McCain Adviser: You Know What’d Really Help? A Terror Attack
The Washington Post reports:
A top adviser to Sen. John McCain said that a terrorist attack in the United States would be a political benefit to the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, a comment that was immediately disputed by the candidate and denounced by his Democratic rival.
Charles R. Black Jr., one of McCain’s most senior political advisers, said in an interview with Fortune magazine that a fresh terrorist attack “certainly would be a big advantage to him.
Brilliant. But why stop there?
Why, it would be even more beneficial if the attack hit a blue state, wouldn’t it? As long as Mr. Black is on the subject, why not provide the list of states where a huge terror attack would be most beneficial to John McCain?
Oh, and hey — it seems like it would be beneficial to John McCain if the attack took out Barack Obama. Wouldn’t it? It would be even more beneficial to John McCain if it also took out other likely replacements for Obama, like Hillary Clinton or Al Gore.
In all this talk about what would be beneficial to John McCain, I just thought of something that would not be beneficial to John McCain.
Saying this kind of stuff to Fortune Magazine.
I can see that — and I’m not even a top political adviser!
Shouldn’t be too long before that adviser gets thrown under the back of Baracky’s bus.
Comment by JD — 6/24/2008 @ 8:13 am
Absolutely clueless cretins not even able to take advantage of the lightworker’s unforced errors.
Why do I feel this campaign is shaping up as Dole/Kemp redux? I see McCain is losing S. Fla right now by 46-30 despite all the geezers here. Maybe he’ll improve that with Charlie Crist on ticket? I doubt that. At least Huckleberry Clown shouldn’t make the cut after his own Obama assassination joke flub.
It’s going to be a long summer. Here’s hoping Denver is a real zoo and some how, some way sHrillary comes out on top there. I don’t want the Lightworker Neophyte near POTUS.
Comment by madmax333 — 6/24/2008 @ 8:22 am
I’ve heard it said before, and I’ll say it again: “It’s too bad the Republicans couldn’t have gotten around to nominating a real candidate this time…”
I denounce myself for saying so, of course. (Preemptive strike/scorched earth policy standard with McCain.)
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/24/2008 @ 8:23 am
Charlie Black has never managed a winning Presidential campaign. Ronald Reagan dumped him. I wonder why anyone else would hire the idiot.
Comment by PCD — 6/24/2008 @ 8:28 am
Your ponderence holds the answers you seek…
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 6/24/2008 @ 8:33 am
Hard to know the context when we aren’t told what his comments were in response to. If it was a response to a question like: “Which candidate would be hurt the most and which candidate would be helped the most by another terrorist attack?”, I think you pretty much have to answer it with the obvious answer.
Comment by j curtis — 6/24/2008 @ 8:41 am
Shouldn’t be too long before that adviser gets thrown under the back of Baracky’s bus.
Yeah. Its Obama’s fault he said that. Blame it on Obama. Wonder how this blog would have been buzzing with all the anti Obama sentiments and hate speeches if that was an Obama adviser. But since he isnt we will still find a way to tie it to Obama. There has to be a connection…..
Comment by love2008 — 6/24/2008 @ 8:41 am
Good analysis lovey. Spot on.
Comment by daleyrocks — 6/24/2008 @ 8:48 am
Charlie Black? Is he still around? This is something I’ve never understood about the “profession” of politics — how losers are recycled like baseball managers. How can this be in such a dynamic business, and with so much at stake? McCain can find no young, sharp, audacious talented conservative operatives who recognize the incredible opportunity running against a crypto-marxist parvenu?
Comment by rrpjr — 6/24/2008 @ 8:58 am
This story is similar to the story about the Congressman who said that winning in Iraq would be a problem for Democrats. It’s just a dumb comment that happens to be true.
Comment by MIke K — 6/24/2008 @ 8:59 am
aww, he’s just admitting what everyone knows, the republicans and osama bin laden need each other. in order to accomplish its objectives, the republican party needs the people to be in a state of fear. i expect to be castigated in 3…2…1 for being insufficiently fearful.
Comment by assistant devil's advocate — 6/24/2008 @ 9:12 am
rrpjr…
“…a crypto-marxist parvenu.”
I like that! Good work.
Comment by Another Drew — 6/24/2008 @ 9:14 am
ada @ 11…
Better to be in fear (or aware), than in denial.
Comment by Another Drew — 6/24/2008 @ 9:15 am
11
the republican party needs the people to be in a state of fear
Aren’t you one of those weather armageddon gorebots?
Comment by j curtis — 6/24/2008 @ 9:18 am
Just so we’re clear:
No attacks on the US, good for Republicans!
Attacks on the US, good for Republicans!
Got it.
Comment by Ian — 6/24/2008 @ 9:31 am
I say bullshit. This was the whole thing from fortune:
As would, Black concedes with startling candor after we raise the issue, another terrorist attack on U.S. soil. “Certainly it would be a big advantage to him,” says Black.
Nothing more.
What was the question and what was the leadup?
Comment by nk — 6/24/2008 @ 9:37 am
#15
Or better still;
No attacks on the US, bad for the democrats.
Attack on the US, bad for the democrats.
Mmmmmgh.
Comment by love2008 — 6/24/2008 @ 9:38 am
And, BTW, tracing back from Patterico’s link, I went through Huffingpuffington Post. They farmed this out.
Comment by nk — 6/24/2008 @ 9:43 am
If the attack took out some of McCain’s top campaign advisers it would help him even more.
Comment by Amphipolis — 6/24/2008 @ 9:57 am
Fortune’s coverage of the two candidates is actually very good, in my humble opinion. It’s about as close to nonpartisan as you can find in this race.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/20/magazines/fortune/easton_obama.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008062311
http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/20/magazines/fortune/Evolution_McCain_Whitford.fortune/index.htm
Comment by Phil — 6/24/2008 @ 10:14 am
I dunno that another terror attack would help McCain any more than no terror attack would help McCain. It’d probably just re-enforce everyone’s already-held opinions.
If there were another terrorist attack on U.S., I would be wondering: “We’ve spent trillions of dollars on the “war on terror,” so why are we right back where we started on 9/11, getting attacked?”
But of course, with no attacks, I’ll be wondering “why are we spending trillions of dollars on this war on terror when the terrorists don’t seem to have the resource to mount more than one attack on U.S. soil every decade or so?
And conversely, both of the above scenarios would re-affirm for McCain supporters how important it is that we have a pro-war-on-terror president, to protect them from the terrorist threat.
Comment by Phil — 6/24/2008 @ 10:27 am
I’m with Phil. I don’t think it would really affect the race although a massive attack might ADAs attention. Probably not.
Comment by Mike K — 6/24/2008 @ 10:31 am
“… after we raise the issue …”
So, to suggest that Mr. Black just started yammering on how a terrorist attack on the US would help McCain is just flat out dishonest. h/t to nk for that catch.
Comment by JD — 6/24/2008 @ 10:37 am
As we have repeatedly been told, if Obama is not responsible for what his staff/friends/pastors say, why then is McCain?
At worst it was a foot-in-mouth moment by someone who should know better by now.
Comment by Dana — 6/24/2008 @ 10:40 am
Good one, Dana! But you know full well that a differential yardstick is in play on this topic…
Comment by Eric Blair — 6/24/2008 @ 10:43 am
I’ll hop in to say that I don’t care about what this guy says. McCain is an easy enough target.
Comment by Levi — 6/24/2008 @ 10:44 am
If we infer that the Democrats’ position is that there is no threat, then people who agree would probably be more inclined to vote Democrat as long as we don’t get hit again. It’s hard to say what exactly Dems like Obama think about it since he doesn’t seem to ever talk about it. Probably because he never thinks about it.
If we think there is a real threat, and we infer that Obama’s position is that there is no real threat, then McCain is the logical candidate to vote for regardless of whether we get attacked again. The candidate that seems to think there’s no threat when there is one does not belong in the White House, period.
Comment by Gerald A — 6/24/2008 @ 10:47 am
This guy is going to puke a little in the back of his mouth when he hears that Wranglers is supporting him.
Comment by JD — 6/24/2008 @ 10:47 am
My take on this is if there was another attack so close to the election, is it possible that the bush people and neocons do have control over the attacks on the US. And was the 9-11 instigated by them? We keep seeing how they have benefited greatly by the 9-11 attack. Where would the bush administration be without it? They would have tanked in the first year. And they got their wars and terror legislation and spying and on and on. And now oil prices through the roof they are trying for drilling rights for the oil companies. Amazing what an attack can do.
Comment by Hannah Stevens — 6/24/2008 @ 10:49 am
Jesus, where do you people get this shit?
Comment by Levi — 6/24/2008 @ 10:52 am
You mean like the one in October, 2000?
How did that one work out for the incumbent VPOTUS/Presidential nominee?
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/24/2008 @ 10:55 am
Levi is in the school of thought that there was a threat, and Bush allowed it to succeed. Just like Hannah, apparently.
Comment by JD — 6/24/2008 @ 10:56 am
From Democratic actions towards what is perceived by non-Democrats as a “clear and present danger”. Not the words they mouth, but the actions they take. (Actions describe positions much better than do words.)
Is the concept of “inference” beyond you?
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/24/2008 @ 10:57 am
“the republican party needs the people to be in a state of fear”
“Aren’t you one of those weather armageddon gorebots?”
He shoots … he scores!
Everytime I read a breathless “Global Warming will kill us” hype story, even as the IPCC story line unravels and the science gets ever less fear-inducing, I am reminded of Al Gore’s rant in a speech: “He preyed upon our fears!” … yeah, and its a neat trick to get a nobel *peace* prize for such flabby hyperbolic unscientific AGW fearmongering aint it?
Comment by Travis Monitor — 6/24/2008 @ 11:11 am
Apparently I’m the only one who followed nk’s link to the Fortune article.
So Black was saying that the assassination underlined McCain’s grasp of international politics and security, and that underlining was the “help” referred to above. Similarly, the cited “advantage” is any focus on McCain’s national security credentials.
Black did a lousy job of saying so, true. Also note that Black never used the word “benefit”, or said another attack would be “beneficial.” That was an invention of the WaPost writer:
(emphasis added)
So Patterico is sarcastically critical of a fiction created by Michael D. Shear.
Comment by Casey — 6/24/2008 @ 11:13 am
“I dunno that another terror attack would help McCain any more than no terror attack would help McCain. It’d probably just re-enforce everyone’s already-held opinions. ”
Bingo … This is like the stock market saying “buy the rumor, sell the news”. These views are already factored into peoples thinking.
Terror attack 3 days before election in Spain and - bingo - the leftists won.
Why cant it happen here?
It may well be that AQ perceiving a bomb helping Republicans could actually be what keeps us safer. They wont try if it causes a backlash.
In that respect, Bush has kept us safe by showing how bat-s88t crazy we will get if they try another 9/11.
Comment by Travis Monitor — 6/24/2008 @ 11:16 am
Maybe I’m missing something, Casey, but all I see is a shift to a different synonym - from “advantage” to “benefit”.
Can you explain how the two are sufficiently different for you to draw such a distinction, because I don’t see it. Even Thesaurus(dot)com has “advantage” as the first synonym to “benefit“.
What am I missing?
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/24/2008 @ 11:20 am
“And was the 9-11 instigated by them? We keep seeing how they have benefited greatly by the 9-11 attack. ”
Hannah, dont stop there with your brilliant historical discoveries. It must be true that since the US benefitted from WWII, that FDR must have been behind not just Pearl Harbor, but Hitler’s invasion of Poland. I am sure with enough digging you can find the telegrams from FDR that prove it all out.
Comment by Travis Monitor — 6/24/2008 @ 11:22 am
The Fortune magazine article does not have any direct quote of Charlie Black. Is Fortune the only source for what Black said? If its the linked article alone, its pretty thin gruel. The reporter brought up the question not him, and he made the mistake of answering it in a way that could be viewed as insensitive. Black let some political repercussion discussion go too far with a reporter, McCain vehemently disagreed and now he regretted his stupidity. Definitely a slow-news-day type story … unless you are the Obamedia and need your McCain-dig-of-the-day.
Comment by Travis Monitor — 6/24/2008 @ 11:37 am
“The Fortune magazine article does not have any direct quote of Charlie Black.” excuse mymisstatement. They dont have a direct quote saying what some reports are saying. Black quote is “”Certainly it would be a big advantage to him,” but what was the question?
Comment by Travis Monitor — 6/24/2008 @ 11:38 am
A terrorist attack on American soil is the last thing the republicans need now. What with all this talk about America being safe since 9-11. It’s crazy to even imagine it. If anything it will benefit(advantage) the dems. Atleast they can reinforce their argument that the war in Iraq has not made America safer. Thus destroying Mccain’s only remaining suit in this election year.
Comment by love2008 — 6/24/2008 @ 11:43 am
So, by Hannah’s logic, wouldn’t that mean that it was the Dems who have been working with, anticipating and even had LIHOP/MIHOP all of those terror attacks against American interests that were going on every 12-15 months during the last decade of the 20th century?
So, Democratic Congress + Democratic White House = terror attacks just about every year.
Republican Congress + Republican White House = removal of two of the most despotic regimes on the planet and 50 million people liberated AND no further attacks on our soil, plus thousands of terrorists killed and their funding cut WAY down (forcing those nations trying to support them sub rosa to become overt in their support)…
By all means, we need to change things!
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/24/2008 @ 11:59 am
If you’re going to have an attack, what place would be better than the backyard of Speaker Pelosi. There is more than enough for any Muslim jihadist to get in a tizzy in that neighborhood to invoke the “spirit of change.”
We could then have a criminal investigation that would bring nobody to justice.
Comment by Neo — 6/24/2008 @ 12:38 pm
“In that respect, Bush has kept us safe by showing how bat-s88t
crazystupid we will get if they try another 9/11.”- Travis Monitor
There. Fixed that for you.
Comment by Leviticus — 6/24/2008 @ 12:40 pm
What actions are those, exactly?
I don’t know how you can infer that Democrats think there is no threat, what are you basing that upon?
Comment by Levi — 6/24/2008 @ 12:57 pm
GeraldA,
“If we infer that the Democrats’ position is that there is no threat.”
“and we infer that Obama’s position is that there is no real threat”
Where did you come up with this? I don’t know of one person, not one, that believes there is no threat.
You have got to be a GOPer. Just make shit up if it helps your position.
Comment by jharp — 6/24/2008 @ 12:57 pm
I love this:
‘AND no further attacks.’
Cuz everyone gets a freebie, right? You want to take credit for everything after 9-11, before 9-11? Nothing he could have done, right?
Comment by Levi — 6/24/2008 @ 1:00 pm
I wonder Drumwaster, if you will afford President Obama the same latitude?
Comment by Levi — 6/24/2008 @ 1:01 pm
My 2 cents on why an attack is unlikely.
The rest of world hates the U.S. Why give the rest of the world any reason to have sympathy for us.
They have us tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan in two unwinnable wars that are bankrupting us.
America’s enemies could not have imagined a more favorable outcome to the 911 attacks. Why would they want to change a thing?
Comment by jharp — 6/24/2008 @ 1:04 pm
assistant devil’s advocate wrote: in order to accomplish its objectives, the republican party needs the people to be in a state of fear.
And of course, this is unique to the Republican party. The Democrats would never do anything like try to scare people into voting for them.
Comment by L.N. Smithee — 6/24/2008 @ 1:24 pm
Levi wrote: Cuz everyone gets a freebie, right? You want to take credit for everything after 9-11, before 9-11? Nothing he could have done, right?
You’ve been schooled after saying this many, many times, yet you continue to pretend you have a point besides the one atop your pin head. It’s like trying to have an argument with a parrot that has trained to say only the word, “So?”
Comment by L.N. Smithee — 6/24/2008 @ 1:27 pm
Well just so long as you guys are consistent, and let every future President slide by uncriticized for the first massively crippling terror attack carried out on his watch, I won’t argue.
Are you willing to be that forgiving again if another attack occurs under a Democratic President?
Comment by Levi — 6/24/2008 @ 1:49 pm
Just shows how the Republican Party (John McSame) relies on fear to influence votes. The same way McBush used it to get his second term. All they rely on is fear. In fact, according to published reports, John McSame, the so called war hero, scored at the bottom of his military class…. John McShame, you are basically incapable of being in charge of any thing at this point and time. Be careful John McBush, you are on the verge of being exposed!!!!
Comment by Sandy Schwartz — 6/24/2008 @ 1:59 pm
It depends on whether or not previous administrations tied his hands when it came to ferreting out terrorists before the fact, or if he tied his own hands, rendering himself only able to cross his fingers for luck.
As I previously wrote to you on this point:
Comment by L.N. Smithee — 6/24/2008 @ 2:06 pm
Sorry — the previous post was to Levi, who wrote: Well just so long as you guys are consistent, and let every future President slide by uncriticized for the first massively crippling terror attack carried out on his watch, I won’t argue.
Are you willing to be that forgiving again if another attack occurs under a Democratic President?
Comment by L.N. Smithee — 6/24/2008 @ 2:07 pm
Someone named “Sandy Schwartz” wrote: In fact, according to published reports, John McSame, the so called war hero, scored at the bottom of his military class….
Oh, my! His Naval Academy test scores clearly render him unqualified to be commander-in-chief! His scores obviously were well below those of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.
Comment by L.N. Smithee — 6/24/2008 @ 2:15 pm
If it occurs under like circumstances, yes. If it occurs under dissimilar circumstances, no.
Comment by Xrlq — 6/24/2008 @ 2:27 pm
I find it more than a bit ironic that the Obama campaign can call McCain’s advisors comments a disgrace given the history of Obama’s advisors.
Not to mention Obama’s own personal incompetence in discussing Jerusalem’s status.
Comment by SPQR — 6/24/2008 @ 2:30 pm
Between Sandy and Wranglers, it is hard to tell which is more noxious.
Comment by JD — 6/24/2008 @ 2:30 pm
Levi has not merely been schooled, but had his backside repeatedly spanked on that issue. And yet he dares repeat the same stupid comment as though he’d never had himself shown to be the drooling incompetent on the issue that he is.
Astonishing self-delusion in action there, Levi.
Comment by SPQR — 6/24/2008 @ 2:32 pm
SPQR - Though feelings are of the utmost importance to them, they are not familiar with shame.
Comment by JD — 6/24/2008 @ 2:33 pm
Depends on how said POTUS responds. How did Billy Jeff respond to those half dozen attacks on his watch, as compared to Bush’s one?
I approved of the response for the latter, not so much the former, and political party had nothing to do with it.
“Unwinnable”? You keep using that word. I do not think that it means what you means. Even the NYT is admitting that the surge worked, and Bush is already bringing them home…
Better hurry up and surrender before we win.
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/24/2008 @ 2:33 pm
McCain was at bottom of his class? Good. I want to vote for him even more now. A “D” at the Naval Academy means more to me an “A” at Harvard Law. And I’m sick of over-achievers.
Comment by rrpjr — 6/24/2008 @ 2:33 pm
Wranglers is a twooother.
Comment by JD — 6/24/2008 @ 2:34 pm
So John Kerry is the real war hero, huh? Or is Bill “protested the war from Moscow” Clinton is the kind of hero you get all quivery for?
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/24/2008 @ 2:37 pm
Unwinnable is just a variation of one of their boilerplate memes. Just look at their pre-war calculations. Afghan winter. Quagmire on Day 2. Tens of thousands dead. They declare defeat every chance they get.
Comment by JD — 6/24/2008 @ 2:37 pm
Wasn’t Wesley Clark calling it a quagmire even as the troops were crossing the border northbound? Even using the V-word?
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/24/2008 @ 2:47 pm
Frankly, “so called war hero” by itself would earn a horsewhipping were we still a civilized society.
Comment by SPQR — 6/24/2008 @ 2:48 pm
I don’t mind their appeasement or defeatism — they can’t help being stupid and cowardly — as much as their infantile whining for instant gratification. War should be a one-night stand according to them.
Comment by nk — 6/24/2008 @ 2:50 pm
They have us tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan in two unwinnable wars that are bankrupting us.
“Unwinnable”? You keep using that word. I do not think that it means what you means. Even the NYT is admitting that the surge worked, and Bush is already bringing them home…
The surge has failed (though it did curb some violence). The goal of the surge was to buy time for political progress. It ain’t happening.
Better hurry up and surrender before we win.
We lost the day we invaded. There is nothing to “win”.
Or better yet you tell me what we “won” with our $1 trillion, 4,100 dead, and 25,000 wounded, some maimed for life.
Comment by jharp — 6/24/2008 @ 3:02 pm
What did we win with 404,000+ dead, 671,000+ wounded and many trillions of dollars (in today’s dollars) in 1939-1945? I mean, it’s not like those people deserve to live in freedom, and they had nothing to do with Japan bombing us in that territory way out in the middle of nowhere. (I mean, it’s not even a State!) And Chamberlain has already said he would be willing to talk with Hitler without any kind of precondition…
I mean YES, we freed an entire continent from the most evil regime imaginable, and saved several other nationalities from complete genocide, but was it really worth it?
(/your arguments applied to mid-20th century conditions)
Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say, ‘What should be the reward of such sacrifices?’ … If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen. — Samuel Adams
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/24/2008 @ 3:11 pm
Patterico - I apologize in advance, but Levi and his new buddy jharp are fucking imbeciles.
Comment by JD — 6/24/2008 @ 3:13 pm
Where did you come up with this?
For starters the Democrats refused to renew the FISA provisions allowing warrantless surveillance of foreign terrorists.
Spare me the inevitable BS about how they were trying to protect the constitution. There have been a series of court decisions over the decades that warrantless wiretaps are constitutional in national security.
The Democrats’ objection wasn’t over constitutional issues. It was over immunity from lawsuits for telecoms who cooperate.
I don’t know of one person, not one, that believes there is no threat.
You have got to be a GOPer. Just make shit up if it helps your position.
With all due respect to your vast knowledge, I’ve seen plenty of liberals suggesting the whole terror threat is overblown.
The fact is you’re not looking very hard.
Fear of terrorism is overblown
Comment by Gerald A — 6/24/2008 @ 3:21 pm
Drumwaster,
Just as I thought. You can’t tell me what we’ve won.
Other than empowering Iran beyond their wildest expectations.
Comment by jharp — 6/24/2008 @ 3:24 pm
“What did we win with 404,000+ dead, 671,000+ wounded and many trillions of dollars (in today’s dollars) in 1939-1945?”
Germany declared was on us, numbskull. And invaded Poland and France.
Comment by jharp — 6/24/2008 @ 3:26 pm
As no defender of John McCain’s academic achievments, I must remark that he DID NOT finish at the bottom of his class. He was IIRC in the bottom 5%, but not at the bottom. Nevertheless, he did graduate with a BSE. What do you have?
Comment by Another Drew — 6/24/2008 @ 3:26 pm
So we should immediately surrender.
And as for “empowering Iran”, maybe you should take a look at a map of the Middle East. (Something newer than 1967 would be most helpful.) Once again, you keep using words you clearly don’t understand.
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/24/2008 @ 3:27 pm
Not until AFTER Pearl Harbor, numbskull. And what do you think the word “jihad” means?
So Iran and Syria sending armed citizens into Iraq to kill Iraqis and Americans doesn’t count as an invasion?
Does it hurt to be that moronic? If not, it should.
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/24/2008 @ 3:30 pm
Where did you come up with this?
“For starters the Democrats refused to renew the FISA provisions allowing warrantless surveillance of foreign terrorists.”
And this somehow means they think there is no threat?
I’ve got news for your buddy. The old FISA was specifically enacted to cover exactly what is needed to do. You have 72 hours to get a warrant if necessary.
I can hardly wait until Obama starts his warrantless wiretaps on the unAmerican right wingers.
You won’t have any problem with that, I’m sure.
“I’ve seen plenty of liberals suggesting the whole terror threat is overblown.”
So now it’s goes from no threat to overblown threat? And yeah, I think it has been overblown.
“we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud” Quick, who said that?
Comment by jharp — 6/24/2008 @ 3:33 pm
9/39 - Germany invades Poland;
1940 - Germany invades Denmark, Norway, Holland, Luxemburg, Belgium, France;
1941 - Germany invades Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Yugoslavia, Soviet Union.
12/41 - Germany declares War on USA.
But, they never attacked us (except for the merchant shipping that they were sinking along the Atlantic Coast, and in the Gulf of Mexico).
If they never attacked us, why did we go to war against them?
Could it have been due to the fact that the Nazi’s were perceived to be a threat against what we knew as Western Civilization?
But, we have no worries of a threat to Western Civ now, do we?
Comment by Another Drew — 6/24/2008 @ 3:33 pm
What do they call the guy who graduates last from Medical School? “Doctor”.
What do they call the guy who graduates last from Law School? “Your Honor”.
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/24/2008 @ 3:36 pm
“So Iran and Syria sending armed citizens into Iraq to kill Iraqis and Americans doesn’t count as an invasion?”
You do understand the difference between sending government forces and a few rag tag wannabes crossing over.
And do you have any evidence fo this?
“And what do you think the word “jihad” means?”
Yes, I do. And obviously you don’t. Please look it up.
“Not until AFTER Pearl Harbor, numbskull.”
So what does this have to do with anything? Would it somehow have been different if they declared war before Pearl Harbor?
You, friend. Are a complete buffoon.
Comment by jharp — 6/24/2008 @ 3:38 pm
If they never attacked us, why did we go to war against them?
Because they declared war on us.
“But, we have no worries of a threat to Western Civ now.”
Bingo. Now you’ve got it.
Comment by jharp — 6/24/2008 @ 3:40 pm
Pretty much, yeah. Why else would they be trying to protect foreign terrorists from having their plans discovered through technological means?
Quick, who said that?
Quick, who said that?
Who said it?
Do I really need to say it?
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/24/2008 @ 3:43 pm
Sarcasm. Look into the concept.
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/24/2008 @ 3:44 pm
So when armed Iranians attack our embassy, seize our citizens, and engage in an on-and-off shooting war against the US for the last 29 years, that somehow doesn’t qualify as Casus Belli?
Because international law disagrees with you.
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/24/2008 @ 3:46 pm
BTW, Osama declared war on us back during the Clinton Presidency.
Don’t we have to respond just as we did with Germany?
Germany never attacked us, but Osama has - ever hear of the USS Cole?
And, BTW, I have got IT!
You, my friend, have no idea what we are facing - or how to deal with that threat.
Comment by Another Drew — 6/24/2008 @ 3:46 pm
I’ve got news for your buddy. The old FISA was specifically enacted to cover exactly what is needed to do. You have 72 hours to get a warrant if necessary.
I can hardly wait until Obama starts his warrantless wiretaps on the unAmerican right wingers.
You won’t have any problem with that, I’m sure.
In national security cases you don’t have 72 hours. That’s why if there’s A REAL TERRORIST THREAT, you need warrantless searches. People who want a 72 hour wait don’t think there’s much of a terrorist threat.
I don’t know what wiretaps on right wingers would have to do with national security, idiot. Some kind of dingbat attempt to get back to the bogus constitution claim, as I anticipated.
So now it’s goes from no threat to overblown threat? And yeah, I think it has been overblown
“we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud” Quick, who said that?.
So what’s your point, that there’s a goood chance we’ll get attacked again but just not from nukes? You obviously didn’t read the link. Here’s another one. This is from the Huffington Post.
Hyping Terror
Comment by Gerald A — 6/24/2008 @ 3:49 pm
News flash. Bush administration now considering pursuing diplomatic relations with Iran. They are weighing the option of sitting down with Iran to talk. Was Obama right or is Bush missing it? How will this affect McCain’s campaign?
Comment by love2008 — 6/24/2008 @ 4:24 pm
jharp, I’d say that your understanding of FISA matches your [mis]understanding of WWII. We actually began combat operations against Germany before any declaration of war
Comment by SPQR — 6/24/2008 @ 4:32 pm
love2008, evidently you don’t recall that for the last several years, the Bush administration has been following the EU’s lead in dealing with Iran.
Its something that the Democrats like to intentionally omit in their fatuous complaints about Bush administration’s extensive diplomatic efforts.
Comment by SPQR — 6/24/2008 @ 4:33 pm
But it is obvious SPQR that this is a change in policy position on Iran. Dont you think so?
Comment by love2008 — 6/24/2008 @ 4:49 pm
It was never about “talking”. It was about what would be accomplished by talking.
Europe has been talking with Iran for YEARS, offering bigger and better incentive packages to try and persuade Iran to back off from nuclear development. Iran has told them to pack sand. So what would be accomplished by having anyone sit down to talk with them again unless there are conditions and preparations that need to be done first?
In short, when Obama said he was willing to talk to Iran without any kind of conditions or preparatory groundwork (yet refusing to meet with either McCain or Petraeus without major negotiations), was he being naive or just practicing for the ‘Neville’ Award?
Hint: When Jimmy Carter went to North Korea to bribe them to give up their nuclear weapons, they agreed, called the payments (half a million tons of food and half a million tons of fuel oil) “tribute for having lost the war” on his state-owned media (which is all the North Koreas ever get to hear), and then went right ahead with their weapons programs before the ink was dry!
For those who think that “everything can be accomplished through negotiation”, let me introduce you to your two-letter nemesis: NO.
There is absolutely no way to persuade someone who insists on repeating that simple word.
“Give up your nuclear weapons technology.”
“No.”
“Pleeease give up your nuclear technology. We’ll pay you.”
“No.”
“How about ‘pretty please with sugar and a strawberry on top, with billions of dollars worth of international aid’. But wait, there’s more! We will build super-up-to-date nuclear light water reactors (that can’t produce weapons-grade material) and give them to you for FREE, if only you will go along with just giving up that part that creates the nuclear weapons (that you actually agreed to not seek, anyway)! Waddayasay?”
“No. Are we done here?”
“We’ll have to condemn you to the rest of the world, y’know…”
“So what? If there’s nothing else…?”
“Uh…….”
Your turn, lovey. What can you say to overcome that two-letter diplomacy-ender?
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/24/2008 @ 4:51 pm
Actually, love2008, it is obvious that Democrats have been misrepresenting Bush administration policy.
Comment by SPQR — 6/24/2008 @ 4:56 pm
No.
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/24/2008 @ 5:01 pm
Your turn, lovey. What can you say to overcome that two-letter diplomacy-ender?
Offer them McCain. That could suffice.
Comment by love2008 — 6/24/2008 @ 5:09 pm
So you’re going to vote for McCain now?
No, really. Come up with the argument that will persuade the Iranians (who openly support groups that kill Israelis, and directly kill American troops) from gaining nuclear weapons technology.
They have signed the NNPT, but have chosen to ignore it. Sanctions don’t work. Incentives don’t work.
What have you got?
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/24/2008 @ 5:15 pm
jharp wrote: The surge has failed (though it did curb some violence). The goal of the surge was to buy time for political progress. It ain’t happening.
You may want to go to the House Armed Services Committee website and take a listen to supposed brainiacs warn in January 2007 that the surge wouldn’t even slow the pace of “some” terrorist violence, that it would just create “more targets,” and that instead the USA should send Colin Powell, Madeleine Albright, and an all-star cast of diplomats to talk to the leaders of all nations in the region and come up with a recipe for chicken soup made from chicken you-know-what.
Fast forward a year and a half: The level of violence has dipped down so far, it’s no longer the dominant campaign issue the Dems counted on. MSM news outlets that shill for the Donkey Party have been FORCED to admit the surge’s success, but have done their best to bury it beneath the front page, where the blood and smoke were in full view when things were at their worst. And then there’s Nancy Pelosi, clearly suffering from Botox brain — who dissed Petraeus every chance she was given, reduced to disgracing herself by crediting Iran with the surge’s success.
It was common for Democrats to claim that the Bush Admin was “moving the goalposts” in order to claim that there was any good news coming out of Iraq. Now, they’re the ones trying to take them down so the surge doesn’t split the uprights.
Comment by L.N. Smithee — 6/24/2008 @ 5:16 pm
Actually, love2008, it is obvious that Democrats have been misrepresenting Bush administration policy.
And what policy would that be SPQR? And how have the democrats misrepresented it?
Comment by love2008 — 6/24/2008 @ 5:20 pm
Proof the surge is working. And it’s only costing $12 billion a month while our economy crumbles.
from http://www.juancole.com
Councilman Kills 2 GIs;
Mortar Fire Kills 10 on Awakening C.
A city council member in Mada’in (Salman Pak) abruptly opened fire on Americans who had been in a meeting with him. He killed 2 US troops and wounded 4 other Americans. He had been in India recently because Sunni-Shiite tensions made it too difficult for him in Mada’in. He had only been back one week as councilman. Although there is speculation that he was unstable, my own suspicion is that the continued US military occupation was just too hard for him to take. India has an anti-colonial atmosphere, after all. Here is some of what McClatchy reporters overhead the people of Mada’in say in the aftermath:
‘ Anti-U.S. sentiment remains widespread, with many locals viewing the American presence as an intrusion. As news of Ajil’s killings spread, some residents hailed him as a hero. Several uttered his name and added, “God rest his soul,” and a taxi driver at the scene pointed to the bloodstains and said, “the pigs deserved this.” ‘
Guerrillas in Udaim, about an hour north of Baquba, guerrillas bombarded an Awakening Council unit with mortar fire, killing 10 and wounding 24 of them.
Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, in Amara, pledged to send his army in to restore order in Diyala Province next. Since Diyala is 60% Sunni Arab, and al-Maliki’s troops are disproportionately drawn from Shiite militias, it is not so clear that they will have an easy time of it.
Al-Zaman reports in Arabic that yet another party has withdrawn from the United Iraqi Alliance. The Islamic Mission (Da’wa) Party - Iraqi Organization of Abdul Karim Anizi has announced the suspension of its participation in the UIA.
I heard US Secretary of State Condi Rice on Sunday on Fareed Zakaria’s show call the al-Maliki government a ‘national unity’ government. Not so much. Not only has he not managed to bring the Sunnis back in, he is losing the Shiites.
An interesting idea: It is getting to the point where al-Maliki’s enemies in parliament could organize a vote of no confidence and make the government fall. If it was no longer the biggest party, some other coalition could hope to nominate the prime minister.
McClatchy reports political violence on Monday:
‘ Baghdad
A roadside bomb targeted a National Police patrol in Waziriyah, near the cotton wool plant intersection at 11.30 a.m. Monday, injuring three policemen.
A roadside bomb targeted a US military convoy in Qahira, near the water reservoir at noon. No casualties were reported.
A roadside bomb targeted a US military convoy in Salahuddin Square, Kathimiyah neighbourhood at around noon. No casualties were reported.
A roadside bomb targeted a US military convoy in Adil neighbourhood at around 1 p.m. No casualties were reported.
Two unidentified bodies were found in Baghdad today; 1 in Hurriyah and one in al-Amin.
Diyala
Mortar rounds fell on a Sahwa headquarters in al-Atheim district, 50 km to the north of Baquba at 8.30 p.m. Sunday, killing 10 members, injuring 24 others.
Nineveh
Gunmen opened fire on a checkpoint manned by Iraqi Police in New Mosul, south Mosul killing one policeman and one civilian female, severely injuring two civilians.’
The USG Open Source Center translates part of a statement form Ayatollah Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah of Lebanon condemning the Status of Forces Agreement being negotiated between the US and Iraq. Fadlallah at least used to be the spiritual guide of the Islamic Mission Party (Da’wa) that Nuri al-Maliki belongs to:
“Source: Lebanese National News Agency website, Beirut, in Arabic 0737 gmt 22 Jun 08
we call on the Arab and Islamic states not to comply with the security and military demands that the US Administration aims to accomplish through its keenness to influence Arab armies, impose its tutelage, and interfere in their [military] doctrine and special security features, because we know that the United States that has failed through its direct armies is attempting to accomplish its goals by using the Arab and Islamic forces. This not only constitutes betrayal, but also leads to the destruction of all security, and toppling the positions that everyone depends on to protect what can be protected, after the Americans used their chaos to tamper with the reality of our countries, peoples, sects, and denominations from within.
We reject the US tutelage, just as we reject other tutelages. We do not find any legitimacy to any authority that attempts to bestow legitimacy to this or that tutelage.”
Comment by jharp — 6/24/2008 @ 5:30 pm
#96
Left for me I would say give them hell! It’s clear they have one agenda: the destruction of Isreal. A military option seems to be the only sensible option left. I would take that Drumwaster. A regime change and targetting of those nuclear stations should be on the table. If the carrot wont work, use the stick.
Comment by love2008 — 6/24/2008 @ 5:30 pm
“In national security cases you don’t have 72 hours. That’s why if there’s A REAL TERRORIST THREAT, you need warrantless searches. People who want a 72 hour wait don’t think there’s much of a terrorist threat.”
Wrong, dumkopf.
Under FISA you have 72 hours to get a warrant. Stop embarrassing yourself and do a little research or at the least learn to read.
Comment by jharp — 6/24/2008 @ 5:34 pm
jharp, if this were a year and a half ago, you wouldn’t be able to cut-and-paste the daily tally of violence out of Iraq because it would have been too large. And instead of that body count meter the nightly newscasts were so fond of two summers ago as it counted up to multiples of 1000 and 500, they’re talking about internal Iraq politics. And so are you.
Is war hell? Hell, yeah. Are there things worse than war? Ask some Cambodian immigrants about that sometime.
Comment by L.N. Smithee — 6/24/2008 @ 5:36 pm
“BTW, Osama declared war on us back during the Clinton Presidency.
Don’t we have to respond just as we did with Germany?”
Sure, lets go get that Osmama guy. What country does he represnt anyway?
“Germany never attacked us, but Osama has - ever hear of the USS Cole?”
Germany declared war on us, bozo.
Comment by jharp — 6/24/2008 @ 5:37 pm
The progress in Iraq is real. It just doesn’t fit in with the MSM or its anti-war agenda.
Comment by Vermont Neighbor — 6/24/2008 @ 5:38 pm
jharp cut and pasted: ‘ Anti-U.S. sentiment remains widespread, with many locals viewing the American presence as an intrusion. As news of Ajil’s killings spread, some residents hailed him as a hero. Several uttered his name and added, “God rest his soul,” and a taxi driver at the scene pointed to the bloodstains and said, “the pigs deserved this.”
…and? Sounds like Markos Moulitsas talking about American independent contractors or Huffington Post commenters talking about their hopes for the death of Tony Snow.
Comment by L.N. Smithee — 6/24/2008 @ 5:39 pm
There are more murders per capita in Compton than in Iraq. Should we pull our forces out of South Central?
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/24/2008 @ 5:39 pm
Better check your timeline, Tinkerbell. You have your facts exactly backwards. Which happened first, Pearl Harbor or that declaration of war by Germany?
Which happened first - the attack on the USS Cole or the 2000 election?
Used to be Afghanistan, remember?
You seem to think that wars can only be fought by internationally-recognized nation-States with UN membership, and I pity you your ignorance.
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/24/2008 @ 5:44 pm
jharp wrote: Germany declared war on us, bozo.
SFW? Did they send any of the Luftwaffe over Manhattan to devastate it like the Japanese did Pearl Harbor?
(channeling Chris Crocker) LEAVE THE NAZIS ALONE!!!!
Comment by L.N. Smithee — 6/24/2008 @ 5:45 pm
Oh, while I’m thinking about it, how are those two Federal indictments against bin Laden working on ferreting him out of his hidey-hole? I mean, during those salad days when we left the fighting of terrorist nations up to our law enforcement professionals?
Best weapon we have - that Federal indictment. (According to the Dems, anyway.)
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/24/2008 @ 5:47 pm
jharp,
Are you by any chance the bearded lady who is seen flashing passersby at Code Pink protests in San Francisco?
Comment by nk — 6/24/2008 @ 5:48 pm
PS: Love your movies, Mr. Smithee…
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/24/2008 @ 6:13 pm
#98
The United States has held discussions with Iranian representatives on particular issues of concern over the years. U.S. and Iranian envoys cooperated during operations to overthrow the Taliban in 2001 and during the Bonn Conference in 2002 that established a broad-based government for the Afghan people under President Karzai. The Secretary of State, her Iranian counterpart, and others met at talks on Iraq in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt, on May 3, 2007. The American and Iranian ambassadors to Iraq took part in face-to-face discussions in Baghdad, with Iraqi officials in attendance, on May 28, 2007. Representatives from the three countries engaged in a second round of talks on July 24, 2007. Ambassadors met for a third discussion on August 6, 2007. The United States believes, however, that normal relations are impossible until Iran’s policies change.
– Let’s also remember that it was President Carter who broke off normal diplomatic relations in 1980, and that those relations have never been reestablished.
Comment by Icy Truth — 6/24/2008 @ 6:15 pm
More about US - Iran relations during the Bush administration:
An opinion poll in 2003 asking Iranians if they supported resuming government dialogue with the United States found 75% in favor. The pollsters were jailed, at least one of them spending several years in prison for his indiscretion.
Comment by Icy Truth — 6/24/2008 @ 6:23 pm
Patterico wrote: Why, it would be even more beneficial if the attack hit a blue state, wouldn’t it? As long as Mr. Black is on the subject, why not provide the list of states where a huge terror attack would be most beneficial to John McCain?
– Number One on that list should be obvious, Patterico. Hope you’re stocking that shelter and reinforcing the insulation with your favorite dog-training material.
Comment by Icy Truth — 6/24/2008 @ 6:27 pm
And the acts of war that precipitated the severing of those relations has NEVER been resolved, with multiple shooting incidents over the years.
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/24/2008 @ 6:30 pm
jharp, the US engaged in acts of war against German forces long before Germany declared war on us. Go read some history before you call others dumb.
Comment by SPQR — 6/24/2008 @ 7:15 pm
Good God,. Listening to Harpy and Dumptaster argue about World War II is reminiscent of this exchange between listening to Eric Cartman and Kyle Broflovski:
Dumptaster: Yes, Pearl Harbor predated Germany’s declaration of war on the U.S. WTF does that have to do with anything?
Harpy: Yes, Germany declared war on us before we declared war on them. WTF does that have to do with whether we won or lost World War II then, or whether we’re winning or losing in Iraq now?
Comment by Xrlq — 6/24/2008 @ 8:45 pm
“Why, it would be even more beneficial if the attack hit a blue state, wouldn’t it?”
Is Charles Black an alias for Michael Moore?
Comment by Tim — 6/24/2008 @ 8:59 pm
Well, if it isn’t the salad-tosser his ownself! How’s the second-hand felching business you started doing? Or have you finally resorted to lining up for that hometown glory hole for your RDA of protein?
To answer your question: It has the same thing to do with the topic as Osama’s lack of nationality does. I realize that the rectofossal ambiguity you currently suffer from is a formidable obstacle to comprehension, but you asked.
Now that your microcephalic curiosity has been sated, please be so kind as to f*ck off again, m’kay? (Or try to salvage your shattered self-image by insulting me again, since you have nothing else to work with…)
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/24/2008 @ 9:16 pm
Charlie Black is not fit to replace the toner cartridge in a copy machine.
Comment by Michael Ejercito — 6/24/2008 @ 10:03 pm
Must be why the French elected Sarkozy.
Maybe you should get out more.
Comment by Michael Ejercito — 6/24/2008 @ 10:06 pm
Bush had 8 years to get bin Laden and he didn’t, that would be a good enough excuse wouldn’t it? You must remember the press conference he held a whopping 6 months after 9-11 when he said he really didn’t think about him that much, don’t you?
That’s a pretty good catch-all. ‘What happened while I was on the job is the fault of the guy that had the job before me.’ If it works for Republicans, it should work for Democrats, right?
Comment by Levi — 6/24/2008 @ 10:17 pm
“Bush had 8 years to get bin Laden and he didn’t”
Clinton actually had the opportunity to swap for Bin Laden and didn’t. What was his excuse again, Levi?
“That’s a pretty good catch-all. ‘What happened while I was on the job is the fault of the guy that had the job before me.’ If it works for Republicans, it should work for Democrats, right?”
It all depends on whether you can sell it. War on terror. Sure, with Clinton. Lack of progress on energy, sure, blame the dems.
That six month press conference, Levi. You have the cite for that right Levi. You don’t remember it because you were playing with Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles as you have claimed before, but you have since listened to it, right?
Comment by daleyrocks — 6/24/2008 @ 10:35 pm
“Clinton actually had the opportunity to swap for Bin Laden and didn’t.”
You got any evidence to support your nonsensical claim?
And by that I mean real news sources. No Fox News. No Rush Limbaugh. No Michael Savage. No Sean Hannity. And so forth.
It is utter nonsense.
Comment by jharp — 6/24/2008 @ 10:52 pm
jharp - Haven’t you seen the video of Clinton himself talking about it at a speech he gave on Long Island? Maybe he was lying.
Are you 16 or 17?
Comment by daleyrocks — 6/24/2008 @ 11:19 pm
That’s got to be one of the least coherent posts in the history of the web. What is that first train wreck of a paragraph supposed to mean?
You can find the press conference of Bush saying he doesn’t spend too much time on Bin Laden on your own.
Comment by Levi — 6/24/2008 @ 11:42 pm
Levi, TRY to stay focused.
You asked me the following question:
My answer:
I then cited an FBI investigator who went on the record in a memo BEFORE 9/11 predicting the hurdles left in place from the Clinton Admin would result in somebody dying in a terrorist attack. He didn’t know how right he was.
As usual, you did your best not to acknowledge an easily discernible point, and responded:
Your man Obama has a choice to make should he win: Will he continue the Democrat pattern of sucking up to the trial lawyers who want to punish everyone who wants to prevent another terrorist attack for the sake of a principle that is meaningless when the alternative is chaos, or does he really want to protect the American public?
If BHO is as smart as he wants us to believe he is, he will learn from the mistakes of people like former Clinton-era counsel Stewart Baker. Baker learned his lesson too late. But unlike the diehard ACLU types, he’s repented.
Comment by L.N. Smithee — 6/25/2008 @ 12:01 am
Levi - I take dumps every day that are more coherent and better looking than your comments on this blog.
Thank you very much.
Comment by daleyrocks — 6/25/2008 @ 12:05 am
I understand your point. George Bush isn’t culpable for anything that happened in the first 9 months of his administration on the issue of terrorism. Even though he got that memo, even though he was on vacation all summer, even though he hadn’t held any terrorism meetings until September, even though he demoted Richard Clarke, even though in the intervening years he’s proven himself to be utterly incompetent and unforgivably lazy on issue after issue, it was all this Gorelick’s fault.
Just tell me this, do you think 9-11 was destined to happen regardless of who the President was?
Jesus, where do you get this shit?
You know, there’s other ways of ‘protecting the American public’ that don’t involve violating foundational Constitutional principles. There’s more than one way to skin a cat, ever hear that before?
Comment by Levi — 6/25/2008 @ 1:21 am
“don’t involve violating foundational Constitutional principles”…and what might those actually be? You’re against intercepting communciations originating in another country that violates the rights of foreign terrorists to privacy? You are one clueless polemicist.
And that other lefty loon with doubts about Clinton refusal to take bin Laden. Just google Osama and Somalia. Somalia offered to ship his fetid ass out to us, but clinton did the legal two-step. Lawyers seem to have much to say about the war on terror and insane rules of engagement that tie our military’s hands. There have been occasions when big shot Al Qaeda targets were killable by missiles and yet the shyster lawyers said no way, Jose.
Yeah, Bush should have cleaned house at CIA and state dept. I suppose the left wants to deify cretins like Joe Wilson and his lovely wife Valerie or asshat Jamie Gorelick. Wonder if that prick has ever considered that that Wall may be instrumental in 1000s of American dead on 9/11? Or the freakin’ FBI supervisor concerned about violating that raghead’s computer right to privacy in Minn.?
Have no fear as our fearless Light Being would save the day with legal pursuit and warrants for arrests of terrorists.
Comment by madmax333 — 6/25/2008 @ 3:02 am
I wrote:
To which Dumptaster brilliantly responded:
Interesting answer, but needlessly verbose. Here’s a much more succinct way to say the same thing:
Comment by Xrlq — 6/25/2008 @ 3:46 am
Levi’s mendoucheousness is consistent, predictable even. No matter the topic, his BDS eventually rears its ugly head.
Comment by JD — 6/25/2008 @ 4:52 am
Somebody put Levi out of our misery.
Comment by PCD — 6/25/2008 @ 5:30 am
First, the memo was not actionable. You’ve been told this many times before, but you just won’t let it sink into your lead-lined skull.
Second, Bush was not on vacation all summer. He wasn’t in Washington during August (when all of Congress was on vacation), but he wasn’t vacationing. He met with staff and foreign leaders, and generally conducted business. But with Congress out of session and no legislation passing, there was no need for him to be in Washington.
Get your facts straight.
Comment by Steverino — 6/25/2008 @ 5:58 am
Levi refuses to quit repeating demonstrable falsehoods. That’s all one needs to know.
Comment by SPQR — 6/25/2008 @ 7:36 am
You Bush-people can repeat that a million times, I still disagree. It’s not every day that you the President gets a memo that says Bin Laden wants to take an airplane. I don’t need you to define ‘actionable’ for me. Given what played out, I’d say that memo pretty well called it. The bottom line is that the President was warned that a plane could be hijacked, and planes were hijacked. That’s pretty cut and dry.
He’s the most vacationed President in history. He insulates himself from the outside world and is generally a lazy, incompetent deuchebag, exactly what one would expect from someone with such a spoiled rich kid background. He has no work ethic, because he’s never suffered from any consequences. Shit, he’s eviscerating the Constitution in plain sight, and he’s got millions of people making excuses for him.
You can’t honestly believe that if we had someone better equipped in the White House on 9-11, recent history would have been radically different, can you? Someone else might have had a better shot at stopping the plot, wouldn’t you have to agree? George Bush is hardly the best and the brightest we have to offer, or do you think 9-11 was America’s destiny?
Comment by Levi — 6/25/2008 @ 7:55 am
“First, the memo was not actionable. You’ve been told this many times before, but you just won’t let it sink into your lead-lined skull.
You Bush-people can repeat that a million times, I still disagree. It’s not every day that you the President gets a memo that says Bin Laden wants to take an airplane.”
You terminally afflicted BDS sufferers can continue to ignore the many similar warnings that Blowjob Bill Clinton got without taking radical action while blaming Bush for not doing something. Yes, we have heard you make this inane point before and remain steadfast in our disrespect for your lengthy national security experience and credentials, boy genius.
Comment by daleyrocks — 6/25/2008 @ 8:12 am
“You can’t honestly believe that if we had someone better equipped in the White House on 9-11, recent history would have been radically different, can you?”
If Captain Planet was in the White House we would probably be speaking Arabic right now, cupcake.
Comment by daleyrocks — 6/25/2008 @ 8:15 am
Actually, yes, the fact that bin Laden was a terrorist and terrorists are into hijacking airplanes was about as “everyday” as information gets. The memo might just as well have informed Bush that water is wet, that the sun would rise the following day, and that terrorists generally are not very nice people. The only thing special about 9/11 and airplanes was not the fact that the terrorists hijacked airplanes, but what they did with them afterwards. Funny how that detail never made it into your oh-so-informative and hyperactionable memo.
In other words, don’t confuse the ‘Tard of Thunder with facts; his “mind,” such as it is, is made up. For the rest of us, credible evidence that a specific group of terrorists wants to hijack airplanes from a specific airport on a specific day is actionable. Credibel evidence that terrorists want to do something highly unusual, i.e., hijack planes and then go on a kamikaze mission, is also actionable, but perhaps less so if it doesn’t tell you when they are expected to strike or where. But a memo that merely informs us that terrorists want to do bad stuff is about as unactionable as it gets.
It “called it” like a memo saying “Bin Laden wants to do bad stuff” called it. Since you insist the memo was actionable, go ahead and point to the part that says which airports the terrorists intended to strike when, and what they were planning to do with those planes once they gained control of them. Go ahead, I’ll wait.
It’s also proof that you are retarded. Terrorists have been hijacking planes since the 1970s, so every President since Carter (at least) has been warned that a plane could be hijacked. Therefore, every time a plane was hijacked, whoever happened to be sitting in the Oval Office at the time is to blame? Get real.
Or if you won’t get real, at least be consistently in your lack of reality. Unless you think there is something magical about Republican Presidents and airplanes, then surely your “executive knew bad stuff could happen, bad stuff did happen, therefore it’s the executive’s fault that bad stuff happened” mentality would work equally “well” for other executives and other crimes. Unless your governor is as retarded as you are, surely he/she has known from the time he/she assumed office that someone in your state would be raped, robbed, murdered, maimed, forced to listen to NPR, or whatever. Therefore, by Levi-logic, every time any of those terrible things happened, it’s all your governor’s fault. Right?
Comment by Xrlq — 6/25/2008 @ 8:19 am
First, the memo was not actionable. You’ve been told this many times before, but you just won’t let it sink into your lead-lined skull.
Levi: You Bush-people can repeat that a million times, I still disagree. It’s not every day that you the President gets a memo that says Bin Laden wants to take an airplane. I don’t need you to define ‘actionable’ for me.
OK, what “actionable” actions would you have had us take? Warrentless wiretaps of communications passing through telecom nodes? Tearing down the wall between the CIA and the FBI? Missile strikes? Raids? Put troops on the ground in Afghanistan to root out Osama’s camps? Would you have stationed national guard troops in the airports to augment the current security? Targeted assassinations?
What would you have recommended? Do you have other solutions?
Comment by Ed — 6/25/2008 @ 8:20 am
It’s not every day that you the President gets a memo that says Bin Laden wants to take an airplane.
You are a liar. First, that is not what it said, I believe it was along the lines of OBL still desires to strike in America, may involve airplanes. But, you know this, and choose to lie. There was nothing specific as to date, time, methods, etc … Nothing actionable. And, nothing that had not been said many, many, many times before.
Comment by JD — 6/25/2008 @ 8:32 am
Levi, you are constantly blaming Bush for lying about WMD’s when what he actually did was to rely on intelligence from multiple sources. Now you are blaming Bush for NOT taking action when a memo speculates that Bin Laden wants to take a plane and crash it.
As to Bush being on vacation, I seriously doubt that he has had one single day to himself since being sworn in. If you ever start working and promote to a position where you have to make command decisions, you will find out how that works.
Comment by Labcatcher — 6/25/2008 @ 8:42 am
Similar warnings? What were those? That’s a joke and a half.
Am I supposed to be in awe of Republicans’ ‘national security experience and credentials?’ By my count, we’ve suffered the worst terrorist attack in history and engaged in one of the stupidest and most shoddily run wars in the history of our country under your ‘leadership.’ This is supposed to impress me? I’m supposed to sit down and shut up because you guys have it all figured out, is that what you’re telling me?
Comment by Levi — 6/25/2008 @ 8:45 am
Brilliant. That’s just brilliant. We’d all be wearing headscarves and praying on rugs five times a day if Gore wins, sheer genius.
Comment by Levi — 6/25/2008 @ 8:46 am
More evidence the surge is working.
AP
BAGHDAD - A roadside bomb killed three American soldiers and an interpreter north of Baghdad, the U.S. military said Wednesday
In Baghdad, meanwhile, American soldiers using specially trained dogs sifted through the wreckage Wednesday of an office in Sadr City where a bomb killed 10 people, including four Americans working to restore local government in the former Shiite militia stronghold.
At least 25 service members have died this month, with eight deaths coming since Friday
Comment by jharp — 6/25/2008 @ 8:46 am
there’s more.
In Mosul, guerrillas set off a massive bomb outside a coffee shop, wounding at least 90 persons. McClatchy is reporting 2 deaths, but said the total would rise.
Comment by jharp — 6/25/2008 @ 8:48 am
Indeed…
So, jharp… How’s that coolaid, eh?
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 6/25/2008 @ 8:53 am
How long did it take to catch Eric Rudolph?
And while you are at it, tell us where Eric Rudolph was caught.
Comment by Michael Ejercito — 6/25/2008 @ 8:55 am
There were more deaths than that during Clinton’s “peacetime” terms. His lowest year (2000) had 758 deaths (31 per month), and more than half of those were through “accident”, not involving the liberation of two despotic regimes or ongoing combat operations.
You also neglect to say that the death rate is the lowest since May 2004.
But thanks for proving my point.
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/25/2008 @ 8:56 am
And Syria offered to hand bin Laden over to Clinton, and the offer was rejected…
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 6/25/2008 @ 9:02 am
• New vehicles. Almost 7,000 heavily armored Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles have been rushed to Iraq in the last year. “They’ve taken hits, many, many hits that would have killed soldiers and marines in uparmored Humvees,” Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in a recent interview.
And it only costs us $12 billion a month.
And what’s the reason we’re there again. It’s so hard to keep track of.
And I’ll say it again. The goal of the surge was to provide an opportunity for political progress.
And the only political progress is Iran gaining influence.
Comment by jharp — 6/25/2008 @ 9:06 am
What does the intent of the hijackers have to do with, you know, stopping the hijacking? Because that’s all that matters. If they take the plane, you’ve already lost. If they want to hold the passengers hostage to free their buddies, if they want to crash it into a building, if they want to go skydiving out of it, none of that is relevant in stopping the hijacking in the first place.This is why there are airports. Airports’ primary function is as a security chokepoint, so we can stop hijackings from happening in the first place. If you know someone is going to try to hijack an airplane, the airport is the last line of defense.
In other words, President XRLQ will sit on his hands until someone produces a cocktail napkin that lays out the terrorists’ whole plan in its entirety, down to the minute.
I don’t know how you think counter-terrorism works in the real world, but you’re not going to get all the details, you’re not going to get most of the details, you’re lucky if you get anything. That the memo states that bin Laden wanted to hijack a plane is a tremendously telling detail that shouldn’t have been so easily overlooked. You can do lots of things knowing that tidbit alone. Let the airlines know about it. Tell airports in major cities to beef up security. Go ahead and deploy some federal agents to keep an eye out for Middle Easterners. Start cross-checking the watch lists. I mean, the TSA and the Bush administration have sent out alerts to airlines and airports for significantly less since 9-11. There was one instance where some grandma had a block of cheese next to some cell phone wires that had the TSA sending out alerts to all of its people, why couldn’t they have done that based on this memo, which outlines a fairly specific threat?
No, it called it like a memo saying ‘Bin Laden Determined to Strike Within U.S.’ called it. There’s not that many airports in this country, there’s even fewer where a group of solemn-looking Middle-Easterners wouldn’t stick out like a sore thumb. Once again, the Bush administration has reacted (and over-reacted) on way shoddier information ever since, mainly to keep the fear juices flowing, so this excuse of yours is rather pathetic. If they’ll get on the horn about some cheese, why couldn’t they do the same about a report from the FBI.
Nothing important here.
Comment by Levi — 6/25/2008 @ 9:09 am
Levi - Take a look at the following article, which quotes from a government panel about Clinton’s failure to take similar warning seriously, genius:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/746wewfh.asp?pg=2
Comment by daleyrocks — 6/25/2008 @ 9:11 am
“And the only political progress is Iran gaining influence.”
jharp - Your source for this interesting conclusion? The execrable Juan Cole again?
Only a fringe group on the left sees Iran gaining influence right now, given that their bases of influence are being targeted and neutralized, their special operations forces killed, etc. You have interesting information. I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Comment by daleyrocks — 6/25/2008 @ 9:16 am
Are you insane? There’s well over 200 that handle large jets, and probably 300 that handle at least commuter flights…
Did the memo state exactly what was going to be done?
“strike within the US” is so vauge as to be useless…
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 6/25/2008 @ 9:18 am
What does knowing that a terror group hopes to pull off a hijacking do to help prevent it? For that you need ACTIONABLE INTELLIGENCE (to wit, where, when, who - including descriptions and photos, if possible, and how). Otherwise, it is as was pointed out: knowing that a generic (albeit tragic) crime is going to happen sometime within the next few months does NOTHING to actually prevent it.
Were you advocating racial profiling against Muslims? Or just “anyone that looks suspicious”?
You have also failed to mention the (in)famous “Gorelick wall”, preventing law enforcement from ever seeing any of that “actionable intel” you claim we had.
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/25/2008 @ 9:19 am
Really now…
From the USA Today, 6/10/2008
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 6/25/2008 @ 9:21 am
Yeah, right, Iran isn’t gaining influence. When do you suppose Bush will make an announced visit and spend the night in Iraq?
March 2, 2008
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad arrived in Baghdad today for the first visit by an Iranian leader since the two countries fought a war that cost some 1 million lives in the 1980s.
Ahmadinejad was welcomed by Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, a fellow Shiite.
The Iranian leader discussed some economic projects, but the purpose of the visit was mostly symbolic — designed to show off the level of influence Iran now has in a country that used to be its enemy.
It was also a show of defiance to the United States, which accuses Iran of contributing to the destabilization of Iraq.
Unlike visits by President Bush, which are kept secret until the last minute, for security reasons, Ahmadinejad’s visit had been telegraphed long in advance.
The United States did not provide security for Ahmadinejad’s visit. Instead, the Iraqis brought in hundreds of extra police and soldiers to protect the route from the airport into the center of Baghdad.
Comment by jharp — 6/25/2008 @ 9:22 am
No fan of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad but I gotta give him credit.
Just imagine getting the American taxpayers to pay $1 trillion for something you’ve been trying to get done for 3 decades.
And Americans also paying in blood. 4,100 dead. And 25,000 wounded. Some maimed for life.
Comment by jharp — 6/25/2008 @ 9:32 am
Which is nothing compared to Vietnam, where 500 a day wasn’t unheard of, and I don’t think even half a day of the Normandy invasion…
As I’ve said in the past: “You’re keeping score for the wrong team…”
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 6/25/2008 @ 9:39 am
“Ahmadinejad was welcomed by Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, a fellow Shiite.”
And protested by the people.
Did you read about the anti-Iranian petition signed by 2 million Iraqis jharp? Gateway pundit wrote about it yesterday, I believe. That Iranian influence is blossoming every freaking day. The Iraqis love those IEDs the Iranians build and JAM militias they fund.
Comment by daleyrocks — 6/25/2008 @ 9:43 am
Meanwhile, from the American POV…
Terrorist death count
Iraq: 19,429 through 9/22/2007
Iraq: 1,152 since 9/22/2007
Afghanistan: 3,667 since 1/1/2006
You’d probably cry over those numbers, huh, harpy?
Not to mention that it had been American policy for at least a decade… Oh, wait, that’s right, you don’t remember that bit, do you?
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/25/2008 @ 9:45 am
War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them all they want. — General William Tecumseh Sherman
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/25/2008 @ 9:47 am
Let me understand what the argument is about. Are we saying that if Bush had to do it all over again he would still invade Iraq? In the light of all that has and is happening there now. Please I need to be clarified on this.
Comment by love2008 — 6/25/2008 @ 9:55 am
I love it how Wrangler, when faced with facts, just continues to bloviate about what constitutes actionable intelligence. I am also interested in his proof that the Republicans are waging a racist campaign against Baracky Hussein Obama.
Comment by JD — 6/25/2008 @ 10:08 am
lovey…
That is exactly what the President said when asked that question, with the qualifier “knowing what we know now…”.
His response was: It was the right thing to do.
Comment by Another Drew — 6/25/2008 @ 10:12 am
Lovey, are you saying that a Democrat would have ignored all of the “actionable” data collected on Iraq and its WMD programs, its repeated and ongoing violations of UNSC resolutions (17 of them), its overt and flagrant support of international terrorist organizations (including the cash payouts to Palestinian suicide bombers that kill Jews and/or Americans), and its repeated attempts to shoot down American and British planes patrolling the no-fly zone (put up so he couldn’t commit wholesale slaughter of the Marsh Arabs in southern Iraq and the Kurds in northern Iraq), and done nothing about a clear and decisive American policy of regime change?
Acts of War committed against the US and her allies, repeated violations of that oh-so-sacred “international law”, and the Democrats would have done nothing?
Is that what you see as a worthy goal?
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/25/2008 @ 10:17 am
#165
Thats very hard for me to see. As much as I like Bush. It’s difficult to see how he sells that. I have a feeling he will have a different view point after his presidency is over. Then there wont be an election to win for his party.
Comment by love2008 — 6/25/2008 @ 10:18 am
152 is a classic. Not quite as good as not needing to read something in order to know what it says, or using the title of a book as proof for an argument.
Comment by JD — 6/25/2008 @ 10:25 am
We lanced a boil (Sadam) on the world’s behind (the Arab countries). It will takes a while to drain the puss and heal the wound.
Comment by nk — 6/25/2008 @ 10:25 am
#166
The UN inspection officials should have been allowed to finish their work. If they did maybe it wouldnt have taken a war to find out that there were no WMDs therein. If there was enough “actionable” intelligence available, how come