Patterico's Pontifications

9/4/2010

Newsweek: U.S. Uses Strong Anti-Terror Measures Despite the Lack of Another 9/11

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 9:42 pm

Remember when the New York Times expressed its puzzlement that the prison population was increasing “despite” the drop in crime?

I do. As I observed at the time:

This is like saying “Joe Blow has been continuing to exercise despite the fact that he has been getting in much better shape.”

Fareed Zakaria today has the terrorism equivalent of this idiocy: decrying our proactive anti-terrorist measures — which we have taken despite the fact that Al Qaeda hasn’t hit us with another 9/11.

Nine years after 9/11, can anyone doubt that Al Qaeda is simply not that deadly a threat? Since that gruesome day in 2001, once governments everywhere began serious countermeasures, Osama bin Laden’s terror network has been unable to launch a single major attack on high-value targets in the United States and Europe. While it has inspired a few much smaller attacks by local jihadis, it has been unable to execute a single one itself. . . . September 11 was a shock to the American psyche and the American system. As a result, we overreacted.

Who wants to explain it to him?

(Stolen from Hot Air, to steal Ace’s line.)

157 Responses to “Newsweek: U.S. Uses Strong Anti-Terror Measures Despite the Lack of Another 9/11”

  1. This article brings a question to mind:

    Has anyone here ever heard one of the Muslim/Islamic leaders from the world, not one like we’ve “hired” to go make peace for us, but, one of the leaders of a nation actually completely condemn the terrorist acts such as 9/11, the USS Cole, the Cobart Towers, etc., blasting in the process the idea that the religion itself actually could lead to this result???

    Just wondering….

    reff (176333)

  2. What’s the use of trying to explain?

    Zakaria is one of many really, really smart people on the networks and in the printed media who are there to give their opinion about what is right and wrong. They do it daily and get paid a lot of money because they’re smart and all.

    Of course, they continue to persist in not only being stupid, but in having the gall to act as if their collective intelligence somehow is superior to the rest of us because, they are really, really smart and all.

    It is tiring, but the failure of his venue is telling.

    Ag80 (2f74a7)

  3. “Nine years after 9/11, can anyone doubt that Al Qaeda is simply not that deadly a threat?”

    Nine years after 12/7 the Japanese weren’t a deadly threat because we went over to Japan and beat their freaking brains out.

    Dolt.

    Dave Surls (f2a63b)

  4. As Ag80 points out, Zakaria is very smart, probably smarter than us. In fact, he got an undergraduate degree from Yale and a Phd from Harvard, so on paper he appears to be very smart. He gets paid a lot of money to write things that sound smart. Who am I to question the opinions of such a smart man?

    daleyrocks (940075)

  5. It has been 41 years since the Cuyahoga River caught fire. It’s about time the government got out of the way and let factories dump their waste into the rivers again.

    John Hitchcock (9e8ad9)

  6. Garbled and illogical means sensible and coherent. As in his definition of “overreacted”.

    dudeabides (bc873a)

  7. Reff, an Indonesian leader within the past couple of years made quite a stir in a speech where he said, basically, “Have you ever thought that we are wasting our time hating on the Jews? I mean, we’re smart, we’re industrious, we can work! If we spend ten percent of our energy bettering ourselves and our situation, we could beat them at their own game!”

    He was very nearly lynched.

    luagha (74f85a)

  8. He seems to have forgotten the Madrid bombing (March 11, 2004) and the London bombing (July 7, 2005).

    Not to mention the bombings in Bali in 2002, and the repeat performance in 2005. Or the hundreds of bombing attacks by al Qaeda that happened in Iraq.

    Steven Den Beste (99cfa1)

  9. In Zakaria’s world, George W. Bush didn’t need to lift a finger, because Al Qaeda blew it’s wad with that one spectacular attack. That massive engagement of manpower and treasure in an effort to keep us safe? a complete waste! They didn’t go into hiding, or on the run, as a result of our efforts; they’re just laying low while they struggle to come up with a new plan.

    So now we have “terrorist acts inspired by Al Qaeda”, which — let’s face it — are like those songs on movie soundtrack albums that are “inspired by the motion picture”; i.e. LAME-O! I mean, come on! Only 191 killed in Madrid? Pussyscat! Saddam used to shoot that many unbelievers for heresy (or target practice; I forget which — whatever) before breakfast.

    Icy Texan (c067d2)

  10. Doofus.

    Mike Myers (3c9845)

  11. Al Qaeda is still a threat and if we let our guard down we’ll see why pretty quickly.
    In my opinion the government turned inward too much and placed too many restrictions on the American people while letting PC bind our hands in the war. Islam is the greatest evil mankind has ever faced and the enemy of Western civilization.
    If anything we underreacted. We let citizens of openly hostile countries enter America and no Islamic cities are smoking holes.

    SteveP (97e896)

  12. Except for the Times Square, Detroit christmas flight, Little Rock recruitment shoot, Ft, Hood, and attempts in Springfield, Dallas, NY subways,
    rt al, there has been nothing to worry about in the last year, nearly a dozen plots in the NY area, alone since 2010. Of course, everything is hunkty ory in his native Pakistan, hello, McFly

    ian cormac (6709ab)

  13. Yes I meant 2001, Zakaria I unfortunately first recall back in the mid 80s, when he tried to suggest that the NSC under Reagan was some kind of Junta, because of former military officers like North, and McFarlane, in the New Republic, he’s gone down hill fron there

    ian cormac (6709ab)

  14. Were there to be another successful attack on U.S. soil by Islamic terrorists in the upcoming months of the current administration, you know Zakaria and others on the left would never admit that groups like al Qaida are still a threat and that they were wrong — even if the group took full credit for it, the blame would be pointed at people like the Park51 mosque opponents, for goading al Qaida into resuming their attacks.

    John (8dd4e7)

  15. Apparently, the Holocaust is a superstition, just 65 years after it ended. There hasn’t been another one like it, though “it has inspired a few much smaller” ones.

    9/11 happened nine years ago. Time to move on!/sarc off

    TimesDisliker (826e2c)

  16. “There is nothing new under the sun”.

    Just like the logic of France and England to allow their military capacity to dwindle after WW-I. It was the war to end all wars, afterall.

    So, he may not be a Muslim Extremist apologist, just a typical person with a short memory who thinks people are intrinsically good and the world should follow John Lennon’s advice.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  17. Newsweek was overpriced at a buck. What a moron. I am not explaining the flaw in logic to this idiot, what would be the point?

    Terrye (2e6779)

  18. Vicious dog bites man
    dog fitted with muzzle no
    bites experts puzzled

    ColonelHaiku (63c322)

  19. I used to read Zakaria. I now realize that back when he started out he was anointed an “expert” and a “wonk” by the MFM out of nowhere–and in the same illogical vein as today’s twenty year old juice box journalists are being put forward to enlighten us rubes.

    elissa (421fb1)

  20. Fareed, meet Ezra. Ezra, Fareed.

    Dmac (d61c0d)

  21. Hey, if Allah really wanted another 9/11, then no amount of effort on our part could prevent it, right?

    Therefor, Allah doesn’t want another 9/11.

    So, we’re safe.

    Pious Agnostic (b2c3ab)

  22. Except for the British subway/bus bombings and the Spanish railway bombings. Yea, i’m sure Zakaria is heartbroken that there hasn’t been another 9/11, but not for muslims’ lack of trying. Perhaps they will find a way to rig the GZ Mosque with explosives (wouldn’t be the first time that a mosque was turned into a weapon of mass destruction), and Zakaria will get his wish. I’m sure that Zakaria would also like to do away with NYC’s Detective Squads since violent crime was cut by eighty percent since 1991. I mean that must mean that the NYC Police Department is a waste of taxpayer money.

    eaglewingz08 (83b841)

  23. birds fly away safe
    Fareed puzzled that cats in
    neigborhood wear bells

    elissa (421fb1)

  24. Zakaria is an evil moron and his logic is appalling, but that doesn’t mean that everything he says is wrong. I think that our security apparatus has enormous bloat and is in many ways incredibly stupid. When a young man with numerous ties to terrorists is claimed by his father to be a terrorist, shouldn’t our policies somehow keep him off that plane? But that enormous bloat knew all of this, and all they did was make sure he didn’t have nail clippers on him.

    LTEC (42b97a)

  25. We have been remarkably lucky that some of the plots, I described earlier did not come to fruition, but Fareed takes that happenstance as a reason not to be vigilant, after all he has said in one of his more?? nonsensical cover stories, ‘We must learn to live with Radical Islam”

    ian cormac (6709ab)

  26. Way to miss Zakaria’s point.

    He’s saying that the intelligence bureaucracy is too big and its focus too broad to protect us from the most credible threats:

    Since September 11, 2001, the U.S. government has created or reconfigured at least 263 organizations to tackle some aspect of the war on terror. The amount of money spent on intelligence has risen by 250 percent, to $75 billion (and that’s the public number, which is a gross underestimate). That’s more than the rest of the world spends put together. Thirty-three new building complexes have been built for intelligence bureaucracies alone, occupying 17 million square feet—the equivalent of 22 U.S. Capitols or three Pentagons. Five miles southeast of the White House, the largest government site in 50 years is being built—at a cost of $3.4 billion—to house the largest bureaucracy after the Pentagon and the Department of Veterans Affairs: the Department of Homeland Security, which has a workforce of 230,000 people.

    This new system produces 50,000 reports a year—136 a day!—which of course means few ever get read. Those senior officials who have read them describe most as banal; one tells me, “Many could be produced in an hour using Google.” Fifty-one separate bureaucracies operating in 15 states track the flow of money to and from terrorist organizations, with little information-sharing.

    Hey, maybe if the feds weren’t sorting through every single solitary e-mail we send they could have focused more on Maj. Hasan and the Nigerian pants bomber more closely. Just a thought.

    AJB (d64738)

  27. Also, I like the prison population analogy because it’s more fitting than you think. By keeping a whole bunch of low-level drug offenders and petty thieves locked up for decades without end we don’t have enough room to lock up people for violent crimes like rape and murder.

    Maybe that’s why California–with it’s three strikes idiocy–can’t keep gangbangers and rapists behind bars for too long because the prisons are already filled with people who stole VHS tapes.

    AJB (d64738)

  28. Yeah, AJB, and if morons like you weren’t screaming about poor mistreated Muslims Hasan wouldn’t have been in the military. Just as dumb here as at protein wisdom, I see.

    SDN (f04549)

  29. By keeping a whole bunch of low-level drug offenders and petty thieves locked up for decades without end we don’t have enough room to lock up people for violent crimes like rape and murder.

    That would explain our rising rates of rape and murder.

    Oh, wait …

    Subotai (a83e22)

  30. Aulaqi the recruiter for a whole host of plots going back to 9/11, and forward to Toronto, 7/7,the TATP, Ft. Hood et al, was one of those ‘moderates’ that were brandished in the weeks after September 11th, Al Shehri, one of the directors behind the Christmas plot, was let out of Gitmo on good behavior, because he was an innocent salesmen or something

    ian cormac (6709ab)

  31. AJB,

    Please provide 1 example of a murderer or rapist let go because we don’t have room.

    That is a talking point that sounds nice but has zero — ZERO — basis in reality.

    Are there rapists and murderers walking the streets because they were paroled? You betcha! But that is because of lenient sentencing laws passed by lefty politicians in the 70s and 80s, before three strikes.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  32. Hey, maybe if the feds weren’t sorting through every single solitary e-mail

    Huh? You think the Feds are sorting through every e-mail in the country??

    Surely you don’t really think that. Tell me you don’t think that.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  33. “Maybe that’s why California–with it’s three strikes idiocy–can’t keep gangbangers and rapists behind bars for too long because the prisons are already filled with people who stole VHS tapes.”

    AJB – California should sort out its priorities. If it wants to keep gangbangers and rapists off the streets it should build more jail capacity, not whine about the lack of capacity while overspending elsewhere.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  34. Three strikes has done exactly what it was intended to…and came about in part because the judges were not doing their jobs.
    And it has always been about the violence.

    Today’s low level drug offender and petty thief may be tomorrow’s killer or rapist, and vice-versa….they are uusually not mutually exclusive when it gets to the point of an actual prison commitment here in Cali.

    Andrew (6257e5)

  35. You will not drown your enemy with your tears.

    — Chinese saying

    nk (db4a41)

  36. As Patterico alluded, we had three strikes before the “liberization” of the ’70s. “Three-time loser” was and still is a part of the language since at least the ’50s.

    nk (db4a41)

  37. “Way to miss Zakaria’s point.”

    AJB – Rich, chewy, irony there. From Zakaria’s piece:

    “I do not minimize Al Qaeda’s intentions, which are barbaric. I question its capabilities.”
    Good for you that others don’t misunderestimate them.

    “But this is a war without end. When do we declare victory? When do the emergency powers cease?” AJB- Maybe you and Zakaria can tell everybody when the danger has passed. After all aren’t you progressive types always whingeing about going to any lengths to avoid using the death penalty to avoid executing the wrong person? How much is too much to avoid another mass casualty attack on the U.S.? Can you quantify that for us AJB? What is the tradeoff in lives versus dollars that you are willing to accept?

    daleyrocks (940075)

  38. BTW, Patterico, (I may be off by a year) but Illinois enacted Class X (mandatory minimums, no parole, mandatory life for murderers who do not get the death penalty) in 1983. To some degree, it only made collateral appeals and petitions to the pardon board more important for criminal defense attorneys, since the courts’ hands were tied in direct proceedings.

    nk (db4a41)

  39. Persons associateds with and now in this administration, have put obstacles to incorporating relevant data into no fly lists, have defended Gitmo
    terrorists that were released and went on to practice Jihad in a dozen theatres of operations,
    they pushed for the revelation of the SWIFT terrorist finance tracking, the TSP, now some argue against the Predator strikes

    ian cormac (6709ab)

  40. So if you are convicted of murder in Illinois, you will be incarcerated for the rest of your life, at minimum?

    That sounds strong even to me, Texan. Or has this Class X been modified or not strictly enforced? Really interesting idea.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  41. Hey, maybe if the feds weren’t sorting through every single solitary e-mail we send they could have focused more on Maj. Hasan and the Nigerian pants bomber more closely. Just a thought.

    Comment by AJB

    Actually, the people who knew him were focused on Hassan and the pants bomber’s father was focused on him. The trouble is that the lefty-Muslim axis has its fingers in its ears. They think, like Zakaria (Why isn’t he living in Karachi, by the way), that you can show a terrorist enough love so he won’t hurt you. The news for Zakaria is that the philosophy he and his friends seem to be advocating is Christianity, not Islam. With Islam, if you turn the other cheek, they cut that one off, too.

    Mike K (d6b02c)

  42. By the way, Illinois used to have a murder sentence of 199 years. I always thought that was a good idea. By the time the crook is eligible, for parole, he is probably too old to hurt anybody.

    Mike K (d6b02c)

  43. So if you are convicted of murder in Illinois, you will be incarcerated for the rest of your life, at minimum?

    For murders that the jury finds one or more aggravating factors to make them death penalty eligible, but in the final stage (it’s three parts) does not choose to impose the death penalty due to mitigating factors.

    nk (db4a41)

  44. Please provide 1 example of a murderer or rapist let go because we don’t have room.

    While this example doesn’t qualify, it does show a loophole in who’s considered “non-violent.”

    SACRAMENTO, CA – A Sacramento County jail inmate released Monday night as part of California’s effort to reduce the state’s inmate population was arrested just hours later after police said he tried to rape a woman, according to the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department.

    Kevin Eugene Peterson, who was released from the Sacramento County Main Jail around 11:30 p.m. Monday, was arrested by Sacramento police around 12:30 p.m. Tuesday after he allegedly attempted to rape a female counselor at Sacramento’s Loaves and Fishes on North C Street.

    Peterson was 16 days short of completing a four-month sentence at the Rio Cosumnes Correctional Center for a probation violation when he was released Monday under the revised state law, Sacramento County Sheriff John McGinness said…

    While all of the inmates considered for early release are non-violent offenders, Peterson was originally arrested in August 2007 in south Sacramento on a felony assault with a deadly weapon.

    However, since Peterson served that sentence and was sent back on a non-violent probation violation in December, he was eligible for early release. Also, the assault with a deadly weapon charge did not result in great bodily injury to the victim, nor did that attack include the use of a fire arm…

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  45. Fareed Zakaria is an Indian-born Muslim who hates America with a ferocity matched only by his love for himself. He is a preening, pretentious putz who helps the conservative movement every time he opens his mouth, simply by making plain the idiocy of the loony left. Long may he live and prosper!

    Kevin Stafford (abdb87)

  46. Bradley:

    We are certainly letting some violent people go because of the federal court mandate; I don’t mean to deny that.

    But if someone is convicted of murder or rape, they’ll find room to house them.

    And the blame for releasing people falls, in my opinion, on Reinhardt and Co.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  47. Aren’t mandatory minimum drug sentences pushing a lot of other criminals out early due to overcrowding? Isn’t that really why we have so many people in prison?

    Chris Hooten (7fcd81)

  48. No. Not in California state prisons.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  49. Hey, maybe if the feds weren’t sorting through every single solitary e-mail we send they could have focused more on Maj. Hasan and the Nigerian pants bomber more closely. Just a thought.

    You mean they should have focused instead on Hasan’s awesome “lectures” to his fellow offices in which he extolled violent Muslim extremism, yet was never reported nor reprimanded by his own superiors, just shucked off to another base that was entirely kept in the dark regarding the dark recesses of his mind, simply because of political correctness run amok?

    There’s a thought.

    Dmac (d61c0d)

  50. See, now I didn’t know that. I thought it was a country-wide problem, but not in California, huh? Why isn’t it? I am not doubting you, I am just curious.

    Chris Hooten (7fcd81)

  51. Why do you think it is a country-wide problem? Examples? Cites?…{s_60 minutes second-hand ticking}

    TimesDisliker (f338f9)

  52. “Maybe that’s why California–with it’s three strikes idiocy–can’t keep gangbangers and rapists behind bars for too long because the prisons are already filled with people who stole VHS tapes.”

    Do you have evidence that any large proportion of three-strikes offenders are in because they “stole VHS tapes”? Every so often a newspaper will run a bleeding-heart article about some guy who gets a third strike for a minor offense (or at least minor according to the newspaper). But my suspicion is that the overwhelming majority of three-strike convicts are individuals who damn well deserve it.

    Gary Rosen (3e63c5)

  53. Since nobody answered my question:

    California law is weighted against sending non-violent, non-trafficking drug offenders to prison. Under Proposition 36, a convicted drug offender is presumably shunted into a probation and rehabilitation program (unless he or she is also a drug dealer. It’s hard, but even I’ve managed to get drug dealers probation.). Failure to comply with probation and the rehab program almost invariably gets the offender even more probation and more rehab programs. That kind of offender must fail so many times at probation before getting shipped off to the joint that he or she must basically want to go to prison in order to get there.

    However it is my understanding that in other states the war on drugs has filled the prisons and jails with nonviolent drug offenders, like 20+% or something. California’s get tough on crime crap with sending people away for ages on petty crimes is indeed the main factor here. It is much worse than I thought here in California, too. The overcrowding is absolutely out of control, and there is no excuse for it. It really is unbelievable that it was allowed to balloon so large. Prison looked like it was pretty bad before all this overcrowding, it seems nearly close to inhumane now, and I am not kidding. I had no idea. This economy will eventually only make things worse.

    Chris Hooten (7fcd81)


  54. Today’s low level drug offender and petty thief may be tomorrow’s killer or rapist, and vice-versa….they are uusually not mutually exclusive when it gets to the point of an actual prison commitment here in Cali.

    Todays burger flipper and car salesman might be tomorrow’s killer or rapist. Todays Texas high school football player might be tomorrows Mexican Assassin. Todays drug addict might be tomorrows famous author, or doctor, or politician, or, as you have said, killer or rapist. Todays rapist may be tomorrows famous moviemaker. Cause and affect are not as clear as you seem to suggest.

    Chris Hooten (7fcd81)

  55. Today’s fool might be . . . tomorrow’s idiot.

    Icy Texan (1d82f6)

  56. AJB is, of course, gone like the wind. Another drive-by troll.

    Icy Texan (1d82f6)

  57. Illinois state prisons, too. A two-ounce dealer, with an eight-year sentence will go to medium security, and eligible for work release/weekend furlough after less than two years.

    Violent criminals go to maximum security (but record and length of sentence are also part of the equation), and their “administrative good time” is only 90 days.

    nk (db4a41)

  58. I’m assuming you mean 2 ounces of something other than marijuana.

    Chris Hooten (7fcd81)

  59. Cocaine.

    nk (db4a41)

  60. I think the reaction to 9-11 was more than appropriate but I think it is reasonable to expect that we may have overreached in some areas and haven’t assessed the effectiveness of those decisions. Creating the TSA and DHS as their own agencies has produced a lot more overhead with limited impact in my opinion. Either of these could have been stood up as a division in the FBI for example and had some more objective oversight. Instead it drove a whole host of senior executive civil service position openings and in the case of DHS a lot of dubious contracts that took advantage of the fear, uncertainty, and doubt created by 9-11. The newly promoted SES folks had to justify their new agency and budgets. Creating an agency is no small task and it takes years to stand up an agency. Take a look at USAJobs and the jobs DHS is still trying to fill and you get some idea.

    Those familiar with the Federal and Military departments can remember the “GWOT” (Global War on Terror) mantra used to justify purchases of billions upon billions of dollars of equipment and contracts. If it was classified as GWOT funding it rarely was questioned. As a result a lot of computers, systems, and nice to haves were purchased by less scrupulous commanders and agency section chiefs. Not to mention congressional representatives who throught earmarks, support creation of businesses in their district by retired generals that meet a perceived requirement that only the government could validate. The “end of year funding” monkey dance the feds go through every year delivered a lot of questionable items to police departments in very small towns. Sometimes it was just because there was extra money and the town leaders had put in the unfunded requirement/request with a strong enough word picture to win funding.

    Bruce Schneider is a security person with a unique take on risk and where we have let some of the fear put us today. http://www.schneier.com/essay-316.html

    To sum up my opinion: the initial measures made a huge difference and I’m glad Bush pushed them.But these measures need to be continually assessed for effectiveness. I think some of the TSA/DHS buffoonery that has been reported on shows that the assessments have not been done.
    Some people took advantage of the times to justify things of dubious value in the fight against terrorism. Making sure that we are properly identifying the requirements to combat the terrorist threat is a never ending exercise but when two agencies are created specificially to address those, you do run the risk of bureaucratic mindset and stagnation setting in.

    VOR2 (c7aed3)

  61. Most of these shortcomings are common to bureaucracy, Michel’s Iron Law, and I agree that
    the DHS was a bad call, as currently structured, and the TSA is worse than a joke. But seeing as we can’t properly profile, for legal reasons, as the ACLU and HWR have suggested ‘what is to be done” logistics and procurement are complex issues, take up the funding with “Leaky” Leahy who structured it that way, so a small state like Vermont, has to be on the frontline of the war on terror. Priest and Arkin’s series was designed to be provoke another Church Committee type disemboweling, that hasn’t happened yet.

    ian cormac (6709ab)

  62. For murders that the jury finds one or more aggravating factors to make them death penalty eligible, but in the final stage (it’s three parts) does not choose to impose the death penalty due to mitigating factors.

    Comment by nk

    Thanks, nk. That is a helpful additional point that I think makes this a lot more sensible than my original understanding.

    And it’s great to see you around.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  63. These types of comments only prove what is really, deep down what they want ….. no war on crime or terrorism.

    Might as well say “yeah, killing terrorists is keeping America safe but I really don’t like the idea of killing terrorists and defending the USA is really no necessary since these terrorists will never actually take us over.”

    This is why you wish bad on certain folks. Because they have no problem with exposing others to danger so long as it does not touch them.

    HeavenSent (e230a5)

  64. I don’t wish bad on folks, because I am not a dick.

    Chris Hooten (4489c4)

  65. To be fair, there is a case to be made that there is too much bureaucracy, too much waste, and too much incompetence in the Government’s anti-terrorism apparatus. But waste, bureaucracy, and incompetence is how the Government does everything! We tolerate it on issues of national defense and security because these are vital functions of Government for which there is no civilian alternative.

    There is even greater waste and incompetence in the Government bureaucracies that “manage” environmental protection, housing, education, health care, and a thousand other things that are outside the Constitutional and practical scope of the Federal Government’s responsibility. Newsweek has no problem with those bureaucracies, and indeed, demands their expansion. It’s only protecting American lives and freedom that Newsweek has a problem with.

    Gregory of Yardale (a84c5d)

  66. We tolerate it on issues of national defense and security because these are vital functions of Government for which there is no civilian alternative.

    For every dubious system or product purchased for DoD there is another more needed/effective system or product the DoD agencies don’t have the funds for.

    There is even greater waste and incompetence in the Government bureaucracies that “manage” environmental protection, housing, education, health care, and a thousand other things that are outside the Constitutional and practical scope of the Federal Government’s responsibility.

    I disagree with this. The DoD budget is the largest in the government. If you combine all the agencies (http://www.whitehouse.gov/our-government/executive-branch) it might equal the DoD budget. While I’m not defending Newsweek’s rather myopic view we need to drastically change the current acquisition processes used by the Feds as well as eliminate the earmarks that encourage wasteful behavior.
    We should be fighting terrorists but I don’t think a person can reasonably make the case that we are being nearly effective at it as we could be.

    VOR2 (8e6b90)

  67. Yeah, many sources of (mis)information have been telling you that all the waste is in the rest of the government, but by far, the largest amount of spending and waste is in defense, especially things that have been privatized that could have been done cheaper and more efficiently by the gov. We have been and still are being raped by the contractors.

    Chris Hooten (8f0aba)

  68. Yeah, many sources of (mis)information have been telling you that all the waste is in the rest of the government, but by far, the largest amount of spending and waste is in defense, especially things that have been privatized that could have been done cheaper and more efficiently by the gov. We have been and still are being raped by the contractors

    Some of this needs to be traced back to the Clinton “peace dividend” at which point there was almost a 50% cut in uniformed personnel. Just a few years later 9-11 occurred and since we didn’t have those troops any longer there was little choice except to out source a lot of things.

    VOR2 (c9795e)

  69. Yes, they did that, just as AQ was getting underway, like they fired a whole raft of intelligence assets we had acquired in the last
    two decades, so when people say Clinton was a better president, it is only by matter of degrees.
    The next president will be left with a big mess to clean up

    ian cormac (6709ab)

  70. …And if we hadn’t stupidly (and most likely illegally) gone into Iraq, that loss in uniformed personnel would have been much less important. Or is it just too easy to ignore all the money, lives, and goodwill that we have lost by trudging into that country, despite it having absolutely nothing to do with 911?

    Chris Hooten (d06752)

  71. 4,417 dead Americans in Iraq, where we should not have gone, and had no reason to go, but went anyway because of the neocons.

    2,819 dead Americans because of 911, which had nothing to do with Iraq, or Saddam.

    Chris Hooten (d06752)

  72. $749.9 billion (and counting) flushed down the Iraq toilet. This eclipses the only 337.8 billion we have spent in Afghanistan. But let’s ignore that. What’s a 749 billion dollar blunder that costs over 4000 lives anyways? Let’s blame it on Clinton instead.

    Chris Hooten (d06752)

  73. And this does not take into account all of the innocent Iraqis that have been killed, or had their lives ruined.

    Chris Hooten (d06752)

  74. And when you add on all of the unnecessary tax cuts for the mostly wealthy, wow, that’s where all the surplus went! Amazing! Let’s have more tax cuts for the really wealthy! Yay! Who needs roads and bridges and parks? They need another yacht or a sixth BMW, they totally need that money. After all, the growing chasm between the rich and poor is pushing the middle class down, and making the super rich even richer. So naturally we need to accelerate this process by lowering their taxes. After all the rich have been doing so terribly compared to everyone else… errr wait, that is totally not true, is it? Actually the rich have been doing the best of all, with the only real growth in income in years! Ah hell, let’s give them the tax cuts anyways, because they said it was a good idea on Fox News, and I trust them.

    Chris Hooten (d06752)

  75. Chris,
    Can you try to argue with some facts particularly about the illegal comments about Iraq. Nothing was illegal about going to war with them. The senate vote was 77-23 for the war.
    It is probably pointless to remind you that if you don’t look at the totality of an issue you are left with little more than talking points from the extremes of either side. Not recognizing the terror threat leading up to 9-11 began with Carter and spanned 4 administrations.
    As for the Iraqi deaths far more were killed by insurgents than caused by collateral damage by American military forces.
    As for your comments about the rich and tax cuts I have to wonder how you would react if a flat tax replaced the current code with all of the exemptions, etc. If you are making 50K a year now you pay almost nothing in tax. Make it a flat tax that is “fair” and every 5% of tax will cost you 225 dollars a month. Which do you prefer?
    And by the way there were 2977 casualties on 9-11.

    VOR2 (8e6b90)

  76. Good try, but as was said of Bluto, when he said the German’s bombed Pearl Harbor, ‘he’s rolling’

    ian cormac (6709ab)

  77. I got that number here. It has been revised several times. The number you gave was from wikipedia whose source was some newspaper article. Another set of numbers here are different again (and how accurate are they…) as are numbers I found elsewhere, so now I am kind of confused how many people did actually die in the 911 attacks that were Americans, and not foreign nationals. I am having trouble finding a reliable number that separates the Americans from the others. In any case, We had no legitimate reason to go into Iraq. We had trumped up charges of WMD, with no proof, only innuendo. They told us to trust them, and we did. That was a stupid move on our part, and on Congress’s.

    Chris Hooten (d06752)

  78. We had trumped up charges of WMD, with no proof, only innuendo. They told us to trust them, and we did. That was a stupid move on our part, and on Congress’s.

    try reading this
    http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/satellite-photos-support-testimony-that-iraqi-wmd-went-to-syria/
    Read both pages and you will see the Americans who support the contentions.
    Colin Powell is one of the more honorable men in our country and would never have gone to the UN if he wasn’t convinced the Iraqis had WMDs.

    Does it really matter how many were American citizens? The fact is that 2900+ innocent people died on 9-11 as a result of the Al Qaida attacks.

    VOR2 (8e6b90)

  79. If you recall, they kept suggesting that Iraq had something to do with 911, or linked the two in one way or another. It started out with mysterious phone calls coming in on the Republican phone lines on the Washington Journal (CSPAN) after 911. People out of the blue started suggesting a link between 911 and Iraq, and then it started showing up in the mainstream media, and then was supported by statements by Administration officials. I remember the Washington Journal because I and other people thought “What are these nutjobs talking about?” They also did push-polling and other type things where you would get a survey on the phone that would say “Would you support going to war with Iraq if Saddam caused 9/11? Well the whole point of a poll like that is to put the idea in your head in the first place. It is like the one’s you get from the RNC that ask questions like that about Democratic members of Congress. Things like, “Would you support censuring Barnie Frank if he was found guilty of having sex with puppies?” OK, well maybe not that bad, but you get the idea.

    Chris Hooten (d06752)

  80. Stream of consciousness idiocy is always inpleasant to be a witness to. Care to substantiate that “illegal” asspull, crissyhooten?

    I do enjoy how the leftists get their panties in a bunch over a trillion dollars in national security spending, but whine about how almost a trillion is is not enough when it cam to Porkulus, and. Now the subsequent spawn of Porkulus.

    And tax cuts for the rich!!!!! The idea that someone making $250,000 has 6 BMW’s and all of that other nonsense he puked out is just that, nonsense.

    JD (afa5a9)

  81. Was that really a valid reason for going to Iraq? Is that really why we went? Is that really why people thought we were going to Iraq at the time? Do you remember when they named it “Operation Iraqi Liberation” Does that involve WMD? What do the initials spell? OIL

    Chris Hooten (d06752)

  82. Not to mention the DGSE, the FSB, the Mukharabats of Egypt and Jordan, and the BND, (‘Curveball’ was
    their asset,) all thought so.

    ian cormac (6709ab)

  83. Again, we will ask you to support, not assert, your asspull that Republicans tied Saddam to 9/11. Maybe you will trot out the by denying that connection he is making that connection meme. Here is a hint, having ties to terrorism and ties to AQ are not the same as 9/11.

    JD (afa5a9)

  84. ZOMFG WAR FOR OIL conspiracy nutbags are tiresome. So are moonbat trolls who go on rants full of repeatedly debunked memes and lies.

    JD (afa5a9)

  85. I am not talking about the lower level of the upper tax bracket, of course. Why do you always go to the $250,000 level? Those people are not super-rich. They aren’t doing too bad, but they are not even close to the truly wealthy, other than tax bracket. My guess is that they are dwindling, being pushed down into the middle class or even sub-middle class since that is the trend. If someone is at that level and is struggling, it is easy to blame higher taxes, but it is the widening uneven distribution of wealth. The really really rich get really richer, but the sort of rich, or almost rich get screwed with the rest of the middle class and get dragged down. Welcome to the world of outsourcing, and the CEO mentality. No one has any money to spend. The consumer base has been destroyed. Clinton was an idiot for championing NAFTA.

    Chris Hooten (d06752)

  86. Remind me not to open door number 3 if it has the initials CH on it….

    VOR2 (8e6b90)

  87. The Bush Administration ignored all of the evidence from the weapons inspectors that “Curveball’s” claims were false.

    Chris Hooten (d06752)

  88. From the Los Angeles Times (link) front page, lead story, November 4:
    Allies Find No Links Between Iraq, Al Qaeda

    Evidence isn’t there, officials in Europe say, adding that an attack on Hussein would worsen the threat of terrorism by Islamic radicals.

    “We have found no evidence of links between Iraq and Al Qaeda,” said Jean-Louis Bruguiere, the French judge who is the dean of the region’s investigators after two decades fighting Islamic and Middle Eastern terrorists. “And we are working on 50 cases involving Al Qaeda or radical Islamic cells. I think if there were such links, we would have found them. But we have found no serious connections whatsoever.” Even in Britain, a loyal U.S. partner in the campaign against Iraq, it’s hard to find anyone in the government making the case that Al Qaeda and the Iraqi regime are close allies.

    The criticism in Europe reinforces the misgivings of some U.S. congressional leaders and intelligence officials about hawks in the Bush administration who allege that Iraq could have even played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks. Critics say that the evidence is weak and that intelligence agencies are feeling political pressure to implicate Iraq in terrorism. In the last two months, Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and others have periodically revived and expanded on the allegations.
    From the White House website, Bush’s comments about Saddam Hussein: (Campaign speeches only. For period of October 10 – November 04.)
    OCT 28 Remarks by the President at New Mexico Welcome
    “This is a person who has had contacts with al Qaeda.”

    OCT 28 Remarks by the President in Colorado Welcome
    “He’s got connections with al Qaeda.”

    OCT 31 Remarks by the President at South Dakota Welcome
    “This is a guy who has had connections with these shadowy terrorist networks.”

    NOV 01 Remarks by the President at New Hampshire Welcome
    “We know he’s got ties with al Qaeda.”

    NOV 02 Remarks by the President in Florida Welcome
    “We know that he’s had connections with al Qaeda.”

    NOV 02 Remarks by the President in Atlanta, Georgia Welcome
    “He’s had connections with shadowy terrorist networks like al Qaeda.”

    NOV 02 Remarks by the President at Tennessee Welcome
    “We know that he has had contacts with terrorist networks like al Qaeda.”

    NOV 03 Remarks by the President in Minnesota Welcome
    “This is a man who has had contacts with al Qaeda.”

    NOV 04 Remarks by the President at Missouri Welcome
    “This is a man who has had al Qaeda connections.”

    NOV 04 Remarks by the President at Arkansas Welcome
    “He’s had contacts with al Qaeda.”

    NOV 04 Remarks by the President in Texas Welcome
    “This is a man who has got connections with al Qaeda.”
    Plus this speculation:
    OCT 14 Remarks by the President in Michigan Welcome
    “… we need to think about Saddam Hussein using al Qaeda to do his dirty work, to not leave fingerprints behind.”

    NOV 03 Remarks by the President in South Dakota Welcome
    “And, not only that, he is — would like nothing better than to hook-up with one of these shadowy terrorist networks like al Qaeda, provide some weapons and training to them, let them come and do his dirty work, and we wouldn’t be able to see his fingerprints on his action. ”

    NOV 03 Remarks by the President at Illinois Welcome
    “He is a man who would likely — he is a man who would likely team up with al Qaeda. He could provide the arsenal for one of these shadowy terrorist networks. He would love to use somebody else to attack us, and not leave fingerprints behind. ”
    source with links.

    Chris Hooten (d06752)

  89. They tried torturing detainees to get a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda

    Bush was still claiming that there was a connection in 2007

    This article has various info about Cheney making the claim, and refusing to discount it when it was shown to be not true.

    There is a whole wikipedia page about it.

    Here is another wikipedia page about the public relations BS that they spread to facilitate the acceptance of a link between Saddam, Al Qaeda, and 911.

    Chris Hooten (d06752)

  90. Here is a page full of information about the lead up to the war, the reasons we claimed to go there, and the truth about those claims.

    Chris Hooten (d06752)

  91. Chris,
    Do me a favor and post all this on your blog. The only person you seem to be convincing is yourself.

    I’m not going to click on something called uggabugga blogspot from work.

    VOR2 (c9795e)

  92. That last link is probably the best one. It shows just how much twisting of the truth was going on about a variety of topics surrounding the Iraq war.

    Chris Hooten (d06752)

  93. I copied the entire page up there. The links just don’t copy, too, so I provided the link. It looks exactly like what I posted. The reason I posted it was that (some) people wanted proof. You obviously prefer sand in your ears.

    Chris Hooten (d06752)

  94. I honestly cannot believe that none of you remember the constant din of people making the connection between Saddam, Al Qaeda, and 911 in the run up to the war. However it also astounds me that so many people still believe there was a connection. I suppose they would become quite upset if they found out there was really no reason to go to war in Iraq.

    Chris Hooten (d06752)

  95. So George Tenet, one of the greatest failures in CIA history, and a demcorat, insists there’s no connection between Saddam and Al Qaida. A lot of partisans feed off that and similar claims, calling it proof.

    Even though we found proof that Saddam supported Egyptian Islamic Jihad, when we found many of his documents in Iraq. That organization was the same as Al Qaida. I don’t mean it’s similar… I mean it’s the same organization. Same exact people. He had

    Sadly, the left will stick their fingers in their ears and ignore this. Saddam was a killer, he supported terrorism. He had facilities like Salman Pak for the purpose of training hijackers.

    One of the 7 justifications for invading Iraq was that Saddam was a terror threat. That’s a legitimate justification, even if democrats choose to re-characterize this as something more specific and unproven or not.

    Another thing these documents showed is what how Saddam’s support of terrorism was very secretive. His Army of Muhammad support, to undermine Kuwait, was money from Saddam to Al Qaida, for terrorism. Plain? Not if you ask democrats. He kept everything at arm’s length. He was just as willing to support rivals of Al Qaida, and he was sure to keep all this support as vague as possible.

    End of the line is that the Iraq War was a wonderful thing for the hundreds of thousands of lives saved, and the tens of millions of lives freed to democracy… even messy democracy. It’s sad that the ‘democrats’ are now abandoning that country as much as they politically can, thanks to the great success of the surge they all got dead wrong.

    Was our intel great on Iraq? Not at all. George Tenet clearly didn’t know what the hell he was doing.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  96. Allowing group like ansar al-islam to operate inside Iraq didn’t happen, did it, crissyhooten? That you choose to believe WARFOROIL over national security is up to you. Serious people will point and laugh at you.

    JD (9adaac)

  97. Thanks for making the point more simply, JD. I don’t know what happened to my comment, but obviously something that is my fault.

    It’s hard to decide how to react to claims Saddam wasn’t a threat. Go on and on listing reasons? Shut them down with one example? I dunno.

    We are in a war on terror and shut down a man whose leadership killed a couple million people and had a training center for hijacking planes. We accomplished tremendous good. Can that good persist with Obama showing a tough love attitude? I don’t know. Korea, Japan, Germany all took a different route.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  98. #95 Dustin:

    That’s a legitimate justification, even if democrats choose to re-characterize this as something more specific and unproven or not.

    One of the “other” allegations made to “prove” the war was unjustified is the constant claim that “there were no WMDs!,” never mind the 503 chemical weapons found between 2003 and 2005. That garnered one local television report in the Washington, DC area when the report was released by the Chairmen of the Joint Senate & House Intelligence committees at noon, and was not even repeated for the evening time slot.

    So it really doesn’t matter how concrete the proof is, committed lefties will continue to stick their fingers in their ears and yell “Na-na-na-na!! I can’t hear you!”

    EW1(SG) (edc268)

  99. “I honestly cannot believe that none of you remember the constant din of people making the connection between Saddam, Al Qaeda, and 911 in the run up to the war.”

    It was probably drowned out by the din of Slick Willie’s constant air raids against Iraq during the last two years he was in office.

    Dave Surls (6731e4)

  100. Did the right connect Saddam with 9/11?

    I don’t recall a whole lot of that.

    It was more of a strategic decision, also based on the fact that we could no longer accept someone like him, who could do something like or worse than 9/11, I’m pretty sure it was not common to blame Saddam for 9/11.

    And while the left swore up and down that the Iraq war would lead to massive attacks in America, they were wrong. Bush’s Iraq war was part of a winning strategy to keep America safe from Al Qaida. It makes perfect sense, since Al Qaida was fighting us in Iraq and thus unable to take the fight to innocent civilians in America.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  101. The only connection that I was ever certain of between 9/11 and Iraq is this:

    In today’s world of technology and travel, vulnerability to attack is not dependent on large armies or large budgets, and the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans no longer are the effective buffer zones they once were.

    The reason we went to war with Hussein was that he was a a tyrant and leader of a rogue nation who had repeatedly gone to war with neighboring countries, had shown himself to be an enemy of the US, and had a long history of breaking and refusing to cooperate with the terms of the agreement that ended Gulf War I.

    I think there is plenty of room for disagreement about going into Iraq if those opposed wanted to talk about the realities, and not their trumped of versions of things. They have discredited themselves.

    Thanks for the link, VOR2. I had not seen that, but it makes sense, as I know Soviet made equipment was found in Iraq that could have been there only if the Russians were helping Iraq during the embargo period. People also forget (if they ever heard) David Kay’s interim report when he told Kennedy that Saddam “was more dangerous than we thought” because of the number of violations, including work on long-range missiles. I’ve never heard an explanation for Crimean-Congo Hemmorhagic Fever Virus hidden in a bottle buried in the back yard of their bioweapons chief, unless they were working on bioweapons.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  102. Comment by MD in Philly — 9/7/2010 @ 10:55 am

    No problem. I was in the military until 2007 and we had gotten intel about this from early in the war. Since it was classified at the time it was frustrating to see what was being touted as “truth” by some. Was glad to see it had finally gotten scrubbed for declassification. I think Bush should have laid it out in the beginning to strengthen his hand. But the nature of intell sources and methods sometimes prevent release even when it would help politically.

    VOR2 (8e6b90)

  103. There is considerably more waste in civilian agencies than we know about. The news media are simply not interested in investigating it.

    Gregory of Yardale (07425b)

  104. Unfortuneately that link from VOR2 doesn’t prove anything, it is all conjecture. No one is saying that is what happened, they are saying that there is a possibility that it happened that can’t be ruled out. That is very different then saying that is what happened. So it represents nothing other than a slim chance that there was any WMD in Iraq. The 503 chemical weapons were old, useless ones that could never be used. I still don’t see any reason to go to war with Iraq. They very clearly linked Iraq to Al Qaeda and thusly 911 within the public sphere. You can’t deny it.

    Chris Hooten (d06752)

  105. Hooten’s claim regarding connections being made between Iraq and the 9/11 attack by the administration is simply false. The administration did not make such claims. There were a few reports, such as the one originating in the Czech Republic, but the administration did not make the claims and denied the reports.

    Hooten’s claim has been repeatedly debunked in the more than seven years since Democrats started falsely accusing the Bush administration. He repeats it nonetheless because that’s what Democratic shills do.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  106. . They very clearly linked Iraq to Al Qaeda and thusly 911 within the public sphere. You can’t deny it.

    Comment by Chris Hooten — 9/7/2010 @ 1:20 pm

    Why is it that you aren’t pointing to proof this is the case?

    You’re just insisting you’re right. That’s not an argument. Your wall of text certainly wasn’t good enough evidence. Insoafar as some link was claimed between Saddam and Al Qaida, there wasn’t anything wrong with that claim…it’s true. That’s been proven.

    Insofar as you claim the Bush Admin said Saddam was behind 9/11, that is a bizarre fantasy. Did you read that at bradblog?

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  107. Patterico should start charging Hooten for the egregious sucking up of bandwith in these posts.

    Dmac (d61c0d)

  108. The key takeaway is that so many Democrats “know” things that are flatly not true. And claim that this “knowledge” is what underlies their beliefs and votes.

    But amusingly, when its pointed out that they are basing their political opinions on false bases, their opinions don’t change. They just flail – lost without an excuse for their ideology – or pretend never to have learned of the falsity of their world.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  109. They very clearly linked Iraq to Al Qaeda and thusly 911 within the public sphere. You can’t deny it

    There is a difference between saying Iraq had ties to AQ and saying that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks. You do understand that, right?

    Some chump (4c6c0c)

  110. This article has various info about Cheney making the claim, and refusing to discount it when it was shown to be not true.

    Nothing in that article demonstrates that “it was shown to be not true”. Cheney had good reason for making the claim. Because it has been shown to be true.

    Gerald A (2b94cf)

  111. I mean links between Iraq and AQ in the last post.

    Gerald A (2b94cf)

  112. There were many, many ways that I thought the Bush administration did not pursue the information war at home and can only guess why it was that way.

    My conviction is that Saddam made a huge miscalculation with the backing of the Russians. He thought, and Putin thought, that the US would never act unless it was with the world’s blessing, but they knew the days of playing with the inspections was going to stop. So they hoped to buy enough time to clean stuff out of the country to allow real inspections, but they didn’t quite get it done by the deadline; and lo and behold, an American President did what he said he would do, and they were not at all prepared for that scenario.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  113. Gerald A, indeed none of the links to news items that Hooten supplies backs up his assertion. Hooten is oblivious to this.

    And Hooten has been ridiculed before for citing to Wikipedia.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  114. Gotta give Chris H. an E for effort. But John effen Kerry ran his whole campaign in 2004 on the foobar-ness of the Iraq War and it didn’t work out so well for him then because people weren’t buying his version of the “facts”. Still hearing the same tired talking points from Chrissy six years later is just sad.

    elissa (5ff3c3)

  115. That last link is probably the best one.

    That “best link” has garbage like this:

    Yellowcake from Niger

    Allegedly, the Bush Administration also knowingly fraudulently asserted as evidence that the Hussein government had sought to purchase yellowcake uranium from Niger.[5] On March 7, 2003, intelligence documents submitted as evidence to the IAEA were dismissed by the agency as forgeries, with the concurrence of outside experts. At the time, a U.S. official claimed that the evidence was submitted to the IAEA without knowledge of its provenance, and characterized any mistakes as “more likely due to incompetence not malice”; this explanation was deemed unsatisfactory by former CIA official and Iraq War critic Ray Close.[6] Those who oppose these critics of the invasion maintain the fraudulent documents were never central—or even relevant—in intelligence assessments regarding Iraq seeking uranium.

    The Downing Street memorandum

    The 2005 release of the so-called Downing Street Memo, a secret British document summarizing a 2002 meeting among British political, intelligence, and defence leaders also tended to show the US and Britain willing to “fix” intelligence as necessary to support the war against Iraq. According to the memo, Chief of the British Secret Intelligence Service Sir Richard Dearlove claimed that “Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”[7]

    The evidence is strong that Iraq did seek to purchase yellowcake uranium from Niger. That has been confirmed several times by the British government. Even the information transmitted by Joe Wilson to the CIA supports the belief they sought yellowcake. There were large quantities of yellowcake found in Iraq. The fact you are using a source that virtually portrays the yellowcake claim as a lie as your “best link” speaks volumes about your cluelessness.

    The Downing Street memorandum has nothing to confirm its authenticity. The reporter who allegedly obtained it from somewhere claimed he destroyed his copy after copying it down.

    Wikipedia is not a credible source on political questions – it’s just another left wing pile of BS. Even the NY Times is probably superior and that’s pretty bad.

    Gerald A (2b94cf)

  116. Crissyhooten subscribes to the leftist and MFM theory that if you don’t like the facts, just make up new ones.

    JD (e5299a)

  117. Except there was a considerable amount of yellow cake, at Tammuz 16, the formerly Osirak reactor when
    the troops arrived in 2003. What struck me about the Downing Street memo, was there was no intelligence in it, and they shipped the supposed
    writer of it, to Bosnia, years before, what kind of a reward is that

    ian cormac (6709ab)

  118. It is nothing short of astonishing that people like Hooten are still invested in this “the Bush admin lied” meme so many years after they lost that argument and so many years after it has been so thouroughly debunked.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  119. Paul O’Neill, one of President Bush’s treasurers (also worked under Reagan and Nixon) provided proof that they were planning to invade Iraq from the very beginning, and trying to find out a way to do it. That is just about all they cared about. full article (60 minutes, CBS)

    And what happened at President Bush’s very first National Security Council meeting is one of O’Neill’s most startling revelations.

    “From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,” says O’Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic “A” 10 days after the inauguration – eight months before Sept. 11.

    “From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime,” says Suskind. “Day one, these things were laid and sealed.”

    As treasury secretary, O’Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as “Why Saddam?” and “Why now?” were never asked.

    “It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this,’” says O’Neill. “For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap.”

    And that came up at this first meeting, says O’Neill, who adds that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later.

    He got briefing materials under this cover sheet. “There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, ‘Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,’” adds Suskind, who says that they discussed an occupation of Iraq in January and February of 2001.
    Based on his interviews with O’Neill and several other officials at the meetings, Suskind writes that the planning envisioned peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals, and even divvying up Iraq’s oil wealth.

    He obtained one Pentagon document, dated March 5, 2001, and entitled “Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts,” which includes a map of potential areas for exploration.

    “It talks about contractors around the world from, you know, 30-40 countries. And which ones have what intentions,” says Suskind. “On oil in Iraq.”

    During the campaign, candidate Bush had criticized the Clinton-Gore Administration for being too interventionist: “If we don’t stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we’re going to have a serious problem coming down the road. And I’m going to prevent that.”

    “The thing that’s most surprising, I think, is how emphatically, from the very first, the administration had said ‘X’ during the campaign, but from the first day was often doing ‘Y,’” says Suskind. “Not just saying ‘Y,’ but actively moving toward the opposite of what they had said during the election.”

    The president had promised to cut taxes, and he did. Within six months of taking office, he pushed a trillion dollars worth of tax cuts through Congress.
    But O’Neill thought it should have been the end. After 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan, the budget deficit was growing. So at a meeting with the vice president after the mid-term elections in 2002, Suskind writes that O’Neill argued against a second round of tax cuts.

    “Cheney, at this moment, shows his hand,” says Suskind. “He says, ‘You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due.’ … O’Neill is speechless.”

    ”It was not just about not wanting the tax cut. It was about how to use the nation’s resources to improve the condition of our society,” says O’Neill. “And I thought the weight of working on Social Security and fundamental tax reform was a lot more important than a tax reduction.”

    Did he think it was irresponsible? “Well, it’s for sure not what I would have done,” says O’Neill.

    The former treasury secretary accuses Vice President Dick Cheney of not being an honest broker, but, with a handful of others, part of “a praetorian guard that encircled the president” to block out contrary views. “This is the way Dick likes it,” says O’Neill.

    Chris Hooten (d06752)

  120. Clinton had told him his number one problem was going to be Bin Laden. They proceeded to ignore that and plan an invasion of Iraq, instead.

    Chris Hooten (d06752)

  121. Hooten, you keep repeating long debunked falsehoods.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  122. Chrissy,

    Get over it. The Baathists are destroyed, and the terror groups operating out of Iraq like the PLF, FRC, MEK are crippled.

    Hussein is dead, Chemical Ali is dead, Abu Nidal is dead, Abu Abbas is dead, and you can’t bring them back.

    Game over, sport.

    There is nothing you lefty liars can do to turn back the clock and help your pals.

    It’s time for you lefties to start spewing lies on behalf of still existing terrorists and state sponsors of terrorism. Iraq is a dead issue.

    Dave Surls (9821fb)

  123. I wish he would link the Loose Change video. Complete the look, and all that.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  124. This article also explains some of the different times they implied a link between Saddam and 911. They were very sneaky, making the implication, but not outright saying it, suggesting they knew it wasn’t true, but were making the implication in order sell the war. Richard Clarke said Bush wanted him to find any shred of evidence he could linking Saddam to 911. He also said he thought Iraq was a completely unnecessary tangent taking us away from what should have been our main goal, getting Al Qaeda.

    Chris Hooten (d06752)

  125. No, Hooten, you are simply full of it. And you keep repeating falsehoods that were debunked many years ago. Not least the Richard Clarke nonsense – which Clarke would not say under oath to the 9/11 Commission.

    First the Bush admin “said” it, then none of those links actually show such. Then they “imply” it, and even the Pfiffer piece you link to misrepresents much of the basic facts and still can’t really establish that it was intentionally “implied”. You didn’t even bother to read the whole article, did you? Once again, your habit of Google incompetence in full display.

    This nonsense of yours is the reason you have no credibility.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  126. I blame Diebold, SPQR.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  127. “They were very sneaky, making the implication, but not outright saying it”

    Hooten – I’m getting a kick out of all your links that you claim say something they don’t actually say. Like the one in #124 that says 78% of the American people linked Saddam to 9/11 two days after the event even though Bush had not said anything. How do you blame Bush for that? Seriously?

    Like your second link in #89. The headline claims Bush is trying to link Iraq with 9/11, but there is no mention of 9/11 in the article. All the article does is tie Al Qaeda in Iraq with the mother organization.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  128. Probably, Eric Blair. It is truly bizarre that Hooten is still believing things that were debunked five or six years ago. And not merely once, but repeatedly such as in the joint select committee report on Iraq War intelligence as well as the 9/11 Commission report. Hooten seems to live in this weird little time warp where only Michael Moore fantasies can jump the quantum barrier.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  129. ““From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime,” says Suskind. “Day one, these things were laid and sealed.””

    Hooten – You know of course that Iraq regime change had been public U.S. policy since 1998, right? Is this news to you?

    daleyrocks (940075)

  130. #128 SPQR:

    seems to live in this weird little time warp where only Michael Moore fantasies can jump the quantum barrier.

    OMG! I met somebody just like that this last weekend at a party!

    I wonder if it was him! Eeeww…I have to go take another shower now. :<

    EW1(SG) (edc268)

  131. “They proceeded to ignore that and plan an invasion of Iraq, instead.”

    Hooten – No resources were pulled out of Afghanistan to invade Iraq. How was bin Laden ignored with over 20,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan?

    daleyrocks (940075)

  132. Hooten – Can you tell us again about how the Iraq War was illegal? I love that part.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  133. This article shows how misguided people were in 2003, broken down by which news they watch. Do you want to guess which channel had viewers that were by far the most misinformed about Iraq, and the reason for going to war there?

    Chris Hooten (d06752)

  134. Hooten, piling more non sequiturs on top of your debunked claims is a failure.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  135. I wonder why they would have thought that.

    Chris Hooten (d06752)

  136. Ot, because hooty and the blowfish has really stunk up the place, what do you think of Daley stepping
    down

    ian cormac (6709ab)

  137. Hooten, just how many trolling irrelevances are you going to flood this thread with?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  138. C’mon, SPQR. The guy is just a performance artist. After folks repeatedly show he doesn’t even read his own links carefully, he actually refers to other people thusly:

    “…had viewers that were by far the most misinformed about Iraq…”

    Um. As I say: performance art.

    Just a clown.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  139. Eric, you mean how most of the “misperceptions” of the war that the last link of his purported to poll against were themselves falsehoods?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  140. I think it’s time for a new technical term in the English Language …

    For articles/writings which show a remarkably weak grasp of reality, and yet persist in insisting that said articles/writings are based upon ‘facts’ (which have, themselves, already been debunked, I nominate

    “hypochrissy”

    and, in all fairness, I do have to give Chris Hooten the hat-tip for beign the origin of the term …

    Usage: “Comments #119 and #120 are classic hypochrissy.”

    Comments ? Thoughts ?

    Alasdair (e7cb73)

  141. Ian, like so many long serving CEOs and owners of family businesses, Daley has not groomed a successor. There’s gonna be blood! (I don’t mean literally, but there will be dozens of mayoral hopefuls from every cultural group competing to stir the pot and share the spoils while stretching thin the available campaign finance money.) It will be highly interesting but not necessarily pleasant to watch IMO.

    elissa (5ff3c3)

  142. I used to almost feel bad for calling it a mendoucheous twatwaffle and a troll. Today, it decided to go all in and prove me right, beyond a shadow of a doubt. All that remains is for him to link to Michael moore and Rosie O’Donnell, and spit out some LIHOP and MIHOP nonsense.

    JD (508e4d)

  143. The problem, JD and SPQR, is that I think the fellow likes all this.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  144. “This article shows how misguided people were in 2003″

    Nah, it just shows what liars lefties are.

    “The discovery of a number of 122 mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions.”–Hans Blix, 1/27/03

    http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm

    The Iraqis did have WMD.

    Get over it.

    Dave Surls (9821fb)

  145. Ot, because hooty and the blowfish has really stunk up the place, what do you think of Daley stepping down

    While I certainly had my problems with him as mayor, there’s no denying that he did some very worthwhile things during his tenure (mostly during his 1st decade in office) – he took a city that was considered an aging Rust Belt burgh and remodeled it into an international locale, despite the Olympic bid failure. I’m not surprised at his decision, since his wife has been fighting a nasty kind of cancer that’s been steadily advancing over the past ten years. Good for him, he always said that family came first and foremost. His son also served in Iraq, so when that family talked about how much they loved the city and their country, they weren’t blowing smoke up anyone’s skirt.

    As for his many erstwhile successors, I have hopes that Houlihan (recently – retired Cook County Treasurer) will run and win. He’s one of the few honest pols here who not only fought Daley and Stroger (Sr.) tooth and nail for fairness regarding the outrageous property tax increases, but also became target #1 on Mike Madigan’s enemies list, because he’d been ferreting out the TIF monies being siphoned to Madigan’s own clients (he also runs his own law firm). The only true reformer in the bunch, and he’s sharp as hell to boot.

    Dmac (d61c0d)

  146. hooten you done it
    now Obama not fooling
    anybody now…

    Just before the Labor Day weekend, Fox released a poll that provides evidence of just how far the American people have come — and how wide is the gap between Obama and the public. What is surprising is that the subject is Iraq.

    Did we do the right thing by going to war with Iraq? Fifty-eight percent say yes, while only 35 percent say no. This is a reversal of several years’ worth of survey data. A stunning 71 percent, including 58 percent of Democrats, think the Iraqi people are better off because of the war. Is the U.S. and the world safer? Again, 58 percent say yes. Who do they give credit for the success? Fifty-four percent say George W. Bush, only 19 percent say Obama. Did Obama give Bush enough credit in last Tuesday’s speech? A significant plurality (38 to 15 percent) say no. Independents by a 31 to 16 percent margin say Obama didn’t give Bush enough credit. (By the way, Obama gave Bush no credit — he merely said Bush loved the troops.) The poll is no outlier – NBC’s survey shows 53 percent think the war was a success; only 43 percent say it is not.

    Well, Obama and the rest of the left must be chagrined to find out that – after years of running down the war effort (in fact declaring it a lost cause), inciting the public to oppose it, and vilifying the president who launched the war and made success possible — the majority of the country disagrees with them. As for Bush, this is vindication much sooner perhaps than any of us imagined.

    http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/rubin/353631

    ColonelHaiku (3ec9fa)

  147. Comment by Dmac — 9/7/2010 @ 5:12 pm

    Dmac, any thoughts on Rahm Emanuel possibly throwing his hat in the ring? Would he be a viable candidate as far as the voters go?

    Dana (8ba2fb)

  148. Richard Clarke said Bush wanted him to find any shred of evidence he could linking Saddam to 911.

    If he in fact told Clarke that, it would not in any way validate your claim that they publicly made that claim. It’s another non sequiter which seems to comprise the bulk of your “thinking”. It was natural to suspect Iraq. Is that some kind of crime? Was he supposed to shut out of his mind any thought Iraq was involved? But then again maybe the psycho Obama admin. would do just that.

    Gerald A (2b94cf)

  149. Clarke said a lot of things, often contradicting his off the record briefings months earlier,

    ian cormac (6709ab)

  150. Clarke’s words, like Barcky’s, cease having any meaning the moment they pass over his lips.

    JD (8ded14)

  151. Given the contradictions between Clarke’s testimony and his book ( guess which was done under oath … ), no one should take him seriously unless you were a complete BDS head-case hack.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  152. a complete BDS head-case hack.

    Why must you be so mean to crissyhooten?

    JD (8ded14)

  153. JD, I’m not a nice person.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  154. #64, You lie about yourself and call me a dick?

    If there one thing worse than a moron lib it is a hypocritical lib.

    HeavenSent (e230a5)

  155. #153 SPQR:

    I’m not a nice person.

    Hmmph. I’d like to see you prove that in person over a beer.

    EW1(SG) (edc268)

  156. EW1(SG), its true, I swear it. Mmmmmm, beer….

    SPQR (26be8b)

  157. Dmac, any thoughts on Rahm Emanuel possibly throwing his hat in the ring? Would he be a viable candidate as far as the voters go?

    Sorry I’m responding so late, Dana – Rahm will definitely think about running, except he has two big problems ahead of him. One, the mid – terms are coming up, and to abandon Obama at this juncture will be difficult, and although he has the money in hand, his name recognition is weak, even though he was a House Rep. for a few years here before he took his present job.

    Dmac (d61c0d)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5318 secs.