Politics: J'accuse!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I am familiar with the plot. Why, pray tell, could Clinton not send troops into Afghanistan? He sent a few cruise missles there, why not troops? I know, I know. Because the GOP was grilling him on a blow job or two, right?

When? I assume you don't mean after the Yousef plot, because he didn't have a particular tie to Afghanistan. He was apprehended in Pakistan. After the embassy bombings? Here is Clarke explaining some of the reasons we couldn't bomb Afghanistan:

• Although the Pakistanis were helping us with the investigation following the embassy attacks by looking for people who had fled Africa before and after the attack for Afghanistan, they had been less than helpful before. Al Qaeda members had moved freely through Pakistan to Afghanistan. Despite the fact that Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate was training, equipping, and advising the Taliban in Afghanistan, they professed no ability to influence that group to close terrorist camps and hand over bin Laden. Any U.S. military strike on Afghanistan would have to cross Pakistani airspace. If they were not told in advance, they might shoot down our aircraft or cruise missiles. If they were told in advance, some of us believed that the ISID would alert the Taliban and possibly Al Qaeda. The State Department Deputy Secretary, Strobe Talbott, also feared that the Pakistanis would see the U.S. attack coming and assume it was an Indian air raid. Talbott thought that Pakistan would not hesitate to launch an attack on India, even before confirming what was going on, and that could trigger a nuclear war between the two South Asian rivals (each of which now had nuclear bombs).

Against All Enemies 185.

That's just the beginning of the discussion of the cruise missile attacks after the embassy bombings -- it goes on for several pages. In the event, the Pakistanis had ample notice as the Navy launched cruise missiles, and while bin Laden was not killed, several ISID officers were.

The reaction to the U.S.S. Cole also gets extensive discussion. Perhaps you should check it out.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
When? I assume you don't mean after the Yousef plot, because he didn't have a particular tie to Afghanistan. He was apprehended in Pakistan. After the embassy bombings? Here is Clarke explaining some of the reasons we couldn't bomb Afghanistan:



That's just the beginning of the discussion of the cruise missile attacks after the embassy bombings -- it goes on for several pages. In the event, the Pakistanis had ample notice as the Navy launched cruise missiles, and while bin Laden was not killed, several ISID officers were.

The reaction to the U.S.S. Cole also gets extensive discussion. Perhaps you should check it out.

I wasn't talking about after the Yousef plot.

The rationale in the excerpt you cited rests entirely on the assumption that we needed to surprise the enemy. The assumption is wrong, however, as was shown in 2002 (when we told the Taliban that we were coming several days before hand). Why wouldn't that approach have worked here?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I wasn't talking about after the Yousef plot.

The rationale in the excerpt you cited rests entirely on the assumption that we needed to surprise the enemy. The assumption is wrong, however, as was shown in 2002 (when we told the Taliban that we were coming several days before hand). Why wouldn't that approach have worked here?

What are you suggesting that they should have done, and when? Invade Afghanistan the way we did in 2002? That was a war. I don't recall that (the Republican-controlled) Congress declared war until after 9/11. And without Pakistan and Uzbekistan to stage in, our capacity to project force into Afghanistan was limited. All this changed after 9/11.

[mmm3587]

So, I've been reading a while here, and I thought that I would start posting:

I don't see the point of all this fighting over whose fault it was, or who knew what, or anything like that. There is institutional culpaibility; if you put a bunch of really smart people in a room and gave them free reign to think of easy ways to kill thousand of Americans and find ways to stop them, sure, they would have come up with the 9-11 scenario. Both administrations knew there was a threat from Al Queda, but they allocated resources elsewhere. That's what made the attack so devestating and perfect and hard to guard against; it used very minimal resources and intelligence, exploited a weak point and was relatively surgical. Regardless of who should be blamed, hindsight is 20/20. As a liberal, the aspect of Bush being obsessed with Iraq and the political benefit of invading is fascinating and disgusting, but the entire "whose fault was 9-11" thing is a non-issue for me, and I think it's a wash in the public, unless the Democrats find a bombshell. That's possible, and there's so much grandstanding and infighting in the GOP about this that the Democrats might be able to do so without much appearing to exploit 9-11, since the GOP is doing a lot of the dirty work.

A much more interesting issue, I think, is Ten Kennedy's statement that this is Bush's Vietnam. I think the next few months will determine whether or not that's true. Today, the Bush administration said that we are definitely handing over control of Iraq to Iraqis as of June 30. We'll have to see if that happens, but it would make Bush look very bad if it doesn't. Will that decrease our military footprint? Either way, I have to agree with Ted a little bit. There are now 600 deaths and 3000 or so serious casualties (I may have to check my sources; those are approximate). What was Vietnam in the end? 50,000 deaths and 100,000 or so serious casualties. Certainly, it's getting within an order of magnitude. And whatever you want to say abou how long we stayed there, there was some legitimate domino theory reasoning to being, at least initially, in Vietnam. Does history look on Iraq the same way? When there are never any WMD or proof of Baathist involvment with other nominally Muslim terrorists, how does history look upon us?

[SlaveNoMore]

sgtclub
I am familiar with the plot. Why, pray tell, could Clinton not send troops into Afghanistan? He sent a few cruise missles there, why not troops? I know, I know. Because the GOP was grilling him on a blow job or two, right?

Don't buy into the propaganda.

The GOP was grilling him on shadowy land deals and perjury.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by mmm3587
I don't see the point of all this fighting over whose fault it was, or who knew what, or anything like that. There is institutional culpaibility; if you put a bunch of really smart people in a room and gave them free reign to think of easy ways to kill thousand of Americans and find ways to stop them, sure, they would have come up with the 9-11 scenario. Both administrations knew there was a threat from Al Queda, but they allocated resources elsewhere.

You have a President whose main claim for re-election is his handling of the war on terrorism. Had we had this inquiry a few years ago, it would have been much less charged, but the Administration tried to squelch it, and ended up making the whole thing more charged. If Bush hadn't used 9/11 for political ends relentlessly, we would be here now.

And apparently the Commission disagrees with you, and believes that the attacks should have been prevented. If so, we need to get to the bottom of this stuff. If we had bureaucratic screw-ups within (e.g.) the CIA and FBI, we need this political process to shed light on that so that the agencies can be reformed. If the spotlight comes to point at political appointees, then we need to know that too.

In other words, it's messy, but this is what democracy looks like.

A much more interesting issue, I think, is Ten Kennedy's statement that this is Bush's Vietnam. I think the next few months will determine whether or not that's true. Today, the Bush administration said that we are definitely handing over control of Iraq to Iraqis as of June 30. We'll have to see if that happens, but it would make Bush look very bad if it doesn't. Will that decrease our military footprint? Either way, I have to agree with Ted a little bit. There are now 600 deaths and 3000 or so serious casualties (I may have to check my sources; those are approximate). What was Vietnam in the end? 50,000 deaths and 100,000 or so serious casualties. Certainly, it's getting within an order of magnitude. And whatever you want to say abou how long we stayed there, there was some legitimate domino theory reasoning to being, at least initially, in Vietnam. Does history look on Iraq the same way? When there are never any WMD or proof of Baathist involvment with other nominally Muslim terrorists, how does history look upon us?

I think Kennedy meant it in a less literal way. We are stuck trying to defend democracy in a place where it is unlikely to take root. What I'm reading about the events of the last few days is very, very depressing. Not Me wasn't kidding.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop

I think Kennedy meant it in a less literal way. We are stuck trying to defend democracy in a place where it is unlikely to take root. What I'm reading about the events of the last few days is very, very depressing. Not Me wasn't kidding.

Ty. now that i've had the time to become rational again, away from my petty fucked client concerns, I'm starting to see what you mean about how bad Bush is. And teddy is not some bloated rich drunk who should still be in prison for drowing some 20 year old aide who's only mistake was to not run from his fat ass screaming- no i was wrong! He is a wise man who we should listen to. but Ty, I grow discouraged. the public isn't getting the Ty message

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,116200,00.html

Democrats plan to hammer away for the next seven months on the president's so-called "credibility gap" but a new poll indicates that voters have more doubts about Kerry comments.

A recent CBS poll shows that while 52 percent say President Bush says what he thinks, and 43 percent say he tells people what he thinks they want to hear, 29 percent think Kerry says what he believes while 54 percent think he panders to audience desires.

how can we convince em tha the Dems are oh so good at making tough choices, and that JFK is really the guy?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Ty. now that i've had the time to become rational again, away from my petty fucked client concerns, I'm starting to see what you mean about how bad Bush is.

Thanks for thinking of me, Hank. That's so sweet.

The election is about Bush and what happens in Iraq and with the economy over the next several months. He's the incumbent. If people think he's doing well, they'll re-elect him. Right now, he's heading the wrong way.

January 56%
February 48%
March 47%
April 43%

Pew polling data

I've never been a big Kerry fan. But Marty Nolan says he's always underestimated.

[Not Me]

So Ty, how do Hamas and Hezbollah fit into your take on this "Iraqi" uprising?

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/trib.../s_187975.html

• He is wanted in connection with the murder of Abdel Majid al-Khoi, a rival cleric stabbed and shot to death last year in the holy city of Najaf.
  
  More recently, Sadr declared that he was opening Iraqi offices for Hamas and Hezbollah, two terrorist organizations based in the Israeli-occupied territories and in Lebanon, respectively.
  
  "I am the striking arm of Hamas and Hezbollah," he said Friday in Kufa.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
So Ty, how do Hamas and Hezbollah fit into your take on this "Iraqi" uprising?

I was struck by Juan Cole's comment below:

• Deaths of Americans in Fallujah: In revenge for Sharon's Murder of Sheikh Yassin?
  
  There is increasing evidence that the brutal attack on the American security guards in Fallujah, and the desecration of their bodies, was the work of Islamists seeking vengeance for the Israeli murder of Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin. Leaflets found at the scene said the operation was in the name of Yassin. al-Hayat reports in its Friday edition that responsibility for the attack has been taken by a group called Phalanges of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin. The group said the deaths were a "gift to the Palestinian people."
  
  You put yourself in the shoes of an American military commander in Fallujah. He treats with the local clan leaders and Sunni clergy. He tries to get them on the side of the US. He faces hostility, but he is making some progress. And then Ariel Sharon sends US-made helicopter gunships to Gaza and has them fire missiles at people coming out of a mosque, killing 8 and wounding 24. One of the dead is a half-blind paraplegic Islamist named Sheikh Yassin. He could have easily been arrested, and had been in the 1990s. But he was incinerated in a piece of state terror instead. And all of a sudden the people of Fallujah in Iraq are pointing their fingers at the American troops and saying, 'you did this. You gave Sharon the green light.' And all the commander's hard work in building bridges collapses over night. And four US security personnel are dead, and 5 US troops are dead, and the fighting flares up. Thanks, Prime Minister Sharon. Thank you very much.

link

How do Hamas and Hezbollah fit into your take on what's going on Iraq?

[Colonel_Nathan_Jessup]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I was struck by Juan Cole's comment below:

• Deaths of Americans in Fallujah: In revenge for Sharon's Murder of Sheikh Yassin?
  
  There is increasing evidence that the brutal attack on the American security guards in Fallujah, and the desecration of their bodies, was the work of Islamists seeking vengeance for the Israeli murder of Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin. Leaflets found at the scene said the operation was in the name of Yassin. al-Hayat reports in its Friday edition that responsibility for the attack has been taken by a group called Phalanges of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin. The group said the deaths were a "gift to the Palestinian people."
  
  You put yourself in the shoes of an American military commander in Fallujah. He treats with the local clan leaders and Sunni clergy. He tries to get them on the side of the US. He faces hostility, but he is making some progress. And then Ariel Sharon sends US-made helicopter gunships to Gaza and has them fire missiles at people coming out of a mosque, killing 8 and wounding 24. One of the dead is a half-blind paraplegic Islamist named Sheikh Yassin. He could have easily been arrested, and had been in the 1990s. But he was incinerated in a piece of state terror instead. And all of a sudden the people of Fallujah in Iraq are pointing their fingers at the American troops and saying, 'you did this. You gave Sharon the green light.' And all the commander's hard work in building bridges collapses over night. And four US security personnel are dead, and 5 US troops are dead, and the fighting flares up. Thanks, Prime Minister Sharon. Thank you very much.

link

How do Hamas and Hezbollah fit into your take on what's going on Iraq?

I say we turn a blind eye and let Israel turn Lebanon and Syria into glass.

[mmm3587]

Originally posted by Not Me
So Ty, how do Hamas and Hezbollah fit into your take on this "Iraqi" uprising?[/list]

Well, there was no international terrorism going on there before, and now it's a hotbed of it. And it will be for years to come.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
What are you suggesting that they should have done, and when? Invade Afghanistan the way we did in 2002? That was a war. I don't recall that (the Republican-controlled) Congress declared war until after 9/11. And without Pakistan and Uzbekistan to stage in, our capacity to project force into Afghanistan was limited. All this changed after 9/11.

I think what I'm suggesting is something more than a few cruise missles and more along the lines of 2002. I don't recall Congress declaring war in Bosnia/Serbia either, and we didn't stage in Pakistan in 2002 anyway. Not sure about Uzbekistan, but given that they are New Europe, I doubt they would have had a problem.

[sgtclub]

http://washingtontimes.com/national/...1654-1495r.htm

The final policy paper on national security that President Clinton submitted to Congress — 45,000 words long — makes no mention of al Qaeda and refers to Osama bin Laden by name just four times.
The scarce references to bin Laden and his terror network undercut claims by former White House terrorism analyst Richard A. Clarke that the Clinton administration considered al Qaeda an "urgent" threat, while President Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, "ignored" it.
The Clinton document, titled "A National Security Strategy for a Global Age," is dated December 2000 and is the final official assessment of national security policy and strategy by the Clinton team. The document is publicly available, though no U.S. media outlets have examined it in the context of Mr. Clarke's testimony and new book.

But you read the book . . .

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://washingtontimes.com/national/...1654-1495r.htm

from the article
The document is publicly available, though no U.S. media outlets have examined it in the context of Mr. Clarke's testimony and new book.

quite a realistic self- assesment by the Washington Times.