Texas — 7/23/2004 @ 11:26 am
Maybe he needs a new keyboard, the Caps Lock seems to be stuck again.
(Sorry I couldn’t help it that time. it’s getting to be like watching someone shouting from a street corner with all the TYPING LIKE THIS.)
Comment by eyes_open — 7/23/2004 @ 11:36 am
Also I find it HILARIOUS LOL that in a book called “Losing Bin Laden : How Bill Clinton’s Failures Unleashed Global Terror” the author, Richard Miniter uses Richard Clarke as the SOURCE FOR THE BOOK!!! LMAO. And then Richard Clarke contradicts himself by saying terrorism was the main priority of the Clinton administration. LOL. Yeah it sure was. After the 1993 WTC bombing, what did Clinton do? Nothing. After Alqaeda bombed the 2 US embassys in Africa and the USS Cole, what did Clinton do?? nothing. Why didn’t Clinton take out Bin Laden on the 12 opportunities he had.
It’s all blows away Clarke by the face that he said that there are no ties b/w Saddam and Alqaeda when according to the Clinton Justice Department’s spring 1998 indictment of bin Laden, “Al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.”
Comment by Tim L — 7/23/2004 @ 11:36 am
Add this to the President’s prioritization of a children’s book above national security on 9/11:
In JUNE 2001, just a FEW MONTHS before 9/11, Rumsfeld assumed CONTROL over DECADES old procedures to scramble jet fighters in the event of hijackings. On 9/11 he was interestingly ‘out of the loop’, leaving America at risk:
Observer: “What’s more, the decades-old procedure for a quick response by the nation’s air defense had been changed in June of 2001. Now, instead of NORAD’s military commanders being able to issue the command to launch fighter jets, approval had to be sought from the civilian Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld. This change is extremely significant, because Mr. Rumsfeld claims to have been “out of the loop” nearly the entire morning of 9/11. He isn’t on the record as having given any orders that morning. In fact, he didn’t even go to the White House situation room; he had to walk to the window of his office in the Pentagon to see that the country’s military headquarters was in flames.”
Ground control was also rendered confused by military exercises, authorized, no doubt, by the Department of Defense:
http://www.observer.com/pages/frontpage2.asp
Comment by Emerson — 7/23/2004 @ 11:40 am
You know, it is not what he says or the fact that he has to type in caps . . . it is that he doesn’t use his fingers on the keyboard but stabs the letters out with a buck knife that says: “Praise God or Die.”
Comment by Chris — 7/23/2004 @ 11:48 am
“IN FACT, WHEN ASKED IF 9/11 COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED, RICHARD CLARKE SAID “NO". SO THAT SETTLES IT. ”
Tim,
Why is it that Republican apologists consistantly and viciously attack Richard Clarke, but shamelessly quote him when it suits their ignorant purposes?
Comment by dacaesar — 7/23/2004 @ 11:56 am
Daceasar, I was making a point, that he was contradicting himself. And that David Corn looks very very stupid by using someone for his arguement that has already been discredited by the 9/11 commission
Comment by Tim L — 7/23/2004 @ 12:04 pm
Also I find it HILARIOUS LOL that in a book called “Losing Bin Laden : How Bill Clinton’s Failures Unleashed Global Terror” the author, Richard Miniter uses Richard Clarke as the SOURCE FOR THE BOOK!! Tim L.
Uhhh, Tim L., you do know that being named as a source in a book in no way means that the person being referenced supports the conclusion of the book, don’t you? I mean, I might even name you as a source in my upcoming book, “How the Right gets it Wrong.” lol
Comment by Robert Schwartz — 7/23/2004 @ 12:06 pm
Our natinal government, irrespective of which party holds power, has been so complicit in so many unsavory inititatives around the world since at least 1945 that no one remotely around its centers of power can afford to tell much of the truth about any of it.
This is obviously true of many of our Western allies, as well. So, for example, our two latest “investigative” whitewashes (the Senate Intelligence committes recent report and the 9-11 Commission’s report) were precede by two indentically similar pieces of work in Great Britian (the Hutton Inquiry and last week’s report on intelligence failures over there).
It’s bad enough that we waste our money employing incompetents at the CIA, the FBI, the Defense Department and elsewhere. It’s worse when our foreign policy harms or even kills foreign innocents. But when all of this is done on our time and in our name and WE are put at greater risk as a result, something HAS to give.
I can only look to the moral authority of the families of 9-11 victims and “Radio Free America” (that is, the Internet) for hope. I told an old friend of mine who is a law school professor that New York’s “paper of record” reads like the Weekly Reader we used to get in grade school, lo those many years ago. And so it goes.
Comment by Kirk Tofte — 7/23/2004 @ 12:14 pm
It’s fascinating to see how this open comment format on a political blog always attracts the same sort of input from the right – angry, abusive, data free insults; repetition of the same ludicrous catch phrases about “hating America” and “blaming America"; utter failure to engage the facts, arguments, or ultimate concerns at issue. At Atrios these people are called Trolls, and there is always debate about whether to bother to respond or not ("feed the trolls"). Well David, looks like it takes about 30 seconds to start attracting trolls.
I am still waiting for a civil, rational, non-insane person to enter one of these threads and give us a plausible reason why the Bush Admnistration is worthy of our admiration. Since this never seems to happen, I conclude that no such person and no such argument exists.
Comment by Bart Laws — 7/23/2004 @ 12:17 pm
This was touched upon a bit in a prior comment. Everyone has mentioned Bush sitting in the classroom after being told of the second plane hitting & that we were under attack. My problem, my question, if we were under attack & had no idea the extent of the attack at that time, why was the President of the United States not whisked away by the Secret Service and out of harms way immediately? This photo op was well publicized as I understand it, was it not? Any adult could have left that classroom with out scaring the children. The President could have been escorted out with out scaring the children. Is not anyone upset by the fact that the President was still at the school while we were being attacked putting that school in danger of being attacked?
Comment by Sam — 7/23/2004 @ 12:22 pm
Tim,
Richard Clarke has in no way been discredited by the 9/11 commission. He he was ever a positive spokesperson for the Bush administration, he has publicly stated that that was part and parcel of his job description. Now that he doesn’t have that burden, he can speak the truth, which is what he has done with his book and public appearances. If Richard Clarke’s motivation was soley to sell books, he could have just as easily have sold as much books with a positive book for the Bush perspective. He didn’t do that because that’s just not the case. You can write him off as a disgruntled ex-employee, but that is just too simplistic, considering all of the cogent analysis he’s provided. It’s no coincidence that his analysis corroborated by so many others (anonymous to name one - Imperial Hubris).
Comment by dacaesar — 7/23/2004 @ 12:33 pm
One of the most amusing responses to the question about why he didn’t get up and leave argued that, well, nothing really could have been done in those first few minutes anyway. Nothing was lost. If my memory isn’t failing me (and, ok, I admit it is), Grover Norquist might have used that line when he and David Corn were discussion Fahrenheit 9/11 on Diane Rehm. At any rate, I burst out laughing at that. Hopefully no one will be so ludicrious to say that again, given the utter confusion and loss of decisive action documented by the commission report.
Comment by Karen in Texas — 7/23/2004 @ 12:34 pm
Sorry, if it’s not clear, 31 is in response to Sam in 29 and the question of why Bush just sat in the classroom for 7 minutes.
Comment by Karen in Texas — 7/23/2004 @ 12:35 pm
Bart, “feeding the trolls"–that’s great. I admit I get so angry sometimes I give in to an occasional feeding, but always to no avail. Why do I waste my breath? I guess the eternal optimist in me keeps thinking, “Yes, but SURELY this person will be able to see reason if I just say it one more time or if I phrase it like this!”
Comment by Karen in Texas — 7/23/2004 @ 12:37 pm
Could it be that the president knew he was not in danger?
Comment by Paul — 7/23/2004 @ 12:42 pm
I admit I take a certain guilty pleasure in troll feeding, you know, you know you shouldn’t, but you just can’t help it. As to why they post here, latent masochism, maybe?
Comment by Robert Schwartz — 7/23/2004 @ 12:46 pm
Well I did hear somewhere that he knew of the attacks but not the extent of the attacks, in other words that may be one of the reasons he just sat there, he knew & was in shock at how bad it turned out to be. But, even knowing what Bush is capable of, I’m not sure I can believe that.
Comment by Sam — 7/23/2004 @ 12:46 pm
BTW, David’s is the lead as well as the most read on The Smirking Chimp website today!
http://www.thesmirkingchimp.com
Comment by Robert Schwartz — 7/23/2004 @ 12:51 pm
A little change in topic here, but what do you all make of the fact that plans may already be underway for the next “regime change?” I quote below from a Sunday Herald (UK) article. I feel like I’m in a bad dream and can’t wake up.
“A US government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that military action would not be overt in changing Iran, but rather that the US would work to stir revolts in the country and hope to topple the current conservative religious leadership.
The official said: “If George Bush is re-elected there will be much more intervention in the internal affairs of Iran.”
Source: Sunday Herald 18 July 2004 http://www.sundayherald.com/print43461
Comment by Karen in Texas — 7/23/2004 @ 12:57 pm
For future reference, as with other blogs I write on, some of them simply have a general understanding that people (like Tim L.) are ignored and in some cases all their comments are taken off the post. This sometimes works to encourage reasonable, yet spirited debates… Not to Tim, it’s not your perspective people have a problem with, it’s what and how you write it that does.
Comment by John Reitzel — 7/23/2004 @ 12:57 pm
“I am still waiting for a civil, rational, non-insane person to enter one of these threads and give us a plausible reason why the Bush Admnistration is worthy of our admiration. Since this never seems to happen, I conclude that no such person and no such argument exists”
Faulty logic repaired by saying “I colclude that no such person exists or no such argument can be made.”
Given your proposition you can’t conclude both with the information provided.
Comment by John Benson — 7/23/2004 @ 1:09 pm
A quick question for everyone. It seems are choices for the next president is Bush, Kerry, or Nader. Do any of you think that Kerry or Nader are any better for this country than Bush? I really am not impressed with any of the candidates. What are your feelings.
Comment by Paul — 7/23/2004 @ 1:10 pm
Hey John B, you are correct in terms of formal logic – failure to observe something does not prove that it does not exist. However, the more time passes without an observation, the less probable existence must be. My point is, I’m still waiting. Of course I do not agree with everything that is said by reasonable and civil people in this or any other place where people have discussions. But the defenders of the Bush cabal all seem to be mindless ranters, and a disturbingly high percentage of them are sociopaths. The threats, vulgarities and violent obsessions that so many of them post on these sites clearly point to something fundamental about the people to whom Bush appeals and how he appeals to them. I guess I’m really inviting any people who might believe they are exceptions to come forward and engage us.
Comment by bart laws — 7/23/2004 @ 1:37 pm
To be honest the only thing that comes to mind with that question is a line from “Strictly Ballroom,” “Tango please!”
Nader’s point about it being wrong for us to hold our nose when we vote for President is valid, but the Nader votes in Florida where well beyond Bush’s “margin” of victory, do you think they believe they got a good deal now?
As for Bush and Kerry, while the Bush administration and the press pedal the flip-flopper argument for all their worth (conveniently ignoring Bush’s repeated changes in position) think about it this way. When asked if he could think of any mistakes he’d made Bush’s response is “I can’t think of any.” As a reformed alcoholic Bush should know that the first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem. So where does that leave you?
Comment by John Benson — 7/23/2004 @ 1:41 pm
Here is a short list of pros for Kerry that make him a better choice:
-His tax plans actually target small business, not just aid large corporations. Also planned is to close up the loopholes that act as a form of incentive for companies to move overseas.
-He knows to not let his religious views get in the way of fair policy making, such as with gay rights.
-He has seen the realities of war first hand and knows it should be a last resort. Some call him cowardly for opting out after his third purple heart for “minor” injuries but remember sometimes the difference between life and death can be a matter of inches.
-He wants to accelerate our independence from fossil fuels (aka foriegn oil), not just feed our dependence with more drilling.
-Kerry’s and Edwards’ much more diplomatic styles would greatly aid in the rebuilding strong international coalitions
Comment by eyes_open — 7/23/2004 @ 1:44 pm
I wasn’t actually disagreeing with your point. I just stuck on the logic, the situation is so sad you either laugh or cry. I decided to give my self a little chuckle, but hopefully not at your expense.
Comment by John Benson — 7/23/2004 @ 1:46 pm
As for Nader, his rhetoric sounds more and more like an anti-government extremist. Not good in my opinion for someone looking to lead that government.
Comment by eyes_open — 7/23/2004 @ 1:46 pm
John B,
Ditto on the candidates. While I am of the anybody but Bush persuasion, and voted for Nader in the last election, Kerry is barely palatable on a number of issues I find important. And, though i don’t put too much importance on personality, especially over substance, Kerry does not offer real inspiration or a real vision of where this country would head were he elected. Let this be a symbol of how debiltated our political system is and how so much of it centers on the lowest common denominator.
John
Comment by John Reitzel — 7/23/2004 @ 1:48 pm
Bart, interesting comments. I truly think that the central problem with many of the most vehement Bush supporters is that they will not–or cannot–take the time to dissect the issues. They are driven by “talking points” that turn out to be almost utterly baseless and empty when you actually pick them apart by logic. Not all of them, mind you–one of my brothers is very right-wing, and he can actually argue a good point. But he’s still picked up the “talking points” from Rush and friends–he just happens to think a little more carefully and take them a bit further.
Another problem I think is that people are drawn to Bush because of single hot-button issues, most notably abortion, “gay marriage,” and his identification as an evangelical Christian. Where I live, that REALLY, REALLY matters. When you try to engage folks on this, if you happen to disagree with their absolutist religious views, you essentially are speaking two different languages. So is it any wonder fruitful engagement seems impossible sometimes? My mother, an evangelical Christian herself, voted for Bush (a) because she always votes Republican; but (b), and more importantly, because she is against abortion. No amount of reasoning with her about the value of life more broadly defined than in other women’s wombs seems to work–she and her church are absolutely galvinized on that issue. (This year my sister and I just MAY have worked on her with enough evidence that she might give Bush a second thought. But that’s only because she’s willing to LISTEN and THINK, something I don’t see a lot of with other far-right voters I know.)
The Bush supporters I know sport EXTREMELY absolutist thinking. As we have seen here, most Bush supporters believe in total, black-and-white answers to everything in life. I don’t think it’s accidental that lots of evangelical Christians view the world in absolutist terms as well (and I speak as a former evangelical Christian and someone who works extensively with censorship issues vis-a-vis the religious right, so I do know what I’m talking about).
Comment by Karen in Texas — 7/23/2004 @ 1:48 pm
A quick response to Paul from Comment Number 41. While I typically hate to vote against someone rather than for someone, in this case the choice is easy. If Mr. Bush is reelected, it will send the message to our government and to the world that this country on the whole supports what has happened and why it was done. If Mr. Bush is defeated, it sends the message to our government and to the rest of the world that the American people do not approve of what happened and has demanded a change. Moreover, if someone other than Mr. Bush gets that person will not be tied to trying to justify and support all the wrong decisions that have already been made. Kerry is the only candidate with a chance to defeat Mr. Bush. The choice, therefore, is simple the way I see it. Go Kerry.
Comment by Mark — 7/23/2004 @ 2:03 pm
David,
Your article was coincident with thoughts I typed yesterday, and have had, as if we are beginning to see through the clouds of 9/11. Here is what I’ve said:
“As for the President’s strange behavior after being informed “America was under attack,” after the second jet hit the WTC, film footage is in Moore’s movie. Bush, and his security apparatus, had the President read a children’s book about a pet goat, despite NOT knowing if the attacks had ended, and despite NOT having yet given orders to shoot down any hijackers. Bush had NO questions after hearing the terrifying statement, “America is under attack,” he just sat there… If anyone else did this at their place of work during an unprecedented crisis, and it was all caught on tape, when thousands were literally burning alive in the WTC, and attacks could still be in progress, what would happen? This is not about left or right, but what people left, right, and center want from their government. Seconds could have literally meant tens-of-thousands of more lives, and both Bush and his trained security apparatus did nothing. The President himself was left vulnerable in a pre-disclosed location, surrounded by children, and not shuffled off. A children’s book was prioritized above national security, and by the look on Bush’s face, not with a clear conscience. After the frist jet hit the WTC Bush also attrbuted it to one terrible pilot, despite prior warnings(eg. Aug. 6th PDB, G-8 Genoa), and the symbolic significance of the WTC which had been attacked before.
Add the following:
Hold this fact in your mind:
The Honourable Paul Hellyer(sic), former National Defense Minister of Canada: “As a former Minister of National Defense, when the news came out I had to wonder. Why did airplanes fly around for an hour and a half without interceptors being scrambled from Andrews [Air Force Base]?”
Don’t you think it pushes credulity that four jets could be hijacked in heavily monitored U.S. air space, and that the nerve center for its defense(ie. Pentagon) could be struck approximately 45 minutes after the first two jets hit the WTC? Talk about a wake-up call: Two jets hitting the WTC. These jets went 1 1/2 hours without any confrontation. Think about it. It is enough to make you go hmmmmmmmmmmm… Standard procedure in the event of hijackings was not implemented…. Why???????
http://www.911citizenswatch.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&si d=344&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
In JUNE 2001, just a FEW MONTHS before 9/11, Rumsfeld assumed CONTROL over DECADES old procedures to scramble jet fighters in the event of hijackings. On 9/11 he was interestingly ‘out of the loop’, leaving America at risk:
Observer: “What’s more, the decades-old procedure for a quick response by the nation’s air defense had been changed in June of 2001. Now, instead of NORAD’s military commanders being able to issue the command to launch fighter jets, approval had to be sought from the civilian Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld. This change is extremely significant, because Mr. Rumsfeld claims to have been “out of the loop” nearly the entire morning of 9/11. He isn’t on the record as having given any orders that morning. In fact, he didn’t even go to the White House situation room; he had to walk to the window of his office in the Pentagon to see that the country’s military headquarters was in flames.”
Ground control was also rendered confused by military exercises, authorized, no doubt, by the Department of Defense:
http://www.observer.com/pages/frontpage2.asp
Did Rumsfeld have a motive for 1) Changing decades old protocol, 2)Assuming control over these powers, and 3) being ‘out of the loop’ on 9/11? What is the likelihood of this being chance, and the President priorityzing reading a children’s book after learning of an unprecedented national crisis?
A ‘catastrophic’ and ‘catalyzing’ event like a ‘new Pearl Harbor’…
ABC’s Nightline:
The Plan
Were Neo-Conservatives’ 1998 Memos a Blueprint for Iraq War?
March 10 — Years before George W. Bush entered the White House, and years before the Sept. 11 attacks set the direction of his presidency, a group of influential neo-conservatives hatched a plan to get Saddam Hussein out of power.
The group, the Project for the New American Century, or PNAC, was founded in 1997. Among its supporters were three Republican former officials who were sitting out the Democratic presidency of Bill Clinton: Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz.
In open letters to Clinton and GOP congressional leaders the next year, the group called for “the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power” and a shift toward a more assertive U.S. policy in the Middle East, including the use of force if necessary to unseat Saddam.
And in a report just before the 2000 election that would bring Bush to power, the group predicted that the shift would come about slowly, unless there were “some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor.”
That event came on Sept. 11, 2001. By that time, Cheney was vice president, Rumsfeld was secretary of defense, and Wolfowitz his deputy at the Pentagon.
The next morning — before it was even clear who was behind the attacks — Rumsfeld insisted at a Cabinet meeting that Saddam’s Iraq should be “a principal target of the first round of terrorism,” according to Bob Woodward’s book Bush At War.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/DailyNews/pnac_030310.html
Neri Yarkoni, former head of Israeli Civil Aviation Administration:
“The first two planes which hit the World Trade Center may have surprised the authorities, but he said the third plane should have been found and shot down before crashing into the Pentagon 45 minutes later.
Israeli warplanes would have been airborne within minutes, he said, while it took the U.S. air force an hour to launch its fighters. “We live in a different reality,” he explained. “Here, this is routine.”
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2001/09/12/israelisecurity.htm
In the nearly three years since the attacks there have been no attacks on U.S. soil even 1/4 the size of 9/11(ie. one jet or equivalent attack), despite an all out declaration of war against al-Quaeda, rogue states, and all other terrorist networks world-wide.
Comment by Emerson — 7/23/2004 @ 2:05 pm
Bart;
I thought about it for a little bit. I really was just after a chuckle there, but there is an underlying issue there that doesn’t seem to be addressed. For the last 30 years at least conservatives have been saying liberals are motivated by emotional responses to issues. What we are seeing now is a completely visceral (i.e. emotional) response from the right I am unconvinced the conservative movement really cares about Gay Marriage or Abortion at the leadership level. These are simply not decisions that would actually impact them. The impetus seems to be the buttressing of an oligarchy and these issues motivate people who don’t consider the sub-rosa agenda.
Comment by John Benson — 7/23/2004 @ 2:07 pm
Karen,
May I assume that you too have heard the prase “F*** the environment!” from those same far right absolutists multiple times? Say anything that they don’t agree with and you are automatically a no good liberal tree hugger because they don’t want to see any middle ground between extremes. It would take too much effort. The far left isn’t much better but they are not the ones in power right now.
John B,
To expand my previous post on this same train of thought another plus for Kerry over Bush is that althogh he is on the left he is much closer to center than Bush. Until he starts chanting rediculous ideas like everyone should be a vegetarian and ties himself to a tree to keep it from being cut the argument he’s so far left he’s out of touch with reality is null.
Comment by eyes_open — 7/23/2004 @ 2:22 pm
Kids,
HELP! I just realized I live in South Carolina and due to the Electoral College system the chances of my vote actually being counted are about the same as Tim L. getting laid this year.
I’ve voted in Kentucky, West Virginia, Florida and Massachussetts in the past. Any thoughts about how I might be able to have my vote counted this November?
Comment by Hajji — 7/23/2004 @ 2:38 pm
Eyes_Open–well said, both statements above. I agree that Kerry is MUCH more center-based. My personal beliefs and tastes want to see him further left, and I always get a good chuckle whenever someone on the right sneers, “He’s the most LIBERAL senator” or some such bull. Paul Wellstone, now THERE was a great liberal senator. I lived in Minnesota still when he died tragically in 2002. What a tremendous loss.
One of my greatest disappointments in Bush has been his utter and I mean UTTER lack of ability to try to bring unity to this country. When the supreme court finally gave him the election, I though ruefully, “Well, at least he’ll realize he can’t do extreme things because he sees how divided this nation is and that he doesn’t have a clear mandate. He’ll play fair and moderately.” BOOOYYYY was I wrong on that one!
Comment by Karen in Texas — 7/23/2004 @ 2:40 pm
Erch, Hajji. The electoral college. What a sham. I keep telling myself that if the same “Election 2000″ travesty happens in November, at the very least all those popular votes HAVE to matter (as they should have mattered last time). There’s no way, I think, that people would give up the fight to get Bush out of office if things played out like that again in Florida or some other swing state.
Comment by Karen in Texas — 7/23/2004 @ 2:44 pm
Eyes_Open: Can I ask if you have dared put any anti-Bush bumper stickers on your car (you’re in DFW area too, right)? I have a Quaker peace sticker and a “Dissent is Patriotic” sticker on mine, but my husband is afraid I’m going to be the object of road rage, given the political climate of East Texas (I commute to and teach at a university in rural east texas).
Comment by Karen in Texas — 7/23/2004 @ 2:46 pm
Karen,
My “I LOVE my country, but FEAR my government” sticker has gotten one hell of a lot of positive responses than I’d've ever thought. I put it on the beat-up Trooper, suspecting vandalism and not really caring what happens to the paint job. No negatives, so far, but I guess maybe I should up the insurance and put a “I’m for Kerry, Same-sex marriage, taking “God” out of the pledge, and I’m coming to take your guns, too!” sticker, just to see If I can get from Pickens, SC, to oh, say, Macon, GA without any body damage. (anybody got any kevlar jockey shorts I can borrow?)
Comment by Hajji — 7/23/2004 @ 2:54 pm
Karen, speaking of Texas, have you seen any of comedian Ron Shock’s material? He’s about the only stand-up I’ve been entertained by in a long time. He was kind enough to send an autographed copy of his “Bootleg II” CD to my GF’s son, Karl, while he was guarding an ammo dump in Fallujah to rave reviews from the troops, especially since it didn’t dwell on politics and whatnot. Karl said it made some of the Texas guys homesick for the outskirts of Galveston.
Comment by Hajji — 7/23/2004 @ 3:00 pm
Nope, no bumper stickers yet. My truck was already egged once recently. (Random vandalism but damned if it wan’t hard to wash off) Teens in the suburbs are just itching for a reason to do such things so hearing how they parrot their parents beliefs makes me not want to take many chances to invite more of the same.
Comment by eyes_open — 7/23/2004 @ 3:08 pm
Read the Federalist papers, popular voting is ignorant. And, Bush Bashing is idiotic, does nothing but demonstrates the inability for rational thought. Scary that Karen is a University professor, but not suprising. The lack of cerebral functioning is evident amongst leftist professors and helping to dumb down our society (the Communist Manifesto rules!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
By the way, how did Clinton’s team “thwart” that skiff from hitting the USS Sullivans during the Millennium? Oh, it sank…
Comment by MichaelMooronic — 7/23/2004 @ 3:41 pm
The thread has a few divergences but what can you do? I’m in the discourse analysis line, so those pursuing other questions can skip this post.
I think everyone who has responded to me has worthwhile things to say. In particular, this question of religion is a tough one. The basic meaning of the term “faith” is an opinion that is impervious to evidence or logic. On the other hand, we all need to start somewhere with what to believe. It seems rather surprising to me, however, that such a large percentage of Christians have decided that their faith requires adoration of wealth, and a foreign policy that pursues domination through overwhelming violence. I have read the bible cover to cover and I do find that in the Old Testament, particularly in the earlier portions, but not in the New. Nor is that sort of position typically found in Jewish ethics since the Talmudic scholars began to develop them So the religious base of support for the gang currently in power is as disturbing to me as their sociopathic base. But I guess you’re right Karen, there wouldn’t be much sense in my trying to debate your relatives. And John, I agree with you 100%, the real powers in the Republican party couldn’t care less about abortion or homosexuality, as a matter of fact they get abortions and have gay sex whenever they want to and will continue to do so no matter what the law happens to be. The illegality of abortion never stopped rich people from having them and it never will. And some of the most rabid supporters of the cabal are gay. Human nature is inscrutable, at least to me.
Comment by Bart Laws — 7/23/2004 @ 3:48 pm
Don’t worry Hajji, my vote for Bush in CA won’t be count either, hahaha.
Comment by Bill — 7/23/2004 @ 4:12 pm
D’oh!! I meant it won’t count!
Comment by Bill — 7/23/2004 @ 4:12 pm
“Bush Bashing is idiotic”
Quite a statement frome someone whose screen name is nothing but a cheap swipe at Michael Moore.
Comment by eyes_open — 7/23/2004 @ 4:12 pm
Bart Laws,
The Log Cabin Republicans are truly a confuzing bunch. They support civil unions as a stepping stone towards gay marriage in the future, but doing so only cements them in place making the ultimate goal of the GLBT community that much harder to achieve. I guess logic is strictly for the Vulcans.
Comment by eyes_open — 7/23/2004 @ 4:20 pm
Bart Laws,
Famed German sociologists, Max Weber and Emile Durkheim, wrote quite extensively on religion and powe and how the two converger, particularly Weber. In essence, his position was that capitalism grew in part out of the Calvinist work ethic, which is to say that Calvinists (and more broadly) Protestants believed that their life’s work was preordained. As such they were to work toward being the best that they could as that would lead them to God’s graces and eternal salvation. Capitalism and wealth grew out of this due to asceticism in that they were not supposed to spend their accumulated wealth on worldly things thus they accumulated great wealth. The drive was not so much a capitalist drive toward acquiring wealth as we might view it, but, a drive out of fear since they feared if they were not successful in life they would not get into heavan. Now, Im not suggesting I buy into this notion fully, however, it is a way of understanding the confluence of capitalistic (and thus power) and religion/faith.
Comment by John Reitzel — 7/23/2004 @ 4:22 pm
Michael Moronic,
By the way, your comments on voting and the Communist Manifesto suggest you simply do not understand the complexities of the issues. And, to further illustrate your ignorance by labeling all professors as dumbing down the issues just undermines your arguments even more.
Comment by John Reitzel — 7/23/2004 @ 4:25 pm
It seems most fitting to bring Puritanism into the discussion of discourse. I never cease to be amazed by the reincarnation of Puritan rhetoric in the political sphere. It was interesting to me when Ronald Reagan called America the city on the hill, slightly more irritating when Bush I used John Winthrop’s rhetoric in terms of “a thousand points of light,” and now it’s downright FRIGHTENING to hear Bush II call up the image of America being the chosen land. It’s scary because I know he’s got the theocratic drive behind it. Maybe I read too much early American literature, but I really don’t think I can be accused of subscribing to a conspiracy theory if I say that theocracy would be just fine with several key players in this administration, maybe George himself. (Not to mention Ashcroft, the evil Tom DeLay, Scalia, etc.).
Gonna let the earlier anti-professor thing slide–obviously it underscores the anti-intellectualism that is one of the more odious elements of the right.
Comment by Karen in Texas — 7/23/2004 @ 6:14 pm
Hajji: Dare you to try out that bumper sticker! Let us know if you live.
Haven’t heard of that comic–my favorite Texas comics so far are Kinky Friedman and Molly Ivins.
Comment by Karen in Texas — 7/23/2004 @ 6:20 pm
She’s a college professor! Eeek! Which one? I’ll make sure to scratch that one of the prospective list when my children go to college. Oh wait, now I understand! I won’t have to worry; my kids are too smart to have to go to community college.
Ok, that was a cheap shot.
I hate to break up this apparatchik love-fest but I need to point out a few issues, which seem to be overlooked in this orgy of leftist back-patting.
First of all, it’s funny that when conservatives get together and talk about the left, we say the same things about talking points, and hate-spewing rhetoric, and Democrat apologists, etc.
Just an observation; it’s possible that by taking sides on an issue or embracing a certain polity naturally turns the opposition into the “enemy” and therefore deserving of scorn, and even ridicule.
Second, if there have been any “mean-spirited” comments on this weblog, it has overwhelmingly come from those who agree with the majority on this board. Those who have read my other posts on this blog can attest to that. (“troll-feeding” comes to mind, along with trailer-trash, right-wing fanatic, idiot, manbutlover, etc.)
Defining those of you with left-wing opinions as leftists or lefties or neo-communists or neo-marxists or even “liberals”, is not name calling but an attempt to identify to whom we are speaking to.
Third, Karen from Texas’s absurd insinuation (echoed by others on this post) that the current administration is attempting to turn this country into a theocracy is nothing short of delusional. I think I even read someone comparing Islamists to Pat Robertson? What?
(Btw, I believe Reagan’s reference of “the shining city on a hill” was also Winthrop’s although I think Winthrop said “the city on a hill” the latter refering to what would become Boston, the former Washington DC)
And since you’re the professor, if that is in fact true, then perhaps you can name me one President who has not invoked God, pandered to Christians and other religious groups, or alluded to Biblical stories, in their political rhetoric whether they actually believed it or not.
It’s easy to accuse the administration of all kinds of wild and paranoid conspiracies; however, it’s difficult to produce any evidence to back up the slander.
And since you are all apparently the “intelligentsia” I would think that evidence and facts would be a part of your dogma.
So let’s hear how exactly, Bush is attempting to turn this government into a theocracy.
This is a Christian nation, even though that makes you very angry, that is the truth. 1 in 4 Americans attend church regularly. Compare that to France where something like 1 in 12 do.
Although this nation was founded on Judeo-Christian ideology, (don’t give me the Deism crap either, the left always wants to turn Jefferson into some Platonic atheist), it is far from resembling a theocracy. If you wanna know how a theocracy is run, look at how the Taliban ran things. That should give you an idea.
Finally, I think you should welcome those of us with opposing views, this gives you a chance to put those “advanced” minds to work (yes, I know, I’m sure you think its like intellectually fencing a 2 year old, but our contempt runs just as deep) by demonstrating your superior knowledge and understanding of current events and world history.
Have at you.
Dave
Comment by Dave — 7/23/2004 @ 7:49 pm
25% of Americans attend church regularly, so this is a CHRISTIAN nation? Does this figure include those who attend temple or mosque? Just because something less than 25% of elligible voters were responsible for our current president, does that make us a BUSH nation? The denominational makeup of the founders of this country has little to do with who we are now and what we will become. People who use religion to exclude others are the worse kind of bigots. May their god have mercy on them!
Comment by Hajji — 7/23/2004 @ 8:17 pm
Dave,
I would like to know what defines a “christian” nation? Is it a result of a majority of people identifying with “christianity? Is it because many people invoke the name of some christian God as a means of bolstering unreasonable arguments? The fact is, when you dismiss Jefferson as a deist, it misses a critical factor in the history of this country as he the primary writer of the Declaration of Independence. And as historical artifacts show, both he and Franklin were both deists- i.e. they believed in some “creator” which they acceeded as a god, and one of the original drafts did not contain “Nature’s God” or “endowed by their creator", but it was Madison (who was religious) who persuaded Jefferson to include it. As such, the founding of this country, being a war of independence from England, which had an official religion, ultimately sought to establish the antithesis of such conflation (thus the first 1st Amendment). Long story short, just because a large majority identify broadly with “christianity", does not make this a christian country since it then denies minority religions such as Judaism and Islam, Hindu, Buddhism and many other non christian religions which is the explicit and specific intent of the 1st Amendment.
As for Bush trying to establish a theocracy, I of a more liberal, albeit academic persuasion, it seems highly doubtful. I think people are bothered by a seeming outward expression of divine right to rule and the role of religious beliefs in poltical decision making (v.s. decision making based on science and expert advice). Bush, on a number of occasions has made many insinuations and outright claims to divine rights and for the minority of non-christians, agnostics, atheists, it becomes both a political and value problem in perceptions of capability.
John R.
Comment by John Reitzel — 7/23/2004 @ 8:22 pm
Wow. Great thread going here. Here’s my two cents worth:
I live in Alaska, so my vote won’t “count” for President, either. I drive around with a “Somewhere in Texas a village is missing it’s idiot” bumper sticker, and have got nothing but compliments on it. Go figure.
Some interesting insight into Republican strategy in “The Two Americas” by Stanley Greenburg. The folks who describe themselves as “very religious” vote overwhelmingly Republican. Seeing Bush’s numbers tank over the past few months, Rove and company have been agressively trying to dig up church membership lists to help get out the vote. In general, I agree that Republicans co-opt social/cultural issues such as abortion and gay marriage just to get the religious vote. So the goal probably isn’t to really establish a theocracy - just say enough buzzwords, pass enough bad legislation, and laugh all the way to the bank. The sad thing is that the strategy works, for the most part.
Comment by frsbdg — 7/23/2004 @ 9:19 pm
Well Dave sure told us. The funny thing is Dave, I never had any antipathy for Republicans or conservatives until GWB was selected. I should thank George for making me realize that my voice matters. You’re right about the theocracy thing, although I’m not convinced some of his supporters don’t believe and want that, but hey as long as they vote for him why should he worry if they’re mis-informed. I don’t understand why people get upset about Freepers showing up, it’s what they do. This is going to sound crass Dave, but who did you hate before you discovered liberals?
Hajji, if you wanted to boost the count somewhere you could move to Washington State. I have to warn you though advertising is at a premium here, I figure political advertising is going to add a couple hundred bucks to the cost of a car around here.
Comment by John Benson — 7/23/2004 @ 9:59 pm
Interesting discussion on the founders beliefs, see what happens when I’m away from the desk. Anyway, I thought this was intrigueing:
I got that from:
It’s a free country, not a Christian nation
by Ed Buckner, Ph.D.
and you can read the article here:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/buckner_ncn.html
Dave, the value of a teacher does not depend on *hir views, but on hir ability to impart the skills needed to make ones own mind up intelligently. Some of my favorite teachers were idealogically opposed to me, or at least appeared to be, at the time.
*gender non-specific pronoun
Comment by Robert Schwartz — 7/23/2004 @ 10:15 pm
Bill,
I guess that depends on which kind of voting machine you use, if its one of those touch screen ones it might not be counted, (although as a republican vote, it might actually be multplied) while if its an optical scan or absentee ballot, it just won’t count. Regardless of party affiliation, isn’t is sad that counting machine technology, that deals with something so fundamental to a functioning democracy as voting, is proprietary software for profit? Especially in this atmosphere of distrust?
Comment by Robert Schwartz — 7/23/2004 @ 10:35 pm
Robert,
The information I have on Jefforson comes from a number of books and also there is a website run by the University of Virginia (which of course he founded) that has a great deal of his original letters and other incredible work. It’s interesting to note, that if you go to www.whitehouse.gov and check out TJ’s bio, it uses a quote, which I should add is also inscribed in the wall of the Jefferson Memorial, that reads “I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” Now, if you read the quote in as it’s framed in the bio and on the memorial wall (and in many other places available via the internet), one would have a real inclination to think he was very religious- however, the interesting thing about it though is that in the context of the letter (to Dr. Benjamin Rush) in which those words were written, he was actually writing about confronting religious extremists from trying to dominate the political landscape (credit for the former information goes to Matt Bivens at The Nation) TJ was, perhaps, the staunchest protector of secular government and not establishing a state religion and Franklin was no slouch either. While there were others such as Madison who were strongly religious, the overwhelming sense one gets when studying history from an academic perspective (not to mention it being directly evident in the DOI and the Constitution), is that the founders recognized and fully appreciated the problems associated with the conflation of religion and governmental administration. Remember, they had dealt quite a bit with theocratic states during their time as well.
John
Comment by John Reitzel — 7/23/2004 @ 11:39 pm
One more thing,
As is evident by Bush’s pandering to the Urban League (and yes I know that pandering knows no political affiliation), the founders of this country would be abhorred with how our system got to this.. In many writings they both explicitly and implicitly mentioned such goings on. Though I give Bush credit, he skips the NAACP and then outrightly asks the UL to vote for him. Though I hate his politics,in a sense, I like his audacity.
Comment by John Reitzel — 7/23/2004 @ 11:52 pm
John,
George Washington’s reputation regarding cherry trees aside, cherry picking Jefferson quotes can lead to as many interpretations as cherry picking biblical references.
My gestalt interpretation of Jefferson is that he valued the rational mind, valued the inherent sense of interconnectedness, and was caught in the paradox of the end of the 18th early 19th century thought. He spoke about the inferiority of the Negro race, for instance, but what one would give for tapes of the commentary between he and Sally Hemmings.
Comment by Robert Schwartz — 7/24/2004 @ 12:14 am
While we’re quoting Jefferson…
” I, too, have made a wee-little book from the same materials, which I call the Philosophy of Jesus; it is a paradigma of his doctrines, made by cutting the texts out of the book, and arranging them on the pages of a blank book, in a certain order of time or subject. A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen; it is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus, very different from the Platonists, who call me infidel and themselves Christians and preachers of the gospel, while they draw all their characteristic dogmas from what its author never said nor saw.”
Thomas Jefferson to Charles Thomson, January 9, 1816
Comment by Bill — 7/24/2004 @ 1:28 am
Robert,
You point out a very crucial point, which is, besides cherry picking evidence that supports one’s own interpretation (though sometimes unavoidable in discussions and blogs- at least for simplicity’s sake), we all, as well as Jefferson are contradictory. However, given his 20,000 plus letters and his role in helping draft numerous official documents, it makes even more sense that he was contradictory, which to me serves as a reminder of a few things: 1) none of know all that much, even the experts (and believe me as an academic criminologist I constantly remind myself of this point) and 2) All of us have conflicting value/belief systems , which is why I like philosophical debates though I recognize them as such. In any event, I hope you weren’t thinking I was trying to cherry pick, as I was only pointing out (as you seem to have done better at showing) the effects of cherry picking. And yes, to this day, the debate over Sally Hemmings continues to rage on in some circles…
Comment by John Reitzel — 7/24/2004 @ 2:34 am
Bill,
As Robert pointed out, though I was not trying to cherry pick, I was only attempting to show how cherry picking distorts interpretation. While I am no Jefferson expert, your quote, while it is illustrative of a person who is certainly guided by religious principles, it does not necessasitate that he was christian- of which such a debate is really not all that relevant. However, given his enormous influence during this historical period, one needs to look toward what was occurring (in a general sense), which was a move from th enlightenment period into the industrial revolution. As was happening during this time, many of the greatl philosophers/politicos had to reconcile the rising importance of science and secular understanding with the overwhelming traditional beliefs imposed historically by religion– which predominated most philosophical discussions prior to 18th century. Thus, in short, my only real point I have to make, which is really not important at all, despite Jefferson’s own contradictions, it is pretty well established that his beliefs in a secular political government were strong and were shared to varying degrees by many other founders during this time (many of whom also show similar inconsistencies in beliefs).
Comment by John Reitzel — 7/24/2004 @ 3:00 am
Thank you all for so eloquently filling in the blanks I left open last night by my remark about theocracy. As I hope I made clear in my original post (but obviously I didn’t), I am not accusing this administration of desiring theocracy (at least not in a conscious way)–but people associated with this administration ARE, and they’re pretty clear about that, actually. The Christian Reconstructionists are who really scare me–big power players in the GOP.
Dave: You know, I have a good sense of humor and I can laugh made at a joke whose teller is attempting to mock me. So I do laugh. Having said that, I must add that, while I don’t teach at a community college myself, some of the smartest people and best teachers I know do; likewise, some of the smartest people I know go to community college. I don’t think a community college is really a base-line gauge of anyone’s intellect. So can we please keep things from getting personal here? There’s a world of difference between “insulting” a big political movement and insulting an individual posting on this list. OK?
One other thing. I absolutely agree with all that’s been posted about this being “a Christian nation.” You know what? I consider myself a Christian. I attend church every way. But my kind of Christianity has been CONDEMNED by Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and many, many others. You can’t just pull out those founding father references to God and the statistic that people believe in God and say, “Oh, see, it’s a Christian nation” because that means SO many different things to people. And I say thank God for that! THAT is what the religious right finds irksome–that THEIR kind of Christianity isn’t the only game in town.
Comment by Karen in Texas — 7/24/2004 @ 6:42 am
Dear John and eyes wide shut,
Actually, a cheap shot it is not, for Michael Moore is moronic, thus a correct screen name. Funny you think I am ignorant when you know nothing about me. Luckily, after getting two degrees from a left leaning institution (I used to be a liberal) I acquired great exposure to the ideologies of communism and socialism (I was never taught capitalism?). Further, after receiving my JD from another left institution, the Federalist papers I very much understand. What I did learn is that many many professors (after 4 yrs undergraduate and 3 of law school I did not encounter a Republican, only Dems and Inds) live in an ideological void where realism is not a concurrent thought with the patterns of teaching. This leads us to dribble, ie debates about Max Weber and Engels really goes nowhere. My point in using Mooronic is to highlight how much the left has dumbed down the societal discourse (I will also concede that Rush is guilty as well amongst others on the right). Particularly, slapping the label “liar” when the left employed all the same lies and then some (see Iraqi Liberation Act and the countless speaches of the left re Saddam). Which leads to my major problem: the left has left liberty, freedom, and grand foreign policy initiatives for mere political gains. The most fervent conversations that ensue with my Dem friends leads to Iraq. And, not suprisingly, not one of them know an Iraqi and take everything the media feeds as truth. Distortion is the game and the left salivates over the necessity for failure in Iraq. If Iraq is successful, insha’allah, then the Dems are wrong (evident) and Bush wins, al Hamdu lil laah. Until then, preach about ignorance to anyone you like, but immediately recognize your own.
Comment by MichaelMooronic — 7/24/2004 @ 6:52 am
The quote of the day:
“Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord…”
Comment by MichaelMooronic — 7/24/2004 @ 7:34 am
M.Moron,
You didn’t get any lessons in capitalism in college? You could’ve learned a few things at the bookstore, had you been able to “afford” to pay attention, there.
Comment by Hajji — 7/24/2004 @ 8:34 am
MichaelMooronic,
What defines “Iraq is successful"? The Iraq war has resulted in a national treasury wasted wasted precious military resources on a non-threat, ever-increasing casualties (which the public are conveniently shielded from) and a perfect recruiting tool for terrorists. The only “success” will come from a successful spin from the Republicans with special assistance from the SCLM and of course willing self-deceived such as yourself.
Comment by david sieser — 7/24/2004 @ 8:44 am
Hajji,
Na:am, I am too ignorant to find the bookstore and actually read. I cannot even “afford” a good thought. Could you lend me one or two? Seems you have many to spare.
Comment by MichaelMooronic — 7/24/2004 @ 8:57 am
To All Concerned,
The following describes Bush’s inaction after learning “America is under attack” on 9/11, and referenced Rumsfeld’s decision to take control of the decision to scramble jet fighters in the event of hijackings only three months before the catastrophe. Rumsfeld not only assumed these powers but was ‘out of the loop’ the morning of 9/11. Lastly, the PNAC motive for a catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new PEarl Harbor is referenced in an ABC Nightline article. This information represents a disturbing pattern given all we have come to know, so please take note.
“As for the President’s strange behavior after being informed “America was under attack,” after the second jet hit the WTC, film footage is in Moore’s movie. Bush, and his security apparatus, had the President read a children’s book about a pet goat, despite NOT knowing if the attacks had ended, and despite NOT having yet given orders to shoot down any hijackers. Bush had NO questions after hearing the terrifying statement, “America is under attack,” he just sat there… If anyone else did this at their place of work during an unprecedented crisis, and it was all caught on tape, when thousands were literally burning alive in the WTC, and attacks could still be in progress, what would happen? This is not about left or right, but what people left, right, and center want from their government. Seconds could have literally meant tens-of-thousands of more lives, and both Bush and his trained security apparatus did nothing. The President himself was left vulnerable in a pre-disclosed location, surrounded by children, and not shuffled off. A children’s book was prioritized above national security, and by the look on Bush’s face, not with a clear conscience. After the frist jet hit the WTC Bush also attrbuted it to one terrible pilot, despite prior warnings(eg. Aug. 6th PDB, G-8 Genoa), and the symbolic significance of the WTC which had been attacked before.
Add the following:
Hold this fact in your mind:
The Honourable Paul Hellyer(sic), former National Defense Minister of Canada: “As a former Minister of National Defense, when the news came out I had to wonder. Why did airplanes fly around for an hour and a half without interceptors being scrambled from Andrews [Air Force Base]?”
Don’t you think it pushes credulity that four jets could be hijacked in heavily monitored U.S. air space, and that the nerve center for its defense(ie. Pentagon) could be struck approximately 45 minutes after the first two jets hit the WTC? Talk about a wake-up call: Two jets hitting the WTC. These jets went 1 1/2 hours without any confrontation. Think about it. It is enough to make you go hmmmmmmmmmmm… Standard procedure in the event of hijackings was not implemented…. Why???????
http://www.911citizenswatch.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&si d=344&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
In JUNE 2001, just a FEW MONTHS before 9/11, Rumsfeld assumed CONTROL over DECADES old procedures to scramble jet fighters in the event of hijackings. On 9/11 he was interestingly ‘out of the loop’, leaving America at risk:
Observer: “What’s more, the decades-old procedure for a quick response by the nation’s air defense had been changed in June of 2001. Now, instead of NORAD’s military commanders being able to issue the command to launch fighter jets, approval had to be sought from the civilian Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld. This change is extremely significant, because Mr. Rumsfeld claims to have been “out of the loop” nearly the entire morning of 9/11. He isn’t on the record as having given any orders that morning. In fact, he didn’t even go to the White House situation room; he had to walk to the window of his office in the Pentagon to see that the country’s military headquarters was in flames.”
Ground control was also rendered confused by military exercises, authorized, no doubt, by the Department of Defense:
http://www.observer.com/pages/frontpage2.asp
Did Rumsfeld have a motive for 1) Changing decades old protocol, 2)Assuming control over these powers, and 3) being ‘out of the loop’ on 9/11? What is the likelihood of this being chance, and the President priorityzing reading a children’s book after learning of an unprecedented national crisis?
A ‘catastrophic’ and ‘catalyzing’ event like a ‘new Pearl Harbor’…
ABC’s Nightline:
The Plan
Were Neo-Conservatives’ 1998 Memos a Blueprint for Iraq War?
March 10 — Years before George W. Bush entered the White House, and years before the Sept. 11 attacks set the direction of his presidency, a group of influential neo-conservatives hatched a plan to get Saddam Hussein out of power.
The group, the Project for the New American Century, or PNAC, was founded in 1997. Among its supporters were three Republican former officials who were sitting out the Democratic presidency of Bill Clinton: Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz.
In open letters to Clinton and GOP congressional leaders the next year, the group called for “the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power” and a shift toward a more assertive U.S. policy in the Middle East, including the use of force if necessary to unseat Saddam.
And in a report just before the 2000 election that would bring Bush to power, the group predicted that the shift would come about slowly, unless there were “some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor.”
That event came on Sept. 11, 2001. By that time, Cheney was vice president, Rumsfeld was secretary of defense, and Wolfowitz his deputy at the Pentagon.
The next morning — before it was even clear who was behind the attacks — Rumsfeld insisted at a Cabinet meeting that Saddam’s Iraq should be “a principal target of the first round of terrorism,” according to Bob Woodward’s book Bush At War.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/DailyNews/pnac_030310.html
Neri Yarkoni, former head of Israeli Civil Aviation Administration:
“The first two planes which hit the World Trade Center may have surprised the authorities, but he said the third plane should have been found and shot down before crashing into the Pentagon 45 minutes later.
Israeli warplanes would have been airborne within minutes, he said, while it took the U.S. air force an hour to launch its fighters. “We live in a different reality,” he explained. “Here, this is routine.”
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2001/09/12/israelisecurity.htm
In the nearly three years since the attacks there have been no attacks on U.S. soil even 1/4 the size of 9/11(ie. one jet or equivalent attack), despite an all out declaration of war against al-Quaeda, rogue states, and all other terrorist networks world-wide.
Comment by Emerson — 7/24/2004 @ 8:59 am
David,
I find the “recruiting tool for terrorists” a very good point. Did this “recruiting tool” just immediately arise? And, either yes or no, please elaborate on other recruiting tools we can avoid placing into the hands of terrorists. It seems that if “Milestones” amongst other writings about recruiting tools for terrorists is within your paradigm of the terrorist, then we would have to pull out of our own education system, change all of Hollywood and then persue our Awakening Period to the knowledge of Islam and employ shariah. There are many “recruiting tools” for terrorists, to limit such statement to Iraq ignores reality. Further, yes difficulties and death and destruction exist in Iraq. Will it get better? Maybe. Can it get better? Absolutely. Not being the arbiter of all Iraqi thought, but the few Baghdadis I know, and other Iraqis as well, they have hope. Something which was lost and destroyed under Saddam. Geopolitically, if you do not understand the benefit of gaining allies in the ME, good luck. We definitely are shielded from the casualties in Iraq, especially under Saddam. But, aljeezera is never shy about same, you can find all your heart desires….
Comment by MichaelMooronic — 7/24/2004 @ 9:07 am
Hajji,
I found some books!!!! Chomsky’s Hegemony or Survival, and I quote: “It is immaterial that the alleged link between Saddam Hussein and Osam bin Laden, in fact, his bitter enemy, was based on no credible evidence and largely dismissed by competent observers.” This books a great read, especially because Noam is so detailed in all of his references, why does this statement contain no source? Because it is patently wrong. 1. As detailed in 9/11 report and elsewhere, would bitter enemies offer safe haven and entreat the idea of moving camps of the “solid base” to Iraq? 2. The use of “competent observers” demonstrates the self-gratification of liberal thoughts. Only idiots with smaller brains than us would think Iraq and al Qa’ida would ever work together, they are ideologically opposed, etc., etc. Thus, Dick Clarke must be one of these idiots as well as Thomas Pickering, Berger, Clinton, and others who told the American people we were striking al-Shifa because Iraqi weapons experts were providing advice to OBL (Against all Enemies p. 147) and afraid Baghdad might be OBL’s stopping point after an Afghani bombing campaign.
The best reads are liberal books, nothing like a good laugh I say.
Comment by MichaelMooronic — 7/24/2004 @ 9:41 am
M.M.
Congrats on ‘yer find! Nothing like shelling out a few quid for light entertainment like gd’ol Noam. ‘Course the socialistic institution of the Public Library might also be a good source, if they’ve not all been surveilled,
subverted, banned or burned by now.
Not many people posting here would ever disagree that the pre-emptive (and obviously poorly investigated) actions of our government have been limited to this current administration, but the NOW of the thing is what is most pressing. We cannot change the past, as much as we try to disguise it in the convolutions of re-recorded history. I’ve no choice but to remain hopeful. I DO believe in fairies! I DO believe in fairies!
Comment by Hajji — 7/24/2004 @ 11:12 am
Of all the right-wing spin, the thing that pisses me off the most is when they say that people who want George Bush out of the White House are rooting for the U.S. to fail in Iraq. Of course, this is completely ass-backwards. It is BECAUSE of the death, destruction, and chaos in Iraq that we want to hold King George responsible. We aren’t rooting against economic recovery, the poor economy is another reason we want Bush out. And the ultimate irony is that this is the guy who pledged to restore accountability to the White House.
BTW Mike, post #90 has given me a great idea for an Iraqi rap artist: “Bagh Daddy!” Whoever snags that one is going to be HOT!
Comment by frsbdg — 7/24/2004 @ 11:22 am
frsbdg,
I know an guy by the name “Bagdhadi” I’m just beggin him to move to Indiana!
Comment by Hajji — 7/24/2004 @ 11:40 am
“Hoosier Bagdhadi” has such a nice ring.
Comment by Hajji — 7/24/2004 @ 11:40 am
MichaelMooronic, thank you for what you have said. That is exactly what I have been saying all along. When Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton. Al Gore, John Kerry, and Teddy Kennedy, all prominant democrats who have said the exact same thing George W. Bush had said, and when the intelligence turns out not to be true, ONLY THE PRESIDENT OUT OF ALL OF THESE PEOPLE WHO SAID THE EXACT SAME THING IS THE LIAR! But at least Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton are “real” humanitarians, who actually are humanitarians whether they’re in power or not. The democrats who are against the Iraq war, to free 25 million people, but yet these same democrats want to free the oppressed people of Sudan LOL. These 2 have not called the president a liar, or that he distorted the intelligence.
As far as the Iraq/AlQaeda connection, the 9/11 commission has confirmed it, the Clinton administration said it, as did Hillary Clinton in 2002. Democrats seem to be unable to make the distinction between an Iraq/9/11 link and an Iraq/Alqaeda link. No one ever said in the Bush administration, nor did the 9/11 commission say that there was an Iraq/9/11. Democrats try to blame 9/11 on Bush, but yet, they fail to bring up Clinton’s 12 opportunities he had to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden. I am not blaming Clinton for 9/11. Bottom line is, that the main priority of democrats these days is regaining back political power in the white house, even if it means they have to lie or distort the truth about their opposition. They care more about political power, than they do national security.
And for those who say, going to Iraq just recruited more terrorists, well there is no proof of that, and that it may have even had the opposite effect. Enter Libyan leader Omar Khadafi, who as a result of US forces going to Iraq, got scared and gave up his Nuclear Weapons program. And the world is a safer place b/c he did that and that Saddam is out of power.
Comment by Tim L — 7/24/2004 @ 1:39 pm
Hajji and Tim,
I did snicker re hoosierbaghdadi, that does have a nice ring.
Although your points resonate, Tim, the LOL is the money point. Beware the tides of election year. Here comes the grandstanding and demagoguery, see Black Caucus comments post-Bushies NUL plea re Sudan. “Did he mention Sudan?” rang hollow the comment. And, now, Sudan is a Democratic issue; not cute, not funny.
Sudan has been ravaged by nearly a decade of brutal warfare. Dinkas, and many others, have been slaughtered, villages destroyed and refugee camps established. This story is expressed by many, the most troubling are the personal stories. Now, the election year, Sudan is in play and history forgotten. The killings are not new, are not Bushies dilemma and placing blame on his shoulders is the same as blaming him for Rwanda. Politics at its worst.
BTW, to the right-wing conspirator whom still believes, my points re Dems wanting Iraq to fail are not from a right-wing conservative, but the facts are a stubborn thing.
Comment by MichaelMooronic — 7/24/2004 @ 2:23 pm
Or as Ronald Reagan said: “facts are stupid things.” Sure, they all may have been looking at the same intelligence information, but Dubya was the guy who decided to pull the trigger and invade Iraq. In addition, they did all they could to confuse the issue that Iraq was involved with 9/11, and when 70% of the populace mistakenly had that impression, they did nothing to set the record straight. Of couse, that was exactly what they wanted. If the definition of a lie is a statement meant to mislead, then surely this administration lied to get us into this war. For that, he must take responsibility for the consequences. The Bay of Pigs was planned during the Eisenhower administration, but happened under Kennedy. At least JFK was a man and accepted responsibility for that debacle. Chris Matthews has been making that point on “Hardball” for months, and he has yet to get a right-winger with enough balls to agree.
LOVE the idea of “Hoosier Bagh Daddy!” He can rap at halftime during the basketball games.
Comment by frsbdg — 7/24/2004 @ 3:37 pm
It appears that the Big Bagh Dadi, John Negroponte is not from Indiana…he was born in London. Thanks for the laugh.
Comment by Robert Schwartz — 7/24/2004 @ 4:10 pm
MichaelMooronic, I too agree w/ your assertion that some democrats would want the Iraq war to go bad, if they knew the political ramifications of it. There are some that want the Iraq war to go bad anyway, such as Michael Moore and others in the far left.
People, this election will be based on The War on Terror/Iraq and the Economy. If the Iraq war is bad by september/october/novermber, I mean real bad, then Kerry wins. If the Iraq war is good by that time, Bush wins. The economy is only a secondary issue in this election and only has an indirect effect on the primary issue. The reason being is, that the economy is booming. The economy is good. Now there are people who don’t feel that way b/c of the lagging indicator, but the results of the economy being good will most likely catch up in time for the election.
Frsbdg, you OUGHT to also hold the people accountable who voted for the Iraq War, that gave the President permission to wage war on Iraq SUCH AS JOHN KERRY AND JOHN EDWARDS, and other democrats and republicans if you are truly intellectually honest.
The Bush administration should not be blamed for people thinking Iraq was involved in 9/11. That blame should be on CBS and MSNBC and CNN, b/c THEY ARE THE ONES who keep saying that “the 9/11 commission has debunked the Bush administrations claim that Iraq was involved in 9/11.” When both 9/11 commission chairmen Democrat Lee Hamilton and Republican Thomas Kean both criticized the media for misreporting thier findings. The liberal media made 2 lies about the 9/11 commission’s findings about 9/11 and Iraq and Alqaeda. First, they claimed there was no Iraq/Alqaeda link, which isn’t true. Secondly, they used what the 9/11 commissions findings, that Iraq was not involved in 9/11, which is true, and they tried to say that, that the Bush administration’s CLAIM that Iraq was involved in 9/11 was debunked by the 9/11 commission. Both commissioner charimen have shunned the media for saying that. So that is your reason why people thought Iraq was involved in 9/11. And to this day, at least from my observations, MSNBC is still saying that the Bush administration claimed Iraq was involved in 9/11, WHEN THEY NEVER EVER SAID THAT.
Comment by Tim L — 7/24/2004 @ 4:19 pm
Tim, “the liberal media?” Are you actually saying that with a straight face?
Comment by Karen in Texas — 7/24/2004 @ 8:04 pm
Kids,
I can speak personally about us tree-hugging liberal elitists and our feelings on the Iraqi war and it’s victories and failures.
I knew how awful and difficult it was going to be. I wanted it to never happen, even though I knew it was going to for a year before it did. My girlfriend, Jill’s, kid had just returned to Indiana from a six-month National Guard deployment to Bosnia. He was only home for a couple of months before being called up for “Urban Warfare” training and subsequent deployment to Kuwait, where they waited for the inevitable.
It was like Ellis Paul says in a poem…
“I’d never rushed forward to see something I wish didn’t even exist, though I’ve heard that said of dentists and in-laws…”
Every “Good Morning America” spot from Kuwait was spent looking for one face in a sea of tens of thousands with the same haircut, the same clothing, the same eager excitement.
When the invasion began, every report was scrutinized for unit numbers in towns and villages that were so unlike any most of us had ever known. When the names started coming, the closeness of the hometowns of the dead to our own towns and villages, places we’d driven though, eaten in, saw highway signs for in travels or knew someone from, we’d nod our head.
Finally the phone calls from other families with messages from others who’d gotten through first, and then, blessedly, from Karl, himself. He was OK, for now. He was OK again each time he called, but we still waited every night. Every car bomb, every mortar attack every time another name was added to the list was another night of fitful sleep.
Never, ever in that time did either of us wish for failure in Iraq, for the US or for the people there. Now that he’s home, even now we hope for no more killing, no more senseless destruction all the while we know it was wrong, even Karl, for having sent him there to face it and having taken our hearts away with him for the duration,
Not a soul in this family feels that the current path our country is careening down is the road that should be traveled, not a soul will give this adminstration the benefit of the doubt, since those benefits have been long corrupted.
At the same time, none of us will ever wish for failure, more deaths, more killings. The onus for all these are on Bush, for pulling the trigger, on congress for giving him the gun and on the intelligence agencies and the media for stoking the flames of aggression. Finally, the onus falls on each of us, for letting it all happen on our watch.
The longer we support it, the more blame we all face.
Nobody wishes for “failure” or continued war except those who gain power or money or both from it. But as I keep saying, we will be AT war for as long as those who decide FOR war PROFIT from war.
…and Jill’s younges kid is in Germany, as we speak, training and waiting for whatever comes next.
Comment by Hajji — 7/24/2004 @ 8:16 pm
Karen lol!!! You are just one of the many liberals in denial about the left wing bias in the media. According to the non-partisan independent Pew Research study they conducted, 55% of TV news reporters consider themselves Liberal Democrats, 38% of TV news reporters consider themselves Moderate Democrats, and only 7% of TV news reporters consider themselves conservative. So there obviously is a liberal bias. And all of you libs who think the #1 rated cable news network, the Fox News Channel, is conservative, that is not true. The only reason it seems conservative is b/c it tells both sides of the story, not just the liberal point of view. And liberals hate that, that is why Moveon.org is trying to get rid of Fox lol.
And, I assume you are agreeing w/ my previous posts lol, b/c you didn’t respond to them.
Comment by Tim L — 7/24/2004 @ 8:23 pm
I’m going to leave the joke about the liberal media thing for someone else to tackle because I just don’t have the energy and frankly nothing I or anyone could say would POSSIBLY provide you with a reason to think other than what you think, Tim.
I do, however, want to respond, as Hajji did, to your unfair comment about the left WANTING this war to go badly so that it will sway the election. Hajji offered an incredibly heart-felt, eloquent statement here that I hope you will read and think about carefully, Tim. It’s so easy to demonize “the other” in our society. We ALL do it. I know I catch myself doing it, too. And it’s not going to help heal this nation. What do I mean by “demonize?” Precisely the kind of comment you make about liberals wanting the war to go badly. We would all have to be pretty soulless, sucky people to want that. We would all have to really hate our country to want that. And regardless of what you seem to think, neither of those conditions are fact. You don’t know me, but you’ll have to take my word that I am neither soulless or amoral or America-hating. I vehemently opposed this war precisely because I DIDN’T want the loss of American life–or the lives of innocent Iraqis or anybody else for that matter. Like Hajji, I have many loved-ones in Iraq, including several family members. To say I want this war to go badly just to get Bush out of office would be the equivalent of saying I don’t care if their chances of getting killed are increased, I hate Bush that much. Believe it or not, that’s not the case. See, it isn’t ABOUT Bush as a person for me or for most liberals. It’s about his policies, his erratic thoughtless decisions, his lack of compassion. Would I want to sacrifice more human life just to get him booted out of office. No way. That’s why I opposed this war in the first place–because I hold human life as sacrosanct. Please think about what we’re saying here–I think it’s really important.
Comment by Karen in Texas — 7/24/2004 @ 8:59 pm
Karen
When I’m wrong, I’m wrong. Looking back at what I said, you are absolutely correct. I “crossed the line” and made what I thought at the time was innocuous comment, but was in fact inappropriate and insensitive. So I apologize for the comment.
However, that doesn’t mean you are going to get off any easier.
You back-peddled after your original comment by saying:
“I am not accusing this administration of desiring theocracy (at least not in a conscious way)–but people associated with this administration ARE, and they’re pretty clear about that, actually. The Christian Reconstructionists are who really scare me–big power players in the GOP.”
But, in your previous post you had this to say:
“..but I really don’t think I can be accused of subscribing to a conspiracy theory if I say that theocracy would be just fine with several key players in this administration, maybe George himself. (Not to mention Ashcroft, the evil Tom DeLay, Scalia, etc.).”
I don’t think I misunderstood your comments. My assertion that you insinuated that the current administration was seeking a theocracy appears to be accurate. Now if you’ve changed your mind since I challenged you to prove that accusation, fine, but I think you should make that clear.
As for others who responded to my post:
There seems to be some difficulty with my reference to a “Christian Nation”. Obviously I was not indicating that we are theocratic regime, since that’s exactly what I was debating; I simply meant that the majority of Americans were Christian, and therefore a significant factor in all aspects of our society.
I didn’t say 25% of Americans were Christian, I’m sure the number is much higher. I said 25% attended church regularly. Obviously there are many people who consider themselves Christian, but often skip church on Sunday.
As far as Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Pagans, Rastafarians, etc. are concerned, I don’t have a clue how often they attend regular religious functions, obviously t