What Would Gore Have Done? (WWGHD)
[Posted by Karl]
In advance of the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, 60 Minutes and Vanity Fair commissioned a poll asking Americans how different they think the world would be if our response had been led not by George W. Bush but by Al Gore, Jr. A 56 percent majority responded they really did not think anything would be different, breaking down as 57 percent of Republicans, 62 percent of Independents, and even 48 percent of Democrats. Two progessive pundits surprised by these results gave their own speculation, but reached quite different conclusions.
At The Hill, Brent Budowski took the route of pure partisan hackery, despite the sensitivity of the topic:
If Al Gore had won, for starters: Had Gore been briefed by intelligence officers as Bush was in August 2001 about terrorist planes attacking buildings, Gore would have put our services on red alert and might well have prevented 9/11.
Budowski has either not read the 9/11 Commission Report on this subject or not understood it, so I will put this in terms he will understand: If other, much smarter, partisan Democrats on the Commission could not figure out a way to credibly blame Bush for 9/11 based on the events of August 2001, Brent Budowski has zero chance of doing so. But Budowski he blundered onward, arguing that even if 9/11 had happened:
Gore would never have made the blunder of invading Iraq. Those American lives of troops KIA would have been saved. He would have focused on Afghanistan, which would have been won for keeps most likely by 2003.
Clearly, Budowski has read neither the history of military operations by great powers in Afghanistan, nor studies on the typical length of wars of counter-insurgency. However, let’s focus on Budowsky’s one-sentence dismissal of the Iraq question.
Salon’s Steve Kornacki examined this question at length and reached the conclusion that Gore might well have invaded Iraq after the 9/11 attacks. Kornacki begins by remembering both Saddam Hussein’s villain status and how easy war seemed after our first confrontation with Saddam.
Kornacki recalls that Pres. Clinton “approved some airstrikes, and signed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which put the US government on record supporting regime change.” It would be more accurate to note Clinton approved Operation Desert Fox with the goal of degrading Saddam’s ability to make and to use weapons of mass destruction.
Kornacki observes that Gore, like Bush, would have been hearing loud, influential, non-conservative voices — including (but not limited to, I would add) Joe Lieberman, Marty Peretz, Tom Friedman and Peter Beinart — calling for Saddam’s removal. Kornacki fails to note that Gore was one of many prominent Democratic officials emphasizing the threat posed by Saddam and his WMD programs during this period. However, Kornacki does note that as a Senator, Gore had positioned himself as “one of his party’s foremost hawks,” adding that:
when he announced his opposition to Bush’s war push in the fall of ’02, Gore endorsed the basic goal of removing Hussein and securing his (supposed) WMD stockpiles. What he objected to was more the go-it-alone nature of Bush’s approach. In other words, you could also argue that Gore, still stung by the 2000 election outcome, may have been motivated in some way by his desire to stage a big, principled fight with Bush — and that a different result in ’00 might have produced a different, more hawkish response from Gore, one that would have led to … an invasion of Iraq.
Kornacki gives a counter-argument to that, as well as a rejoiner to his counter-argument, so RTWT. However, Kornacki also misses a rather basic supporting argument in favor of the thesis that Gore would have invaded Iraq. Although I feel sure I have written something roughly similar elsewhere, I have been unable to find it via search engine, and so reproduce it here.
Consider, as Kornacki correctly does, Gore’s relatively hawkish history and support for the Clinton administration’s prior attacks on Iraq. On 9/11, Gore would likely have had the same basic reaction that Bush likely had. Whatever you thought your job was on 9/10, your mission was now set for you. You would feel a moral (and political) imperative to try to prevent another 9/11. And it would not take very long for it occur to you that the only thing worse than another 9/11 would be a terror attack with weapons of mass destruction.
On the first point, the immediate response was fairly obvious — to destroy Al Qaeda’s operations in Afghanistan, as well as the Taliban government that supported them. But future attacks might not have an obvious signature, so what would an administration do?
Cabinet officials would give the president — Bush or Gore — the list of nations supporting terrorism and the list of nations with or pursuing WMDs. Much attention would be paid to the part of the Venn diagram where those lists overlap. The resulting list would seem fairly manageable. Afghanistan’s neighbor, Pakistan, is nuclear — but could be strongarmed into cooperating lest it become the secondary target of the obvious war to come in Afghanistan. Libya supported terrorists and was pursuing WMDs, but almost immediately entered into negotiations to cooperate; it would ultimately renounce WMD efforts around the time the US invaded Iraq. This would leave the now-familiar troika of North Korea, Iran and Iraq.
As Kornacki noted, Gore’s objection in the real world was the supposed unilateralism of Bush’s invasion (it wasn’t unilateral, but whatevs). In the alternate dimension, faced with the axis of evil, and based on Saddam’s long rap sheet at the UN, wouldn’t a Pres. Gore have seen Iraq as the most likely candidate for getting that UN stamp of approval, just as Bush undoubtedly did? And after a few months getting jerked around in the UNSC, would a Pres. Gore simply thrown up his hands and told the American people that he simply had to accept a French, Russian or Chinese veto of his efforts? It seems… unlikely.
–Karl
Let’s not forget that it was the Invasion of Iraq which convinced Libya to give up it’s nuclear weapons program. A program which the West was not even aware of and the exposure of which also revealed the black market Khan network of nuclear proliferation.
Brad (f2bc0e) — 9/10/2011 @ 2:34 amI don’t understand why all these discussions about Iraq fail to mention that we had to get out troops out of Saudi Arabia. The soldiers we had on the Saudi/Iraq border were agitating the religious fundamentalists in Arabian peninsula. It was no coincidence that many of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi and Yemeni. They were striking back at the country that put an army (with women soldiers!) in their holy land.
This was destabilizing Saudi Arabia, and while the house of Saud was paying off the Wahhabi clerics, it still wasn’t enough to stop things like the Khobar Towers bombing and the 1995 Riyadh car bombing.
And by April 2003…most of our troops where out of there. While there were several other attacks against US citizens in Saudi Arabia…they tapered off over the next few years.
Xmas (075df9) — 9/10/2011 @ 2:58 amActually, I really do believe this. Al Gore would have been 100% different.
It was not a foregone conclusion on 9-11 and 9-12, 9-13, 9-14 to treat this as war and the Clinton administration policy was not to. So no, I refuse to engage in the allegedly non-partisan fairy tale that gore would have invaded Afghanistan. I think he would have urged the nation to think of it just as a single criminal act and try to arrest and mirandize the people responsible.
And for how many years under Clinton did Saddam get away with his shenanigans? Go back and read Clinton’s speech just before he started bombing him. He believed Saddam had WMDs and was hiding them but only thought an ineffectual bombing campaign was the right thing to do. Richard Clarke was peddling the claim that Iraq and AQ were connected and this was still the Clinton administration’s response.
No, the change was not merely the outrage but the idea put forth by administration republicans that the old criminal law approach didn’t work and was inappropriate to that situation, that made the invasion of Afghanistan possible. And I refuse to believe Gore and the whiny liberals who almost certainly would have surrounded him would have drawn the same conclusion. The only hope would have been if we the people drew that conclusion and dragged him, kicking and screaming, to that position.
And I will add something else. There is no way Gore would have waterboarded people like KSM. Which means that 10 years out, Osama bin Laden might very well have been continuing to breathe oxygen, instead of sleeping with the fishes (literally!).
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 9/10/2011 @ 3:45 amoh, and get off my lawn!
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 9/10/2011 @ 3:46 amnext time… instead od invasion….
….the USA should just obliterate 99% of any nation that attacks us with 10 or 20 atomic bombs…
…..the enemy tends to get the messege REAL fast after that not to provoke or wage war against the USA.
YourMaster (53a943) — 9/10/2011 @ 3:47 amIf Algore was calling the shots, Saddam Hussein would have remained in Iraq continuing and expanding his established pattern of oppression.
Saddam would have supported more terrorism against Israel and the US, continued to threaten his neighbors with military conquest, and continued to oppress and murder Iraqi citizens. He would also have continued to turn a blind eye to the monstrous inhumanity his sons were perpetrating.
ropelight (20e47a) — 9/10/2011 @ 4:15 amI may be with Aaron on this one with one VERY BIG ADDITION! There would have been at least one more major terrorist attack on America in the next two years after 9-11. Bin Laden would have seen Gore’s response as, again, weakness and pounced. After that, it would have been interesting!
reff (5d87c1) — 9/10/2011 @ 5:47 amI need to go back and check on Gore’s vote for the First Gulf War. Remember that a majority of Democrats voted against it. Then the Clinton Administration allowed Saddam to continually violate the cease fire while basically taking no action against him in spite of all their tough talk.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/10/2011 @ 6:17 amI am a New Yorker through and through, I should have been in the top floor of the Towers that day at a conference, I am a proud US Citizen, I am a child of proud Naturalized Citizens, and I likely speak for the minority but …..
….. I am sick of the Country wallowing in this symbol of failure. We should have built three buildings instead. They should have been done by 9/11/2012. We should have built them taller. We should have put a memorial honoring all the dead Muslims at the hands of their Terrorist Leaders. And, I would have nuked every major terrorist loving muslim capital including Mecca and Medina. Obliterated 50 million and told them “next time, its all of you.”
That is how I feel 10 years later … and, fuck, Al Gore too. He has only added to the astronomically high pussy index in this country.
S. Carter aka J-Z (8d652e) — 9/10/2011 @ 6:22 amWhile it is good to look back and try to learn lessons, I think we agree that we can look at likely outcomes but not know with any certainty what would have in deed happened. If nothing else, we know what politicians say in one circumstance may mean nothing in a different circumstance (for example, “Afghanistan is the war we should be fighting”).
I agree that the idea 9/11 would have been prevented by the Gore administration is wishful partisan thinking. If it would have been, I believe it would have been more happenstance on how different appointments directed their staff- such as deciding to search computers or not. I think one could also say that if the whole contesting the election results hadn’t taken place, maybe Bush would have been more advanced in his administration and “would have prevented it”.
Whether Gore would have followed the same course going into Afghanistan and then Iraq is a question with conflicting information. On one hand we know that the Dems as a whole were behind going into Afghanistan, and so Gore may have done so. If so, I think results would perhaps be the same as they have been- because for a large measure the Afghan effort has been a joint effort, with other countries having rules of engagement even more constraining than ours.
We know the Dems originally agreed Saddam was a danger that needed to be attended to, so again there is reason to think Gore may have done that. Had he done so, perhaps there would have been faster success with continued bipartisan support for the intervention, rather than dealing with the political gamesmanship from bickering across the aisle.
But, I think it was the opinion of world leaders, especially Russia, that the US lacked the resolve (or “guts”) to carry out their promised action, hence the lack of a planned and coordinated Iraqi response under Saddam’s power. I tend to agree that I doubt Gore would have had the conviction to go ahead and intervene without a broader coordinated effort, which he was never going to get.
That’s my speculation, FWIW
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 9/10/2011 @ 6:44 amHere I go again.
Hypotheticals such as this are meaningless. You end up arguing about what could have happened – well, anything could have happened.
Establishing what did happen is hard enough for some people, establishing what is happening now even harder. So may I suggest – keep these discussions in the realm of fun fantasy or, better yet, keep the air free for meaningful reality.
Amphipolis (e01538) — 9/10/2011 @ 7:25 amI know a woman, well-educated and wealthy — her late husband was an international businessman — a world traveler who speaks five languages, who is absolutely convinced teh the first World Trade Center bombing was aimed at the elder George Bush (even though Bill Clinton was President by then), and that the September 11th attacks were aimed at the younger President Bush, and who has said, many times, that Osama bin Laden would have called off the attacks if Al Gore had taken his rightful place as our President.
So, WWGHD? By becoming President, there’d have been no attack to which he had to respond, and the peace and prosperity of the Clinton years would have continued, and we’d have a budget in surplus, a viable Palestinian state, poverty would have been eliminated, and only right wing bullies would have lost out.
No, I am not making this up! (Well, maybe the last paragraph.)
And she’s an American citizen who is registered to vote. 🙁
The serious Dana (f68855) — 9/10/2011 @ 7:44 amWhile a “President Gore” — I had to use quotation marks, because the thought is somewhat puke-inducing — might have wanted to attack al Qaeda in its hideouts in Afghanistan, he would have been stopped by one very serious problem: gunpowder and other chemical explosives emit, as a combustion byproduct, carbon dioxide, a deadly greenhouse gas, which is responsible for the horrible
global warmingclimate change effects which are shrinking the polar ice caps and killing the baby seals and polar bears, and which will inundate our coastal cities and wreak devastation across our fair planet.Surely, surely! it would have been better to accept the unfortunate deaths of a few thousand unfortunate — though not entirely guiltless. because they were participating in the unbridled capitalism which has led to our current environmental crisis! — than to release even more CO2 and destroy our planet!
No, a military response would have been out of the question!
The not-so-serious Dana (f68855) — 9/10/2011 @ 7:57 amThe rebels in libya are racist.
DohBiden (d54602) — 9/10/2011 @ 8:05 amGore would have made us into a 3rd world dystopian hellhole.
DohBiden (d54602) — 9/10/2011 @ 8:05 amXmas,
The main reason I don’t mention Saudi Arabia is that at least two of the 9/11 attackers believed they were avenging the suffering of Muslims in Bosnia and Chechnya, despite the US fighting to protect Bosnian Muslims, and Chechnya being a Russian issue. The jihadis are always going to have a grievance, no matter where we are, or what we do (other than coverting to Islam).
Karl (37b303) — 9/10/2011 @ 8:10 amPerhaps Gore would have nuked Kandahar on the afternoon of 9-11, or used nerve gas at Tora Bora, or extended the war later into Waziristan.
Or maybe he would have spent two years negotiating with the Taliban over handing over Osama and his folks.
Pointless.
Might as well ask what Kerry would have done in 2005, or what might have happened if Colin Powell had run for President and won in 2000 (certainly we’d have been spared the current incompetent).
Kevin M (563f77) — 9/10/2011 @ 8:30 amAnother factor that seems to, conveniently, get overlooked is the atmosphere of absolute panic over anthrax than permeated DC at the time.
When we talk about WMD, more than a few believe that the term is shorthand for nukes, but obstinately refuse to acknowledge the chemical and biological components of the concept, and that Saddam Hussein had used – at the minimum – weaponry against his own people from the chemical side of the triad, and was believed to be working on the biological, and had been known to be working on the nuclear, legs of that wicked triad.
No one that I know of has successfully explained just who cooked the spores, weaponized them, and mailed the powder, or why.
Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (ff6763) — 9/10/2011 @ 9:00 amPerhaps in another generation we might finally get the truth about what led to the several deaths from this WMD attack;
but it cannot be denied, that the concern over the use of anthrax against Americans in the aftermath of 9/11 influenced the course of war against IslamoFascism.
Gore would have accused OBL of letting CFC’s into the atmosphere, contributing to AGW, thus giving him the needed justification to nuke the entie human race into extinction. Budowski is a tifosa-level clown.
JD (6d8a47) — 9/10/2011 @ 9:10 amafter looking today at the photo’s of the falling woman and the plunging man from the World Trade Center 10 years ago. After listening to a mother at a function miss her son who fell in Afghanistan last summer, and seeing Beamers Father talk about his osn
This specualtion by these authors wased Karl’s precious time that he had to take to correct the record
Gore Wasnt elected – end of story
In fairness to Gore – unless the states what he would have done, its disrespectful to him for these lefty’s to try and create an historical record
Especially on this weekend
EricPWJohnson (2925ff) — 9/10/2011 @ 9:14 amunless he states – sorry
EricPWJohnson (2925ff) — 9/10/2011 @ 9:15 amEveryday I give thanks to the voters of TN for voting for GWB!
Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (ff6763) — 9/10/2011 @ 9:19 amAl Gore would have tried to impose his fantasy reality on the rest of us. Oh wait – he did that anyway.
Come to think of it, Obama wants to do much the same thing – pass this bill now (no bill has been given to Congress), it’s all paid for (just like last time).
2 + 2 = 5 is not speculation. it is an alternate reality.
2 + 2 = 5 is not fun and games. it is the end of our civilization.
Amphipolis (e01538) — 9/10/2011 @ 9:20 amAnother Drew wrote:
Oh, Vice President Gore did carry his home “state:” he carried Washington, DC, quite easily.
The Dana who strives for accuracy (f68855) — 9/10/2011 @ 9:30 amIslam has caused more deaths than any other religion.
DohBiden (d54602) — 9/10/2011 @ 9:34 amGore can be so over the top, so impervious to reason.
I cannot predict what he’d do. Sometimes the nature of his tone suggests he’s faking it,and trying really hard to mask that with bombast. Sometimes it seems he’s actually able to convince himself of things that aren’t true.
He’s the kind of guy who lets a nuke off the chain if he gets frustrated, or establishes FDR style policies. I can only imagine how asinine the TSA would have been.
The only thing I can predict about a Gore presidency is that it would not be reality based, and would be governed greatly by emotion. Bush, on the other hand, was humble and principled. He was also stubborn in the face of great dissent, but in a completely different way.
Dustin (b2fb78) — 9/10/2011 @ 9:40 amAlso, I think Barack Obama is a much better President than Al Gore would have been. Barack is weaker, and pretty clueless, but he’s not a psycho.
Dustin (b2fb78) — 9/10/2011 @ 9:41 amBack on 9/11/2001, I said to a dedicated Democrat that had Al Gore been in office, he would have apologized for our buildings being in the way of their airplanes.
My opinion has not changed.
Everything flows from that.
Dianna (f12db5) — 9/10/2011 @ 9:44 am“If Al Gore had won, for starters: Had Gore been briefed by intelligence officers as Bush was in August 2001 about terrorist planes attacking buildings, Gore would have put our services on red alert and might well have prevented 9/11.”
Sure, he would have. It would have been just like that other great liberal genius in December 1941…heading the bad guys off at the pass before they could nail us.
Dave Surls (9cd384) — 9/10/2011 @ 10:44 amI need to go back and check on Gore’s vote for the First Gulf War. Remember that a majority of Democrats voted against it.
In the first Gulf War, Gore sold his vote demanding some pork projects that I have forgotten for the vote.
I think Gore has had a mental breakdown since he lost the 2000 election. At the time, I considered him to be an equal candidate to Bush (I had supported McCain) and wasn’t worried about the election nearly as much as I was in 2008. I should add that I think Kerry is a bigger phony than Obama, if possible.
Mike K (d6b02c) — 9/10/2011 @ 10:48 amAl Gore would have released his second chakra thus Gaia would have been dancing like a drunk idiot.
DohBiden (d54602) — 9/10/2011 @ 11:03 amGore did vote for the first gulf war.
But um, he represented Tennessee. He had to vote that way. if he got special consideration from it, that speaks well of his negotiation skills because he was not going to be voting against it in any case.
I think the mistake alot of you are making is to think Gore is sincere. He isn’t.
Consider this, for instance. He repeatedly stated that he hated the tobacco companies because his sister was a smoker who died of lung cancer.
But before he said that, and after his sister died, he was on video sucking up to tobacco farmers, pretending that this son of a politician was some kind of farmer of tobacco.
There are only two possibilities. Either he does blame the makers of cigarettes for the death of his sister which means that he was willing to suck up to the very people who killed her.
Or he isn’t really opposed to tobacco products and used his sister as a cheap political prop to get street cred on the issue.
Either way, the man’s soul is a howling wilderness. Even for a politician he was pretty shameless.
So bluntly he gets no presumption of honesty with me. on anything. the environment, anything.
oh, and get off my lawn.
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 9/10/2011 @ 11:16 amand someone, i forgot who, said that it was distasteful to say what i said with 9-11 coming up.
But al gore has been a borderline traitorous a–hole since 9-11. i mean take his speech where he accused bush of manipulating intelligence. it is a sad day when bill clinton was more honest about something than al gore, but bill said that by their intelligence he believed Saddam had WMDs. I was honestly surprised by him being honorable in that way and i noted that at the time.
Gore was in the same administration and he pretended the evidence was not what it was.
And we are supposed to be nice to him and pretend he wasn’t what he was.
The fact is that many on the left, right after 9-11, were talking about treating this as a criminal action. if they were in charge that is very likely what they would have done. And I am not going to consent to rewriting history the day before we remember history.
Maybe you didn’t have the exposure to liberal thinking i did. i was a yale law school that day. i remember, i think it was the next day, and they had about 6 professors in an assembly going on and on about “why they hate us.” i was told later i actually was on TV, though not with my face on the screen, saying something like this:
“We do not blame the victim. We don’t say what did the jews do to deserve the holocaust. We don’t ask what black people did to deserve slavery and the terrorism of the KKK. We don’t ask what Dr. King did to cause him to get shot.
“We understand that the indiscriminate violence is a reflection on the character of the attackers, not the victims. And i am deeply offended by your suggestion that the people who died yesterday had it coming.”
They denied that this was their intent, but yeah, that was their message.
So, no, i am sorry, i am not doing violence to our history and pretending the left was on board with this.
I mean seriously, if you really want proof, look at how many on the left, when obama was sworn in, started talking about cutting and running FROM AFGHANISTAN. all those years they pretended that iraq was the bad war, but afghanistan was the good war they supported, but when they were in charge, the mask was ripped off.
No, i understand the desire to make nice, and its not a bad thing. But it is not enough to convince me to do a disservice to history.
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 9/10/2011 @ 11:34 amAl Gore is an idiot.
DohBiden (d54602) — 9/10/2011 @ 11:42 am“And we are supposed to be nice to him”
To Al Gore???
Not in this lifetime.
Dave Surls (8b5003) — 9/10/2011 @ 12:14 pmI read this editorial, claiming how wonderful and splendid BHO’s jobs speech was:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/10/opinion/blow-rise-of-the-fallen.html?_r=1
Then I noticed the author’s name. How completely appropriate.
Simon Jester (e03c11) — 9/10/2011 @ 12:15 pm“Hypotheticals such as this are meaningless.”
You don’t have to worry about hypotheticals. The libs have a firm rule, that they’ve had ever since the Vietnam War. And, that’s that they will NOT send ground forces into combat, no matter what the situation is.
It’s not because they care about American lives, foreign civilian lives or because they’re against war on principle (obviously, events prior to the 1960s demonstrate the truth of that…liberals LOVE war), it’s because their complete clusterfuck in Vietnam cost them the 1968 presidential election…and, that’s something they care very much about.
What would Gore have done? Who knows for sure? But, it’s realk, real unlikely that President Gore (vomit) would have gone after anyone hammer and tongs, no matter how many Americans were killed. Air strikes, maybe. Invasions? Actually wiping state sponsors of terrorism off the map? Not too likely.
Dave Surls (8b5003) — 9/10/2011 @ 12:22 pmAaron,
I understand your pain, anger, righteous indignation. But 56% in the last election completely forgot already what happened
EricPWJohnson (2925ff) — 9/10/2011 @ 12:28 pmalgore would’ve stood at Ground Zero, grabbed a bullhorn and railed against the environmental damage wrought by the demolition of what remained.
Soon thereafter, we would have heard from all of them…gore, earthfirst!, the sierra club, peta, etc.
ColonelHaiku (58bae1) — 9/10/2011 @ 12:28 pmHere, they try to obscure what Gore did in Osama’s home town of Jiddah:
http://www.printculture.com/item-771.html
david weprin (d69b60) — 9/10/2011 @ 12:44 pmAW, in my neighbor hood – as in Walt Kowalski’s – two people tell you to “Get off my lawn”:
Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (ff6763) — 9/10/2011 @ 12:46 pmMe, and John Garand!
Sorry about the sock.
ian cormac (d69b60) — 9/10/2011 @ 12:50 pmhttp://www.realclearpolitics.com/blog/2006/02/stuck_on_stupid_ann_coulter_al.html
ian cormac (d69b60) — 9/10/2011 @ 12:52 pm🙄 We should indiscriminately round up stupid.
DohBiden (d54602) — 9/10/2011 @ 12:58 pmDoh, there’s not enough time.
Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (ff6763) — 9/10/2011 @ 1:01 pmAll we can hope is that they breed themselves out of existence.
I know Dave Weprin from NY is another one………..he is trying to scare seniors into voting for him which isn’t going so well.
DohBiden (d54602) — 9/10/2011 @ 1:16 pmian – This is me shedding a tear over those mysterious detentions after 9/11 for immigration violations.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/10/2011 @ 1:20 pmJust spend about a minute on LGF after hitting a link that took me there. Forgotten what the head lizard Johnson ever said about Algore, but he sure is in full Obama-fellating mode now and Perry-bashing. I really doubt he would be attacking Dan Rather lies at this stage of his spiritual growth.
Funny no rag like National Enquirer made a big effort to find dirt or Algore’s chakras’ needs, but perhaps I missed the gossip about that or the marital breakup.
Once again, I thank the clueless Jews in Palm Bch. county and the butterfly ballot for Pat Buchanan taking votes away from albert and giving Bush a win in Fla. My neighbors still insist the SCOTUS selected W and the Fla. state supremes had it right to change election laws ex post facto. Screw them. I think the goracle still is pissed his lawyers couldn’t pull it out with the election judges not giving him enough benefits from hanging and dimpled chads, etc.
Calypso Louie Farrakhan (2cc74c) — 9/10/2011 @ 1:22 pmYour neighbors must have dementia.
DohBiden (d54602) — 9/10/2011 @ 1:24 pmHe lost his own state, doesn’t that tell you everything,
ian cormac (d69b60) — 9/10/2011 @ 1:29 pmMy personal opinion- there should the the 8th wonder of the world The Great Glass Crater in the Middle East. It’ll be awhile before it can draw tourists, but we can admire the view from satellite.
As for Gore. Ye suffering gawds. Its my belief his one fry short a Happy Meal leaning towards total mental gasket shattage is all an act to woo the ecoweenies. But then, disappointment can twist a person so, who knows?
Also Aaron- pro tip: just put the international Mine Field sign on your yard. Or, do as I do…my “front” yard is the horse pasture…so…tip toe through the meadow muffin mines, ya bastards 😉
ppk_pixie (901c40) — 9/10/2011 @ 1:39 pmI feel sad for those who lost loved ones on 9-11.
DohBiden (d54602) — 9/10/2011 @ 1:49 pm________________________________________________
Gore would have put our services on red alert and might well have prevented 9/11.
LOL. Yea, right.
BTW, I’m sure Budowski not too long ago would have proclaimed that no way, no how, would a staunch liberal/Democrat (if not an ultra-liberal) like the guy now in the White House would ever be guilty of doing an end run around Congress by placing the military in Libya without following proper protocol. That such a guy would never — NEVER! — flout the War Powers Act.
Yep, a Republican/conservative such as George Bush might pull a stunt like that, but not someone like the current icon of the Democrat Party.
Mark (411533) — 9/10/2011 @ 1:51 pmMaybe Al Gore will give Obama a challenge for re-election, like Teddy did to Jimmy. Then we can ask him what he would have done.
Kevin M (563f77) — 9/10/2011 @ 2:15 pmWhen idiots in my social circle who still defend Obama by arguing that he “inherited this mess”, I ask if they also then admit that the Bush administration “inherited” the mess that led up to 9/11.
If they say, “that’s different”, or, “well, it happened on his watch”, I remind them that W had been in office less than 8 months when the towers fell. This shows the terrorists’ plans had been in the works long before Bush took office, and that (obviously) every president “inherits” from his predecessor.
If they acquiesce slightly but continue on indignantly, “well Bush certainly made a horrible situation worse and weakened our country by his actions and policies in the ensuing years!”, I respond, “While that statement is arguable, it’s very good to hear that you’re open to the idea that an administrations can, in fact, make a horrible situation worse– as President Obama has clearly done both with foreign policy and economic policy in the past two years.
I don’t know that it convinces anybody, but it sure makes me feel better to say it aloud.
elissa (84cdb4) — 9/10/2011 @ 2:33 pmGore would have supported abortions and women who disagreed would have had their feminism questioned.
DohBiden (d54602) — 9/10/2011 @ 3:40 pmElissa, do the “idiots in your social circle” mention anything about Richard Clarke, the counter-terrorism committee, the fact that 9/11 happened just after Bush’s return from one of the longest vacations in presidential history, the August 6th memo? (I’m just thinking you must be the belle of the ball in your social circle.;^)
tifosa (67cc5e) — 9/10/2011 @ 3:50 pmhttp://www.cnn.com/2004/images/04/10/whitehouse.pdf Bush receved in Presidential Brief on 8/6/01
tifosa (67cc5e) — 9/10/2011 @ 3:57 pmDid a Unicorn fart?
Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (ff6763) — 9/10/2011 @ 4:02 pm==the fact that 9/11 happened just after Bush’s return from one of the longest vacations in presidential history==
Tifosa has brought me to my knees with that comeback. I bow. I bow.
elissa (804cd8) — 9/10/2011 @ 4:23 pmGore would have turned the White House into a mosque, converted to islime, and surrendered the country to ALQ and the Moose slime brotherhood.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 9/10/2011 @ 4:28 pmthe record for the longest Presidential vacation ever is held by the SCOAMF, who was sworn into office in January 2009, and hasn’t done a damn thing worth mentioning since then.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 9/10/2011 @ 4:30 pmWhat would happen on the Left if we elected a President who announced after the inauguration that their spouse did not like the White House, and they were going to stay in their own home and only return for major bill signings, speeches, and significant events – sort of like FDR staying in Warm Springs GA for extended periods?
Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (ff6763) — 9/10/2011 @ 4:35 pmSlightly off topic….
Anyone see the military jets flying north yesterday and today along the CA coast? Too cloudy to see them yesterday, but they make an unmistakable big noise.
Guess it’s all hands on deck this weekend.
Thank you, our wonderful military.
Nanny Bloomberg (1832e5) — 9/10/2011 @ 4:39 pmOh crap, that was me.
Patricia (1832e5) — 9/10/2011 @ 4:40 pmColonel’s HS classmate Brad Burlingame played basketball with the colonel all through HS. Brad’s younger sister Debra was two years younger than us and she was a go-getter and of serious mind even back then. They both lost their older brother Chic (mentioned in Aaron’s thread), who was the pilot of AA Flight 77. I can’t think of a more forceful advocate for preparedness, determination and for the basic recognition that Fundamentalist Islam is our enemy.
Thoughts and prayers go out to the families and friends of those who lost their lives on 9/11/01, and to all of the families of America’s finest serving in our military.
ColonelHaiku (58bae1) — 9/10/2011 @ 4:53 pmPatricia-
I had a fighter jet fly damn low over my house yesterday afternoon- and I’m in NC (not far from a major fuel farm) So yeah, they’re on high alert…everywhere.
ppk_pixie (901c40) — 9/10/2011 @ 5:01 pmSubstance, tifosa. Try to state an actual position on the issue, with a substantive argument to back it up.
Icy Texan (d7b56e) — 9/10/2011 @ 5:07 pm“Evil is Real. So is Courage.” That’s a quote from the George W Bush speech earlier today in Shanksville, Pa. Link is below if you have not seen it and care to. It is a beautiful speech, about 10 minutes long.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=46089
elissa (804cd8) — 9/10/2011 @ 5:22 pmOff your knees tifosa.
DohBiden (d54602) — 9/10/2011 @ 5:51 pmWeprin is a liar since when is protecting SS and medicare doing away with it?
DohBiden (d54602) — 9/10/2011 @ 6:16 pmHe does ignore the December 1998 pdf, which had virtually the same language, not surprisingly Ali Mohammed was the source for both, yet was actually
ian cormac (d69b60) — 9/10/2011 @ 6:44 pmmore detailed, the names of Seyf al Adel, and Mohammed Atef, feature prominently
I’ll go into details if people ask (I’m tired), but it was obvious that Gore was a pathological liar during a televised debate with Bush. Maybe he got worse with the disappointment of the election result, but not all cylinders were firing before.
Thanks Elissa, for you notes.
Had Gore won the presidency, he might have kept busy and we would have been spared his AGW effort.
Had Clinton resigned and Gore taken over, maybe he would have won as the incumbant.
If we knew what Sandy Berg(l)er cleansed from the national archive, we wouldn’t have to put up with people blaming Bush- I don’t think that’s a hypothetical, I think it is fact, which is why he did what he did. (I just don’t know why the DOJ did/or didn’t do what they did/didn’t).
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 9/10/2011 @ 7:21 pmThat seems right. MD, I imagine some of the surveillance regarding Al Midhar and Al Hazmi,
ian cormac (d69b60) — 9/10/2011 @ 7:35 pmthe two San Diego hijackers, who followed Aulaqi
to Va, were part of that report,
ppk, I feel good about that, like somebody up there is watching over me.
Patricia (1832e5) — 9/10/2011 @ 7:36 pmAn interesting column by Daniel Pipes at National Review
Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (ff6763) — 9/10/2011 @ 7:38 pmhttp://www.danielpipes.org/10094/obama-counterterrorism-policy
which outlines the two competing sides on three debates within the approach to counterterrorism.
He distills it down to a succinct conclusion:
“…There are no shortcuts:
Those who want a genuine counterterrorism policy must work to remove the Left and the multiculturalists from government.”
ian- I think what he did was get rid of specific copies that had hand-written notes by some in the administration. I believe there are still copies of the report itself, which caused some to down play the significance of what he did. The fact remains that he destroyed some of what he took from the archives, and unless there are photocopies somewhere, any material written on those destroyed copies is known only to who wrote them and who destroyed them.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 9/10/2011 @ 7:47 pmStop right there. That is a bald-faced lie. Bush was never briefed about any such thing. Budowski is clearly delusional, and any conclusion that follows from his delusions is by definition invalid.
Just to remind people: the famous briefing to which he is referring said that information had just been obtained, that several years earlier Al Qaeda decided to try to launch terrorist attacks on USA soil. It warned that these attacks might take the form of hijacking planes to exchange for prisoners, or else they might take the form of attacks on federal buildings.
Neither of these speculations came true. This is a crucial point, so I will repeat it: Neither of these speculations came true. There was nothing actionable in the briefing (how exactly do you protect against a possible plan, several years old, to hijack some plane somewhere, or to attack some building somewhere, in some unspecified manner?), but even had there been enough details that action could have been taken to prevent these two scenarios it wouldn’t have prevented what actually did happen, which was a third scenario that the authors of the briefing hadn’t thought of.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 9/10/2011 @ 7:50 pmTrue, Milhouse, also there was no Brooklyn cell, that we know of, as I pointed out, the second PDB
ian cormac (d69b60) — 9/10/2011 @ 8:02 pmhas less information than the last, it also left out the Phoenix Memo, and Moussaoui was about a week away from being captured at the Time.
There’s one big difference between our universe and the what-if one in which Gore was president. Had Gore been president, the bulk of the left would have either have supported his war effort, or been silent about it. Only a small fringe of the left would have protested, and they would have been ignored by the MSM. The Democrats in Congress and the CIA would not have undermined the effort, or extracted extra spending as the price for their cooperation; the MSM would not have highlighted the inevitable failures, and the nation would have been united behind it.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 9/10/2011 @ 8:04 pmA lot of this, is coming from Anthony Summers new tome on the subject, which despite having some good
ian cormac (d69b60) — 9/10/2011 @ 8:04 pmdetails, (like the new Florida connection to Atta)
gives too respectful a hearing to the truthers, treats KSM and Zubeydah’s confessions as unreliable.
I haven’t read through the comments yet, so I’m not sure what this is about, but I remember the Algerian cell that was busted in Brooklyn back in ’95 or ’96, just a few blocks from my home! They were planning to bomb the Atlantic Ave/Pacific St subway station, at rush hour; had they succeeded it would have been a major disaster, perhaps worse than the WTC attacks. Nine subway lines run through that station, as well as several LIRR lines.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 9/10/2011 @ 8:14 pmDemocraps love to lie and scare people for no reason.
DohBiden (d54602) — 9/10/2011 @ 8:18 pmI didn’t recall that instance, but the other NY plot involving the Holland Tunnels and other targets, like the FBI building, was akin to what
ian cormac (d69b60) — 9/10/2011 @ 8:23 pmwe saw in the movie ‘the Siege’
they also insist nazism is far-right because they do not want to admit they are pro-eugenics.
DohBiden (d54602) — 9/10/2011 @ 8:55 pmI have no idea what Gore would have done if he became President.
However, based on his statements, if he were elected today, he is clear he would try to silence dissent of his ideas.
Ag80 (9a213d) — 9/10/2011 @ 9:01 pmExactly he is an econazi.
DohBiden (d54602) — 9/10/2011 @ 9:06 pmIt stands to reason that you wouldn’t care about the suffering those people went through for no good reason, or the clear illegality of their detention, and the blatant violation of their constitutional rights at the express order of John Ashcroft. These were people who were not suspected of any involvement in the attacks, and they agreed to be deported; there were no grounds on which to hold them, and no reason to do so, and yet they suffered terribly and you don’t give a damn. Figures.
I’ve seen first-hand accounts from some of those detainees, and I know for a fact that there was never any evidence linking them to the attacks, or any reason to believe they had anything to do with them. It was reasonable to hold them for a day or two while everything was confused and people were trying to sort out what had happened, but there was no excuse for holding them after that. They should have been deported as soon as planes were flying again.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 9/10/2011 @ 9:08 pm🙄 Oh another right wing bleeding heart.
DohBiden (d54602) — 9/10/2011 @ 9:10 pmNo, what should that tell us? Suppose Giuliani or Pataki had won the 2008 R nomination, do you think he would have carried NY? Suppose Romney had won it; would he have carried MA? Surely not. Would that have meant anything? Again, surely not.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 9/10/2011 @ 9:14 pmIf we’re not protecting people’s rights then what is the point of the whole thing? What is the point of preserving the USA if it betrays the only justification it has for existing?
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 9/10/2011 @ 9:15 pmI think Gore’s definition covers a whole lot of persons including Al Marri, who had attended a terrorist camp, and was supporting operations through credit card fraud,
ian cormac (d69b60) — 9/10/2011 @ 9:15 pmOh spare me you wimp if I don’t shed a tear over a terrorists indefinite detention.
DohBiden (d54602) — 9/10/2011 @ 9:25 pmThey were not terrrorists. They were decent people, every bit as decent as you, and no more deserved what was done to them than you do.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 9/10/2011 @ 9:36 pm“It stands to reason that you wouldn’t care about the suffering those people went through for no good reason, or the clear illegality of their detention, and the blatant violation of their constitutional rights at the express order of John Ashcroft.”
Milhouse – Just blow me. It stands to reason that you are just butt hurt and acting like a child.
Read the DOJ report on the detentions. The rationale for the detentions is spelled out there in detail. There was nothing illegal about it. The time it took to clear people is what was a disgrace.
Grow up.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/10/2011 @ 9:55 pm“They were not terrrorists. They were decent people, every bit as decent as you, and no more deserved what was done to them than you do.”
Milhouse – This was known for a fact before those people were immigration violations to determine if they had any connection to terrorism or the events of 9/11? Your assertions are laughable. Read the DOJ report and try again.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/10/2011 @ 9:59 pmMillhouse must be a bleeding heart paulnut.
DohBiden (d54602) — 9/10/2011 @ 10:00 pmMilhouse – For your delectation and note the involvement of the usual suspects on the terror supporting left:
I. BACKGROUND
On September 11, 2001, terrorists hijacked four airplanes and flew two of them into the World Trade Center Towers in New York City and one into the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia. The fourth plane crashed into a field in southwestern Pennsylvania before it could strike a target in Washington, D.C. The attacks killed more than 3,100 people, including all 246 people aboard the 4 airplanes.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) immediately initiated a massive investigation, called “PENTTBOM,” into this coordinated terrorist attack. The FBI investigation focused on identifying the terrorists who hijacked the airplanes and anyone who aided their efforts. In addition, the FBI worked with other federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies to prevent follow-up attacks in this country and against U.S. interests abroad.
Shortly after the attacks, the Attorney General directed the FBI and other federal law enforcement personnel to use “every available law enforcement tool” to arrest persons who “participate in, or lend support to, terrorist activities.”1 One of the principal responses by law enforcement authorities after the September 11 attacks was to use the federal immigration laws to detain aliens suspected of having possible ties to terrorism. Within 2 months of the attacks, law enforcement authorities had detained, at least for questioning, more than 1,200 citizens and aliens nationwide.2 Many of these individuals were questioned and subsequently released without being charged with a criminal or immigration offense. Many others, however, were arrested and detained for violating federal immigration law.
Our review determined that the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) detained 762 aliens as a result of the PENTTBOM investigation. Of these 762 aliens, 24 were in INS custody on immigration violations prior to the September 11 attacks. The remaining 738 aliens were arrested between September 11, 2001, and August 6, 2002, as a direct result of the FBI’s PENTTBOM investigation. All 762 detainees were placed on what became known as an “INS Custody List” because of the FBI’s assessment that they may have had a connection to the September 11 attacks or terrorism in general, or because the FBI was unable, at least initially, to determine whether they were connected to terrorism.
The Government held these aliens in a variety of federal, local, and private detention facilities across the United States while the FBI investigated them for ties to the September 11 attacks or terrorism in general. These facilities included several Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) institutions such as the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, New York; the Federal Detention Center in Oakdale, Louisiana; and the U.S. Penitentiary in Leavenworth, Kansas; INS facilities such as the Krome Service Processing Center in Miami, Florida; and state and local facilities under contract with the INS to house federal immigration detainees, such as the Passaic County Jail in Paterson, New Jersey, and the Hudson County Correctional Center in Kearny, New Jersey.
Soon after these detentions began, the media began to report allegations of mistreatment of the detainees. For example, detainees and their attorneys alleged that the detainees were not informed of the charges against them for extended periods of time; were not permitted contact with attorneys, their families, and embassy officials; remained in detention even though they had no involvement in terrorism; or were physically abused, verbally abused, and mistreated in other ways while detained.
Several individual detainees and non-profit organizations filed lawsuits against the Department of Justice (Department) protesting the lack of public information about the detainees and the length and conditions of the detainees’ confinement. For example, the Center for National Security Studies brought suit against the Department under the Freedom of Information Act seeking information about the detainees, including their names and where they were being held.3 Five detainees filed a class action lawsuit alleging they were physically abused, verbally abused, and held without a legitimate immigration or law enforcement purpose long after they received final removal or voluntary departure orders.4 In addition, advocacy organizations such as Amnesty International and the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights issued reports asserting mistreatment of the detainees or mishandling of their cases.5
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/10/2011 @ 10:04 pmFrom the Pipes article:
This is also the philosophy that has given us streets dominated by gangs and vagrants–they are wonderful folks, just ‘unfamiliar’!
Patricia (1832e5) — 9/10/2011 @ 10:11 pm89.He lost his own state, doesn’t that tell you everything,
No, what should that tell us? Suppose Giuliani or Pataki had won the 2008 R nomination, do you think he would have carried NY? Suppose Romney had won it; would he have carried MA? Surely not. Would that have meant anything? Again, surely not.
Comment by Milhouse
The point is made that a candidate in a national election should do well in their home state, especially if they are going to be competitive in the election. Perhaps the person who made the statement over-reached a bit, perhaps intentionally because the desire was to quickly make a general statement. While you give some suggestions of scenarios where this would not be true, those are the exceptions, not the rule.
I don’t know why it seems you’re eager to stir up arguments these days.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 9/10/2011 @ 10:17 pmI’m not eager to stir up arguments; people are just making stupid statements, like this one that a presidential candidate ought to carry his own state. Someone, I’m not sure whether it was ian, even proposed that the constitution be amended to disqualify any candidate who doesn’t carry his own state. That’s just stupid.
It’s not my fault that there are some very stupid people here who insist on challenging me.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 9/10/2011 @ 10:30 pm“It’s not my fault that there are some very stupid people here who insist on challenging me.”
Hahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/10/2011 @ 10:37 pmYou must remember your place in life.
A. Weiner (ff6763) — 9/10/2011 @ 10:39 pmTheir presence hardly shows that the case has no merit. I know some of the people involved in some of the lawsuits, and they’re hardly leftists. They’re just decent Americans, unlike you.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 9/10/2011 @ 10:41 pmTranslation-If your not a putz yyour not decent.
STFU millhouseturd.
DohBiden (d54602) — 9/10/2011 @ 10:43 pmSo I guess Avigdor Lieberman is like Jorg Haider right millhouse?
Islam is not a race.
DohBiden (d54602) — 9/10/2011 @ 10:45 pm“Their presence hardly shows that the case has no merit.”
Milhouse – Not my claim. Your claim that they were not terrorists was not information that could have been known in advance of any investigation. Forming an argument with hindsight is always easy.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/10/2011 @ 10:45 pmExactly with these people anyone who defends Israel and opposes Islamocommunism are racists.
DohBiden (d54602) — 9/10/2011 @ 10:47 pmMilhouse Report Card:
Does not play well with others
Always certain and sometimes right
Will not admit he is wrong
Sulks and insults others rather than admit he is wrong
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/10/2011 @ 10:49 pmHuh? Is that from Nonsequiturs `r’ us? (“We may not make sense, but we like pizza!”)
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 9/10/2011 @ 10:55 pmIn many cases it was clear within two days that they were not terrorists.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 9/10/2011 @ 10:56 pmMake that “does not play well with fascist pigs and idiots”.
Bull. On the rare occasions that I’ve been proven wrong I have admitted it. I’m still waiting for apologies from SPQR and AD.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 9/10/2011 @ 10:57 pmClear to whom?
A. Weiner (ff6763) — 9/10/2011 @ 10:58 pmlinks please
Clear to anyone who looked at them, or spoke to them for more than 10 minutes, or who read their file. There was no reason to suspect any connection to terrorism in the first place. And the conditions under which they were detained, the treatment they suffered while in detention were horrible and unconscionable.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 9/10/2011 @ 11:00 pmdoes not play well with fascist pigs and idiots
SPAR, shall we draw straws (though you do have the Roman handle and they used what as a symbol)?
Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (ff6763) — 9/10/2011 @ 11:01 pmDamn…
Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (ff6763) — 9/10/2011 @ 11:01 pm“SPQR”!
Non sequiturs?
you mean like calling us ruthless evil minded pigs because we want terrorists dead?
Why don’t you leave this country paulnut.
DohBiden (d54602) — 9/10/2011 @ 11:16 pmNo, because you’re a ruthless evil-minded pig.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 9/10/2011 @ 11:24 pmWell, since I don’t think I’m a fascist pig, then I count as an idiot.
One can find a list of presidential candidates who won the election but lost their home state here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_major-party_United_States_presidential_candidates_who_lost_their_home_state
One question is what is the “home state”, where the person was born or where they reside at the time of the election. If one does a hybrid “the state one associates with a candidate”, then 2 have done it, James Polk and Woodrow Wilson.
So, if one looks to history, it is unusual to have a candidate who can’t win their own state win the election. Is it impossible? No, especially if a Repub is coming from a “blue state” for eg, such as Romney, Bachmann could conceivably win the election without their state.
Good night.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 9/10/2011 @ 11:43 pmHmm
Anyway, my guess is that there’s more to some of these situations than we are publicly aware of. Reasons to suspect folks might not be public knowledge, for example. This country hasn’t been perfect, but this is a war, and the mistakes and excesses have been few, considering the circumstances.
According to which unbiased, non-nutcase source?
Oh, that’s a smart, serious argument. If you find nothing in ten minutes, there’s nothing to see there. I mean, the stakes are so low in a 9/12 world, after all.
Dustin (b2fb78) — 9/10/2011 @ 11:47 pmLooking for an apology for me? I’ve no clue what for, but learn to live with disappointment.
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/11/2011 @ 12:37 amlearn to live with disappointment.
Comment by SPQR —
Sounds like a good motto for your restaurant (search for Ernie).
Hmm
Dustin (b2fb78) — 9/11/2011 @ 12:54 amWell I didn’t mean to be so argumentative, because he lost his own state, the status of my own became
ian cormac (d69b60) — 9/11/2011 @ 5:51 amdeterminative, and hence the fraud engendered by Wexler’s public relations campaign to spin a few incidents into the notion that thousands had voted
for Pat Buchanan, in order to create a crisis not unlike that which Hayes suffered for all his term in office,
“Clear to anyone who looked at them, or spoke to them for more than 10 minutes, or who read their file.”
Milhouse – Clearly you have sources and methods unavailable to the FBI. Demand to train their incompetent agents.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/11/2011 @ 5:56 am“…the fact that 9/11 happened just after Bush’s return from one of the longest vacations in presidential history.”
Compare and contrast with Pearl Harbor where the great geniuses of liberalism got caught off guard by practically the entire Japanese military, in Hawaii, in the Philippines…all over the Pacific…and that’s after they’d deliberately provoked a confrontation with Japan AND they’d cracked some Japanese codes.
Even though they knew the Japanese were about to attack us…They STILL got caught by surprise.
For that matter compare and conrast 9/11 with the surprise attack carried out by the Wehrmacht in the Ardennes Forest in December 1944. Getting caught by surprise by a handful of disguised terrorists is one thing, getting caught off guard by several German armies in the middle of a war…that takes some doing.
If I was a lefty…I’d just shut up about surprise attacks. Liberals aren’t in much of a position to talk.
Dave Surls (8eb395) — 9/11/2011 @ 8:49 amYes, it’s unusual. So what? It stands to reason that a Republican leader is more likely to come from a Republican state than from a heavily Democratic one, and vice versa. But that’s descriptive, not prescriptive. What ian cormack is proposing is prescriptive; that the fact that a candidate doesn’t carry his home state demonstrates his unfitness for the presidency. And that is one of the most idiotic ideas I have ever heard in my life.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 9/11/2011 @ 9:28 amFor your behaviour in the discussion of the 16th amendment. You claimed to speak from a position of authority, by reason of having taught a class on the subject, and on this basis insulted both my intelligence and my integrity; and yet when I clearly demonstrated that I was right in everything I’d written and you were wrong in everything you’d written, all you could say was “Meh”. You didn’t even try to rebut my argument, because you couldn’t; I expected, therefore, an acknowledgment that you were mistaken, an apology for your insults, and thanks for now being better informed. “Meh” is not it.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 9/11/2011 @ 9:36 amMillhouse is an ass.
DohBiden (d54602) — 9/11/2011 @ 9:44 amAnd in this case there weren’t any. DOJ has already admitted that they’re completely innocent. If there was a reason to suspect them at the time, it would have been produced in the lawsuits.
True. And this is relevant how?
According to the detainees’ sworn affidavits, which are not contradicted by any “unbiased non-nutcase source”.
There was never any reason to suspect them in the first place. They were swept up in the initial panic and confusion. It’s reasonable that in the first few days nobody was released, because it took some time for people to get a handle on what had happened, and what sort of person might have been involved in it, and in the meantime nobody wanted to be the fool who released a terrorist. So a few days of wrongful detention can be excused; we’re so sorry, we’re all human, anybody’d have done the same, let bygones be bygones.
But in many of these cases it really didn’t take more than reading their files, and having a 10-minute conversation with them, to realise that there was no more reason to hold them than there was to hold you or me or any random person walking down the street. Since DOJ didn’t go rounding up every person in America, or random people walking down the street, it had no excuse for holding these people either. What distinguished them from all the people who weren’t arrested? Just the bad luck of having been stopped by the police that day, which means nothing. And indeed once the panic had worn down and there was time to read the files and have those 10-minute conversations, those detainees who were in the country legally were released immediately. So there was no excuse for not deporting immediately those who were in the country illegally, or else releasing them.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 9/11/2011 @ 9:54 amdoh
Milhouse seems to try to be making a olid fact base argument – whether everyone agrees with his conclusions – I dont know
That – I have found – doesnt sit very well with many commentators here
EricPWJohnson (2925ff) — 9/11/2011 @ 9:54 amUm……………no he is a bleeding heart jackass.
DohBiden (d54602) — 9/11/2011 @ 9:55 amNo, that’s not it, I’m really not getting through,
ian cormac (d69b60) — 9/11/2011 @ 9:55 amtoday, it’s because he lost his own state, that the contest ended up in Florida, with all the ‘bells
and whistles’ of the Soros/Fenton effort, with Michael Moore being himself, and Bugliosi, losing it for the first of two times that decade.
I have no methods unavailable to them. They held and tortured these people out of pure malice.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 9/11/2011 @ 9:56 amMilhouse
Arguing with facts with some of these guys doesnt ork, they will go the route of:
1. Twisting your conclusions 180 degrees
2. Outright lying
3. Accusing you of being a liar
4. And just school yard name calling
To cover up their lack of knowledge, or their disinterest in researching the topic, or just general bad behavior and poor manners
EricPWJohnson (2925ff) — 9/11/2011 @ 10:00 amThe same is true of every state he lost. I don’t see why Tennessee is special, just because he’s from there. Tennessee is a Republican state, and in an evenly balanced election it should be expected to go Republican. The fact that the Democrat is from there shouldn’t be expected to be worth more than a few percent, which isn’t enough to swing it.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 9/11/2011 @ 10:01 amDoh
Really – are you a mass murderer, a wife beater?
OF COURSE you are none of these and if anyone called you these for reals
So why call names? What possible credibility do you give not only yourself but this site.
EricPWJohnson (2925ff) — 9/11/2011 @ 10:02 amNext I’ll be called a liberal! (Which I am, but only in the sense it had before the “Progressives” stole it, just as they steal everything else, because respect for others’ property is a bourgeois value.)
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 9/11/2011 @ 10:05 amDoh
And if anyone called you vicious names I would be the first to defend you
But your name calling is reaching an angry edge that going to result in retailiation that you may not really like. Some people when totally offended I have seen go on for months on rediculously pyrric vendettas that just end up in a whole lot of nothing
Just think about it – so if you dont like what Milhouse is saying dont respond
EricPWJohnson (2925ff) — 9/11/2011 @ 10:07 amAlright.
DohBiden (d54602) — 9/11/2011 @ 10:22 am“Clear to anyone who looked at them, or spoke to them for more than 10 minutes, or who read their file.”
Milhouse – Can you share your techniques of looking at someone and determining that they are not a terrorist or someone who aids and abets terrorists? Such knowledge would be very helpful to the TSA.
How do you feel about immigration violations? Are you an open borders type guy? Are immigration laws just another example of “unjust laws” you do not think should be obeyed. Great man Ron Paul had a Checkpoint Charlie moment in Wednesday night’s debate and suggested that a fence along our Southern border is more to keep Americans from leaving than Mexicans from entering.
You two seem equally excitable and misinformed.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/11/2011 @ 10:32 amThe liberal anti-war activists are all of a sudden silent when a Democrat is in office except for a rare few.
DohBiden (d54602) — 9/11/2011 @ 10:35 amMillhouse will go on a long winded rant about nativists and then insist your burning strawmen when you call him out for it.
DohBiden (d54602) — 9/11/2011 @ 10:37 amIn the FWIW department:
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 9/11/2011 @ 10:45 amTennessee is a Republican state, and in an evenly balanced election it should be expected to go Republican.
– Gore was elected in a state-wide election, not a regional one where local conditions (eg an urban area) were of primary importance. One thing I think may be important, is that Gore was elected as a “conservative democrat” such as being pro-life, back when such things were still imaginable.
– This is one reason I’ve been very skeptical of Santorum running. But Nixon won after previously losing his last election, so who knows.
I have no methods unavailable to them. They held and tortured these people out of pure malice.
Comment by Milhouse
Read Unbroken if you want to know about torture out of pure malice.
Survival of POW’s in WWII-
under Nazis: 99% (US and major allies)
under Imperial Japan: 70-75% (US and major allies of those admitted to have been captured)
US SEALS were up for courts-martial for supposedly “roughing up” a butcher from Fallujah with little evidence. I find it hard to believe there was significant “torture out of pure malice”.
I’ll not for one minute claim that the US is perfect, but the US trains it’s people how to be understanding to Muslim prisoners while Muslim terrorists train their folk how to cut off heads, and Muslim nations hold hikers indefinitely found in the middle of nowhere as opposed to US holding people from terrorist training areas.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 9/11/2011 @ 10:55 am+100, MD in Philly.
ColonelHaiku (601b0d) — 9/11/2011 @ 11:19 ameyes of a terrorist…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T55ArHjeR1c&feature=related
ColonelHaiku (601b0d) — 9/11/2011 @ 11:24 am–Comment by EricPWJohnson — 9/11/2011 @ 10:00 am–
“Milhouse
Arguing with facts with some of these guys doesnt ork, they will go the route of:
1. Twisting your conclusions 180 degrees
2. Outright lying
3. Accusing you of being a liar
…”
The clearest example I have seen here of #2 is you claiming that JD made death threats to you. I called you a liar for this, is that what you mean by #3? I stand by it.
You owe JD a retraction. You owe JD and the administrator you lied to an apology.
I apologize to others for being off topic here but the whining hypocrisy in this comment was just too loud for me to ignore.
Machinist (b6f7da) — 9/11/2011 @ 11:30 amMD, in what way is any of your comment at 10:55 relevant to the topic? Are you under the impression that these prisoners were being held by highly-trained US servicemen? Or even that they were all (or almost all) Moslem? You’re right that the USA is imperfect, but these people would probably have been better off if they’d been held at Guantanamo. And odds are they’d have been released from GTMO a lot faster than they were released from the Brooklyn Detention Center.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 9/11/2011 @ 11:30 amThat’s not the relevant standard. There was no need to prove they were not terrorists; the onus was on those holding them to have at least a reasonable suspicion, if not probable cause, that they were. There was no more reason to suspect them than there was to suspect anybody else.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 9/11/2011 @ 11:32 amYes, but as you yourself point out on the very next line:
That does not in any way resemble the Algore who ran for the presidency in 2000. That Algore should not have been expected to carry Tennessee, unless the election was already running heavily in his favour.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 9/11/2011 @ 11:34 amNumber 7 is probably the best comment here:
There would have been at least one more major terrorist attack on America in the next two years after 9-11. Bin Laden would have seen Gore’s response as, again, weakness and pounced. After that, it would have been interesting!
Nobody knows what would have happened. But the war in Afghanistan was hardly a foregone conclusion. After Bush wanted to do something more than just firing a few cruise missiles into Afghanistan, George Tenet of the CIA did give a plan for winning in Afghanistan. It was by no means supposed to be a foregone conclusion that it would work. If not enough had happened, the most logical thing to expect might have been another attack after a year or two, which would have brought about a different response. Gore would have also arranged for the filing of a big indictment and intensified diplomatic pressure on various countries, which would have had a limited effect.
There is one important point that should be made: While it’s true that Al Gore likely would have done a much more inadequate job, especially in the short run, it is quite possible that another President (maybe not anyone who was actually ever on the ballot) would have done a better job than George W. Bush did.
One thing I didn’t like was George Bush saying that war would not be over in our lifetime. That shows you he was accepting pessimistic intelligence. Another mistake is he didn’t get more translators and he allowed to exclude many people from consideration for being hired (anyone with close ties to Israel) And they did a bunch of stupid things with foreigners. They weren’t able to easily distinguish truth from fiction. Someone from New York City should have been brought in to take over the CIA and the FBI. There would also have been investigations for possible corruption.
Osama bin Laden should not have been allowed to escape Tora Bora and the mistake there was trusting Pakistan to guard their side of the mountain.
Comment number 1 is also good. Iraq might not have been invaded, but Libya would also have retained its secret nuclear program and Iran wouldn’t have partially shut down its program.
The mistake in Iraq was not understanding that there were other potential enemies there than Saddam Hussein and his Ba’ath Party. Also letting all kinds of valuable intelligence information be destroyed.
Brent Budowski: Had Gore been briefed by intelligence officers as Bush was in August 2001 about terrorist planes attacking buildings, Gore would have put our services on red alert and might well have prevented 9/11.
This is wrongheaded in so many different ways. First, there never would have been any briefing except for the fact that when George W. Bush was being warned about possible attacks on the summit in Genoa, he asked what about attacks in the United States? That’s what caused that briefing to be made in the first place. And what it said, of course, wasn’t much. Just that there was very good reason to believe that Osama bin Laden was still determined to attack the United States. And it basically assured the president that nothing likely would be successful.
Sammy Finkelman (d3de3a) — 9/11/2011 @ 11:48 amEricPW has a lot of nerve to whine about lying.
DohBiden (d54602) — 9/11/2011 @ 11:49 amHere is an interesting counter-factual involving Al Gore published in New York Magazine in September 2006.
Andrew Sullivan blogs from a parallel world
http://nymag.com/news/features/19147/index1.html
The theme they asked a number of writers to write about was What If 9/11 Never Happened?
In this scenario the given Al Qaeda does not attack on September 11th so that is not caused by anything somebody in the U.S. does differently.
Sullivan has Al Gore winning a rematch in 2004 and Al Qaeda making later, more deadly,different attacks.
The scenario breaks off sometime after there is an Islamist military coup in Pakistan and we have news that Pakistan has funneled nuclear material to Al Qaeda cells in the U.S.
Sammy Finkelman (d3de3a) — 9/11/2011 @ 12:09 pmSF, you might want to review some other points-of-view…
“…To her shock, she was told the (FBI) Arab linguists
were celebrating the terrorist attacks on America, as if they were some
joyous event. Right in front of her supervisor, one translator cheered:”It’s about time they got a taste of what they’ve been giving the Middle East.
http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=14210
H/T- Barry Rubin @ PJM via Instapundit
Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (379fae) — 9/11/2011 @ 12:13 pm149.Gore was elected in a state-wide election, not a regional one where local conditions (eg an urban area) were of primary importance.
Yes, but as you yourself point out on the very next line:
One thing I think may be important, is that Gore was elected as a “conservative democrat” such as being pro-life, back when such things were still imaginable.
That does not in any way resemble the Algore who ran for the presidency in 2000. That Algore should not have been expected to carry Tennessee, unless the election was already running heavily in his favour.
Comment by Milhouse
Milhouse, you’re picking an argument even when you agree with my point. That’s what I was saying, that the Al Gore running for President was not running with the same views that got him elected in Tennessee originally.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 9/11/2011 @ 12:13 pm“That’s not the relevant standard.”
Milhouse – Why did you introduce a standard you now claim is irrelevant to the thread?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/11/2011 @ 12:17 pm“…One thing I didn’t like was George Bush saying that war would not be over in our lifetime…”
Perhaps that is why it is referred to in many circles as “The Long War”;
and that term is a reflection upon the determination that this in an ongoing struggle between Islam and the West that began 1300 +/- years ago.
But, other than that, we can’t have our leaders actually telling us the truth, it’s so demoralizing:
Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (379fae) — 9/11/2011 @ 12:23 pmI mean, OMG, what will this do to my scheduled vacation/sabbatical/my 6-year old daughter’s Cotillion (whatever)?
Individualism, and all that goes with it, can be great.
But many forget that without the survival of a society that promotes individualism, there can be no individual, only serfs.
And in the Tribal Society that Islam thrives is, there are a very few leaders (tribal chiefs), and all the rest are serfs.
Why did you introduce a standard you now claim is irrelevant to the thread?
Answers to that are way above our pay-grades (consult DSM-IV).
Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (379fae) — 9/11/2011 @ 12:26 pmYes. For instance, Dick Cheney.
Also his attempt to turn Israel into Czechoslovakia. For all the good he did, and he did a lot of good, he is the first president to openly call for a “Palestinian” state. Everyone knew that Clinton supported that, but he never dared to say so out loud; Bush rushed in and said it, and — even worse — seems to have believed that it would be a good thing.
I’m not sure how it could have been done better. There weren’t enough US forces available to send there, and there wasn’t enough time to bring in more. I think Bush did the best he could in the circumstances.
The mistake in both Iraq and Afghanistan was to stay after the immediate objective had been achieved, and engage in nation-building, which Bush had criticised Clinton for during the election campaign. The USA would have been better off going in, doing what was necessary, and then pulling out, even if that meant that they’d have to go in again in a year or two. Better to have to invade every few years, then to remain as a permanent occupier. But this is a hard lesson to learn, and a hard policy to apply. Israel made the same mistake in Lebanon, and got stuck there for over two decades, and when they finally ran away with their tail between their legs it looked like a surrender, and thus led to even worse problems. Had they left as soon as they’d destroyed the PLO, the withdrawal would have been seen as a victory instead of a defeat.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 9/11/2011 @ 12:27 pmHuh? You introduced it.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 9/11/2011 @ 12:29 pmYou’re the one picking an argument. The claim I’ve been challenging is that losing ones own state makes someone less fit for the presidency. You evidently don’t agree with that claim. So why have you been disputing my challenges against it?
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 9/11/2011 @ 12:31 pmmilly now seems to be arguing with the voices in its head.
Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (379fae) — 9/11/2011 @ 12:39 pmHuh? What’s that in reference to? Daleyrocks is the one who seems to think that the detainees should not have been released unless it could proven that they were not terrorists. That’s not the standard, and you know it. The government can’t go around arresting people at random, and making them prove they’re not criminals. That’s not America.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 9/11/2011 @ 12:50 pmThat makes you a hypocrite.
DohBiden (d54602) — 9/11/2011 @ 12:51 pmAD, I’m still waiting for your apology on the 16th amendment discussion. You insulted me personally, and I have now proven that you were wrong and I was right, so it’s time for you to acknowledge that.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 9/11/2011 @ 12:51 pmWhat makes whom a hypocrite, and why?
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 9/11/2011 @ 12:52 pmSo has a winner been declared yet in the “let’s unzip and see who’s got the biggest penis” contest here and continued from a previous thread? (eyeroll)
elissa (af69a9) — 9/11/2011 @ 1:03 pm#166, I win.
S. Carter aka J-Z (8d652e) — 9/11/2011 @ 1:06 pmWhy are you such a hater, Elissa?
JD (318f81) — 9/11/2011 @ 1:07 pmI don’t think so, elissa, but I think the zippers are going to want revenge soon… ouch.
Apparently there is a dispute whether we are disputing what someone said we were disputing, or are we disputing about someone said someone said we were disputing about. If that made sense, reread until it doesn’t.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 9/11/2011 @ 1:11 pm#169, I thought we were debating who has a bigger penis?
S. Carter aka J-Z (8d652e) — 9/11/2011 @ 1:15 pmTe contest of who is the biggest penis has a clear and undisputed winner. Epwj claimed that prize multiple times.
JD (318f81) — 9/11/2011 @ 1:18 pmYes, but who has him?
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 9/11/2011 @ 1:25 pmThis seems to be a common problem here. I assume people in a discussion keep track of what it’s about; evidently some people don’t.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 9/11/2011 @ 1:26 pmI work here is done.
elissa (af69a9) — 9/11/2011 @ 1:31 pmAD, I’m still waiting for your apology on the 16th amendment discussion. You insulted me personally, and I have now proven that you were wrong and I was right, so it’s time for you to acknowledge that.
Comment by Milhouse — 9/11/2011 @ 12:51 pm
Well, since we’re all waiting for apologies and all, I want everyone to know that I’m mortally and perpetually offended at being called a “socialist” [sic!] by Milhouse in a thread from I think it was about a week ago now (I’ll go check so I can give you the exact days and hours I’ve been waiting).
And…since IIRC I didn’t get a reply to my last point on that thread I will declare myself the winner and I expect Milhouse to publicly and in writing, this day and in fact no later, acknowledge that “fact.”
And I will not rest, nor will I ever leave the topic, until I receive my due obseqiousnessly expressed repentance and said acknowledgement.
(OK I can’t keep the outrage up. here’s the link to my actual reaction)
……..
Come on, Milhouse. All due respect, this ia a blog. It’s not the Supreme Court, nor a duel with gauntlets and pistols. We’re expressing our opinions and interpreting facts on these threads, about serious topics, and sometimes things get a bit heated when that happens. Isn’t this type of rather humorless and childish posturing beneath you?
I think it is.
Unless your actual goal is to, as daleyrocks, MD in Philly and others mentioned it seems above, just to start fights. Which you say isn’t true. And I’m inclined to believe you, since speaking the truth is obviously important to you, but your apparent pugnaciousness lately isn’t bearing out your claim.
no one you know (11a076) — 9/11/2011 @ 1:37 pmI work here is done.
Comment by elissa — 9/11/2011 @ 1:31 pm
Heh. +1
no one you know (11a076) — 9/11/2011 @ 1:38 pmobseqiousnessly = obsequiously. That’ll teach me to use the big words. 🙂
no one you know (11a076) — 9/11/2011 @ 1:41 pm“When Hell freezes over!”
Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (379fae) — 9/11/2011 @ 2:00 pm“Um……………no he is a bleeding heart jackass.”
Nah, I think Millhouse has a good point.
A few people were briefly detained by mistake after the 9/11 attacks, and they should be promptly compensated for the inconvenience.
Unlike the millions and millions of people in this country who get handouts form the government…these guys are actually entitled to it.
Dave Surls (36286e) — 9/11/2011 @ 2:02 pmYou’re the one picking an argument. The claim I’ve been challenging is that losing ones own state makes someone less fit for the presidency. You evidently don’t agree with that claim. So why have you been disputing my challenges against it?
Comment by Milhouse
Per my reference, only 2 presidents (Polk and Wilson) won the presidency while losing their “home state”. So while it is not true that losing a home state always means losing the presidency, it would seem there is a significant predictive value.
Now, you use the phrase “less fit”. I’m not sure how to discuss electibility as to being a good (or “fit”) president. Lots of people who are unelectable would make better presidents than many we have elected
173.Apparently there is a dispute whether we are disputing what someone said we were disputing, or are we disputing about someone said someone said we were disputing about.
This seems to be a common problem here. I assume people in a discussion keep track of what it’s about; evidently some people don’t.
Comment by Milhouse — 9/11/2011
My comment was meant to be a humorous defusing of this interchange. I assume you are smart enough to have known that, but are not in the mood for a de-escalation.
Unless your actual goal is to, as daleyrocks, MD in Philly and others mentioned it seems above, just to start fights. Which you say isn’t true. And I’m inclined to believe you, since speaking the truth is obviously important to you, but your apparent pugnaciousness lately isn’t bearing out your claim.
Comment by no one you know
noyk, prior to this thread I never thought of Milhouse in any negative way. My comments about wanting to start fights was purely based, and intended to refer to, this interchange. It appears that you have noticed his recent pugnaciousness as well.
Pulling up my zipper (figuratively) and taking my electrons and going home.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 9/11/2011 @ 2:02 pmMilhouse I meant…not Millhouse.
Dave Surls (36286e) — 9/11/2011 @ 2:04 pmThank you. But I’m not even concerned about their brief detention. In the circumstances, that was understandable. People were panicked, and they did unreasonable things. The problem is that the detentions were not brief; they went on for over a month, long after the initial panic had time to wear off, and decent people suffered more than mere inconvenience. Again, I speak not from mere rumour or news reports, but from having read some of these people’s affidavits. There but for the grace of God could have been any of us.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 9/11/2011 @ 2:09 pm“Daleyrocks is the one who seems to think that the detainees should not have been released unless it could proven that they were not terrorists.”
Milhouse – Why not try reading my actual comments (See #94) instead of resorting to knee jerk insults, putz. You still have not explained your assertion how the FBI could have determined the people it detained were not terrorists or connected to terrorism merely by looking at them. Inquiring minds want to know how that works. You have not explained whether violations of laws concerning immigration should be ignore under your philosophy of ignoring “unjust laws” or whether one has any business even obeying the constitution under your philosophy since you claim there you have no responsibility to the government. Why should the government obey it’s own documents if you feel no such compulsion?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/11/2011 @ 2:11 pmYes, there is. That was never in dispute.
It was never about electability. The entire point of my comments on the subject was to challenge the claim that not carrying his own state says something about a candidate’s fitness for the office itself, rather than merely about his chances of attaining it. This is the same commenter who on a previous thread suggested a constitutional amendment to disqualify a winning candidate who happens to lose his own state! Now do you see my point?
Many a truth is said in jest. Humorous or not, you put your finger on the problem, so I saw fit to acknowledge that.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 9/11/2011 @ 2:15 pmComment by Milhouse — 9/11/2011 @ 2:09 pm
This will probably be the last time I respond to anything you write, so you should, or should not (it’s entirely up to you), pay attention:
Have you ever worked in an investigative roll?
Have you ever worked in an intell-analyst roll?
Do you know how long it takes to cross all the “t’s” and dot all the “i’s” (remembering that the meme in the aftermath of 9/11 was that we were derelect in “connnecting the dots”) when you’re dealing with people who have foreign backgrounds, and you have to attempt to get corroborating evidence, pro or con, out of a foreign bureaucracy that may or may not be hostile to you?
And, are you going to cut corners because it “feels right” when you know if you “screw the pooch” and get it wrong, that someone (or more) is going to die?
If you’ve never been “on the front line”, don’t criticize those that are for trying to do the very best job they can, which ultimately means they’re trying to keep you, and millions like you, alive and safe from a future attack that may, or may not, be in the cards.
I think (my opinion) is that you have a romanticized view of the world and how things work, without any exposure to the nitty-gritty of what life is really like, and how hard it can be to reach an iron-clad decision.
It is not for nothing that it is said when talking about intell, that we have to succeed every damn time, whereas our enemies only have to get lucky once!
Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (379fae) — 9/11/2011 @ 2:25 pmSince 9/11, we have – and they haven’t;
and it is entirely due to the fact that no-one wants to be the one who “screws the pooch”.
and another thing:
Life ain’t Fair, get over it!
Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (379fae) — 9/11/2011 @ 2:25 pmThey didn’t need to determine definitively that they were not terrorists, but merely that there was no reason to suspect them of any connection to terrorism. And that could be determined by reviewing their files and a 10-minute conversation. That would be enough for any reasonable person to determine that these people were no more likely to be terrorists than any random person walking down the street.
Ignored by whom? Certainly immigration laws have no moral basis. Borders are arbitrary lines, and there’s nothing special about them that makes someone born on one side of them deserve a decent life while someone born on the other side does not. Mexicans and Guatemalans have just as much right as Americans to do all they honestly can to provide for their families, and no act of Congress can change that. (Especially not an act of a Congress they had no say in electing, for those who think taxation with representation would have been OK.)
Because the constitution is what establishes the government in the first place. Without the constitution the government has no right to exist; so if the government violates it then it’s automatically illegitimate. People don’t derive their right to exist from any paper or any external source; they’re “endowed by their Creator” with that right, as a document you hold dearly says. So by that document’s own terms why should they obey any external authority that they did not voluntarily accept?
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 9/11/2011 @ 2:27 pmAnd that could be determined by reviewing their files and a 10-minute conversation.
I call BS.
JD (318f81) — 9/11/2011 @ 2:30 pmAD, why is any of that necessary, when there was no reason to suspect these people in the first place? Who cares “how long it takes to cross all the “t’s” and dot all the “i’s””? What business did anyone have investigating them at all?
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 9/11/2011 @ 2:33 pmWhat would you expect if it were you or someone close to you in that situation, as it could easily have been?
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 9/11/2011 @ 2:34 pmWhether it was me or anyone else, it is BS to claim that a 10 minute investigations and conversation could clear someone.
JD (318f81) — 9/11/2011 @ 2:35 pm“…That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed,
that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of People to alter or to abolish it,
and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form,
as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness…”
Consent is transitory, be forewarned.
Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (379fae) — 9/11/2011 @ 2:38 pmWhat do you think it would take to “clear” you, enough that the state would have no right to hold you? How “clear” do you think you need to be for that? Do you think the government should be allowed to arrest you and hold you until you can prove that you are not a terrorist/bank robber/axe murderer/drug dealer?
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 9/11/2011 @ 2:38 pmYep. And consent to the establishment of a government does not equal consent to obey its laws. Government is a servant, not a master. Further, those who never consented in the first place are certainly not bound by it.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 9/11/2011 @ 2:41 pmPS: It was the nonjurors who claimed that consent to a sovereign’s rule, once given, could not be withdrawn. The founders of the USA were on the opposite side of that debate.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 9/11/2011 @ 2:41 pmSomeone who has never gone through a TS/CW background investigation has no idea of what is involved in checking every aspect of someone who may or may not be a threat to the security of the Nation.
Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (379fae) — 9/11/2011 @ 2:42 pmSuch checks can take over six-months. Some people are denied only because the agency cannot affirmatively deny what can be a specious claim in a report somewhere by an anonymous source.
Wow, is that the time? G2G! Sorry all.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 9/11/2011 @ 2:42 pmAD – bombast and self-importance seem to be substituted for rational thought.
JD (318f81) — 9/11/2011 @ 2:47 pmCoward.
Why is that some on the right are willing to side with ultra-left hypocritical code stinko skanks in regards to crying over inhumane treatment of terrorists?
DohBiden (d54602) — 9/11/2011 @ 2:57 pmMilhouse – It is your picking and choosing of laws to obey which is very, very confusing. You claim that the people detained after 9/11 were unconstitutionally detained and tortured. You don’t specify the portion of the people detained to which your claims apply. It matters not to you that people were detained on immigration law violations, because to you, immigration laws are silly and should be ignored. The constitution must be obeyed, but some laws legally made by congress are free to be ignored, and you will inform us which ones those are, because we are stupid according to your worldview, which should not be challenged, or you will get upset and start insulting people.
With no basis in fact or evidence you have asserted that it is possible to look at a foreign national or have a 10 minute conversation with one and make a determination whether they are a terrorist or a supporter of terrorism or by looking at some unspecified file. The source of your assertion/conviction remains known only to you absent your disclosure of some long history of work in anti-terrorism.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/11/2011 @ 3:04 pmSome people forget that though the Islamic World had, for all intents and purposes, declared War on the United States in 1979, we stumbled along thinking that we were too powerful to be harmed by a bunch of “camel jockeys”.
We ignored the impact of the Marine Barracks in Beirut,
we ignored the WTC bombing in’93,
Khobar Towers,
the Embassy bombings,
the Cole.
We, after all, were the “lone Super-Power” enjoying the fruits of “the end of history”, and we could effect regime change by bombing goat-herders in the Balkins from 30K feet,
or rearranging rocks in the desert with cruise-missiles.
But, 11 September 2001 was different.
On that day we (or at least the sentient, adults among us) knew that We Were At War!
The peacetime rules no longer applied.
Yes, we grow antsy having to engage in such a long struggle; but we have to remember what the alternative is.
For too many, that alternative has never been presented, or is rejected as unrealistic even though there are concrete examples in place around the world.
It is a willful denial of reality that can, and does, lead to the deaths of innocents – which is what happened on that day ten years ago.
May God let them find Peace, and condemn their killers to the Fires of Hades!
Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (379fae) — 9/11/2011 @ 3:08 pm______________________________________________
I’ll go into details if people ask (I’m tired), but it was obvious that Gore was a pathological liar during a televised debate with Bush.
Beyond that, I recall that one debate in 2000 when Al Gore oddly and strangely — and in an apparently goofy attempt to unnerve or intimidate George W Bush, or whatever — walked up towards Bush, towards the side of the stage his podium was sitting on. I recall Bush doing a double-take and sort of rolling his eyes in a “get him! what a weirdo!” sort of way. I believe Gore also was mocked for sighing loudly into the microphone during that or other debates with Bush.
Mark (411533) — 9/11/2011 @ 3:12 pmI recall Bush doing a double-take and sort of rolling his eyes in a “get him! what a weirdo!” sort of way…
Comment by Mark — 9/11/2011 @ 3:12 pm
Fun to have an excuse to link that; one of the most amusing moments of all three debates. Here’s that interesting combination of Alpha Male/Perseverating Detail Man mode.
no one you know (11a076) — 9/11/2011 @ 3:21 pmSo the Iraq War killing 4000 people is bad but if our libyan misadventure killed 8,319 people that is good,leftys are such hypocrites.
I think 9-11 should be a holiday but feel free to disagree.
DohBiden (d54602) — 9/11/2011 @ 3:25 pm“Beyond that, I recall that one debate in 2000 when Al Gore oddly and strangely — and in an apparently goofy attempt to unnerve or intimidate George W Bush, or whatever — walked up towards Bush”
Mark – I think Gore’s lesbian manliness coach advised him to do that.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/11/2011 @ 3:26 pmThat would be Naomi Wolf, who was predicting as REvel used to say ‘the long dark night of Fascism
ian cormac (d69b60) — 9/11/2011 @ 3:33 pmis descending on America’ but he snarked, it always falls on Europe.
That’s because all us “bitter clingers” are the real fascists of the world, Dontch know; and we are secretly in charge.
Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (379fae) — 9/11/2011 @ 3:50 pm9-11 should be a holiday for rememberance sorry.
DohBiden (d54602) — 9/11/2011 @ 4:37 pmFascism is progressiveism.
DohBiden (d54602) — 9/11/2011 @ 4:38 pmI considered this question about 9 years ago and concluded that Gore would have cut a deal that allowed American women to keep their clitorises intact in return for requiring that they wear burqas in public. Females would have been so grateful to Gore that he would still be president today.
j curtis (ccfad9) — 9/11/2011 @ 5:23 pmDude, there are idiots already who attempt to equate our singularly unique use of atomic weapons in warfare as somehow damning us to justifiably experience the same thing. Such an act would clearly, inevitably, justify THOSE idiots instead of people, like me, who call such morons blatant assholes.
Using nukes against a nation that uses them against you is tit-for-tat.
Using them to squash an enemy who lacks them is akin to pulling out a bazooka to kill someone who threatens you with a pen knife.
So, sorry, no, I don’t want the USA to ever use nukes as a first-strike weapon (I do exclude “specialty” nukes like bunker busters, mind you, assuming most of the blast occurs underground).
We can handle the first shot for the most part, against anyone except perhaps Russia at this point.
If we use them willfully ourselves, we can hardly cry “Foul” if someone decides to use them against us later.
Smock Puppet, Nuclear Arms Proponent (c9dcd8) — 9/11/2011 @ 10:35 pmMuslims worship a different god than us.
DohBiden (d54602) — 9/12/2011 @ 12:43 pm