The Most Ironic Iowa Caucuses Ever?
[Posted by Karl]
Ron Paul continues to lead PPP’s polling for the GOP caucuses in the Hawkeye State:
The last week and a half has brought little change in the standings for the Iowa Republican caucus: Ron Paul continues to lead Mitt Romney by a modest margin, 24-20. Newt Gingrich is in 3rd at 13% followed by Michele Bachmann at 11%, Rick Perry and Rick Santorum at 10%, Jon Huntsman at 4%, and Buddy Roemer at 2%.
Some continue to dismiss PPP’s polling because Paul’s support comes from young voters, independents and Democrats — the same pattern emerging in New Hampshire and South Carolina. However, last time around, the conventional wisdom was that John Edwards would win among Dems in Iowa because his voters were most likely to turn out. PPP’s Tom Jensen theorizes that the same blocs that lifted Obama in 2008 could do the same for Paul next week. I would take the PPP results with a grain of salt, but given Paul’s apparent organizational advantage, I would not summarily dismiss them (nor would I be surprised if one or more conservatives overachieved).
A Paul victory in Iowa would be ironic in both the short and long term. In the short-term, as Allahpundit keeps noting, a vote for Paul in Iowa is a vote to nominate Romney, supporter of the (state) health insurance mandate and neocon foreign policy.
That short-term irony is the product of the long-term irony. A Paul victory would only intensify the media scrutiny of Paul, longtime publisher of racist, anti-gay, conspiracy-mongering newsletters, in furtherance of an express political strategy, from which he made a lot of money, and for which Paul has given contradictory defenses. (On cue, the NYT editorial arrives this morning.) All of which comes before scrutiny of his fundraising from Holocaust deniers, his longtime association with the John Birch Society and neo-Confederates, his pandering to 9/11 Truthers, and so on. Paul’s media apologists, which now include (to varying degrees) Reason’s Nick Gillespie, Brian Doherty and Jacob Sullum, can make all the lame rationalizations and claims of moral equivalence they like, but it’s all one long exercise in denial. The stench of Paul’s newsletters would cling to his campaign and to libertarianism (and the GOP, if Paul was nominated) every bit as much as the stench of segregationists and Birchers clung to the Goldwater campaign, with effects that still linger today.
A certain strain of libertarians is so detached from political reality that they apparently believe they would profit by running the one Congressman who voted to not celebrate the 40th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act against the first black president. The reality-based Right would probably prefer to focus on Obama’s policy failures. Ron Paul’s fans seem to prefer to indirectly boost Romney while damaging the cause of libertarianism for another generation.
–Karl
Ding
narciso (87e966) — 12/28/2011 @ 6:55 amA vote for Ron Paul is so wrongheaded on so many levels that anyone contemplating such a blatant absurdity should have their head examined.
This is an important election, do the country a favor, write-in Batman or J Fred Muggs instead.
ropelight (e687bc) — 12/28/2011 @ 7:22 amNeed proof? Breitbart has Ron Paul’s own words,
“You know, if you look at the history, Hamas was encouraged and really started by Israel.”
ropelight (e687bc) — 12/28/2011 @ 8:03 amWhen, oh when, is the Republican Party going to stop allowing Democrats to vote in its presidential primaries? Every time one party has no contest the other party suffers from this BS. This has gotten much worse as states split their presidential primary from down-ballot contests.
The Republicans should not seat any delegates from states that allow other party members to vote in their primary, or at least from presidential-only primaries.
Kevin M (563f77) — 12/28/2011 @ 8:25 amThe other candidates, as a block, need to disavow Ron Paul. The only problem with that is that he’ll go over to the LP and be a spoiler in revenge.
One wonders what he thinks he’s doing, then one remembers that Ron’s crazy.
Kevin M (563f77) — 12/28/2011 @ 8:28 amRon Paul, actually, is one of the most profoundly corrupt members of Congress, corrupt in a way that very few other people are.
If you look at the history.
Sammy Finkelman (b17872) — 12/28/2011 @ 8:44 amIronically Ron Paul supporters accuse others of racism and bigotry.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 12/28/2011 @ 8:49 amIf he’s corrupt, and more relevantly here, has some sort of corrupt motive for taking the political positions he does, and for running for President, the question then is, who really is behind his campaign and WHAT’S THE PURPOSE OF IT?
At the moment I don’t have a real clue.
What does NOT explain Ron Paul is intellectual rectitude and consistency. It’s more like he has to take a position and then find justifications for it. If it not our job, let us say, to intervene somewhere internationally, well then that’s enough. You don’t have to say that things will turn out all right anyway, or that it only causes more trouble. Invariably, in every case?
And he did not avoid earmarks either.
Shall we say, is the campaign being done simply to make money? Not from newsletters. He’s stopped publishing them. He’s not going to make money from speeches either – or will he?
Does he have a sponsor, promises of something? For himself or members of his family? He is leaving Congress.
There’s some secret here, that’s all. That’s what I feel.
Sammy Finkelman (b17872) — 12/28/2011 @ 8:55 amObama’s excuses about his past and the lack of press interest about it have made people immune to criticisms about their own candidates’ pasts.
And Ron Paul speaks to people who are just fed up with government. He isn’t going to fix it, of course, and he can’t win. But people are fed up, and what outlet do they have? Who is listening?
MayBee (081489) — 12/28/2011 @ 9:01 amObamas approval rating will go down to -51,948% when the economy collapses.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 12/28/2011 @ 9:06 amWow a pro-life democrat running for president?
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 12/28/2011 @ 9:07 amWhy can’t we have a principled conservative leader with courage (oops, I repeated myself) who is not a crank? Is that too much to ask? Where are all of the experienced governors and Bush cabinet officials? How is it that we are even considering congressmen for president?
Of all the failures of conservatives past, this is by far the most devastating.
Amphipolis (e01538) — 12/28/2011 @ 9:10 am“The reality-based Right would probably prefer to focus on [candidates’ detailed] policy [proposals].”
FIFY.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 12/28/2011 @ 9:13 amYes that would be nice.
sarahW (b0e533) — 12/28/2011 @ 9:15 amRon Paul is the coprolite deposited by a prehistoric chupacabra.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 12/28/2011 @ 9:17 amSpeaking of same – though off topic – The general armchair-diagnosis of this propensity seems now confirmed: Anthony Weiner Wanted Threesome with Another Man and Woman
sarahW (b0e533) — 12/28/2011 @ 9:24 amDon’t you get the feeling that Ronpa is always a hair-trigger away from screaming “it’s all the fault of those money-grubbing Jooooooooooos!!!”
Icy (17f7a5) — 12/28/2011 @ 9:25 amNeed proof? Breitbart has Ron Paul’s own words,
“You know, if you look at the history, Hamas was encouraged and really started by Israel.”
This is not as crazy as it looks. Ron Paul doesn’t make things up out of whole cloth like that. Distort things, yes. Take things one more step in distortion, yes. But for something he says himself, he always has a reason. He’s not stupid.
Hamas, of course was not really started by Israel, but it has been said, I’ve read it, there was a time, apparently around 1994, when it was encouraged by Israel as a counterweight to Yasir Arafat’s PLO, because they thought – or rather some people in the Israeli government who thought they very well informed, or very smart, thought – this organization in particular, or a religiously motivated organization in general, would not engage in terrorism. Because, after all, all religions teach not to kill innocent people.
And this is supposedly a big mistake the Israeli government made (getting wrong what Hamas was all about.)
Now I don’t know what the truth of this is. It may even have been some other organization, not Hamas. If anything like this happened, it was probably a successful act of deception by Hamas or its sponsors.
Sammy Finkelman (b17872) — 12/28/2011 @ 9:26 amNice primer(via Gabe at Ace’s) on IA:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/12/27/an_iowa_caucus_primer_how_the_process_works_112543.html
Note contrary to narciso’s link of a week back, no viability threshold or revote, unlike Dimmis in IA.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 12/28/2011 @ 9:57 amObama can see North Korea from his white house.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 12/28/2011 @ 9:58 amGo, Ron!
Go!
A New Year’s gift to the Beltway-Eastern Corridor Establishment.
AD-RtR/OS! (9dbe33) — 12/28/2011 @ 10:01 amIf something like Ron Paul said is true, you won’t find that out simply by casually “looking at the history.”
It’s very difficult, in fact to find the original source of the claim that Israel at one point supported, or at least preferred, Hamas, to the PLO. Which I know has been made, although not the way Ron Paul said it. It’s difficult to find an original source and see what it actually says.
The best I could get quickly was:
According to a Wikipedia article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict,
which doesn’t say anything about Israel supporting it in any way:
….in April 1994, Hamas launched suicide bomber attacks targeting Israeli civilian population in many locations throughout Israel, however, once the Hamas started to the use these means it became a regular pattern of action against Israel…
It says nothing about any kind of patronage or even friendliness toward Hamas before that date.
And as a matter of fact Israel blamed Hamas for terrorism in Tel Aviv in December 1992 and deported 415 members and associates to Lebanon and the UN Security Council took a whole position against this idea.
I can’t find any time Israel favored Hamas over the PLO. Not in 1988. Maybe it s the other way around.
Israel l Seizes Dozens in Effort To Curb a Moslem Movement Special to the New York Times Published: October 21, 1988
GAZA, Oct. 17…..
A Government official said the arrests did not represent a new Israeli drive against Moslem fundamentalism. He said the authorities were only intensifying existing tactics because the Islamic Resistance Movement -also called Hamas, an acronym for its name in Arabic – had stepped up its role in the violent resistance to Israeli occupation.
He cited the Hamas covenant, published in August, and recent leaflets distributed by the movement throughout Gaza and the West Bank, and said, ”In the last month they have entered a widespread campaign of preaching, inciting and mobilizing people to violence against Israel.” Leaflets Go Undistributed
Palestinians say the arrests have seriously disrupted the distribution of Hamas’s monthly leaflets in the Gaza Strip, where the movement is strongest. Last week, members were forced to paint lists of strike dates and instructions on walls around the city, rather than circulate a leaflet.
So far no support for this, but this is a real myth. It may be it wasn’t Israel, but it was Jordan, that was supporting Hamas as a counterweight to the PLO. In fact, in 1994, Israel accused Jordan of supporting Hamas.
Sammy Finkelman (b17872) — 12/28/2011 @ 10:03 amComment by gary gulrud — 12/28/2011 @ 9:57 am
Note contrary to narciso’s link of a week back, no viability threshold or revote, unlike Dimmis in IA
As I said many threads ago, for the Republicans it’s a straw poll. They also vote for delegates, like the Democrats, but they are not reported according to candidates.
Sammy Finkelman (b17872) — 12/28/2011 @ 10:06 am23. Sorry, I missed your comment. Conroy is generally reliable tho.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 12/28/2011 @ 10:22 amSantorum may wind up doing better than Newt Gingrich. I saw a poll mentioned in a newspaper that had Santorum at 10% and Gingrich at 13%
According to Nate Silver, Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum and Rick Perry are all bunched now between 11 and 14 percent of the vote.
So let’s say 12.5 x 5 = 62.5. That would leave 37.5% to be divided between Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, and others should get no more than 3%. Ron Paul is probably right now going to start deflating – with not even Democrats wanting to vote for him, and nobody really wants to go to Romney.
Probably somebody will jump up, and the person who’s really been rising right now is Rick Santorum.
Nate Silver say:
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/28/polling-gridlock-in-iowa-could-produce-last-minute-momentum/
This is also a case in which the polling may actually influence voter behavior. In particular, if one of these candidates does well in the highly influential Des Moines Register poll that should be published on New Year’s Eve or thereabouts, that candidate might be a pretty good bet to overperform polling as voters use that as a cue on caucus night to determine which one is most viable.
I’d also pay a lot of attention to the press coverage for each candidate. Right now, for instance, there seem to be a fair number of stories about Mr. Santorum, which suggests that it is his turn to “surge” in the polls.
I don’t think Rick Santorum has received any kind of negative attention, and even if someone tried it, I don’t think the Pennsylvania paying for distant learning for his children would really affect things too much. And then he can get sympathy because of what some people (homosexual activists) did to manipulate Google searches for Santorum
Santorum is, or was, suing Google, by the way.
If Santorum wins Iowa, Google may have a bit of a problem or may have to face up to its problem.
Sammy Finkelman (b17872) — 12/28/2011 @ 10:52 amWhat happens if Paul beats Romney in Virginia? Would that be a victory for Romney?
Ghost (6f9de7) — 12/28/2011 @ 10:54 amGood one, Ghost!
Icy (17f7a5) — 12/28/2011 @ 11:18 amI’m just saying, 2008 taught us that “unelectable” means absolutely nothing. There are people who should be unelectable, but crazier things have happened.
Ghost (6f9de7) — 12/28/2011 @ 11:23 amWould Ensign Parker fumble the football?
sickofrinos (44de53) — 12/28/2011 @ 12:14 pmRon Paul is in the rep. primary-absoulutely priceless.
What a party!! Hell- What a country!! Laughing and crying at once.
Government cutting stuff for kids is wrong unless they use it to line their own pockets
/Democraps
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 12/28/2011 @ 1:45 pmThe problem is Paul’s citation, tells us the opposite of what he intends, Sadat worked with
narciso (87e966) — 12/28/2011 @ 2:29 pmthe Gamaa until they ultimately killed him, and the likes of Gust Avrokotos, warned us of the dangerous
elements in the Mujahadeen that became AQ and the Taliban, to little avail,
24 hours of this pedantic paulturd trainwreck.
I don’t think we can survive a day of Paulturd conspiracy theories.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 12/28/2011 @ 4:54 pmOnly useful idiots would endorse Universal Healthcare.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 12/28/2011 @ 5:14 pm29. I wonder if the Paul Media frenzy isn’t just preemptively devaluing the caucus, fly-over country.
‘Course Conroy’s RealPolitic column on caucus particulars had a shot of the crowd attending to Paul.
Uuuuugly people, who needs ’em.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 12/28/2011 @ 6:12 pmIf anyone has any doubts that the GOP and their slavish moronic sycophants have melded with the Dummycrats, look no further than Karl.
Karl, AKA Al Sharpton, Jr., is tripping all over himself putting his fingers in his ears yelling, “RACIST!” “RACIST!” “RACIST!” “HOMOPHOBE!” “ANTISEMTIE!”. To Karl, AKA Jesse Jackson the IV, considering whether Paul may be tellin the truth in terms of his disavowal of the newsletter’s contents is not worth his time. What is worth it is slinging as much mud as possible, a la the Al Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons of the world, and hoping 1/10th of it sticks.
Karl and his buddy Patterico are too busy supporting Rick Perry, who just determined that he was Pro-Life in full. Really he means it.
Battlestar Scholastica (eb6c08) — 12/28/2011 @ 6:27 pmpost #35… moronic convergence alert!
Colonel Haiku (c26934) — 12/28/2011 @ 6:29 pmComment by Sammy Finkelman — 12/28/2011 @ 10:03 am
Sammy, you’re missing the point. Israel may or may not have supported Hamas at one point. (As I understand it, that support was done through back-channel/undercover means by Mossad or Shin Bet, so the lack of evidence to prove that such support existed ought to be expected.) But the idea that Israel did support Hamas early on is part of mainstream punditry, and therefore claiming that Israel did support Hamas at the start does not indicate belief in anything unreasonable. it’s not wacky to make that claim.
The stench of Paul’s newsletters would cling to his campaign and to libertarianism (and the GOP, if Paul was nominated) every bit as much as the stench of segregationists and Birchers clung to the Goldwater campaign, with effects that still linger today.
Saddening but not surprising that the GOP establishment can so easily fall into yelling “Racist” when it is threatened. Paul himself has said some very specific things that would prove to anyone who listens that he’s not a bigot or anti-Semite. And the only thing the GOP needs to say about those newletters and those neoNazi supporters is this””So what if it’s racism and anti-Semitism? That doesn’t matter. The economy stinks and Obama wants to make it worse. That’s what matters.”
JBS (510a0a) — 12/28/2011 @ 6:59 pmYou could use it as a chance to finally show up the Leftist perennial charges of Racist as the empty tool for all purposes it really is. Instead you’re Hades-bent on making it even more useful to the Left.
Comment by Battlestar Scholastica — 12/28/2011 @ 6:27 pm
In light of what I just posted, I’d better say that was uncalled for. No one ever ought to doubt Karl and Patterico’s intentions.
JBS (510a0a) — 12/28/2011 @ 7:02 pmThe CIA had contact with Haqquani, during the Afghan War, who subsequently formed one of the more ruthless of Taliban factions, and Bin Laden was in turn tied to him, does that mean we created our own enemy, certainly not, and that is Paul’s inplication
narciso (87e966) — 12/28/2011 @ 7:19 pm34. Paultards have been on their knees for years. And now they have twisted the minds of the corn.
sickofrinos (44de53) — 12/28/2011 @ 7:25 pmPaulestinian on the loose down aisle 35!
Icy (17f7a5) — 12/28/2011 @ 7:28 pmPaulestinian sycophant on the loose was just back from crying for King Jong Il-Peron.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 12/28/2011 @ 7:35 pmI love the left who think Gorebull Warming leads ice ages.
How dumb do they think we are?
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 12/28/2011 @ 7:54 pmThe president can tell us what to eat but then again he and his cronies eat whatever they want.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 12/28/2011 @ 8:20 pmThe problem with dedicated Libertarians is that they continually flip the middle finger to all government agencies and regulations merely on principle alone. The goal is to “make the point” and not win elections. I used to call myself a Libertarian until I realized that a majority of today’s active Libertarians are more 19th century zealots than pragmatic smaller government Constitutionalists managing life in current times.
Dave B (982f20) — 12/28/2011 @ 8:54 pmHey battle star clusterfuck,
Ghost (251900) — 12/28/2011 @ 10:11 pmShut the hell up. You’re making the rest of us look bad.
Um, that happens to be true. Not one of Israel’s smarter moves. Why it’s relevant is another question.
BTW it’s also a fact that the USA cooperated extensively with the mafia in WW2. And that it armed Stalin. Neither of these facts is relevant to very much, but they are facts.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 12/28/2011 @ 10:46 pmSammy, have a look at Wikipedia for a somewhat factual summary of what is known about Israeli support for Hamas. Mostly it consisted of turning a blind eye and allowing it to grow, because encouraging dissension among the enemy is always a good thing. Even in hindsight I don’t see how that was a bad idea. Imagine how the last 20 years would have played out had the Arabs not spent so much energy fighting each other, and instead concentrated it all on killing Jews.
Arming Stalin during WW2 was also a good idea. But letting him join the war on Japan right at the end, just in time for him to capture those islands was a bad idea.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 12/28/2011 @ 11:05 pm“The enemy of my enemy is my friend.”
AD-RtR/OS! (9dbe33) — 12/28/2011 @ 11:25 pmIn retrospect, it was a bad move, just like our encouraging of Sheik Rahman, or Haquanni, but
Paul takes the opposite conclusion,
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2011/12/29/james-kirchicks-important-take-down-of-ron-paul-spread-it-wide-and-far/#comments
narciso (87e966) — 12/29/2011 @ 8:31 amAlso isn’t possible thar General Segev, has a certain axe to grind,
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/06/10/world/gaza-arabs-kept-off-jobs-and-angered.html
narciso (87e966) — 12/29/2011 @ 8:39 amPoor Gaza Arabs.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 12/29/2011 @ 8:41 amAs to the other source, more frequently cited, they didn’t seem to think it was a bad thing;
http://www.zoominfo.com/CachedPage/?archive_id=0&page_id=1552139002&page_url=//www.mepc.org/forums_chcs/33.asp&page_last_updated=2010-06-24T13:13:40&fir
narciso (87e966) — 12/29/2011 @ 8:58 am/Sarcasm obviously
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 12/29/2011 @ 8:58 amWith my apologies to the poet:
ropelight (e687bc) — 12/29/2011 @ 9:27 amI don’t see why. Unless you think that had Hamas not been a force, all its members would have stayed home and knitted socks rather than joining some PLO faction or other.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 12/29/2011 @ 9:43 amBecause the Muslim Brotherhood is much more dedicated, and consequently much harder to compromise with,
narciso (87e966) — 12/29/2011 @ 9:52 amRon Paul ha snot passed any laws while in congress nor has he given people freedom.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 12/29/2011 @ 10:52 amhas not*
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 12/29/2011 @ 11:31 amThat’s only a problem if you want to compromise with criminals. But any compromise will fail, just as the armistice of 1918 did.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 12/29/2011 @ 11:31 amComment by narciso — 12/28/2011 @ 7:19 pm
The CIA had contact with Haqquani, during the Afghan War, who subsequently formed one of the more ruthless of Taliban factions, and Bin Laden was in turn tied to him, does that mean we created our own enemy, certainly not, and that is Paul’s inplication
The claim being made is that this was sort of inevitable. Blowback, it is called. Like it is something almost natural.
The problem was that all the money was funneled through Pakistan’s rogue military intelligence agency (and the people who agreed to that maybe didn’t understand what that meant.) *
Pakistan supported only Islamists.
It was the ISI who created our own enemy. They wouldn’t let the United States give money directly.
* You can’t be sure nobody knew. Take Charlie Wilson. Charlie Wilson called Jaluludin Haqqani “goodness personified.” and later wound up on the Pakistani government’s payroll.
Back to Ron Paul.
You need to know what he said before and after that excerpt quoted to know exactly what Paul is trying to claim. but I doubt it is anything true.
Sammy Finkelman (b17872) — 12/29/2011 @ 7:28 pmComment by JBS — 12/28/2011 @ 6:59 pm
Paul himself has said some very specific things that would prove to anyone who listens that he’s not a bigot or anti-Semite.
I don’t think he’s an anti-semite. I think he’s a cynic. I don’t think he’s even anti-Rockefeller,
Sammy Finkelman (b17872) — 12/29/2011 @ 7:36 pmI am basing this on Coll’s family bio of Bin Laden, and other sources like Rohde’s memoir, written after
narciso (87e966) — 12/29/2011 @ 7:42 pmthe intelligence network that sprung him was burned
by the Times, Wilson also had a sweet spot for Hekmatyar, who is not Taliban, but is against us anyways.
My understanding is that Pakistan handled the money and determined who would be supported.
Sammy Finkelman (d3daeb) — 12/30/2011 @ 11:15 amMy understanding is that Pakistan handled the money and determined who would be supported.
Sammy Finkelman (d3daeb) — 12/30/2011 @ 11:15 amComment by narciso – 12/29/2011 @ 8:31 am
In retrospect, it was a bad move, just like our encouraging of Sheik Rahman, or Haquanni, but Paul takes the opposite conclusion,
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2011/12/29/james-kirchicks-important-take-down-of-ron-
paul-spread-it-wide-and-far/#comments
I don’t think that’s the right link for this comment. That’s just about Ron Paul trafficking with Trilateral Commission cum New World Order type conspiracy theories. It is saying, leave alone the putative racism etc., what about this?
It notes he even goes in for anti-US 9/11 conspiracy theories, or at least not disillusioning any such people he encounters.
I think if someone were to say to him the moon is made of green cheese, he wouldn’t tell them he didn’t think so, and he’d kind of hint he
Sammy Finkelman (d3daeb) — 12/30/2011 @ 11:22 amagrees. If there was a group of people who said so, he’d rephrase and assent to at least some subset of the argument, but not in such a
way that it would get too much attention from people who didn’t subscribe to the idea that the moon was made of green cheese.
It was so nice Sammy had to say it twice.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 12/30/2011 @ 11:32 amWhat If Obama endorsed Hunstman?
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 12/30/2011 @ 1:04 pmComment by narciso — 12/29/2011 @ 7:42 pm
I am basing this on Coll’s family bio of Bin Laden, and other sources like Rohde’s memoir, written after the intelligence network that sprung him was burned by the Times,
What in particular are you basing on that? I don’t know what you are referring to.
Coll actually wrote two books on a similar subject. Besides “The Bin Ladens: An Arabian Family in the American Century (2008) he also wrote “Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001” (2004) Both books are new to me.
According to an Amazon.com review it focuses a lot on Iran.
The same review says:
The most important point in the book is not one the author intended to make. He inadvertently but most helpfully points to the fact that at no time did the U.S. government, in lacking a policy on Afghanistan across several Administrations, think about the strategic implications of “big money movements.” I refer to Saudi Oil, Afghan Drugs, and CIA Cash.
AND
The middle of the book can be considered a case study in how Pakistani deception combined with American ignorance led us to make many errors of judgment. Some US experts did see the situation clearly–Ed McWilliams from State (“Evil Little Person” per Milt Bearden) comes out of this book looking very very smart.
Another review says:
Additionally Coll’s book helps us understand whose at fault for 9/11. If we want to spread blame for the 3000 deaths then it has to go to 3 sources in order of increasing responsibility and guilt. 1)Saudi Islamic Charity organizations that secretly funded the Taliban/Bin Laden 2)The Pakistan ISI that trained, supported, and funded the Taliban/Bin Laden. 3)Bill Clinton(And administration) whose scandal with Monica Lewinsky undercut his authority, credibility, and political decisiveness. In the name of saving civilians a Democrat administration lost thousands of US civilians when one Tomahawk missile strike either at Tarnak or the Hunting camp could have spared the USA the tragedy of 9/11. The Clinton administrations indecision, confusing and unrealistic directives, and lack of real world experience indirectly effected the CIAs ability to do their jobs well. Its of particular importance to note that the Bush administration and the CIA under it, accomplished more in Afghanistan in 1 year than Clinton in 8.
Wilson also had a sweet spot for Hekmatyar, who is not Taliban, but is against us anyways.
Pakistan creatd and funded several different Islamic groups.
Sammy Finkelman (b17872) — 12/31/2011 @ 7:07 pmActually, it has very little about Iran, since they had little overall influence, from Bearden’s description of the Peshawar 7, as well as contemporaneous analysis by Robert Kaplan and co, they knew full well about what whom they were dealing with, Gust Avrokotos, was one of the few
narciso (87e966) — 12/31/2011 @ 7:19 pmin the agency that tried to flag the aid to the Afghan Arab, that comes up in the Crile bio of Wilson.