Holiday cut short
Poor Mr Bush. Even though he's spent a scant 40% of his presidency on vacation, Dubya has very kindly agreed to come back to Washington for a rare press conference on Monday. It looks like the events of the last week have got Bush's people slightly worried. During the worst week in Iraq since "Mission Accomplished", Bush was visibly absent from the White House, and with his job approval numbers slipping to new lows last week they rightly thought that maybe it was time to get him back in the driver's seat, so to speak.
What will we see in Monday's press conference? Admission of any misgivings about how things have gone in Iraq? Admission of any possibility they could have done more pre-9/11? Admission of any fallability whatsoever? Nah.
You can tell by today's remarks in Crawford (which fly in the face of the recently-declassified PDB) that we're going to get more of the usual bluster and a cheeky grin with the usual oversimplification of the situation at hand... I am already hovering on the channel button in case I feel the urge to throw something at the TV. One of these days, someone in that administration is going to have to say that everything has not unfolded according to plan, and accept some responsibility.
I fear for the longterm effects of this administration's gross mismanagement of our country. It will have such repercussions as we can barely imagine today.
OK, so where exactly in the Aug. 2001 memo does it say that Al Qaeda is going to hijack commercial airlines and use them as missles?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4710772/
It does talk about hijacking but, more as leverage to release that blind cleric but, nothing about using them as missles unless, of course, you want to make the assumption that hijacking of commercial airplanes and using them as missles was "implied".
Posted by: Chrish | April 13, 2004 at 02:22 AM
I agree that there will be repurcussions from this administration that we can barely imagine. Like representative governments in Iraq and Afghanistan. And let's take a history lesson. What democracy was ever formed overnight without conflict? Yep, there will be less state-sponsored terrorism. More countries like Libya will give up their weapons.
Let's be honest. If Bush had done more before 9/11 ( that's assuming that he knew of a threat to use planes as missiles ), the same people who are complaining he didn't do enough now, would have been complaining that he did too much then. If we were cancelling flights and increasing security in airports can you imagine the public outcry (whining)? No retaliation for Mogidishu, for the U.S.S. Cole, the two African embassies, Twin Towers '93, the planes being shot at in the no-fly zone in Iraq, and we say Bush didn't do enough? Let's get real. The terrorists were emboldened because there were no consequences to their actions until 9/11. Bush Sr. should have taken out Saddam and Clinton should have taken out Usama when they had the chances. There would have been many less lives lost in many countries (Iraqi, Afghani, American, Spanish, etc. etc.) had either of them acted when they had the chance.
Posted by: Jim | April 13, 2004 at 04:21 PM
I'm sure everyone has seen this at least once by now, usually accompanied by the "If only his son could read":
"Trying to eliminate Saddam...would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible.... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq....there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion-route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."
-- George H. W. Bush, in his memoirs, "A World Transformed"
Just thought we all needed a reminder of WHY Bush Sr didn't do what Junior is doing now. Obviously it was possible to capture Saddam, but the rest certainly rings true.
Perhaps the Clinton administration didn't do enough--and they aren't the ones in power now. Bush & Co came in, guns blazing, as though the past 8 years hadn't happened. They immediately started in looking for a way to "Get Saddam", without considering that there were more immediate threats to U.S. safety. Even AFTER 9/11, Junior's response was NOT to concentrate on capturing Osama and fighting Al Qaeda, but to turn his attention almost immediately to Iraq. He had a one track mind, on the wrong narrow track. Now our military is completely tied up in Iraq, and Bush has only been successful in uniting the Iraqis against the U.S. Given that Iraq and Al Qaeda are NOT linked, why has he gotten the U.S. into this mess in Iraq, when it was certainly not the most pressing issue (pre or post 9/11)?
Posted by: Sarah Forrester | April 13, 2004 at 05:43 PM
"Bush & Co came in, guns blazing, as though the past 8 years hadn't happened"
-isn't this a contradiction? If his guns were blazing wouldn't it be because of the past 8 years?
"Even AFTER 9/11, Junior's response was NOT to concentrate on capturing Osama and fighting Al Qaeda, but to turn his attention almost immediately to Iraq."
-I know it's been a couple of years, but if memory serves, didn't we go into Afghanistan and try to get UBL way before we went to Iraq? Like 16 months earlier.
I'm kind of bummed Saddam is out of power. That oil for palaces program was a big hit with his people. I guess they could have voted him out.
Posted by: Jim | April 13, 2004 at 06:04 PM
Let's not talk about what Clinton DID not do during his term's in office. And let's not talk about the fact that known or suspected terrorists were coming and going into the USA, according to the PDB of Aug. 2001, with apparently no difficulty whatsoever. And let's not mention the fact that Clinton was considering going into Iraq to take out Hussein and destroy the WMD's that he, Clinton, believed Hussein had. And under no circumstances should we talk about the lack of response from Clinton's administration for the first attack on the towers, the USS Cole, the embassies in Kenya, and other attacks that occurred.
Did BushCo come in guns a blazing? Sorry, I don't believe that anymore than I believe he planned the attacks of 9/11 as some have been implying.
Did he believe he had just cause to go into Iraq?
Yes, after years of stalling, lies, and subtrefuge that Hussein engaged in, and recall Hussein also did that with Clinton, the belief was that Hussein had WMD's also a belief held by Clinton. Was it a mistake to go into Iraq?
Yes. Was is intentional? No, I don't believe
that either. Can we pull out of Iraq now? Absolutely not, to do that would be to watch a country fall into complete and total anarchy.
Even John Kerry, realizes that fact and has said so much to that fact that we cannot pull out of Iraq now.
Posted by: Chrish | April 13, 2004 at 06:14 PM
No, Chrish, that document doesn't say "Al Qaeda will attack such and such a place and time using these exact methods" but it points both to hijacking airplanes and to New York. I'm no counter-terrorism expert but how hard could it have been to step up efforts to tighten airline security and to double-check passports against known terrorists' identities, or have a system in place to respond more quickly to hijacked airplanes?
On a side note, how utterly humiliating was that press conference?? I can't believe that with hours of preparation, extensive notes, and what appeared to be a live teleprompter screen on the podium (I could be wrong but it certainly looked like one) GWB could still manage to look and sound like my six year old nephew trying to explain current events? I would be mortified if I were a supporter of his after that one.
Posted by: maryann | April 14, 2004 at 03:16 AM
Maryann,
The history of hijacking airlines always had the same M.O.; take over a passenger plane, fly it to some friendly country, i.e. Libya, Iraq, Uganda, etc., threaten to kill the passengers unless some payment is made, kill one or two passengers to show everyone they meant business, so on and so forth. Never, Never have they ever used passenger airplanes as missiles and flown them into buildings.
It has been common knowledge for several decades that the terrorists whether it be Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, or other groups hate America and Americans and they would have loved nothing more than to have hit us on our own home turf and they finally did it.
It has also been shown through these investigations that our intelligence agencies the FBI, CIA, NSA, and other's had, not only, internal issues but, issues that for territorial reasons as well as Legal, implying Legislative laws, resulting in a dysfunctional group of agencies that were incapable of sharing information.
Many of the things you bring up, most probably, would have been implemented except for that tiresome "Political Correctness" obsession that we seem to suffer from as well as laws that prevent such things as "Profiling". Which, by the way and sad to say, is a very powerful tool for identifying suspicious people such as used those planes. Consider the fact that even after 9/11 when security was tightened at our airports and checks were becoming more what they should have been there were still that same group that ranted about "Political Correctness" and "Profiling". Which resulted in old ladies, old men, and babies being thoroughly checked before, heaven forbid, someone of Middle Eastern descent was checked. Figure that one out.
The problem, as I see it, is we Americans want our cake and eat it too. We want tight security at our airports but, we don't want the inconvenience and we don't want what appears to be our "Civil Rights" being violated by someone checking our passports, visas, tickets, or our persons.
You said, "to double-check passports against known terrorists' identities", and to that I wholeheartedly agree. That's exactly the problem.
You have two or more intelligence agencies that do not share that exact information of which you speak. This problem is nothing new nor is a BushCo issue. This has been an ongoing problem for a number of decades further aggravated by legal KaKa that the Legislatures in Washington shoved down their throats a number of years ago.
A whole lot of "You can't do this", "You can't do that", "You will not do that", and "You are not allowed to do this".
As far as I see it there are two groups who are responsible; Bin Laden and Congress. Bin Laden for committing the act and Congress for making it so damn easy for him to commit it. Did you notice in that PDB of Aug. 2001, that everyone was making a big deal about, of how incredibly easy it seemed that those terrorists were coming and going into Our Country? It sounded like they had free reign to come and go as they pleased without any hindrance nor worry and that goes back into the early 90's. Explain that one.
Yes, I watched his press conference and I agreed with some of what he was saying. I did take note that he was taken aback by some of the questions or side stepped them. I noted that the reporter who asked him if, on looking back, would he have done things differently wasn't really answered; That bothered me. Or when asked if he felt he should apologize to the victims or to The People about 9/11 event happening. He also avoided answering that question; that also bothered me. I see nothing wrong with a man or woman admitting to making a mistake and apologizing for it. That, to me, is a person who has a sense of responsibility and accountability.
I do, however, agree with his position that before 9/11 We were not in a stance of War. Quite frankly, it's almost as if We were walking around with our thumbs up our B__t totally oblivious to what was going on around us. Fooled into the belief that the oceans seperating us from other countries would protect us. We were lulled into a state of false assumptions and We payed dearly for that foolishness and now had a frightening wake up call.
I also agree with his position that We cannot pull out of Iraq we have to stay the course and complete the mission. Anything less and We will pay for that mistake once again.
On a side note, I do love the pictures you paint Maryann. Teleprompter, six year old nephew? LOL!! Puh-lease, why are you insulting your six year old nephew? :o) Just kidding with you.. OK? Although I have heard and seen some six year old's who seem to have a whole lot more common sense and wisdom than us, so called, adults.
Posted by: Chrish | April 14, 2004 at 06:01 AM
Few Americans would seriously argue that we are winning the war on terrorism. Instead of pursuing Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaida, we have become bogged down in a war against Iraqi extremists.
These are not the people who attacked us on 9/11.
American tactics in Iraq are increasing support for Muslim extremists everywhere. The U.S. military reacted to the killing and mutilation of four American contract workers in Fallujah by using gun ships and U.S. Marines against a mosque and Iraqi civilians.
The fighting that resulted looks like a popular uprising uniting traditional Sunni and Shiite enemies against us. George W. Bush is a uniter after all.
It doesn't take a lifelong student of Arab-Muslim societies to understand that these people are seething with hatred for the United States. As would anyone who has been unjustly attacked, they want revenge. One need look no further than the attacks of 9/11 to understand this.
U.S. success in Iraq had been predicated on the majority Shiites remaining neutral. This isn't happening.
The typical dynamics of a quasi-revolutionary situation favor the most radical elements -- even if only a small minority -- who are fully committed and more willing to use violence than the silent middle. Events of the American Revolution bear this out. The current cycle of Muslim attack followed by a U.S. military reaction will inevitably create more "martyrs" for the cause.
Under these conditions, we can expect more of the moderate Shiite followers of Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini al-Sistani to join the extremists. Even those who oppose the violence will be neutralized by the increased radicalization that makes it dangerous to side with the U.S. against their Islamic brethren.
The Fallujah atrocities and the subsequent U.S. overreaction could be a turning point in this fight, perhaps like the 1968 Tet offensive in Vietnam that revealed the hollowness of administration claims to be winning that war.
Although U.S. forces could level Fallujah or any other city, each inflammatory "victory" further damages any hope of establishing democracy. Bombing mosques and killing civilians will not win hearts and minds.
Why are we planning to stay? The administration contends that a quick U.S. departure could result in civil war, encourage our enemies and damage our credibility in the world.
These concerns are all justified, but the administration should have seen this earlier. It has gotten the country into a war without having an exit strategy.
To date we have suffered 4,000 casualties, 600 of them deaths, and spent $160 billion.
Six months from now, the cost and casualty figures will be higher, and proponents of the war will still argue the dangers of early departure: civil war, heartened enemies and damaged U.S. credibility.
One year from now, assuming we stay the present course, only the casualties and the costs will have changed. The arguments for this no-win scenario will remain the same, just as they were for Vietnam.
The Soviet Union faced the same dilemma after it became bogged down in Afghanistan following the 1979 invasion. It took several years before the Soviets realized that no meaningful definition of "winning" justified the costs. The arguments against leaving, similar to what we hear now in the United States, prevailed: We must stay the course; we cannot cut and run.
Not until 1989, after 1.3 million Afghans were dead and 485,000 Soviets were casualties, did Moscow conclude that the costs far outweighed any gains.
I served as a U.S. diplomat in the Soviet Union from 1987 to 1989 and saw firsthand the damage inflicted on Soviet society by nine years of slow blood-letting in Afghanistan, including the crippled, embittered veterans who returned home only to find they were somehow blamed for losing the war.
We are faced with a momentous decision in Iraq that could lead to similar consequences. Saddam Hussein is in custody, there are no weapons of mass destruction and there never was any connection with 9/11. Sovereignty is to be restored to Iraq on June 30, and the United Nations is helping to organize elections.
What further measures of success must the administration achieve in order to declare victory and leave? How many more lives is it willing to spend in order to achieve what they define as victory? A mindless admonition to stay the course without defining the end point won't do.
Instead of planning to withdraw troops, however, the Bush administration is now talking of sending reinforcements. More troops will only prolong the agony and raise the costs, without any real prospect of improving the situation -- or of "winning."
It's not a question of cut and run; it's a question of declaring victory and cutting our losses. The Bush administration dragged us into this war using false pretenses and macho "bring it on" posturing. The only right course now is for the administration to support the troops by bringing them home.
Tom Maertens, now retired, also served as a Naval officer during the Vietnam era and a Peace Corps volunteer in Africa.
Posted by: commentary by Tom Maertens | April 14, 2004 at 08:48 AM
I'm with Tom there--my brother has just gone back to Wisconsin after a year in Iraq, but now I've got a cousin who's out there, just when it's hitting the fan. Though it's hard to believe, Bush seems to infuriate both Muslim groups even more than he infuriates me.
To explain further my comment about BushCo coming in, "guns blazing" --I was referring to their ridiculous missle defence plans, the reemergence of "Star Wars" that was being planned right after Bush came into office. How exactly was that going to combat things like embassy and naval ship bombings? Or prevent terrorists from entering the country? Bush just wanted to have his toys, not to recognize that the world had changed since his dad and Reagan were in power.
And sure, they went into Afghanistan and blew up some stuff right after 9/11--then moved straight on to the next target, Bush's true target, for all the wrong reasons. When's the last time we really heard any news on what they're doing to promote stability in Afghanistan? All the focus is on Iraq now, just like Bush wanted it to be all those months ago. Bush's own staff have come out against him, stating that he WANTED to find a link between 9/11 and Saddam. When he couldn't find one, he fudged the evidence and scared and bullied people into accepting it. Well, it's all starting to backfire now.
Posted by: Sarah Forrester | April 14, 2004 at 01:32 PM
By all accounts Afghanistan is reverting to type - the reports on the position of women alone are depressing reading in that it is going back to the way it was and the warlords are reasserting themselves. We took the eye off that ball when something more tempting came up, or rather came to seem more feasible. And all in the name of 9/11 which has deliberately been foggily associated with Saddam Hussein in the minds of many Americans. I have seen interviews with soldiers in Iraq saying that they were there as pay back for 9/11. Wrong place, wrong people.
Frankly watching and listening to the President in the magnanimous whole hour he granted to the press was terribly depressing. And I couldn't get out of my head something I read over the weekend in an article about Iraq - a quote from an Iraqi about the American strategy: "They are acting like it's their country and we are the terrorists." It's not our country - it's theirs. We don't have the right to enshrine in their constitution that US companies have rights in perpetuity to run their infrastructure. They had a perfectly good one that we dismantled. How would we feel if it happened to our country and we had no control over how the most basic things in our lives were run and who profited from them? We don't have the right to say that only the people we choose will run it - we said we were bringing democracy and sometimes it throws up people we don't like. How many of us know that. We don't have the right to bomb the opposition and then claim that there were no civilian casualties or that anyone hit must have been 'an enemy'. That's the way the 9/11 bombers thought and we're supposed to be different from them. There's something that was said by someone I believe the President claims to hold in very high regard: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." He can't have it both ways.
Posted by: Alexandra | April 14, 2004 at 03:16 PM
Nice one Alexandra, very well put. Why the hell aren't we hearing more details in the news about the nature of these contracts, and whatever happened to all the speeches about returning the Iraqis' resources to the people?
Chrish I appreciate we didn't know exactly what they were going to do with the planes, but I would have thought even the "typical M.O." you described, which involved taking and killing hostages, would have been unacceptable to the president and cause for increased security.
I'm not sure how "political correctness" would have kept airlines from having a checklist of identities against which to run passports either.
And I'm still not clear on why the planes were allowed to flounder around for so long before anybody tried to intercept them.
But I agree with you about the complexities involved in tracking down exact plans and faces and dates. In any case my issues with the Bush presidency (not including abortion rights, Kyoto, arctic drilling and other environmental issues) really begin after 9/11. I'm not that preoccupied with figuring out exactly who did and didn't do or know what and when.
Now here's a really whacked out lefty statement to get you all riled up. I've not ruled out the possibility that one day it might surface that the Bushes knew it all along this was coming and let it happen to justify their remaking the Middle East. At least about the flight going into the Pentagon, which was conveniently under construction and largely empty at the time. I certainly don't put it past them. But before you freak out over that one, just know that I'd have to see conclusive proof (and clear justification of the rewards they would have reaped as a result) to reach that conclusion. In the meantime I'll leave that to the conspiracy theorists.
Posted by: Maryann | April 14, 2004 at 09:42 PM
Today marks a year since the death of the son I adore, Jesus Alberto, My Aztec Warrior; a year of yet another of Bush's lies, lying to my family about the causes of his death; a year of insult to the memory of my son by Bush for trying to avoid paying the costs of his burial.
A year of great love, respect and admiration that my Aztec Warrior awakened in the community; a year without his smile, his touch, his human warmth; but most painful of all, a year without his wonderful physical presence.
Today marks a year that my precious grandson Erick has lived without the necessary presence of his father, without his kisses, his touch, his example.
Today marks a year that my wife weeps ceaselessly for him, a year without the joy of the love between mother and son.
Today marks a year that my daughters live without the support of their brother, without his confidences, without his jokes, without his pesterings, without his love.
A year in which the death in Iraq has not stopped; in which other good young people, full of idealism, have abandoned their families forever to join my son in that precious and blessed other place.
A year that thousands of innocent Iraqi children have died as a result of Bush's lies; a year where thousands of innocent women and men have lost their liberty, their dreams, as a result of Bush's lies.
Today, March 27th, marks the first anniversary of my son's death due to the negligence of the military command in Iraq; and my Family continues mourning, grieving for his absence.
We are celebrating his memory with a mass in Saint Mary's Church in the city of Escondido at 7:00 this evening. (St Mary's Catholic Church,1160 S Broadway, Escondido, CA 760-745-1611) I know that many will remember and will accompany us in our pain.
And I want to thank all of you for the wealth of affection and moral support that you've given my family during this tragic year; and not only to the Suarez del Solar family, but to all of the 560 American Families who are suffering and deceived by this damned immoral war.
My Aztec Warrior Lives!!!!!
My Aztec Warrior is part of the Struggle for Peace!!!!!!!
Posted by: Fernando S. del. S. | April 14, 2004 at 10:58 PM
Senor Suarez Del Solar y Familia,
I know that no words I could utter or write
would be meaningless and empty. Please accept my deepest deepest heartfelt sympathies, condolences, and prayers for you, your family, and for your son; an Aztec Warrior.
God Bless you sir.
Posted by: Chrish | April 16, 2004 at 06:36 AM
Chrish, just for the record, you can see Bush referring to a Teleprompter which is built into his podium as he reads his initial statements on this footage. He moves paper around to cover it, but refers to it throughout the conference. There is a software called Excaliber that is used for these purposes, to keep feeding him updated scripts/answers/information live, as the questions come in. Tony Blair's used one. It's a small point but just FYI.
http://www.c-span.org/
Posted by: maryann | April 16, 2004 at 03:08 PM
Maryann,
Viewed the video and I see no problem with Bush using either a written document, teleprompter,
or scrolling screen while giving his initial statements. All Presidents, Legislatures, etc.
do that; nothing new. Moving papers around doesn't necessarily mean he's trying to hide something nor anything else it just means he's moving papers around.
There was, however, one thing I did notice while watching his press conference and viewing the video that I had forgotten about. It seemed to me
that most of his answers to the questions always seemed to return back to his talking points. In
one or two instances, I have to admit, I felt
he had not really answered the question(s) and on that I will yield but, with the understanding that most, if not all, politicians do that.
Whether it be Bush, Kerry, or any other politican watch and listen closely and you'll notice that they will answer a question without really answering it. The times where it is most obvious are generally during a debate. They will begin to answer and then suddenly they're into one of their talking points, campaign jingos, or, in some cases, off in LaLa land.
In your previous posts you were working on trying to get me all riled up with comments like, "the possibility that one day it might surface that the Bushes knew it all along this was coming and let it happen to justify their remaking the Middle East.". Sorry to disappoint you but, I've had those thoughts also pop up every now and then; "Did BushCo know this was going to happen and let it happen to justify going into the Middle East?". Although, for now, it's just another conspiracy theory it is not beyond the realm of possibility. Another plausible theory would be one that speaks of a "Shadow Government"; a group of people behind the scenes. People who are not just Americans but come from different countries who are really running things, deciding things, and making things happen to further their own goals. But, those are just conspiracy theories or are they?
What did I mean by "Political Correctness"? Consider that most of the terrorists are of Middle Eastern descent, note I said "most", and generally between the ages of 20-35. Now that does not mean that All terrorists fit into that category it just means "most" of them fall into that category. "Profiling" or as it is most commonly known "Racial Profiling" which, by the way, came under a lot of fire laws, rules, regulations were implemented that, with good intention, attempted to put a stop to that because it was considered Politically Incorrect to make assumptions about a person regardless of race, color, creed, etc., etc. I can understand that concept but, to carry it to the point that only little old ladies, old men, and babies will be searched rather than those who fit into a known profile on the sole basis of not wanting to offend anybody is, to me, nonsensical to say the least.
Because of this flawed view regarding "Political Correctness" and "Racial Profiling" those, the terrorists of 9/11, were able to come and go into this country, board planes with little or no problem whatsoever. Why? Because "We must not offend anyone." doesn't matter if they fit a know "Profile". Laws, regulations, and rules were also put in place to prevent intelligence agencies, law enforcement agencies, and criminal investigation agencies or whatever they're called from sharing information to avoid violating somebody's Civil Rights and a territorial thing; must be a guy thing. It became a case of
"I know something you don't know" kind of thing.
Some of that was created from within the very agencies themselves and some from meddling politicians attempting to politicize National Security and the various intelligence agencies to the point that the right hand didn't know what the left hand was doing.
What absolutely amazes me is that those known terrorists of 9/11 were able to come and go into this country so freely. That boggles the mind and yet realizing the "Wall" that was put up between these agencies it's understandable why.
I cannot respond to why the planes were able to flounder around for so long. I know that when I turned on the TV to watch the breaking news about the Towers just after the first plane hit the news commentator was reporting "a terrible accident". I watched and thought how tragic, how could the pilot accidentally fly into a building?
Was he drunk, on drugs, had a heart attack? Not for one moment did it occur to me that this was a terrorist attack not until I watched as the second plane struck the second tower did the thought smack me in the face. I'm not trying to make any excuses for what went on during that time but, I would surmise there was a whole hell
of a lot of confusion and chaos in all of the various departments; city, state, and Federal as to what was going on.
Posted by: Chrish | April 16, 2004 at 04:56 PM
Maryann,
The Kyoto agreement, Arctic drilling, the environment I am in complete agreement with you.
Bush has failed in that area as he has also failed in providing the funding for the development of alternative energy sources.
I can't help but wonder and I believe many have stated the same on this site that all of the problems in the Middle East is about that damnable Oil. We already know that it's a major cause of the environmental problems.
Seems to me that the primary single focus should be directed towards the development of cleaner, cheaper alternative energy sources and permanently cap all of the oil wells and bury them.
Posted by: Chrish | April 16, 2004 at 05:03 PM
RE: Bush's press conference; I honestly don't think he ever does very well in them. As a supporter, it's often uncomfortable to watch. However, that does not mean he does make the right decisions in the Oval Office. Surprisingly, he delivers speeches and debates with opponents quite well (Gore Debate '00).
Re: Profiling. Hmmm...the vast majority of terrorists and the ones who have openly declared war on us are young males of middle eastern descent. Does that mean all young men of middle eastern descent are evil? Absolutely not. However, if there was a serial killer running around in my city who fit my description, the police would not be doing their job if they didn't investigate me.
Yes, let's not offend anyone. I am so sick of security guards apoligizing for looking in my briefcase or laptop at airports. Hello idiot - stop apoligizing - that is your job.
Posted by: Jim | April 16, 2004 at 06:37 PM
Chrish,
In 50-60 years there won't be any more oil anyway. Personally I don't think this war is about oil. Don't we get plenty from the Saudi's, Kuwait, the UAE, etc.? But if it is about oil why not drill in Alaska where lives wouldn't be lost. Oh we can't go there either. Yes, I would love to have cleaner fuel sources, i.e. hydrogen, solar, turbine dams, etc., but right now it's not happening, despite the President saying he wants to spend 1 billion dollars to develop a useable hydrogen fuel cell.
It's easy to say this war is about oil, because that's what we say when we don't like the President. If anything Gulf 1 was about oil, but there was nowhere near the anti-war sentiment then.
Sure you can say it's about oil, or it's about WMD, both of which might be part of the reason. Leading up to the war, the WMD was only one of many factors given, but it's the one that everyone dwells on. The real reason was (my opinion) this was a chance to show what happens when you not only ignore 18 sanctions, had (at one time) WMD, sympathize with terrorists and laugh at the USA. I'm not saying Saddam had meetings with bin laden, but he did openly reward families of suicide bombers. Was it so bad to make an example of a tyrant? I think nations like Libya, Yemen, Iran, Pakistan and others have got the message. Probably not a good idea to aid and abet(sp?) terroritsts. Every life is precious, but in the end this will prevent loss of life.
This is not Vietnam. We're not fighting a country funded by the Russians. It's not 15 years, there is no draft and there aren't 56,000 dead (Thank God). The 100,000+ serving and especially the 600+ dead are true heroes. May there lives not be lost in vain.
The majority of Iraqi's want peace and democracy. God Bless them and God Bless our troops.
Posted by: Jim | April 16, 2004 at 08:25 PM
Jim,
I hear your and understand your arguments and in some respects agree but, the plausibility that this whole thing with Iraq could, just could be all about their oil. After all, just think what a deal could be cut with a "Friendly" Iraqi government for their oil. If I recall correctly, and notice that it isn't spoken about, weren't Germany, France, and Russia involved with some scandal in the UN over that "Oil for Food Program"?
I have no doubt whatsoever that if the Germans, the French, and the Russians would be making back room deals for oil then our Goverment, BushCo, would have no misgivings about doing the same thing. Isn't there somewhat of an incestuous relationship between Cheny and Haliburton?
Posted by: Chrish | April 16, 2004 at 10:26 PM
Hi Chrish,
It's late at night so I won't go into too much detail here. Just wanted to say I don't think it's unreasonable for Bush or anybody else to use a teleprompter. I sure as heck would if I were in his position and on TV all over the world. Just thought it was interesting to note that he did have a feed of answers as the questions were coming in, and still had trouble addressing them articulately.
I agree too, the picture coming out of the 9/11 commission shows a depressing degree of beaurocratic inefficiency. I'm sure it would have been a monster to overhaul the whole system under those circumstances.
I'm on the fence about the profiling issue. My territorial instinct says sure, focus on people of obvious Middle Eastern descent getting onto planes, but it rubs me the wrong way from a basic human dignity standpoint. It's a tough one. Given how quickly the government whipped together those mug shots and profiles of the hijackers, it seemed like these particular guys were already on file and could have possibly been apprehended more easily than just randomly searching everybody getting on a plane. But I'm not an expert at the technology involved, so it's just a gut feeling, I can't say I know how they would have done it.
And of course the war is about oil. Not specifically Iraqi oil, but oil is the reason we have a presence in the Middle East at all, certainly an armed-to-the-hilt military presence. Otherwise we'd just leave them to get on with their corrupt governments, like we do in Africa. As for blowing off UN sanctions, the US and Israel do their fair share and get away with it. It's obviously about resources, and profiteering from reconstruction.
Posted by: maryann | April 17, 2004 at 01:27 AM
Maryann,
Late at night? I think you mean early in the morning like 1:27 AM in the morning your time?
I think Bush's responses to some of those questions quite possibly threw him off as well as whomever was operating the teleprompter if that's how he was responding. I don't think he, they expected the questions they got, i.e., "Looking back do you feel you made mistakes?" or something to that effect. Those, I don't believe, would have fallen under any of his bullet points.
His response to the question "Why are you and Cheny going together before the 9/11 Commission?" bothered me. Didn't Clinton and Gore go seperately before the 9/11 Commission? That I do wonder about and do feel they should go before the commission seperately not together.
I know it is a difficult balancing act between maintaning Civil Rights, not using Profiling, and protecting Our Country from terrorists, use of Profiling. As you say there is an inherent danger from those who would abuse the system which means certain checks and balances must be in place and maintained so that innocent people aren't put through unnecessary situations. For example that "No Fly List" which, simply stated say certain suspect or watched people are not allowed to board planes. Sounds good but, when you realize that an innocent person could be put on that list, not know they are on the list, and apparently no way or almost impossible to get their name off of it. That, to my way of thinking, is utterly ridiculous and needs to be rectified.
I also wonder about the speed at which they figured out who the hijackers were as well as having their pictures so readily on hand. The only conclusion I can come to is that since they were, allegedly, watching that bunch, had suspicions that they were up to something, or were affiliated with Al Qaeda they had them and their pictures on file. But, then that begs the question if all of this is true then why were they allowed to board those planes? I can only conclude that they either didn't have sufficient evidence or had sufficient evidence but due to that wall between the agencies they could not do anything but watch them not knowing what they were about to do. I shudder to think of the alternative to those conclusions.
Hopefully these hearings will bring the whole truth out no matter what that may be into the light for all of Our sakes.
You have a good weekend......
Posted by: Chrish | April 17, 2004 at 05:09 AM
Regarding photo id's. It's possible they were on file because they were suspected terrorists. It's also possible they were on file, because even then, foreign nationals needed to have passport photos which are put on file for governments to share. However even if they were suspected terrorists, before 9/11 it was almost inconceiveable to arrest anyone or get a search warrant just based on suspicions. If people are crying foul about civil liberties now, can you imagine what people would have said before 9/11. Arresting somebody because you suspect they are a terrorist before they actually killed somebody was unthinkable at the time. At least now when somebody says, "I just want to learn to fly the plane and aim it at buildings, I don't need to learn to take off or land it," we have a clue. "Hello Ms. Librarian, I would like to borrow all of your books on bombmaking. And can you tell me if there is a uranium store near by."
Posted by: Jim | April 19, 2004 at 02:12 PM
All of you - any of you - with even a passing interest in the 9/11 Commission should read the Richard Clarke book. The press has picked up on a few paragraphs and focused on them in a rather sensational manner, however, the book is a fascinating and informative history of our nation's awareness and strategy in dealing with terrorism from the point of view of someone who was intimately involved in counterterrorism efforts throughout the last 4 Presidents' terms. Many of the questions that you are speculating on here are explored in depth in the book.
Posted by: heather | April 19, 2004 at 04:21 PM