Some quick attaboys


Sorry to have been absent so much of the week. I’ve been tied up in marathon meetings — I’m about to go into another all-day one (administrative ones, related to the newspaper’s budget and such) — and have had to spend breaks and evenings racing to do the basic tasks involved in getting the editorial pages out.

But until I can get freed up a little, here are a couple of quick items for my dear readers to cogitate over and discuss in my absence. I’d like to offer thanks and congratulations to:

  1. Sens. Lindsey Graham, John McCain and John Warner for having won an apparent victory in favor of the American Way. Sure, they didn’t get every thing, but that’s the way compromise works. And they seem to have held their ground as to the principles that mattered most. Thanks to them, the rule of law is finally being established with regard to the treatment of prisoners, and the legislative branch is a little closer to playing its proper role in the War on Terror.
  2. Sen. Tommy Moore, for having acted with uncharacteristic boldness to make a couple of000moore_3 important points: First, that candidates for governor should not ally themselves with political
    actions intended to hurt the state’s economy. Second, that the inconsistent and ineffective NAACP boycott accomplishes nothing at all for South Carolina. I would add that it accomplishes nothing but the opposite of its stated purpose. It puts a solution on the Confederate "battle flag" farther away, not closer. And make no mistake. The only solution is to put dead relics of our most tragic past in museums or bronze monuments, not to fly them as though they were alive and had positive relevance to who we are as a people today.

Back to meetings…

138 thoughts on “Some quick attaboys

  1. Capital A

    The only solution is to put dead relics of our most tragic past in museums or bronze monuments, not to fly them as though they were alive and had positive relevance to who we are as a people today. –BW

  2. bill

    Bush wants the law changed because he’s already broken it.Will he escape conviction?
    What does this devil have to do to get kicked out of office? Dig a bunker in the Rose Garden and dump Laura in it?

  3. bill

    Billy,there’s a photo of Brad right above this post.I have some really great pics of my Dixie Dingo,”Baby”,named after Sylvia Miles’ dog in Midnight Cowboy,but she won’t allow them to be posted.She’s afraid of becoming net-trash.
    If you google “Dixie Dingo” you’ll find a breeder in Aiken who sells them.There incredibly great dogs and would make the perfect mascot for your blog.

  4. bud

    Another GOP success story (From the FBI):
    The rate of violent crime in America increased last year for the first time since 1991, according to a new FBI report. The increase coincides with dramatic cuts to state and local law enforcement funding by Republicans each year since President Bush took office. The $2.3 billion recently approved by the House amounts to nearly half of the $4.5 billion appropriated in 2001.
    So we have:
    Increased Crime
    Increased Traffic Deaths
    More Terrorism
    Higher Poverty Rates
    Higher Gasoline Prices (A bit lower than a month ago in order to help GOP in the elections)
    Failure to capture Osama
    Failure to finish job in Afghanistan
    Disasterous quagmire in Iraq resulting in American deaths equal to 9-11
    Higher rate of Americans without health insurance
    Trashing of the US Constitution
    Trashing of the Geneva Convention
    Well at least spinach is still safe to eat.

  5. Lee

    Bush sure has failed to clean up all of the mess Clinton left, but he fixed the economy with a tiny tax cut, made honest Americans less afraid of their government, and has about 90% of Clinton’s military mess fixed.

  6. Randy Ewart

    Bud, remember W said he’s not into “nation building”…little did we know which country he had in mind.

  7. Randy Ewart

    The era of conservative Republicanism is over. Centrists are defining the political landscape – McCain and Graham once AGAIN set the tone and Joe takes charge in Connecticut.

  8. Phillip

    Lex, you may be right. I’m going to have to look at the details more closely before accepting that this was a positive outcome.
    Nevertheless, McCain, Warner, Graham, Powell, Shultz, etc., by the clarity and decisiveness of their rhetoric, have cleared a wide path for a lot of sensible centrists to navigate through on this issue in the months and years ahead.
    The larger point is that Bush will not be President in 28 months (barring the invocation of martial law after another terrorist attack) and this compromise will probably revert to the original McCain position upon his election to the Presidency (or a Democrat’s).

  9. Randy Ewart

    Phillip, great point about the post W landscape.
    If McCain makes it through the unleashing of the conservative attack dogs in the primaries, I don’t see a dem who can beat him. He will draw in a huge chunk of the moderates and the republicans will vote for him over any dem.
    Personally, I think he is the perfect choice considering current reality. Let him have that bully pulpit and watch his positive influence explode.

  10. Brad Warthen

    Consider this, folks: McCain has the Bush folks on HIS side this time in S.C. He’s been lining them up early.
    At least, that’s my impression. When things slow down a bit, I’m going to call around and see if I can put together a comprehensive list.

  11. Brad Warthen

    Anyone for Lindsey as SecDef in the McCain administration?
    Imagine that — a conservative Republican president and Secretary of Defense that Democrats don’t hate. We might actually be able to pull together and WIN the war on terror.
    And don’t any of you try that “McCain and Graham aren’t conservatives” garbage. They are both true, traditional conservatives, instead of being nutballs. As much as they’d like to claim it, nutballs don’t have a patent on the word “conservative.”

  12. phillip

    For sure, if Graham doesn’t run in 08 or is beaten in the primary, SecDef in a McCain administration is a strong bet. But what if Graham wins the primary? What happens if he’s re-elected to the Senate and McCain is elected president and wants to pick him for the Cabinet? Is there another special election?—it’s not the same as resigning during a term of office, since his original Senate term would end more or less simultaneously with his assumption of Cabinet duties?
    Of course, all this is predicated on McCain’s being elected President.
    And while we’re fantasizing about a united coalition government, how about McCain’s good friend Joe Biden as Secretary of State?

  13. Frank

    There aren’t special elections for the Senate. The governor would appoint a new Senator if Graham resigned his seat. Thomas Ravenel, perhaps?

  14. Frank

    Oops, Wikipedia has proved me wrong. Apparently there are special elections for the Senate, usually at the same time as the next Congressional elections. However, the governor can appoint a Senator to temporarily fill the vacancy. So I guess I was half-right.
    Boy is there egg on my face.

  15. bud

    For all you right-wing idiots out there that swoon over the disgusting farce of a president we have read this transcript.
    We had a real president trying to get Bin-Laden. Did he do enough? No. He admits that. Did Bush do enough? The little, chickenhawk punk didn’t even try. That’s the difference between these two men. A man that stands up and admits he should have done more. Not making excuses. Not passing the buck. And another man who smirks and struts and spends all his time vacationing. His minion blame Clinton an his folks for not getting bin-Laden while they had 8 months to do something and did absolutely nothing. And then compounded the mistake by leaving Afghanistan early, well before the job was finished. Where has all this gotten us? Over 6,000 Americans killed so far between 9-11, Afghanistan and Iraq. And the media has led the charge to diefy this moron. Simply disgusting.

  16. Annee

    I find it strange that whatever side one is on politically the media is blamed for being on the opposing side. I was reading the other day about how the media is biased against the Arabic world and so pro-Israel – and then spoke with a friend who was frustrated with the media for being so pro-Palestinian and so anti-Israel!!! Can anyone explain this phenomenon to me?!

  17. Randy Ewart

    Annee, it’s like penalty calls made in football. The refs are hated by both sides because the make calls against both sides. This happens to BW all the time on this blog.
    I find it amusing when Dave and Lee try to dismiss Graham and McCain as “liberals” but can’t and won’t offer up the threshhold to be considered a “liberal”. The implicit definition, from what I’ve seen from their posts, is that if anyone disagrees with their position then the “liberal” tag is fired off.
    How about a place for Liberman at the McCain administration table?

  18. LexWolf

    The fruits of an unserious presidency
    Bill Clinton is desperate to be remembered by history for something other than the Lewinsky affair, perjury, and impeachment. And he will be. It’s becoming clear that the Clinton legacy will also include eight years of inaction, broken by rare instances of ineffectual action, towards the mounting threat posed by Osama bin Laden and other Islamic terrorists that culminated in 9/11.
    That this prospect horrifies Clinton is evident from the rough transcript of the former president’s interview with Chris Wallace. Clinton has no defense for his feckless response to the mounting terrorist threat other than the honest and very limited defense that he just didn’t imagine these guys could successfully attack us on large-scale at home. Clearly that defense won’t do, so instead he lashes out at Wallace, Fox News, ABC, and the “right-wing.” Somehow, I don’t think history will be very impressed with this sort of flailing, or with all of the meaningless inside baseball Clinton tosses around (e.g., “the CIA was run by George Tenet who President Bush gave the medal of freedom to and said he did a good job”).
    Nor will the fact that President Bush was slow off the mark help Clinton. First, failures by one administration do not excuse failures by another (although they would help support the honest defense that Clinton is unwilling to make — that it was difficult to comprehend the true extent of the threat). Second, Bush was in a position to create a post-9/11 legacy of fighting terrorism and he’ll be remembered for that legacy. Clinton’s effort to pull Bush down with him is a fool’s errand.
    The inescapable fact is that Bill Clinton, for all of his strengths, gave the country an unserious presidency, and it turned out (not surprisingly) that we needed more. Clinton savored the popularity that came with that presidency, but now he must live with its unfortunate and unflattering legacy.

  19. Randy Ewart

    You can’t spell war without W and that’s exactly the legacy he will leave behind.
    And let’s not forget, in this era of bashing those who want to “cut and run”, the republicans were very critical of possible military action in the Clinton days. There was tremendous propoganda about Clinton taking military action to overshadow his personal problems – “tail wagging the dog”. He was not getting support to take action, but he’s criticized for this?
    BTW, why can’t republicans defend W without invoking Clinton?

  20. LexWolf

    From the NY Times, no less!
    U.S. Cruise Missiles Strike Sudan and Afghan Targets Tied to Terrorist Network
    Congressional leaders were briefed about the planned raid Wednesday night and Thursday morning. For the most part, Republican leaders praised Clinton’s decision and urged more aggressive action against terrorism.
    House Speaker Newt Gingrich expressed firm support, and Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, said, “Our response appears to be appropriate and just.”

  21. bud

    Brad, you need to read your own paper. Buried in a teeny, tiny article on page A6 there’s a story showing how our misguided quagmire in Iraq is helping breed more and more and more terrorists. No wonder terrorist incidents world wide are increasing. I guess a 25 year old sports story (Clemson’s national football title) is far more important to feature on the front page than a story showing how thousands of people are needlessly dying. The priorities of this rag of a newspaper are unbelievable.

  22. bud

    What trumps everything else about 9-11 is that it happened 8 months into the Decider’s watch. That by definition makes it Bush’s fault.
    As for the Clinton legacy. Peace (only about 100 dead service men on his watch) and prosperity (3.9% unemployment, declining poverty numbers, lowest crime rate in 20 years) make for a pretty damn good legacy don’t you think?

  23. Randy Ewart

    Typical reply by Lex; cherry pick and revise history to suit his ideology.
    From a conservative RAG: ‘Wag the Dog’ Haunts Clinton.
    In it republicans explicitly question Clinton’s motives.

  24. bud

    Lex, you can’t have it both ways. Either (1) Clinton was slow off the mark acting tentatively and ineffectively or (2) he was acting only to distract the nation from the Lewinsky affair. At the time I clearly remember Rush Limbaugh endorsed the later explaination for the missile attack. Which is it? Apparently Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Lott supported the president at the time.

  25. LexWolf

    Read the part I bolded again. Yes, Lott and Gingrich supported the fact that finally, finally, finally Clinton did a little something even if he should have done much more. But at least he did something for once, instead of just checking out the interns. Too bad that this was all there was.
    Overall, I’m not trying to place all the blame on Clinton, simply because the real culprits are the terrorists. However, it’s the height of asininity when lefties claim that Clinton did such a great job on terrorism and that it’s all Bush’s fault even though his appointees weren’t even in place yet and in fact all the major counterterrorism players (Clark, Freeh, Tenet) were Clinton holdovers. Clinton had 8 years and did squat – and that’s why you guys are so upset, as is he. He’s got his legacy all right, and it ain’t pretty.

  26. Randy Ewart

    Did these holdovers convince W to go to war in Iraq while there was unfinished business in Afghanistan?
    I’m not suggesting Clinton did a great job. I am taking issue with republicans (“righties” to use your terminology) who want to hoist all the blame on Clinton, when it was this same party that was making it very difficult for him to take action. With those protesting the Iraq War now being labelled as viciously as they are, then what about republicans who were unsuppotive then?

  27. LexWolf

    Here, for example is a Daily Intelligence Brief Clinton received on Dec 4, 1998. It warned of an al-Qaeda attack involving airplane hijackings. This gave Clinton 25 months to take care of the problem. Could he, or any president, have done something with such vague warnings? Probably not, but the same applies to that infamously vague IDB given Bush in August 2001. As Bush himself said at the time, these briefings covered the rear end of some bureaucrat somewhere but they were useless as a basis for actual action.
    As for those evil Republicans who kept Clinton from doing more, the best response is right here:
    So, Senate Majority Leader Lott and Speaker of the House Gingrich, and most Republicans generally, praised the (long overdo, intentionally weak) attack.
    But Dan Coats accused him of — get this — dishonesty and political calculation.
    Why, there’s no way a President could have taken action previous to, or subsequent to, this ONE attempt on bin Ladin’s life without the crucial support of Dan Coats of Indiana.
    Because, you see, Dan Coats personally delivered authorizations to attack enemies from the White House to the target geeks at the Pentagon. No Dan Coats– no airstrikes.
    It’s as simple as that.

    Your “argument” is simply laughable. Even you will have to admit that Clinton had more than enough GOP support at the time, at the highest levels no less, to do much more than he actually did. Instead he continued in his usual fecklessness.

  28. Randy Ewart

    Great example of an ideologue bending history to fit his view. Republicans were more interested in getting Clinton than fighting terrorism at the time.
    Lex quotes the SAME Trent Lott who publicly questioned the President’s motives. “Both the timing and the motive are subject to question,” as quoted in a CONSERVATIVE rag (see post above).
    Guess Trent couldn’t make up his mind. He must not have used Ol’ Strom to help him out.

  29. LexWolf

    From your own link: “Secretary of State Madeline Albright said that many Republican senators, including Sens. Helms (NC), McCain (AZ) and Lugar (IN) have supported the President and not questioned his reasons for the attack.”
    Your “argument” just doesn’t wash. We have most of the Dems opposing the Iraq War right now yet Bush is pushing on anyway. Are you suggesting that simply because a part of the opposition doesn’t agree with a president means that the president can’t act anyway? Puhleeze! Even Slick Willie could have done much more after that lackadaisical 1998 missile strike. There was no effort by the GOP to get him to stop or to limit his CinC authority in any way. In fact, the main complaint was that he didn’t do anywhere near enough.
    You are certainly free to believe your revisionist history (or to believe in Santa Claus, UFOs and the Tooth Fairy) but it simply doesn’t match the undeniable facts.

  30. Randy Ewart

    Lex, do you even bother to read your own posts? Let me help you out (again):
    You posted how it was only Dan Coats who criticized the attacks as a diversionary tactic. I proved you wrong.
    You then posted that most democrats oppose the War but the Decider pressed on anyway. The democrats largely SUPPORTED him when the war first started. That’s the apples to apples comparison. You offer up apples to oranges.
    You do need the support of the congress to a large degree. MANY republicans made it very explicit they were NOT supporting him – including a couple small role players like the house SPEAKER elect and the senate majority LEADER.

  31. bud

    Lex, you are way too hung up on this legacy thing. Clinton’s legacy is secure. History will regard him as one of our greatest leaders. He rose to the occassion when his country needed him. He acted on intelligence to prevent the millineum attacks. We were safer, healthier and more prosperous than ever before in our history. It wasn’t so long ago that we felt so secure that we didn’t need guards at the entrances to Fort Jackson. Imagine that. We could carry liquids and tweezers onto planes without a care. That all seems so long ago. Jobs were plentiful and paid well. Now all the good paying jobs are overseas and we are left with $7/hr jobs at fast-food restaraunts. We had a real man in the job. A man who knew when to act. A compassionate man. Firm and resolute.
    This little spin move you keep trying to pull is quite hillarious. Bush was in charge on 9-11 – he blew it, before, during and after the attacks. Bush led us into Iraq, and it’s made us less safe. Bush has given us tax cuts for the wealthy – poverty rates are increasing as a result. It’s Bush, not Clinton that has a legacy problem.

  32. LexWolf

    I’m sure neither of you two will change your closed minds — and I apologize in advance for confusing you with facts — but the piece below has a wealth of instances proving once and for all that, far from opposing Clinton against Al-Qaeda, Republicans were very supportive instead:
    Bill Clinton, Bin Laden, and Hysterical RevisionsNothing but GOP support for getting bin Laden
    …..Nothing but GOP support for getting bin Laden
    With that in mind, a thorough LexisNexis search identified absolutely no instances of high-ranking Republicans ever suggesting that Mr. Clinton was obsessed with bin Laden, or did too much to apprehend him prior to the bombing of the USS Cole in October 2000. Quite the contrary, Republicans were typically highly supportive of Clinton’s efforts in this regard.
    As a little background, prior to the August 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Africa, there is hardly any mention of bin Laden by President Clinton in American news transcripts. For the most part, the first real discussion of the terrorist leader by the former president – or by any U.S. politicians or pundits for that matter – began after these bombings, and escalated after the American retaliation in Afghanistan a few weeks later.
    At the time, the former president was knee-deep in the Monica Lewinsky scandal, so much so that the press was abuzz with the possibility that Clinton had performed these attacks to distract the American people from his extracurricular activities much as in the movie Wag the Dog.
    Were there high-ranking Republicans that piled on this assertion? Hardly. As the Associated Press reported on the day of the attacks, Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-Georgia) said the following on August 20, 1998:
    Well, I think the United States did exactly the right thing. We cannot allow a terrorist group to attack American embassies and do nothing. And I think we have to recognize that we are now committed to engaging this organization and breaking it apart and doing whatever we have to to suppress it, because we cannot afford to have people who think that they can kill Americans without any consequence. So this was the right thing to do. [emphasis added]
    Gingrich was not alone in his support. CNN’s Candy Crowley reported on August 21, 1998, the day after cruise missiles were sent into Afghanistan:
    With law makers scattered to the four winds on August vacation, congressional offices revved up the faxes. From the Senate majority leader [Trent Lott], “Despite the current controversy, this Congress will vigorously support the president in full defense of America’s interests throughout the world.” [emphasis added]
    Crowley continued:
    “The United States political leadership always has and always will stand united in the face of international terrorism,” said the powerful Republican chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee [Jesse Helms]. [emphasis added]
    It was vintage rally around the flag, just as they did for Ronald Reagan when he bombed Libya, for George Bush when he sent armed forces to the Gulf.
    The Atanta Journal-Constitution reported the same day:
    “Our nation has taken action against very deadly terrorists opposed to the most basic principles of American freedom,” said Sen. Paul Coverdell, a Republican member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “This action should serve as a reminder that no one is beyond the reach of American justice.” [emphasis added]
    Former vice president Dan Quayle was quoted by CNN on August 23, 1998:
    I don’t have a problem with the timing. You need to focus on the act itself. It was a correct act. Bill Clinton took—made a decisive decision to hit these terrorist camps. It’s probably long overdue. [emphasis added]
    Were there some Republican detractors? Certainly. Chief amongst them was Sen. Dan Coats of Indiana:
    I think we fear that we may have a president that is desperately seeking to hold onto his job in the face of a firestorm of criticism and calls for him to step down.
    Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania) also questioned the timing at first. However, other Republicans pleaded with dissenters on their side of the aisle to get on board the operation, chief amongst them, Gingrich himself. As reported by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the Speaker felt the “Wag the Dog” comparisons were “sick”:
    “Anyone who saw the bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, anyone who saw the coffins come home, would not ask such a question,” said the House speaker, referring to the 12 Americans killed in the embassy bombings.
    In fact, Gingrich did everything within his power to head off Republican criticism of these attacks as reported by the Boston Globe on August 23, 1998:
    Indeed, Gingrich even saw to it that one of his political associates, Rich Galen, sent a blast-Fax to conservative talk radio hosts urging them to lay off the president on the missile strikes, and making sure they knew of Gingrich’s strong support. [emphasis added]
    That’s the same Rich Galen, by the way, who is openly urging Republican congressional candidates to try to take political advantage of the president’s sex scandal in their television advertising this fall.
    Sound like Republicans were complaining about President Clinton obsessing over bin Laden? Or, does it seem that Mr. Clinton pulled this concept out of his… hat in front of Chris Wallace, and ran 99 yards with the ball, albeit in the wrong direction?
    Regardless, in the end, sanity prevailed, and both Specter and Coats got on board the operation:
    After reviewing intelligence information collected on bin Laden, Specter said: “I think the president acted properly.” [emphasis added]
    As for “neocons,” one so-called high-ranking member, Richard Perle, wrote the following in an August 23, 1998, op-ed published in the Sunday Times:
    For the first time since taking office in 1993, the Clinton administration has responded with some measure of seriousness to an act of terror against the United States. This has undoubtedly come as a surprise to Osama Bin Laden, the Saudi terrorist believed to have been behind the bombing of American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and to the regimes in Afghanistan and Sudan who provide him with sanctuary and support.
    Until now they, along with other terrorists and their state sponsors in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya and North Korea, have manoeuvred, plotted, connived and killed with confidence that the United States would do little or nothing in retaliation.
    So Thursday’s bombing is a small step in the right direction. More important, it reverses, at least for now, a weak and ineffective Clinton policy that has emboldened terrorists and confirmed that facilitating terror is without cost to the states that do it. [emphasis added]
    Does that sound like a “Bush neocon” claiming that Clinton was “obsessed with bin Laden” to you? ……(Much More, click on the headline above)

  33. bud

    You can’t have it both ways Lex. Either Clinton acted desisively or he acted in a “wag-the-dog” response to the Lewinsky scandal. Your evidence (such as it is, given the right-wing source) suggests the Republican leadership at the time supported the President. I concur with that opinion. He tried to get Bin-Laden then. The Republican leadership agreed that he was following the correct course of action. But now, thanks to the right-wing “hate Clinton” groups history is being revised to suggest he DIDN’T try to get Bin-Laden. That is clearly bunk.
    The only person who failed to try to get Bin-Laden was the Decider. What got Clinton riled was the attack job by the media, especially Fox News, that fails to ask anyone comparable questions about Bush’s efforts to get Bin-Laden. It’s clear to anyone with half a brain that the military efforts of the Bush adminstration were focused on high-tech weaponry such as the anti-missile defense system, expensive attack submarines, nuclear aircraft carriers and high tech fighters, none of which would have helped in our effort to find Bin-Laden.
    So here’s the bottom line to all of this: Bill Clinton was aware of the threat from Al-Qaeda. He took steps to kill/apprehend Bin-Laden. He was working with intelligence orgainizations from around the world. The Republican leadership generally supported his efforts and in fact rallied around him at the time. The right-wing spin machine, as led by Oxymoron Limbaugh, launched a fierce, partisan attack accusing Clinton of “wagging the dog”. So the conservatives at the time wanted to have it both ways: elected officials rallying around the president while their surrogates on the radio attacked him.
    And now with the war in Iraq a clear failure we are having some second thoughts about our current leader’s ability to protect us. The 9-11 anniversary should be the perfect opportunity to showcase just how dramatically our current president has failed us. So what to do? BLAME CLINTON. It’s really all you neocons have left.

  34. bud

    Of course the whole blame Clinton first strategy is predictable. What the admistration is desparately trying to hide, minimize or offset is the complete and utter failure of the Bush foreign policy. With each passing day we see how catastrophically incompetent our leadership is. With troop levels at 147,000, up by about 10,000 in recent weeks, the violence in Iraq only gets worse. A record number of Iraqis are dying, many tortured to death. It’s not an unfair question to ask whether the people in Iraq would be better off under Saddam’s rule. Without a doubt fewer would be dying. It’s hard to imagine torture at a higher level, or electricity at a lower level.
    The mainstream media is doing their best to ignore this worsening situation right before the election but the truth is coming out anyway. This whole misguided adventure cannot be blamed on Clinton but thanks to the incredible ingenuity of the right-wing spin machine the neo-cons do the next best thing, change the subject and lie about events that occurred 8 years ago. But thanks to the State Newspaper if you read pages A5 or A6 (page 1 is worthless) you just might get a smidgeon of truth.

  35. bill

    From the Guerilla News Network-
    The McCain “Compromise” & Bush’s Torture Program
    Sun, 24 Sep 2006 09:50:49 -0700
    As Senator John McCain continues towards his likely run for President in the 2008 elections, cracks in his teflon-facade are beginning to appear – to those who look hard enough. Most well-known for his ‘strong stance against torture,’ – a value that was allegedly beaten into his conscience during a stint in a Vietnamese P.O.W. camp – McCain is generally framed as a more apt example of ‘compassionate conservatism.’ His high-profile stance against Cheney and Bush on the issue has definitely won him points from Americans who feel that their country is going off a moral precipice in the face of the unique challenges posed by Bush’s “War on Terror.” Many of these people likely believe that in his diplomatic wranglings with the executive, he has won a concession from Bush that will render impossible the prospect of another Abu Ghraib scandal erupting – despite the fact that, unbeknownst to these same people, Bush actually negated the legislation by attatching a Stalinistic ‘signing order’ which gives him the ability to skirt the law as he sees fit. The new ‘compromise’ forged through these two men should be viewed in a similar light – as a concession to the clutches of madmen… not a step back from the brink, but a step closer to the edge.

  36. bud

    Given the complete and utter failure by this administration, why does everyone continue to cave on every issue? Taking a stand on the torture issue seemed a good place to draw the line, but I guess not.

  37. bill

    And let us make one other point — and in a most impolitic way, for the truth is often an impolitic commodity: John McCain is a damned liar. Yes, he himself suffered torture, yes he came through it, yes, we all admire his fortitude during that ordeal in his youth: but his record in later life, in politics, is that of a moral coward with good PR skills. (Not that it takes much skill to wow the poltroons who squat on the commanding heights of the corporate media world today.) And today, he has opened his mouth and emitted a damnable lie, to wit: “the integrity and letter and spirit of the Geneva Conventions have been preserved.”
    This is an untrue statement, analogous to saying the moon is located in his rectum or that he can bite through pig iron with his bare teeth. Every step the Bush gang has taken in this pro-torture, don’t-prosecute-us campaign is designed to weaken the integrity and letter and spirit of the Geneva Conventions. The Conventions, which have been adopted into American law by Congress — in bills sponsored and championed by Republicans — are crystal clear on torture. There is no need to “preserve” their integrity with new legislation; there is nothing wrong with the Conventions that need to be “fixed” — unless, of course, you wish to use interrogation techniques that any sentient human being would recognize as torture. In that case, of course you have to “fix” the Conventions by gutting their integrity, letter and spirit.
    Chris Floyd-From the site Empire Burlesque

  38. LexWolf

    Taking a stand on the torture issue seemed a good place to draw the line, but I guess not.”
    Indeed it would have been a good place to draw a line, and I would even be with you on it if we’re talking about real torture, but this stuff at Club Gitmo is nowhere even close to real torture. You know, like what Saddam was doing, or what Fidel is doing right now right across the fence from Gitmo. Most Americans DO know the difference between torture and tough questioning, and that’s precisely why most of the Dems will be voting for the bill. If they had real cojones, they would all be voting against it and take their chances at the polls but we’re talking about Dems here so that ain’t gonna happen. They’ll vote for it, just like they voted for the Iraq War, and then later claim they were misled or lied to, or some other weasel way out.

  39. bill

    I never thought I’d see the United States – champion of human rights and rule of law – legislating torture and Soviet-style kangaroo tribunals. I never thought I’d see Congress and a majority of Americans supporting such police state measures. Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln must be rolling over in their graves.

  40. LexWolf

    No, they won’t because they all did much more. Not only that but they also knew the real meaning of torture rather than that tortured interpretation from the Left. If they had had the Geneva Convention back in their days, they also would have known that unlawful combatants like the terrorists don’t qualify for its protections.
    Further it would never have occurred to them to give terrorist prisoners more rights and benefits than received by our own military.

  41. Randy Ewart

    Bill touches on a great point. America supposedly champions the ideals of democracy and freedom. We fight the good fight for justice in the world. How then can we do so using methods contrary to these ideals – betraying or ignoring the very values for which our people die? Lex provides the clue.
    …they also knew the real meaning of torture rather than that tortured interpretation from the Left.
    It’s this ends justifies the means approach. McCain, Warner, and Graham are hardly “lefties” which undermines Lex’s asisnine assertion. If results are all that matter, then let’s stop pretending. We are NOT the champions of the just cause but manipulaters of the world to suit our needs.

  42. LexWolf

    Are you suggesting that Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln fought the Revolutionary War, the Tripolitan War, the Civil War and various campaigns against the Indians while wearing white gloves?

  43. Randy Ewart

    legislating torture and Soviet-style kangaroo tribunals – Bill
    Lex, try reading his post again. We’re not simply talking white gloves, we’re talking rule of law.

  44. LexWolf

    By rule of law, terrorists don’t have any rights under the Geneva Convention. Under FDR captured terrorists would be put up against the wall, no questions asked.
    During the war FDR set a precedent for President George W. Bush’s recent declaration of intent to try suspected terrorists in secret military courts. In 1942, eight German saboteurs were caught when two of their number revealed their plot to authorities. All eight were arrested, secretly tried and convicted. Six were executed for crimes that ordinarily would have brought several years in prison. Bush could find another precedent for secret trials in the Clinton administration’s 1996 approval of legislation allowing immigrant terror suspects to be arrested and deported on the basis of secret evidence.

  45. Randy Ewart

    Yes, let’s compare the War on Terror to WWII. While the War on Terror continues for the next decade or two, we will live as if it’s WWII.
    Great idea Lex.

  46. Dave

    I was away for a few days and it appears “Billy Boy” had a bad day with Chris Wallace. I think the Slickmeister shows direct signs of mental illness. Has anyone ever seen or heard Reagan, Ford, Bush 1, or even Carter losing his cool on national TV over a simple direct question? This guy cannot be allowed back into the White House. If anyone thinks he wasn’t personally paranoid and vindictive as President, think again. But back then he could assign his goon squad to attack the likes of Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones, Monica even, Linda Tripp, and a long list of others we never hear about. The wife has an even more dangerous psyche.

  47. bud

    Dave, I was so proud of President Clinton. The only thing I wish he had done differently is go over and punch the little twit in the nose. What a disgusting excuse for a journalist on a disgusting excuse for a news channel.

  48. bud

    Everyone on this blog has missed the most important point regarding the torture issue. The discussion is mostly focused on the morality issue. Setting this aside for the moment, has the torture helped or hurt our security? Clearly it’s served as a recruiting tool for the radicals without providing much in the way of useful information. So whether you care about the ethical considerations or not torturing prisoners has made us less safe. And that’s what’s really important.

  49. Capital A

    Dave, I notice Bushbaby was noticeably absent from your list of “cooler heads.” Ford was clueless. Reagan was noted for his vicious temper. Babs did Bushdaddy’s fighting for him. Remember her most famous public incident of going hormonal?
    If you think hard, Dave Winston Smith, it’ll come to you. I know the subliminal programming of Faux “News” hasn’t completely buried that memory. The more you post, the more I see that you either don’t know as much about your own heroes as you claim, or you just choose to ignore what has been chronicled in countless biographies approved by the subjects themselves.
    Chris Wallace has that smarmy, John Stosselish air about him. Clinton did well to put him in his place, but I think Clinton should still be more directly taken to task concerning our operations in Somalia. He was totally let off the hook there because puritanical right-wingers wanted to focus on his inconsequential sex life.
    After viewing how he dismissed the mothers of those boys (needlessly) lost in Somalia, I was never more angered by a President. At least until 9/11 came along…

  50. bud

    Honest question. Whatever became of Somalia? Is it a haven for terrorists? Are the people still starving? The whole Somalia mission, started by Bush Sr., was an attempt at humanitarian aid. We actually stayed for another 6 months after the “Black Hawk Down” fiasco. But did we help in any way to provide some comfort to that ravished region of the world? At least we were trying to accomplish something useful.

  51. Randy Ewart

    Bud, that’s Africa. The only concern this administration has with the whole continent is faulty reports of covert nuclear missions.
    Heh. At least our kids were learning during WWII.
    Posted by: LexWolf | Sep 25, 2006 9:49:59 PM
    SOME of our kids; a large proportion didn’t graduate from hs back then. In fact, the SAT arose out of that era based on mostly on middle class white students. Of course, what do facts matter when purveying an ideological world view.
    BTW, nice side step (and predictable) after being called out for suggesting we should have a pseudo police state while the War on Terror continues for decades.

  52. LexWolf

    The real Clinton emerges
    From behind the benign facade and the tranquilizing smile, the real Bill Clinton emerged Sunday during Chris Wallace’s interview on Fox News Channel. There he was on live television, the man those who have worked for him have come to know – the angry, sarcastic, snarling, self-righteous, bombastic bully, roused to a fever pitch. The truer the accusation, the greater the feigned indignation. Clinton jabbed his finger in Wallace’s face, poking his knee, and invading the commentator’s space.
    But beyond noting the ex-president’s non-presidential style, it is important to answer his distortions and misrepresentations. His self-justifications constitute a mangling of the truth which only someone who once quibbled about what the “definition of ‘is’ is” could perform.
    Read the whole thing here

  53. bud

    Lex, You neocons are just too funny. Ranting about family values, then using a complete sexual nutcase to support your flimsy arguments. Is the best you can come up with something from the disgruntled, discredited Dick Morris? Now there’s a reliable source for you. The ole toe sucker. You folks on the right sure have a peculiar set of heros. From Wickepedia:
    On August 29, 1996, Morris resigned from the Clinton campaign after reports surfaced that he had been involved in an extramarital affair with a prostitute named Sherry Rowlands. A tabloid newspaper had obtained and published a set of photographs of Morris and Rowlands on a Washington, D.C., hotel balcony. Accompanying the photo layout was Rowlands’ story of the casual affair, including the revelation that Morris’s favorite sexual fetish was toe-sucking [1]. The article also revealed that Morris had allowed Rowlands to listen in on phone calls with the President, and had given her a copy of a campaign speech before it was delivered. Rowlands stated that Morris had bragged about writing both Hillary Clinton’s and Al Gore’s 1996 convention speeches – a claim which Hillary Clinton denied in her 2003 autobiography “Living History.” Morris had been very casual about sharing his opinions of Bill and Hillary Clinton with Rowlands, and now some very inside personal information was available at thousands of supermarket checkouts.
    Spin it all you like but 9-11 was a failure first and foremost of the Decider’s, not Bill Clinton.

  54. Capital A

    Honest question. Whatever became of Somalia? Is it a haven for terrorists?
    Posted by: bud | Sep 26, 2006 6:51:30 AM
    It is exactly that, bud. Just yesterday, Muslim terrorists seized control of a port there. We’re busy wasting time in Iraq when (if we’re going to be world humanitarians)we could be cleaning up the continent of Africa which would be an incredible boon to our future interests.

  55. bud

    I have to tip my hat to the right-wingers. They’ve successfully managed to divert the nation’s attention away from the pressing issues of the day (Iraq, the war on terror, domestic economic issues) toward ancient history (who’s responsible for 9-11). This is happening just a few weeks away from election day. The marketing skills of the right are simply amazing. Capital A has shocked me back into the present day reality. What’s relevant is what is current, not what’s in the past. This is true even if old issues tell us why we are where we are.
    The current state of affairs is this: We have too many troops in Iraq and too few elsewhere. The troops in Iraq are making the terrorism threat worse. The lack of troops in Afghanistan and other places prevents us from tracking down legitimate threats. I believe the Democrats would do a better job moving us forward from where we are. You only have to look at history over the last year to reach that conclusion.

  56. Dave

    Bud, correct, history belongs in the Smithsonian. Now let’s concentrate on the future. So if we pull all the troops out of Iraq, basically conceding defeat there, and then move all the fighting forces to Somalia, would you be happy? Most liberals would soon mount a campaign of cut and run in Somalia, its a quagmire, we cant win, etc. etc.

    But any psychologist will tell you this, when Billy Bob Jeff started pointing that finger and shaking it, you knew then he was lying up a storm. Just like the good ole days.

  57. Randy Ewart

    Most liberals would soon mount a campaign of cut and run in Somalia. – Dave
    What justification do you have for such wild-eyed partisan rhetoric other than being wildly partisan? The “cut and run” tag is cheap framing of a complex issue. Many opposed to the Iraq War make a tremendous distinction between it and the military action in Afghanistan. Of course, that takes more discernment than identifying politial party loyalty.
    While we are on the subject, someone explain to me how this is a WAR on terror, but those we capture are “enemy combatants” and not prisoners of war.
    BTW, I guess we’ll look back on this era as the good ole days when Decider grinned and cavalierly told the terrorists to “bring it on”.

  58. Capital A

    Have you all forgotten the War on Terror’s long absent, but no less ineffective, older brother, The War on Drugs? Just lump them together as conjoined twins and call it the War on Common Sense, I say.
    Y’know, because we’ve certainly adopted a more drug-free culture since those days of wine and roses…

  59. LexWolf

    “What justification do you have for such wild-eyed partisan rhetoric other than being wildly partisan?”
    The truth! Can you come up with any evidence that Clinton didn’t skedaddle out of Somalia as quickly as he could after Black Hawk Down?
    Face it, with modern Dems it’s always cut-and-run sooner or later (assuming they even take action in the first place). They just don’t have the cojones to defend our country and that’s why they keep losing elections.

  60. Randy Ewart

    Nice script there Lex, did you cut and paste or did you paraphrase?
    Clinton’s actions in Somalia are representative of the entire party of democrats then and now? Did the dems try to “cut and run” from Afghanistan? Are you really that “un-nuanced” (your term).
    Using that logic, all republicans will get us into wars based on false pretenses. We’ll see how many elections that wins republicans in the next few years – the dems definitely gaining seats in the house in a few weeks.
    W will be gone in two years, but all those terrorists he recruited who are now trained and battle tested will be around for the next few presidents. Unfortunately, so will our depleted armed forces and machinery (see recent request for $26 Billion for replacements).
    Of course, all this is defending our country and making us safer because he had to the “cojones” to say “bring it on”. You’re right Lex, this way is much better.

  61. Dave

    Randy, if you didn’t hear or see Bush and Karzai yesterday then you should. Karzai was asked about the WOT. He told the doofus reporter, “Have you forgotten that people had to jump from the 80th or 70th floors of the World Trade Center? Who did that? Where are these people now?” and so on. Most of the media has forgotten and believes that cutting and running out of Iraq will make all the terrorists happy. Thus the terrorists will then go back to studying sociology at Harvard or growing figs and live a peaceful life. But, the rest of us who don’t sit in Georgetown coffee shops sipping Lattes know that that kind of thinking is utter nonsense.

    And there was also a tremendous contrast between Bush and Clinton. When Bush was handed a loaded partisan question about Clinton, he showed a lot of class and said “I don’t have time to point fingers. I have to stay focused on my job”. If only ex-President Clinton had a fraction of W’s class. If only.

  62. bud

    What we have this week is a cherry on top of the frosting on top of the icing on top of the cake regarding evidence that remaining in Iraq is poor policy. Let’s start with the cake.
    The now declassified sections of a major intelligence report put together by 16 intelligence agencies supports the common sense view that our involvement in Iraq is creating more terrorists. Iraq is serving as a sort of training ground for terrorists leaders. In short, we are less safe because of our involvement in Iraq. This report is based on intelligence organizations under Bush’s control.
    Now the icing. Yesterday three former military leaders who had served in the Iraq conflict testified before congress that Donald Rumsfeld has failed as Defense Sectretary and should resign. This is an unprecidented show of non-support for a sitting Secretary of Defence.
    Now the frosting. Throughout the country we are seeing former veterans of the Iraq conflict flocking in mass to run for congress. Virtually all of these former military men are running as Democrats.
    And now the cherry. Virtually all the polls taken recently show the American public is ready to pull out of Iraq within a year.
    To continue to support continued involvement in Iraq is pure folly. It’s makeing us less safe. Military veterans are increasingly reaching the same conclusion: it is a failed effort that makes us less safe.

  63. Randy Ewart

    Randy, if you didn’t hear or see Bush and Karzai yesterday then you should. Karzai was asked about the WOT. He told the doofus reporter, “Have you forgotten that people had to jump from the 80th or 70th floors of the World Trade Center? Who did that? Where are these people now?” – Dave
    From the latest intel, “these people” apparently are “now” in Iraq getting battle experience and are refining their IEDs etc.
    Everyone except Cheney and Lee have admitted that those “people who had to jump from the 80th floor” were NOT victims of “Sadamn’s” plotting, but once again we have the attempt to connect Iraq and 9-11.

  64. Dave

    Randy, prior to 9-11 some would have us believe that AQ was in: Indonesia, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, USA, Germany, UK, Spain, Afghanistan, Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan, Iran, etc etc. etc. etc. but mysteriously they were NOT in Iraq. Do you think you could win that case in court? Are you Perry Mason?

  65. Steve Gordy

    Dave’s broad brush (“Randy, prior to 9-11 . . .) exhibits faulty logic. AQ may have been in all the aforementioned, but decided that Saddam would make things too hot for them in Iraq (Don’t laugh, we’re talking Middle Eastern logic here). It’s not a court case, either; it’s a matter of which threats to focus on.

  66. bud

    After four years in Iraq how can we still have headlines like this:
    Quarter million Iraqis flee sectarian violence
    Wake up you folks on the right, swallow your pride. This just ain’t working.

  67. Dave

    Steve, Muslims repeatedly prove they have no logic. On earth they cover their good looking women from head to toe, while planning on rapture with 72 virgins when they die. They also stone the woman who got raped and do nothing to the rapist. It’s funny too how Zarqawi got wounded on the Afghan battlefield and even though he’s Jordanian somehow he chose Saddam’s hospitable hospitals to heal him. Maybe you think he made a wrong turn on the way to Jordan and ended up in Iraq. Right!!!!!!!!

  68. Mary Rosh

    Randy, if you didn’t hear or see Bush and Karzai yesterday then you should. Karzai was asked about the WOT. He told the doofus reporter, “Have you forgotten that people had to jump from the 80th or 70th floors of the World Trade Center? Who did that? Where are these people now?”
    Afghanistan. So I don’t exactly know what point Karzai thought he was making.
    ********************************************When Bush was handed a loaded partisan question about Clinton, he showed a lot of class and said “I don’t have time to point fingers. I have to stay focused on my job”.
    Yeah, I’ll bet he said that. The alternative would be to tell the truth, which was that everything Clinton said in response to Chris Wallace was true, that Clinton worked hard to defeat al Qaeda and had considerable success, thwarting numerous plots and saving the lives of thousands of Americans. Within 3 months after the Cole bombing, he had a comprehensive war plan against al Qaeda, which was delivered to the Bush administration in January 2001. Bush did nothing.
    Bush was delivered a PDB on August 6, 2001, entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” Bush went fishing.
    The first Principals’ meeting on al Qaeda was held on September 4, 2001, after months of warnings from Richard Clarke that al Qaeda represented a serious threat.
    Bush was informed on September 11, 2001, that “a second aircraft has hit the second towar. America is under attack.” He responded by sitting and listening to children read a story about a goat.
    With a record like that, it’s no wonder that Bush didn’t want to respond to a question about who did more to stop al Qaeda. But it’s good that he finally decided to focus on his job; it’s just too bad that he didn’t focus on it in 2001.

  69. Dave

    Mary,, Richard Clarke was THE director of counterterrorism on 9-11. He requested a transfer to Homeland Security months after that. He was Clinton’s man, why didnt he stop the attack? Clinton said Clarke was fired, another whopper. Are you that gullible?

  70. Randy Ewart

    Al-Qida’s presence in Iraq is not sufficient to connect them to 9-11. The facts which have clearly come out is that there was NO CONNECTION. The continuing effort to make this connection reveals a type of desperation to justify this war – a kind of circular logic.
    I absolutely believe we must win the Iraq War, or whatever it should be called, because it is NOW the focal point of the War on Terror. BUT, it became the focal point because W got us into this war.
    He clearly dropped the ball in his early days (I blame Clinton atleast as much). The first months of AW – After Dubya, the focus was on missle defense. Clearly, Al-Qida was not the impetus behind developing this system. Similarly, there was no response to the Cole attack.
    The bad guys were training in Afghanistan. This is the connection to 9-11. We should have completed the job there before looking else where. Now we have two messes on our hands along with trouble brewing in Persia and the Korean peninsula.

  71. LexWolf

    There is no evidence of a connection of Iraq to 9/11, I agree (doesn’t mean there wasn’t a connection, just that there’s no evidence yet). However, there is plenty of evidence to connect Al-Qaida to Iraq generally.
    Now if only we didn’t have the fainthearted to contend with.

  72. Mary Rosh

    So Dave, what you’re saying is that the September 11 attacks were CLINTON’S fault, because Richard Clarke was unable to get Bush to take the terror threat seriously, and this reflects badly on CLARKE, and thus on CLINTON?
    Why isn’t it BUSH’S fault that Clarke was unable to get him to take the terror threat seriously?

  73. Mary Rosh

    “However, there is plenty of evidence to connect Al-Qaida to Iraq generally.”
    Yes, Lex, but can this evidence be seen by persons who are not suffering from D.T. hallucinations?

  74. Dave

    Mary, thanks to a cumulative process dating back to the Church Commission, national security was progressively weakened by Democrats leading Congress. The final culmination of that weakening was the Gorelick Wall, a legal rendering that stipulated that the FBI, CIA, and military could not compare notes and share information on terrorists. These restrictions caused our authorities to overlook vital signs that 9-11 was coming. And the same kind of weaklings, like the 160 House Dems who yesterday voted against the Terrorist INterrogation law, are the cut and run weaklings who are responsible for 9-11. So I don’t put the entire thing on Clinton or Clarke, but I do believe the Democrat pary even today would lead us to slaughter were they controlling the Congress and executive branches.

  75. bud

    Most Americans believe that Bush is more responsible for 9-11 than Clinton (by a 53-36 margin in a recent poll). This really isn’t all that complicated. Of course it was mostly his fault. Bush was in charge on 9-11. Bush failed to take the terror threat seriously. Bush demoted Richard Clarke. Bush devoted too much time and attention on developing a useless anti-missle system. Bush ignored Clinton officials’ attempts to get him to take the threat seriously. Since this occurred on Bush’s watch that MAKES it his fault by definition.
    That said, I’m moving on. What is really important now is the war in Iraq. It is established beyond any reasonable doubt now that what we are currently doing is failing and will continue to fail. Only fools would pretend otherwise. All the bad numbers are up, up, up. Deaths, bombings, electricity outages, etc., etc., etc. Polling numbers now show a solid majority of Iraqis believe we’re making the violence worse. Many even say the terrorist attacks against Americans are justified.
    So what to do? It’s not likely that we can enlist the help of other nations to help with the mess we created. That was a good idea Kerry had in 2004 but it’s too late for that. Another good idea was to divide the nation into 3 parts (Sunni, Shia and Kurd) and let each govern itself. This is a good idea but the U.S. is in no position to make this happen. The sectarian violence is just too severe at this time. That needs to be stopped. But how?
    There are really only 2 options. We can increase our troop commitment and, by force, secure the nation. This would almost certainly require a draft. The other option is to simply withdraw. Many folks on both the left and right have suggested numerous problems that would ensue if we withdraw. Bottom line: We don’t know what would happen. Things might get much worse with a huge firestorm sweeping throught the region. Or, the Iraqi people might be right. Our presence is making the area more, not less, violent. I say we risk it. Let’s withdraw now in some face-saving sort of way and hope for the best. Otherwise we could end up there for 20, 30 or more years and still not solve anything. I doubt the Decider will change anything. He’s just too stupid to recognize the mess he’s created. So we have 2 more years there. After that, it’s time to come home.

  76. bud

    Brad, what war are you talking about? The war in Iraq? The war against terrorism? The war in Afghanistan? The three are not the same. The war in Iraq has nothing at all to do with eliminating terrorist threats against the United States. At one time the war in Afghanistan could plausibly be regarded as part of the war against the terrorists. Now, we’re pretty much just floundering around in a mini Iraq-style quagmire. The war against the terrorists is really a multi-pronged police effort and not really a war at all. Thanks to those who wish to continue in Iraq resources that could actually protect us are squandered in what has turned out to be a huge recruiting bonanza for Al-Qaeda. Given that a shocking 61% of Iraqis now believe it is OK to attack American soldiers our continued involvement is worse than a fools errand, it’s a crime.

  77. Dave

    Bud and Cap would rather fight the 4000 Al Qaeda we have killed in Iraq in downtown NYC, Boston, or even Charleston than in the middle east. The weak minded appeasers in our society were there during the Revolutionary War and on up to the War on Terror. I wonder if it runs in the genes. Despite Bud’s recanting of some abused statistics, AQ is suffering a monstrous defeat in both Iraq and Afghan. But you won’t ever hear or read about it in the leftist media.

  78. bud

    What’s happening in Iraq is perhaps one of the most cunning, diabolical strategies every devised by an outgunned military organization. In this case AQ is using the sectarian violence/civil war as a training ground for it’s soldiers. They have sense enough to know they can’t defeat the might of the United States armed forces but they can certainly learn how to learn what vulnerabilities we have and exploit these in the future.
    In addition, by helping to keep this low-level war of attrition going, AQ can exploit our continued occupation for propaganda purposes. So in effect AQ can take advantage of the incredibly incompetent leadership of civilian leadership to learn about strengths and vulnerabilities while at the same time risking the loss of few soldiers, while recruiting many more than it loses. Since most AQ fighters are dispersed around the world in preparation for some big event, they are not foolishly wasted in a vain attempt to destroy the American army. They are just not that stupid. Evil yes, stupid no. Far from suffering a “monstrous” defeat AQ is rapidly rebuilding.
    This is all possible because our military assets are squandered in a futile attempt to create a new American colony. If we were to withdraw, much of the wind would be taken out of the AQ training “sails”. And the recruiting bonanza the war has given them would very quickly disappear. The civil war in Iraq would play itself out but in time some sort of equilibrium would be reached that would allow U.N. peacekeepers an opportunity to forge a new Iraq (or possibly 3 new states).
    Eventually we could renew our fight against terrorism in a way that is actually effective. History shows that most dooms day scenerios for a nation that withdraws never pan out. I don’t believe that would happen here either.

  79. Capital A

    Dave, please explain to me how this current “war” and the Revolutionary War are equivalent. Are you reading your history book backwards again?
    bud has already finally laid out the (one would think!) very obvious differences between the various threats we are all facing. Some of these require violence as an answer, others don’t.
    You would use a hammer to fit a screw.
    For the zillionth time, we are not currently engaged in a “war.” We are mired in one man’s attempt to self-generate a “legacy.” The irony of it all is that he could have had just that if he had only not succumbed to greed, vanity and hubris.
    Terrorists abound and can be taken out in a much more subtle, effective manner without the clumsy, bungling efforts of our current administration spawning more.

  80. Dave

    Cap A – I didnt say anything about equivalence. You and Bud are about 12 to 24 months behind the times. AQ is now being hunted down by Sunni and Shia soldiers and police. AQ is the one single hated entity in Iraq. They are on the run and are being devastated as their own spokesterrorist said the other day. Please stop getting your news from the NY Slimes and get with reality. I know good news out of Iraq is hard on the lefties, especially with the elections looming.

    As for not being at war, that is idiotic. Think back two weeks ago. If ten airliners heading to US cities from the UK had been blown from the sky, only the most goofy of the leftist pacifists would be claiming there is no war. The left is a little too fat and happy and takes our national security for granted. If and when there is a tragic terrorist incident again in the US, people like you and Bud will run for cover for a few days, and then begin your whining about how Bush was too soft and didnt protect you and your families. Maybe Lincoln had the best idea to suspend habeus corpus during wartime. The enemy within can be dealt with much more easily. Think about that as you peruse those comic books.

  81. Randy Ewart

    I know good news out of Iraq is hard on the lefties, especially with the elections looming. – Dave
    Talk about the Emperor with no clothes!
    If the intel that was declassified was good news, then you are absolutely right Dave, it is “hard on the lefities” to hear about how the terrorist population is exploding and things are getting worse. The question is, why isn’t this sort of “good news” hard on the “righties”?
    BTW, Bush made a very interesting statement about Afghanistan. “The government is starting to win the hearts of the people.” It took FIVE years for them to “start”?!?!??!

  82. bud

    Dave writes:
    AQ is now being hunted down by Sunni and Shia soldiers and police.
    Of course they are. This is exactly the type of real-world training exercise I’m talking about. AQ is not dumb enough to engage the U.S. military directly. But they’re taking advantage of the chaos to learn some lessons. The foolish Bush administration is facilitating the process. It’s very naive to think AQ is on the run. The recently released intelligence report shows that AQ is both increasing in number AND dispersing. So a few lost souls in Iraq are not a big deal to them. After all, those 72 virgins await. No need to shed tears.

  83. Mary Rosh

    Dave, never mind the “weakening of U.S. national security by Democrats,” or the “Gorelick Wall,” both of which exist only in your imagination.
    You said that Clarke was Clinton’s man, and asked why he didn’t stop the September 11 plot during the first 8 months of the Bush administration. I am just wanting to know your rationale for assigning responsibility to Clarke and not to Bush.
    Clarke was unable to get Bush to take the threat of terrorism seriously. It was Bush’s responsibility to protect America. Clarke wasn’t president. Clinton wasn’t president anymore. The fact that Clarke couldn’t get Bush to do anything is Bush’s fault, not Clarke’s.
    Your blaming Clinton for the fact that Clarke was unable, during the first 8 months of the Bush administration, to stop the September 11 attacks, proves that you don’t care about stopping terrorism or protecting America, but only about making excuses for Bush’s failures.

  84. Mary Rosh

    “No, after that, it’s time to start fighting this war like we know how.”
    It is not appropriate for Warthen to say that “we” are “fighting this war.” Warthen is not fighting the war, or contributing to it in any way. He is simply sitting spinning out fantasies, making excuses for the failure of the war, and attacking those who (correctly) opposed it. The fact is that everything Warthen wanted done was done, and everything he wanted done has proved a failure. He now disclaims responsibility for the failure pretending that the war somehow wasn’t fought the way he wanted it to be fought. Yes it was. The only difference between Warthen’s fantasies and the reality we see before us is the outcome. Warthen wanted the U.S. to invade a country that wasn’t a threat to us, in order to attempt to bring into effect his racist fantasies that the U.S. would be able to choose the form of government for various nonwhite populations, and that these populations would accept and be grateful to the U.S. for this attempt to choose their governments by military force.
    If Warthen wants “us” to “fight this war like we know how” it time for an “us” that includes “him” to make some contribution. He can exhort all his eligible friends and acquaintances to join the military, he can volunteer to make whatever contributions he can to the war effort (for example, absenting himself from his job in order to volunteer full time at a VA hospital – it isn’t necessary for him to quit his job, because his absence will not reduce the quality of his work below what it is today), and making a vountary contribution to the federal treasury to bring his net financial contribution to a non-negative figure.
    Until Warthen does that, he should quit talking about how “we” should “fight this war”.

  85. Dave

    After the latest tape released from Al Qaeda and Zawahiri it is apparent that the leftist democrats and AQ have the same speechwriters. That puts the lefties in a really weird situation, matching quotes with the most murderous people on the planet. Meanwhile, back at the blog, Mary Rosh ( a ripoff of the John Lott fake blog name, can’t it even get an original fake but accurate blogger name) continues her bizarre meaningless attacks on Brad Warthen. So, even as Iraq slowly yet painfully becomes more successful day by day, Mary and her fellow lefties decry the failures of the US military and Bush. Very unpatriotic, borderline treasonous in my opinion. The Iraq govt. has invoked a 24 hour fulltime curfew now and is smoking the murderous rats out of their holes. So even though AQ is in shambles and on the run in Iraq, the leftist media beats the drum of defeat for America. I would be willing to bet everything I own that if a democrat were elected president in 2008, within months if not weeks, the leftist press would be heralding new success in Iraq. Iraq would be discovered as a new democratic nation joining the civilized world. Well, thanks to the internet, Fox, and some other rational news media, many people are beginning to recognize this now. That is why Bush’s poll approvals are up in addition to:
    Falling gas prices
    Near record stock market levels
    Americans recognizing Bush’s role in protecting this country.
    Low unemployment
    Deficit lowering (although most people dont give a hoot about this)

  86. bud

    Dave, much of what you say about the American economy has some merit. We’re moving in a positive direction in many ways. But big problems still exist.
    As for Iraq. Dream on. Nothing is going right there. We need to acknowledge that and device a new approach.

  87. Dave

    All right Bud, we have found some common ground re the economy. I think it was Henry Kissinger, not one of my favorites, who said recently that abandoning Iraq and leaving the fledgling democracy to the whims of the Saddamist Sunnis and AQ would be disastrous for the entire Middle East as well as the US and the free world. The only solution and strategy is victory. Nothing else will be acceptable, ever.

  88. Mary Rosh

    So, Dave, I notice you don’t explain to me how Bush’s failure to take any action in the 8 months leading up to the September 11 attacks is somehow Clarke’s fault, and Clinton’s, but not Bush’s.

  89. Dave

    Mary, The Democrats purposedly stalled and blocked confirmation processes on just about every Bush cabinet nominee back in 2001. Ashcroft wasnt confirmed until Feb. if I remember correctly. If you had any experience leading and managing other people, you would realize it takes time to get a team in place and functioning. Thus, documented Dem obstructionism severely contributed to the 9-11 tragedy. If I recall, the Dems were gloating over their ability to drag out confirmation hearings. Linda Chavez, an extremely talented and capable lady of Latino ethnicity, was blocked over the fact she had helped out an illegal who did some work for her. You can ramble on all you want but it is the reality of the fact that Bush inherited a near zero level competency from the Clinton admin. As one sage said, Usama Bin Laden grew while Monica blew!!!!!!!! So that is why I cannot pin blame on the Bush team for 9-11. In fact, let’s stop with the blame game and get on with winning the War On Terror. That is what every American should be focusing on. We are the only society that insists on investigating and prosecuting itself while a war is still underway. Its ridiculous. Even Marines are arrested for defending their lives in Iraq. What next from the Dems, sending a lawyer to the battlefield to read Miranda rights to every terrorist captured. Wake up and realize these people want to KILL Americans or any free people for that matter. So forget about blame, as Brad said, let’s do what needs done to win the war.

  90. Randy Ewart

    Dave, it’s clear Bush that focused more on the missle defense system his first few months in office. How do you reconcile this with your claim that he was focused on AQ?
    You seem more than willing to parse blame for the Clinton administration, but when it comes to W, you want the blame game to stop. Your blind allegiance to all things republican shows extreme bias to any point of view you offer.

  91. Dave

    Randy, I was simply responding to your questions. I could care less about the blame game. As I said, it’s history and let the historians figure it out someday. Clinton himself heated this all up with his most recent finger pointing, blaming, and telling of whoppers. Wow, that man can lie and sound so sincere. I can’t even lie to my wife about who ate the last piece of cake and keep a straight face, let alone get indignant about it. I am not blind to all GOP approaches. Bush dithered on this immigration issue and it has hurt his standing. I like many things he has done but I don’t blindly follow the GOP talking points. For example, I think we have made a huge mistake trying to fight in Iraq while worrying about what Reid, Pelosi, and Murtha have to say. I would clear Iraq of all non Iraqis, especially including foreign journalists, and then clean out the murderous terrorists. How long have we allowed Al Jazeera to propagandize for Al Qaeda with no repercussions. ALL of the prisoners in Guantanamo would by now have been shipped to Saudi Arabia or back to the Afghan government. Not one would be alive today if we had done that. Big mistake on our part. Now the scheister lawyers want to “represent” the 400 detainees, on the government (our) dime of course. Professional leeches. I hold that against Lindsey Graham. So where is my blind following of the GOP.. I dont see it.

  92. Mary Rosh

    Randy, as near as I can tell, Dave isn’t claiming that Bush was focused on al Qaeda. He is simply claiming that any lack of focus on al Qaeda that characterized the first 8 months of the Bush administration (and, except for a brief foray into Afghanistan, the subsequent 5 years of the Bush administration) is somehow the fault of Clinton.
    Dave claims, for example, that Clinton is to blame because he did not retaliate for the Cole bombing between October 12, 2000 and January 20, 2001, and that this failure to retaliate contributed to the September 11 attacks, but that Bush is NOT to blame for any failure to retaliate between January 20, 2001 and September 11, 2001.
    Dave claims that even though Richard Clarke presented Condoleeza Rice with a fully developed war plan during the first week of the Bush Administration, Bush’s failure to put the war plan into effect is Clinton’s fault and not Bush’s.
    Dave claims that the fact that there was no Principals’ meeting on al Qaeda, despite Richard Clarke’s constant exhortations to take the threat of terrorism seriously, is somehow Clinton’s fault and not Bush’s.
    In short, Dave does not care who fought terrorism and who didn’t. He doesn’t care about who save American lives and who lost American lives. He cares only about blaming Clinton and making excuses for Bush, so that he can claim for himself a monopoly on patriotism and attack those who disagree with him as “weak” – as if courage consisted of an advocacy of measures that called for OTHER PEOPLE to risk their lives.
    In short, Dave is nothing but a cowardly, freeloading hypocrite.

  93. Randy Ewart

    Graham is the one making a strong argument against including the writ of habeas corpus in the debates. He helped get the bill through which provides W with tremendous cover to continue his war on terror. You seem more concerned that he didn’t toe the party line than what he accomplished.
    Clinton isn’t the one who “heated all this up”. The Bush administration’s manipulation, as outlined in State of Denial, and squashing any dissenting voice (Card, Powell etc.) is the catalyst for all this. The problem has become apparent because he no longer can control the message. It’s like Jurassic Park in which the dinosaurs could be held at bay for only so long.
    Your stance is a symptom of the problem, as seen in your suggestion that dissenting views are acts of “treason”. Americans are losing lives supposedly to defend the very right you dismiss as treasonous.
    Dave, how can you reconcile Bush’s focus on a missle defense system with your defense of how he dealt with terrorism his first 8 months?

  94. Dave

    Mary, you are laughable at best. Let me give you an example of how business operates. Let’s say Company A has been mismanaged and had to declare bankruptcy. The Board of Directors votes the existing management out of the company and votes in new and promising leadership. They realize it will take some time for the new team to get into high gear. Meanwhile, the old team of disgruntled and fired employees continually grumble about how the new management team isnt following the plan they had when they were voted out. In this simple example, Company A is the USA, the American voters are the BOD, and the new team is the Bush team. Eat your heart out!!!!

  95. Dave

    Randy, dissenting views are welcome and encouraged in a democracy. What is not welcome are the statements of “We Can’t Win”, “We are the real terrorists”, ” The US military is like the Soviet Gulag, Hitler, and Pol Pot”, “Bush is an evil liar”. These are the traitors. Need I say more.

  96. Randy Ewart

    How is calling the president an evil liar the threshhold for being a traitor? “We can’t win” is a statement completely allowed in a DEMOCRACY! Your statements are examples of the rhetoric used in a dictatorship in which opposition is squashed as being treasonous.
    You also muffed the quote about the Gulag. Gtmo was compared to the Gulag because both have detainees that are shadows or prisoners who are kept in secret.

  97. Mary Rosh

    So Dave, what you are saying is that the constant exhortations to take the threat of terrorism seriously came from “disgruntled and fired employees” and Bush was right to ignore them? That Bush’s failure to take any actions to stop the September 11 attacks was OK because it naturally took some time for him to “get into high gear” and therefore anything that happened before this state of “high gear” is not his fault? That the president of the United States bears NO RESPONSIBILITY for a disaster that he DID NOTHING TO PREVENT and about which he IGNORED NUMEROUS WARNINGS?
    If the “disgruntled and fired employees” criticize Bush for failing to follow their plans, and the result of failing to follow these plans was the loss of 3000 lives, that proves they were right.
    But this line of argument simply proves that you don’t care about saving lives and protecting Americans. You care only about making excuses for Bush and collecting handouts.

  98. LexWolf

    Mary, if Clinton had been on the ball as much as you claim he was, surely he would have solved the Al-Qaeda airplane hijacking problem long before Bush became president. After all, in December 1998 he received one of those Daily Intelligence Briefs, very similarly vague as the one Bush received in Aug 01. So tell us, what counteractions did Clinton take in the 23 months he still had left in his presidency? Given that Bush made no changes in the anti-terrorism team, surely Clinton’s steps to prevent such hijackings would have prevented 9/11 as well.
    The following is the text of an item from the President’s Daily Brief received by President William J. Clinton on December 4, 1998. It was declassified for the Report of the 9/11 Commission. Redacted material is indicated in brackets.
    SUBJECT: Bin Ladin Preparing to Hijack US Aircraft and Other Attacks
    1. Reporting [—] suggests Bin Ladin and his allies are preparing for attacks in the US, including an aircraft hijacking to obtain the release of Shaykh ‘Umar ‘Abd al-Rahman, Ramzi Yousef, and Muhammad Sadiq ‘Awda. One source quoted a senior member of the Gama’at al-Islamiyya (IG) saying that, as of late October, the IG had completed planning for an operation in the US on behalf of Bin Ladin, but that the operation was on hold. A senior Bin Ladin operative from Saudi Arabia was to visit IG counterparts in the US soon thereafter to discuss options—perhaps including an aircraft hijacking.
    * IG leader Islambuli in late September was planning to hijack a US airliner during the “next couple of weeks” to free ‘Abd al-Rahman and the other prisoners, according to what may be a different source.
    * The same source late last month said that Bin Ladin might implement plans to hijack US aircraft before the beginning of Ramadan on 20 December and that two members of the operational team had evaded security checks during a recent trial run at an unidentified New York airport.[—]
    2. Some members of the Bin Ladin network have received hijack training, according to various sources, but no group directly tied to Bin Ladin’s al-Qa’ida organization has ever carried out an aircraft hijacking. Bin Ladin could be weighing other types of operations against US aircraft. According to [—] the IG in October obtained SA-7 missiles and intended to move them from Yemen into Saudi Arabia to shoot down an Egyptian plane or, if unsuccessful, a US military or civilian aircraft.
    * A [—] in October told us that unspecified “extremist elements” in Yemen had acquired SA-7s.[—]
    3. [—] indicate the Bin Ladin organization or its allies are moving closer to implementing anti-US attacks at unspecified locations, but we do not know whether they are related to attacks on aircraft. A Bin Ladin associate in Sudan late last month told a colleague in Kandahar that he had shipped a group of containers to Afghanistan. Bin Ladin associates also talked about the movement of containers to Afghanistan before the East Africa bombings.
    * In other [—] Bin Ladin associates last month discussed picking up a package in Malaysia. One told his colleague in Malaysia that “they” were in the “ninth month [of pregnancy].”
    * An alleged Bin Ladin supporter in Yemen late last month remarked to his mother that he planned to work in “commerce” from abroad and said his impending “marriage,” which would take place soon, would be a “surprise.” “Commerce”and “marriage” often are codewords for terrorist attacks. [—]

  99. Dave

    Randy, announcing to the world, specifically our terrorist enemies, that we have been beaten and cannot win is “aiding and abetting the enemy”. Not too long ago Murtha could have faced a firing squad. The problem is now the supposed mainstream press has become so anti-American and cheers on every setback America suffers, the American public is immune to treason. I only wish Murtha could be eye to eye with US Marines risking their lives in Iraq and tell them one on one they cant win. We wouldnt need a firing squad for the bloated old bag of wind. Semper Fi

  100. Mary Rosh

    Lex, are you a professional moron, or just a gifted amateur?
    From the 9/11 Commission Report:
    On Friday, December 4, 1998, the CIA included an article in the Presidential
    Daily Brief describing intelligence, received from a friendly government,
    about a threatened hijacking in the United States.This article was declassified
    at our request.
    The same day, Clarke convened a meeting of his CSG to discuss both the hijacking concern and the antiaircraft missile threat. To address the hijacking warning, the group agreed that New York airports should go to maximum security starting that weekend. They agreed to boost security at other East coast airports. The CIA agreed to distribute versions of the report to
    the FBI and FAA to pass to the New York Police Department and the airlines.
    The FAA issued a security directive on December 8, with specific requirements for more intensive air carrier screening of passengers and more oversight of the screening process, at all three New York City area airports. The intelligence community could learn little about the source of the information. Later in December and again in early January 1999, more information arrived from the same source, reporting that the planned hijacking had been stalled because two of the operatives, who were sketchily described, had been arrested near Washington, D.C. or NewYork. After investigation, the FBI could find no information to support the hijack threat; nor could it verify any arrests like those described in the report. The FAA alert at the New York area airports ended on January 31, 1999.
    No wonder you can’t support yourself without handouts.

  101. LexWolf

    So in other words, just another halfhearted attempt at doing something. Why didn’t the whole hijacking problem get fixed then once and for all?

  102. Randy Ewart

    Randy, announcing to the world, specifically our terrorist enemies, that we have been beaten and cannot win is “aiding and abetting the enemy”. Not too long ago Murtha could have faced a firing squad. – dave
    LINKS for this contrived hog wash!

  103. Mary Rosh

    You mean why didn’t Clinton forsee all possible threats, and implement measures that would protect against them, so that all threats would fail, even if the succeeding administration ignored threat, disregarded warnings, and utterly failed in its duty to protect America?
    Because that’s not possible. Clinton did the best he could, and he did very well, but he couldn’t create a structure that was completely independent of the President, and would work even if the President ignored the threats and undercut those whose duty was to guard against terrorism. The first Principal’s Meeting held on al Qaeda by the Bush Administration occurred on September 4, 2001.
    And I want to know, HOW can it be Clinton’s fault that BUSH didn’t respond to warnings of an impending attack, and not BUSH’s fault for failing to respond to the warnings? When Clinton got a warning, his administration responded THAT DAY. When Bush got a warning, he went fishing.
    The fault is that of the guy who responded to a warning by going fishing, not that of the guy who responded promptly and effectively to the warnings he got.
    Sheesh. No wonder you can’t support yourself, but have to depend on handouts from people like me, and like Bill and Hillary Clinton.

  104. LexWolf

    “You mean why didn’t Clinton forsee all possible threats, and implement measures that would protect against them, so that all threats would fail”
    Yeah, exactly. After all, that’s the ridiculous standard applied to Bush all the time. Are you admitting Clinton isn’t as good as Bush? Are you applying a higher standard to Bush because you know he’s smarter and better than Clinton, and has the cojones that Clinton never had?
    Face it, in 50 years Clinton will be somewhere around the lower 30s among presidents while Bush will be at least in the upper teens.

  105. Randy Ewart

    In 50 years, when we’re pulling the last troops out of Iraq?
    What has W accomplished? Try to defend him without invoking Clinton (which is the standard ploy on this blog).

  106. bud

    Dave, of course young people shouldn’t join the military. Given the abuse our service men and women are enduring from our incompetent leadership it is simply not a wise career path to take. Dean and Murtha are true American heros. They bravely speak the truth even if it costs them politically.

  107. bud

    Lex writes:
    “Face it, in 50 years Clinton will be somewhere around the lower 30s among presidents while Bush will be at least in the upper teens.”
    Dream on. Clinton will be remembered for a vibrant, healthy economy and a nation (and the world generally) at peace. The Decider’s legacy is tied to 9-11 and Iraq.
    My ranking of President since WW-II
    1. Clinton
    2. Truman
    3. Kennedy
    4. Ike
    5. Carter
    6. Reagan
    7. Bush Sr.
    8. Ford
    9. Johnson
    10. Nixon
    11. Decider
    I never thought I’d rate someone lower than Nixon. But Bush, Jr. has succeeded in getting under this incredibly low bar.

  108. Mary Rosh

    “Yeah, exactly. After all, that’s the ridiculous standard applied to Bush all the time.”
    No it isn’t. We wanted Bush to respond to a PDB headlined “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” in some way calculated to deal with the problem.
    Don’t you see any connection between the fact that you can’t argue or reason honestly and the fact that you are unable to support yourself without handouts?
    You make a false statement, falsely ascribe it to me, and then use it to draw conclusions that support your preconceived ideas. It’s interesting that many people from the South argue this way – they put words in other people’s mouths, they talk over them, they do everything except to listen and respond to other people’s viewpoints and arguments in an honest way.
    Don’t you see the connection between the laziness, shiftlessness, and ignorance that makes you unable to put together an honest argument and the same laziness, shiftlessness, and ignorance that has contributed in such a large measure to the state of poverty and misery that characterizes so much of the South?

  109. Dave

    Bud, if Clinton has such a great legacy as you say, how come he is so defensive when asked a seemingly straightforward unemotional question? The answer is it’s his guilt. He knows he blew it, as well as with the Lewinsky saga (pun intended). He was impeached so he goes to the bottom of the list with Carter.

  110. bud

    Dave, you’re practicing pop psychology here. Besides, who cares about his guilt. The Lewinsky matter, tawdry as it was, is irrelevant to his presidency. Bottom line:
    Peace and prosperity prevailed for 8 grand and glorious years. In 50 years that will be the legacy of Bill Clinton.

  111. LexWolf

    Hmmm…peace and prosperity prevailed for 8 grand and glorious years (“Roaring Twenties”) under Coolidge as well, yet he is ranked ranked only 27th by C-Span. Clinton will do no better in 50 years and probably far worse once people realize that he was a Do-Nothing president.

  112. Mary Rosh

    Bud, Dave is practicing pop psychology all right, but by doing so he’s telling us about himself, not about Clinton. He asks why was Clinton so “defensive” if he has such a great legacy. But by referring to Clinton as “defensive,” Dave is telling us about himself, not about Clinton. He’s telling us how he viewed Clinton, about the interpretation that he put on Clinton’s words and actions.
    So, to correctly phrase what Dave said:
    Bud, if Clinton has such a great leagacy as you claim, how come I (Dave) characterize his behavior in the way that I do?
    The answer, of course, comes from our knowledge of Dave’s character, not from an analysis of Clinton’s words and actions.

  113. Dave

    Bud, Clinton mismanaged the economy until the GOP took over Congress in 94 and basically forced welfare reform and budget balancing on his sorry party’s reps. Then, he allowed millions of people to be defrauded of their 401K and pension plans while his buddies took advantage of bubble companies in an overhyped stock market. Enron, Global Crossing, Worldcom all built up illegally under Clinton’s non-watch. Terry McCauliffe made $100 million dollars on a small investment in GC. Yet stockholders lost their investments over and over under Clinton. We had an artificial peace because he ignored terrorism and let Al Qaeda flourish and we all know how we paid for that and continue to pay. Ten times he refused to take out UBL. He is a disgraced, impeached, pervert forever. History has recorded it. And now he is a paranoid dirty old man worried about his legacy while still chasing bighaired women all over the world. What an embarrassment to this great nation.

  114. Randy Ewart

    I find it quite hypocritical that W gets kudos from pub bloggers for the econonmy’s success now less than 6 years into his presidency. Yet, Clinton, in his 5-6th years is not afforded the same credit. But when the economy went south in 2001, suddenly Clinton had all this influence on the economy.
    Dave, that is a bungy cord loose definition of treason that you are using. If suggesting that people shouldn’t join the military is aiding the enemy, then not voting for increases in military spending and demonstrating for peace fits the standard as well. That’s absurd.

  115. Mary Rosh

    Dave, stuff in your imagination doesn’t count. Only real stuff counts. Clinton’s 10 chances to kill bin Laden, those are products of your imagination. What’s real is that all during the summer of 2001, Bush ignored urgent warnings of an impending attack. George Tenet warned Condoleeza Rice on July 10, 2001, and she did nothing. That’s real.
    But why am I telling you this? You know it. You know that Clinton protected America and Bush didn’t; you just don’t care. All you care about is blaming Clinton and making excuses for Bush (and, of course, going out to the mailbox to collect your handout checks paid for by Clinton’s taxes).

  116. Dave

    Yes Mary, George Tenet was real believable. He told Bush that WMD was a slam dunk in Iraq also. The ten opportunities are all documented by the CIA as fact.

  117. Mary Rosh

    Dave, it doesn’t matter whether Tenet is believable or not, because White House records prove the meeting took place.
    That’s what a fact is, information about something that actually took place in reality. The “ten opportunities” and the “CIA documentation of ten opportunities” are reflected only in your imagination and don’t meet the definition of “fact”.
    Of course, none of this matters to you, because again, you aren’t interested in protecting America or in fighting terrorism. You are interested only in blaming Clinton, making excuses for Bush, and going out to the mailbox to collect handouts paid for by taxes of people like Clinton.

  118. bud

    January, 2001 – Clarke attempts to explain Al-Qaeda threat – He is ignored.
    July 10 meeting between Tenet and Rice – No action taken. Missile shield considered more important. Tenet later given medal of freedom.
    August 6 PDB – Bush goes on vacation
    September 11 – Bush reads My Pet Goat while nation under attack
    Yes siree, the GOP was on is on top of things in 2001. But thanks to timely legislation by Congress we can at feel confident that young people are protected from internet predators. And, our coal mines are safe, our food supply is clean and airline travel is hassel free.

Comments are closed.