If Hillary Clinton's goal was to get some ink in saying that the Senate was like a plantation, then it was a really smart thing to say. If, on the other hand, she was trying to draw a remotely accurate metaphor, I don't think that was the way to go.
Her representatives have tried to justify it by saying that the Senate is being run by the Bossman and opposing views are stifled. Yeah, okay, but that also describes any number of corporations. No one is in the Congress or Senate against their will, no one is being beaten, and no one is being hunted down if they leave. There's just way too much baggage attached to the concept of plantations to try and pare it down to, "Our attempts to present our views are being stifled." I mean, she could just as easily address the UJA and say the Senate is like a concentration camp, and it would be just as questionable.
If she'd wanted to be clever, she could have said, "I'm not saying the Senate is like, say, a plantation. Not at all. I mean, yes, Democrats are being given no more respect by Republicans than the Bossman gave his workers, and we have about as much input into the way things are being done. And it can be certainly stated that the Senate is giving little to no attention to the needs of its black constituents. But it's definitely NOT like a plantation...yet." That makes it slightly harded for critics to come back and say, "So you're saying the Senate is like a plantation?!" to which she replies, "Uh, no, I said it isn't like one. Are you reading impaired?"
Now the Mayor of New Orleans, on the other hand...what the hell is up with THAT guy? I mean, geez, if the mayor of a mostly white city that had been wiped out by a tornado said it was punishment from God because they'd let blacks in, and this was a message that it should be exclusively a white city, the guy would be hung out to dry. So what's this "New Orleans needs to be chocolate again." Okay, yeah, he's been under some stress, but holy crap. I have to think there's plenty of black constituents who have--if nothing else--made plenty of money off white tourists who are saying, "Shut the hell up!"
PAD
Posted by Peter David at January 17, 2006 02:14 PM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentingThe Mayor of New Orleans is nuts, but will he be held to the same standard as a white guy saying the same thing? Bigot and hipocrite!! His city had a MLK day march in which shots were fired into the crowd. He needs to go, but will anyone call for that?
I loved Nagin's explanation today. He said he was referring to making hot chocolate by mixing dark chocolate with milk, so he was trying to say he wanted a multiculturation city again.
Yeah, right.
As for Hillary, that was also a dopey thing to say, but I think the reason she didn't give the expanded comparison you described is because it wouldn't have made a good sound bite. And that's what politics is all about these days.
What is it about MLK day that makes politicians try outdo themselves in making the most idiotic comparisons to civil rights and slavery?
As for people calling for Nagin to leave, I'd say that the odds are against him getting another term anyway, but then again, Marion Barry is still on the Washington D.C. city council.
I mean, if you can still get elected after being videotaped smoking crack, bungling a major disaster can't hurt you that much.
Hey, we're all some kind of chocolate: White, Dark, Milk, Bitter, Sweet....uh, Bakers....ummm, cocoa...Swiss....
Granted, White Chocolate isn't cocoa based, so it's not real chocolate at all.
I can see what Nagin was maybe meaning to say...that, with all the talk about rebuilding NO without it's colored base, someone needs to say that, if you lived in NO before, and you want to come back, we'll have a place for you. And since NO was like 80% black, it stands to reason that a good percentage of those returning should, just by the numbers, also be black.
But I'd think that, just as PAD interjects for Hilary, there was a much, much better way of saying this. I mean, even the term, chocolate: I've heard it used derogatorily for a white/black mix. Or heard it applied to just "light" blacks, again, occasionally derogotorily.
And if Nagin really thinks that God sent the hurricanes at NO because He was mad...does it really make sense to rebuild the city, aiming for a "just the way it was" goal? I mean, if God's sending you portents and signs about not doing something, do you really want to keep trying to do that thing? You're just asking to get Caddyshacked.
In fairness to Nagin, he had the good sense to apologize today, instead of letting it fester.
Chocolate milk? Jeeze....I'm surprised he didn't try to claim that he was merely trying to show that a black man can be just as stupid as a white one by doing a Pat Robertson.
The most distressing thing about the Hillary speech? That a good chunk of the crowd apparently called for Tawana Brawley lawyer Alton Maddox's to be allowed to practice law again. Hillary should have taken the opportunity for her own little Sisteh Soulja Moment and tolf thme there was no way anyone with a sense of right and wrong would want anything of the kind. With Al Sharpton standing right next to her it would have been gold.
Since when does a sense of right and wrong have anything to do with practicing law?
Ba Dum Bum.
Peter David: If Hillary Clinton's goal was to get some ink in saying that the Senate was like a plantation, then it was a really smart thing to say. If, on the other hand, she was trying to draw a remotely accurate metaphor, I don't think that was the way to go.
Luigi Novi: Well, obviously, Peter, you have a liberal bias against all Republicans, as this statement clearly shows.
Just kidding.
But I'm curious as to whether some of the more trollish posters that have visited this site would have (or will) say something along those lines. (You know, kinda like how you could defend McFarlane after that "doctor" complained about that issue of Spawn on A Current Affair ). I wonder if my having pre-emptively made this statement will actually preclude or predict others so inclined from doing so.
Seriously, I am quite sick and tired of idiots using such out-of-scale metaphors, as when people on both sides of the political aisle compare whatever current President they don't like to Hitler (as they did to Clinton, and as they current do with W.) Comparing Congress to plantations is similarly indicative of a total inability to grasp things like scale, or to draw important distinctions between totally disaparate things.
Ack. The parenthetical sentence above was supposed to end with "...yet still be accused of having it in for Image."
"You know, kinda like how you could defend McFarlane after that "doctor" complained about that issue of Spawn on A Current Affair"
Okay, jog my memory, because I don't know what you're referring to.
PAD
Then again, here's what Newt Gingrich had to say on the topic:
“I clearly fascinate them,” Gingrich said of the Democrats. “I’m much more intense, much more persistent, much more willing to take risks to get it done. Since they think it is their job to run the plantation, it shocks them that I’m actually willing to lead the slave rebellion.” [Washington Post, 10/20/94]
Frankly, I was mystified why Hillary's advisors suggested/acquiesced regarding such a statement that was obviously both wild hyperbole and unabashed pandering.
If I were one of Hillary's handlers, I'd tell her she had better stick to the high road if she ever wants to live in the White House again.
Someone with presidential aspirations should know better than to throw around slavery comparisons so lightly. Is she that unschooled regarding U.S. history? It almost reminds me of the goofballs who, in the past few years, have been comparing life in the U.S. today to life in Nazi Germany in the 1930s. People ought to pick up a history book or two before they start babbling about how horrid things are today. Geez Louise! Is our society that spoiled these days that we've sunk to comparing molehills to mountains???
Ummm ... Chocolate, food ... of ... the ... gods.
(It seems there is a Homer quote for every occasion.)
Okay, jog my memory, because I don't know what you're referring to.
Luigi Novi: I was referring to the fact how you had been accused ad hominem of having some bias against Image, despite numerous indicators to the contrary, and how you commented, at the end of the BID column in whch you defended the issue of Spawn that featured a story with racism-related themes (and a cover of the eponymous character hanging from a noose) from the "Doctor" who complained about it on A Current Affair, how you you'd just love to see how the Ad Hominers would spin it into arguing that you had it in for Todd.
Given how you criticized Hilary and Nagin in this blog entry, it would be interesting to see if visitors continue attacking you for your supposed liberal bias, either in this blog's Replies, or in the future.
Well, you could have a liberal bias and still have the good sense to know stupidity when you see it. I lean conservative more often than not but I'll happily point out that Robertson/Santorum/Gingrich are schmucks.
Hillary puzzles the hell out of me. I've been saying for over a year now that she has the nomination locked up, that it will almost be pointless for anyone to even try to take her on...but most of my liberal and Democratic party friends say I'm crazy to think so, that she is way too polarizing to have a chance. Things like this make me think they are correct. (though, in my defense, did this gaffe cost her anything? The people who would have the most reason to be offended don't seem at all upset. If she can capture the vast majority of the black vote and the feminist vote and the people who loved the last time there was a Clinton in the White House, isn't that at least enough for the nomination???)
I'm surprised no one has mentioned Gore's MLK speech. He managed to dovetail the government's surveilence of King to W's current surveilence fetish quite nicely into each other.
Shame we didn't have this Gore in 2000.
I was already disappointed to read Senator Clinton's quote before Bill Leisner pointed out that she's borrowing analogies from Newt Gingrich. If we New Yorkers really wanted a senator to embarass us nationally, we would've kept Alphonse ....
I mean, if you can still get elected after being videotaped smoking crack, bungling a major disaster can't hurt you that much.
Not to mention his recent drug test failure.
It's a great move to tar plantation owners who are wealthy powerful people. Just like the Senate.
It'll play well when she campaigns in certain parts of the South and folk say, "Oh she's the one that called us racists."
Just for the sake of accuracy, Hillary didn't say the Senate was run like a plantation.
She said the House of Representatives was. The comparison is very marginally more apt with that subject, but that basically means it's extremely inappropriate rather than horrifically inappropriate.
Hill's appropriating old Gingrich metaphors? Color me not especially surprised.
Bah.
TWL
Watching all the major news channels at once today(Sometimes it's cool to work in TV) and between all three of the big newsmaking speeches, I just had to sit there between races and think, "Man, I remember when to understand what someone meant when making a speech, all you had to do was, y'know, listen to the speech." Kinda sad that on Benjamin Franklin's birthday hear about speeches that A) Are just plain innapropriate and B) Need to be explained later. At least with Franklin, you got one or the other...
How big a jackass is Nagin?Of course on the good side we can at least rest knowing asinine statements know no racial boundaries.
Hey did anyone check? Maybe Pat Robertson was using a jedi mind trick thingie to speak thru him.!!Ok I aint buying it either just thoughtbI would give a brotha a way out.....Oh well.
The sad part is people will let it go and say he is doing great job and probably reelect him as mayor and then as governor of Louisiana
I think that what she said taken with the where and when all adds up to typical political grandstanding.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10889047/
"Speaking during a Martin Luther King Jr. Day event, Clinton offered an apology to a group of Hurricane Katrina survivors “on behalf of a government that left you behind, that turned its back on you.”
Her remarks were met with thunderous applause by a mostly black audience at the Canaan Baptist Church of Christ in Harlem."
Gingrich could have done so much more. He had the skills and the ideas, but he never could master the media. Gingrich may have been a partisan, but he wasn't in love with the perks of power the same way the current GOP Congressional leaders are (Abramoff).
Gingrich didn't have the personal qualities required. He gave his enemies all the ammunition they needed to bring him down. Republicans can complain all they want that he got worse treatment than a Democrat would have but so what? If you let people get away with murder you'll end up with murderers.
And for all his supposed skills, he botched the budget showdown with Clinton badly. I've always found his supposed brilliance overrated. He wowed the reporters but that doesn't take much. This talk of him running for president is a joke, though not as funny a one as the one about Tom Daschle running.
Hilary is hardly the first person to use "plantation" in this way.
A caseload of Republicans have referred to the Democratic party as "plantation".
(from dailykos.com)
"Hilary is hardly the first person to use "plantation" in this way.
A caseload of Republicans have referred to the Democratic party as "plantation"."
A) I don't let my kids use this justification, and I won't accept it out of my politicians. "They said/did it first!" is no longer acceptable adult behavior.
B) There is a big difference between talking heads making statements, and Senators of the US. In addition, "Plantation" might be a valid comparison if you're talking about racism, or people "Trapped" in a lifestyle. It's not a good comparison for a bunch of rich, white, old limosine driving politicians.
C) I'm really dispointed in Clinton. She has been playing politics excellently the past year, doing a tremendous job of positioning herself for a 2008 run, without pushing herself to the far, far left, and without piling on the anti-Dubya band wagon. It was looking for a while like she was going to be running "For" something, rather than "against" something. It will be interesting to see how she continues at this point.
Jerry, I have to disagree with you here. Those rich white politicians would be RIDING, in the limos, not driving them. ; )
He gave his enemies all the ammunition they needed to bring him down.
Well, cheating on your wife after trying to bring down a president who did the same thing can do that to one's career. :)
Too many politicians and people elsewhere prefer a good if careless metaphor or a phrase with an emotional punch over accuracy and commonsense. All too often they get caught up in their own imagery.
What's really offensive isn't so much that she called the House a plantation, it's that she seems to be implying that House Democrats are analagous to the slaves.
A post by Ms Huffington made me reconsider the cleverness of Hillary's comment. Huffington compared the speeches that Clinton and Gore made and used it to say that Al Gore has much more of a fire in the belly while Hillary comes off like a Senator, too afraid to go for the jugular. I think she may be on to something, but she made the completely wrong conclusion. Hillary totally knocked Al off the public radar. Al all but called for Bush to be tarred and feathered but the plantation remark is all that anyone is talking about.
Coincidence? Or are we witnessing a level of political skill that will sweep an "unelectable" politician to a surprisingly easy victory?
RE: Mayor Nagin
He's coming up for re-election. I theorize that he views blacks as his voter base and wants more blacks to return to strengthen his chances of being re-elected. What can I say? I have a low opinion of politicians.
As for Senator Clinton... Yep, poor use of verbage. Of course, as a result of my aforementioned opinion of politicians, I'm not the least bit suprised that she would say such a thing. Politicians pander. That's the cheif qualification for being a politician. Posibly tied with taking bribes.
Coincidence? Or are we witnessing a level of political skill that will sweep an "unelectable" politician to a surprisingly easy victory?
I'm not sure either way.
You'd think Hillary Clinton wouldn't be stupid to make such a comparison, knowing the questions it would raise.
But it's pretty frickin sad that what you said is true, Bill: Gore makes a great speech, but is overshadowed by a single comment Clinton makes (although I think they were both overshadowed by Nagin's comments).
It's also funny to mention the whole "Clinton comes off sounding like a Senator". Which, of course, was Gore's problem when running for President as well - he was a Senator, then ran the Senate as VP.
Such comments haven't come up since the last election, but some mentioned the fact that Senators have been losing the presidential elections (Kerry, Gore, Dole), while governors are winning them (Bush Jr, Clinton, Reagan). So, recent history may be against Hillary Clinton anyways.
Interestingly enough, Obama is supported Clinton:
(Obama) told CNN's "American Morning" he believed that Clinton was merely expressing concern that special interests play such a large role in writing legislation that "the ordinary voter and even members of Congress who aren't in the majority party don't have much input."
(He) also told ABC's "Good Morning America" that under GOP control in Washington, "what one has seen is the further concentration of power around a very narrow agenda that advantages the most powerful."
Slavery, and it's connected references, is one of those discussion hot-buttons that makes it hard to use in a debate. It's like bringing up Hitler or Nazi Germany...there are so many strong negative feelings connected to the topic, that they tend to overwhelm the logical point or analogy trying to be made.
Obama's first point may be correct. His second comment certainly sounds correct. The Wendy's Chili Finger couple were just sentenced...9 years each for trying to defraud Wendy's. What convictions and sentences have been handed out to CEO's that defraud employee retirement funds? Or cook accounting books to defraud investors? I don't recall off-hand, but it seems to me that it was shorter than 9 years, when convictions are reached at all.
This government is becoming a concentration of power around the rich and powerful, ensuring not only that they keep a bigger portion of what they have than the common person, but also that it's harder for them to screw up and lose their stuff.
PAD,
Could not have said it better myself on either issue. (Hopefully the world will not now come to an end since we actually agree on a political issue!)
If you are lucky, Pat Robertson will quit apologizing for his last remark and come up with another one. Even if he is a nobody with no true influence, he seems to get equal press anyways, so might as well use it for something useful.
Iowa Jim
Well...
Ex-Tyco CEO Kozlowski faces 15-30 years.
Ex-WorldCom CEO Bernard Ebbers got 25 years.
9 doesn't sound to bad. What they did was not okay just because it was a corporation they attempted to defraud. If you cheat a corporation, that hurts emplyees (and not just evil CEOs).
"A caseload of Republicans have referred to the Democratic party as 'plantation'."
Haven't you heard? IOKIARDI.
--R.J.
Iowa Jim, the problem with Pat Robertson is he ISN'T a nobody. A lot of people watch him, hear him, and say, "Damn, that sounds good!! Yeah! That's how I feel!" And then they go out into public and act like, well, I'm feeling generous tonight, not-nice people. And for every Pat Robertson on TV, there's a BUNCH more in groups all over the country. Although he's good fodder for wisecracks(guilty myself of a shipload) point is, he gets taken WAY too seriously by a lot of people. And that's what scares the hell out of me.
I don't know, Rat, from an earlier thread it doesn't look like he really gets the ratings that people think he does. His public profile is higher than his actual influence probably warrants.
At any rate, there are way scarier people out there. Check out the president of Iran; imagine a less sane Pat Robertson. Soon with nukes.
"A caseload of Republicans have referred to the Democratic party as 'plantation'."
The Repubs have used it in the context that Demos expect black Americans to vote for them because they give them money for whatever.
Mrs William Jefferson Clinton used the word "plantation" to infer that the Repubs are slave masters.
It's all political games.
Ah, so, shokingly, "It's OK if a Republican does it" is your stance.
Pardon me while I pick myself off the floor.
You'd really think I'd have a thicker skin for partisan BS by now...
Pat Robertson has no influence? They're running some kind of telethon there (at least they were today). Tune in and see how much money this "nobody" is making.
And of course Gore's reasoned and correct remarks were submarined by Hilary's gross exaggeration. That's the "liberal" media, huh? Yeah, right.
At any rate, there are way scarier people out there. Check out the president of Iran; imagine a less sane Pat Robertson. Soon with nukes.
I'll give you one even better:
With our latest little unmanned drone bombing to try and get al-Zawahiri (and doing nothing more than killing civilians in the process), this time in Pakistan, we (our wonderfully stupid government) may be running the risk of encouraging the people to revolt against the Pakistani government.
And as Ted Rall points out so nicely in his latest column, lest we forget: we are pushing the possibility of "the first civil war in a nuclear power."
Ok, let's define influence. Name me one issue that Pat has changed in recent history. Dobson? Probably. Falwell, perhaps. Pat Robertson? Not anything that was not already championed by someone more mainstream in Christian circles.
I know there are a few who listen to Robertson, but to say he has any real influence is a joke. But if you want to waste your time worrying about him, go right ahead.
Iowa Jim
Pat Robertson has no influence? They're running some kind of telethon there (at least they were today). Tune in and see how much money this "nobody" is making.
Didn't say he was a "nobody"; we wouldn't be talking about him if he were. My point was that his viewership seems to be measured in the hundreds of thousands; impressive on it's face but less so when taken in the context of a country of 300 million.
In terms of influence I'd rate him lower than Al Sharpton, who I also think is a joke. At least Al can actually get a march going. If Pat called for a march on the PA county that just threw out intelligent design what would happen? I'm guessing not much, which is why he doesn't do it.
As for Al Gore being "reasoned and correct"...well, different strokes and all. Me, I think the last 6 years have driven him perilously close to the brink of a nervous breakdown. The red meat appeals to the base but if he runs (and I think he will) he'd better tone it down, lest he frighten small children.
With our latest little unmanned drone bombing to try and get al-Zawahiri (and doing nothing more than killing civilians in the process)
If by civilian you mean former terror camp commander Abu Khabab al-Masri, who was al-Qaeda’s chief bomb maker, Khaled al-Harbi who was al-Qaeda’s operational commander in Pakistan and Abdul Rehman al Magrabi, who is thought to be al-Qaeda’s commander in Pakistan Afghanistan, yeah, it accomplished nothing.
Frankly, that's the sort of "nothing" I'd like to see more of, despite the sad loss of civilian life that is inevitable in war.
At least she said SOMETHING. At this point I barely care about the context. Lets put on a Hilary/Gore Ticket and see where it leads.
I would prefer a Hilary/McCain ticket though. Get rid of the labels and show a solid interest in our domestic issues.
Turn the war machine off for a decade or 3 and invest in us.
I would prefer a Hilary/McCain ticket though. Get rid of the labels and show a solid interest in our domestic issues. Turn the war machine off for a decade or 3 and invest in us.
With two of the biggest supporters of the Iraq War??? I'm sorry, I can see supporting either of the two or both but not for that reason.
Personally I think that Hillary could well be one of the toughest Presidents ever when it comes to the use of miltary force--which is not a disqualifier in my book but those who are opposed to military actions might want to keep it in mind.
If by civilian you mean former terror camp commander Abu Khabab al-Masri, who was al-Qaeda’s chief bomb maker, Khaled al-Harbi who was al-Qaeda’s operational commander in Pakistan and Abdul Rehman al Magrabi, who is thought to be al-Qaeda’s commander in Pakistan Afghanistan, yeah, it accomplished nothing.
Well, there's alot of the problem: people we *think* to be doing this or that, the thought that we *believe* we've killed somebody of importance.
Frankly, that's the sort of "nothing" I'd like to see more of, despite the sad loss of civilian life that is inevitable in war.
Well, it's always good to know that the unknown numbers of civilians killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and now those in Pakistan, mean so little to the rest of the world.
It's also good to see that the thought of a civil war in a nuclear nation doesn't phase you in the least. Perish the thought that this could generate that doomsday "dirty bomb" scenario that the Bush Administration has been harping about since 9/11, encouraging Bush to act like King George.
But I'm sure more spying on Americans, rendition, and torture will just make it all go away.
At this point, I don't think Pat has much direct influence over the general public, however, there are a number of people who do have such direct influence that listen to Pat and think, "yeah, that's true."
Lest you forget, Jerry Falwell, who has plenty of influence in the public arena (and in the GOP in particular) was sitting next to Pat and agreeing with him when he said that feminists and homosexuals made 9/11 happen.
As for the situation in Pakistan, it will be a while before we have confirmation that anyone connected to Al Qaeda was killed. If I were a cynical man (heh), I'd wonder if it were a coincidence that, just as the media was flooded with stories about the Abramoff scandal and the warrantless domestic spying scandal, we get this report crowing that we've killed the number 2 man of Al Qaeda*. No wait, it turns out he wasn't there, but we're sure someone connected to Al Qaeda was there, give us a few more days to sift through the rubble.
After all, wasn't Clinton's motive for every single military action he took to divert the country's attention from zippergate?
That is, if I were a cynical man.
*Side note: Does anyone have an org chart for Al Qaeda, because it seems to me that we've killed 8 or 9 "Number 2 men" in Al Qaeda since 9/11? Is it really bin Laden on top and then 10 guys directly beneath him?
Actually Den, it's the other way around. Falwell was the one saying all the stuff about 9/11, Pat just sat their grinning and bobbing his head in agreement.
Bill wrote:
With two of the biggest supporters of the Iraq War??? I'm sorry, I can see supporting either of the two or both but not for that reason.
My point for mentioning those two is that McCain knows the horror of war. Hilary is a smart mom.
Perhaps the two of them can put there heads together and come up with better ideas.
Okay, Thom, I had it backwards. Falwell made the initial comment, but Pat did a lot more then just "grinning and bobbing his head in agreement."
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/87/story_8770_1.html
JERRY FALWELL: And, I know that I'll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way--all of them who have tried to secularize America--I point the finger in their face and say "you helped this happen."
PAT ROBERTSON: Well, I totally concur, and the problem is we have adopted that agenda at the highest levels of our government. And so we're responsible as a free society for what the top people do. And, the top people, of course, is the court system.
He made it very clear that they were on the same page that day.
"Is it really bin Laden on top and then 10 guys directly beneath him?"
No. That's the plot line for Brokeback Mountain 2.
I'm not sure if I would vote for a Clinton/McCain ticket. Maybe a McCain/Clinton ticket.
It's pure fantasy anyway, as neither would jump parties to create such a ticket. Of course, if McCain did run as a democrat, we'd have to endure another year of the Rovian slander machine attacking his military service (see: Kerry, Murtha). We probably will during the GOP primary anyway, since I don't see Rove working for McCain's campaign given their history.
I've only been a democrat for a year now, but I still think all the talk about Hillary having a virtual lock on the nomination is also pure fantasy. She is too divisive to win in the general election. You can cite all the polls you want showing her ahead today, but a poll taken this early is meaningless.
Den, that's what made Robertson's retraction such a stunning and laughable lie. I believe he tried to claim he was just so caught off guard by Falwell's statements, he did not know what to say...so he agreed.
It is completely ridiculous for any human being to claim that he has direct communication with God...except for the crazy homeless guy who hangs around outside the Charles Center Metro Station in downtown Baltimore.
No. That's the plot line for Brokeback Mountain 2.
Image: Me shooting soda out of my nose laughing
after reading this line.
Seriously, though, anyone know how many "number 2 men" are in Al Qaida?
Maybe it's just like when Israel got bored a couple years ago and killed the leader of Hamas, then waited a few weeks for them to get a new leader, then killed him right away. At the rate we're going we may soon have killed off a large enough portion of Not America that we'll be just safe as houses.
"Is it really bin Laden on top and then 10 guys directly beneath him?"
No. That's the plot line for Brokeback Mountain 2.
*chuckle* That's a pretty good one. :)
Regarding bin Laden, the problem I have, beyond the fact that we have more civilian casualties than enemy casualties, is that according to this Administration, bin Laden "is no longer important".
Oh, he's important enough that we'll try and take out half a dozen #5's, and a few #3's. But the most wanted man in the world? Nah, not worth the effort, apparently.
Craig wrote: "With our latest little unmanned drone bombing to try and get al-Zawahiri (and doing nothing more than killing civilians in the process), this time in Pakistan, we (our wonderfully stupid government) may be running the risk of encouraging the people to revolt against the Pakistani government."
What other options are there? Leave Al Qaeda alone whenever they are given safe haven in remote regions by sympathetic fringe groups around the world?
If left alone to grow, raise funds and reorganize, how long do you think it would be before a directed WMD strike would occur against a western nation -- including the U.S.?
Frankly, anytime one's solution to a serious security issue is to do nothing -- at least nothing substantial -- for fear of angering some faction somewhere, I doubt the person has a sincere desire to keep me and my fellow citizens secure. Historically, such decision-making paralysis invariably ends up a disaster for the passive state. Face it -- no matter what the U.S. does in any given situation, it will be criticized to some degree by someone. So why not take a shot at al-Zawahiri? Are we going to make him and his followers do something they wouldn’t have done anyway, if they were given free reign to do so? Keep in mind that in the days leading up to 9/11, we weren’t in Al Qaeda’s face every day. We were pretty much ignoring them and their Taliban pals. The result? Three thousand dead, a nation traumatized, and a robust economy suddenly paralyzed.
No, to do nothing, in my opinion, is far worse than lobbing a few Hellfire missiles at guys like al-Zawahiri and taking some international heat for it. And until someone comes up with a better idea, I don’t think we have any other recourse with the stakes as high as they are.
Well, the concern isn't so much what al-Zawahiri will do, it's what the people of Pakistan will do. We know that he will plot attacks against American interests. The concerns is that Mushareef (sp) is, at least on paper, our ally in the war on terrorism (or is it the global struggle against extremism? I forget what the official name is this week) and that Pakistan is a nuclear power with a longstanding border dispute with India, another nuclear nation. Should our actions provoke a civil war or even a coup attempt in Pakistan, the results could be ugly to say the least.
This is the reason that, even though we're sure he's still hiding somewhere in the mountains of Pakistan, we've been hesitant to go after him with guns blazing the way we did when he was in Afghanistan.
At least, we were hesitant until Bush needed to show that his intelligence operation was actually accomplishing something.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/17/politics/17spy.html
"In the anxious months after the Sept. 11 attacks, the National Security Agency began sending a steady stream of telephone numbers, e-mail addresses and names to the F.B.I. in search of terrorists. The stream soon became a flood, requiring hundreds of agents to check out thousands of tips a month.
"But virtually all of them, current and former officials say, led to dead ends or innocent Americans."
Oops.
*Side note: Does anyone have an org chart for Al Qaeda, because it seems to me that we've killed 8 or 9 "Number 2 men" in Al Qaeda since 9/11? Is it really bin Laden on top and then 10 guys directly beneath him?
Well, if you kill the number 2 guy in an organization doesn't someone else become the new number 2? If someone sho the vice president they should not be too surprised to discover, a few days later, that there is another one.
As for whether or not it's cynical to see this as a distraction from Abramhov etc, one must ask just when would it NOT be considered a possible distraction? If it's within 6 months of an election it's said to be designed to influence the vote. If it's within 3 months of a natural disaster it's said to be designed to distract attention from that. Etc etc.
Of course, if Democrats actually think that the military guys who are making the claim are lying under the direction of Bush, they should investigate it. And if that is actually the case I expect that the "dead" men will shortly be seen smiling in an Al Qaeda video. So we will see shortly.
It's also kind of interesting that right after this strike that some find of questionable value we get a tape supposedly from Bin Laden himself, offering a truce. Interesting.
Well, if you kill the number 2 guy in an organization doesn't someone else become the new number 2? If someone sho the vice president they should not be too surprised to discover, a few days later, that there is another one.
And yet the number 1 guy is someone that Bush isn't "all that concerned about" anymore.
It just seems odd that every time we capture or kill an Al Qaeda operative, he's always the number 2 guy. It makes me wonder if they have any spear carriers in the organization at all.
As for whether or not it's cynical to see this as a distraction from Abramhov etc, one must ask just when would it NOT be considered a possible distraction? If it's within 6 months of an election it's said to be designed to influence the vote. If it's within 3 months of a natural disaster it's said to be designed to distract attention from that. Etc etc.
Good point. Of course, that never stopped Clinton's detractors, either.
In Bush's case, though, we've already seen him use soldiers reading scripted statements and try to pass it off as a "spontaneous" dialogue, so it would not surprise me if the reports of killing several Al Qaeda operatives were somewhat exaggerated, just as the previous report that we got Al-Zawihiri was.
My point is that the timing does seem suspicious. For several months, we've heard virtually nothing from the Afghani-Pakistan board, but just as Bush needs a justification for his intelligence policy, we get this attack. Too bad the intelligence about Al-Zawihiri turned out to be a day late and dollar short.
It's also kind of interesting that right after this strike that some find of questionable value we get a tape supposedly from Bin Laden himself, offering a truce. Interesting.
The tape also says that they're preparing another attack and heightened security in the US is not the reason why they haven't had another one on US soil since 9/11. So, I guess having grandmothers take their shoes off at the airport and spying in US citizens hasn't been working.
What other options are there?
You're joking, right?
Here's a bloody intelligent thought: GET BIN LADEN.
Oh, but as I said, Bush is no longer concerned about him.
Yet he remains concerned about all the other supposedly threatening Al Qaeda guys. Go figure.
Maybe if we weren't in Iraq, we would've been able to get bin Laden.
It certainly wasn't about preventing another 9/11, or our focus would've been on bin Laden from the start, and it wouldn't have left bin Laden until he was dead or captured.
The most wanted man on the planet, or a dictator who wasn't a threat. Now, try and tell me what Bush's priorities *really* were.
And now Bush could be on the verge of creating a civil war in yet *another* country, supposedly one of our allies.
Yeah, that's looking great for his legacy.
Ok, let's define influence. Name me one issue that Pat has changed in recent history. Dobson? Probably. Falwell, perhaps. Pat Robertson? Not anything that was not already championed by someone more mainstream in Christian circles.
I know there are a few who listen to Robertson, but to say he has any real influence is a joke. But if you want to waste your time worrying about him, go right ahead.
I'm sure that Robertson is on the White House speed dialer and I seem to recall reading an article that reported that the administration call Robertson for "advice" whenever a judgeship is going to be filled.
So, no, I don't think worrying about him is a waste of time.
This is totally unrelated, but I just had to share this:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060118/ap_on_he_me/fat_kids_lawsuit
Poor Spongebob, the right thinks he's making kids gay and now the left thinks he's making kids fat. He just can't catch a break.
Craig wrote: "Here's a bloody intelligent thought: GET BIN LADEN."
C'mon! That's like saying "Find Jimmy Hoffa!"
Don't you think every CIA spook from here to Zanzibar has had "get bin Laden" tatooed to his/her forehead since 9/11? Bin Laden knows the minute he shows his face, someone will put a missile through it. It's not like he's prancing about the countryside saying "Here I am -- come get me!" Even when, under Clinton, we still had the element of surprise, we missed him with a missile strike. Easier said than done.
"It's not like he's prancing about the countryside saying "Here I am -- come get me!"
True. That's Bush's job.
PAD
C'mon! That's like saying "Find Jimmy Hoffa!"
Last I heard he was buried in the Meadowlands.
al-Zarqawi has been reported dead a couple of times
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/zarqawi_woodenleg.html
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/zarqawi_woodenleg.html
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/focus/story/0,6903,887439,00.html
Don't you think every CIA spook from here to Zanzibar has had "get bin Laden" tatooed to his/her forehead since 9/11?
Given how many were pulled off the hunt for bin Laden to fabricate, I mean interpret, the "slam dunk" evidence about Saddam's WMD program, I would say no.
Easier said than done.
Easier to dismiss out of hand than take seriously as well, apparently.
But then, that's why we have over 100,000 troops in Iraq, and something like 20,000 in Afghanistan, with, according to one article I just found, major reductions in Afghanistan on the way.
Yeah, we really tried our hardest, didn't we?
Keep in mind that Bin Laden's probably dead. Several sources here:
Keep in mind that Bin Laden's probably dead. Several sources here:
Wow. Well, if several political blogs and opinion pieces that come up on a Google search say he's dead, then it must be true.
I notice most of the links that came up on the first Google page were 3-4 years old or referenced rumors that were that old. And yet tapes of his voice keep popping up. Oh yeah, they're all faked, even the ones that the CIA had verified were real.
Gimme a freakin' break. If there was credible that bin Laden has been dead since 2002, don't you think Bush would be screaming it from the roof of the White House instead of shrugging off questions about him by saying he's "not all that concerned."
Let's try googling "bin Laden not dead"
Ah, hear, apparently the head of the CIA at least thinks he's alive:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/12/08/schuster.column/
"They don't want us to find them and they're going to great lengths to make sure we don't find them. And I assure you we're applying a lot of efforts to find out where they are. And I don't want to get into the depth and the details, but we know a good deal more about bin Laden and Zarqawi and Zawahiri than we are able to say publicly," Goss said.
Now, I realized that unlike Tenet, Goss hasn't been awarded the Medal of Freedom for his "slam dunk" intelligence work, but I suspect that he's more plugged into the reality of all the evidence then you or I are, Mike.
several political blogs and opinion pieces
BBC, CNN CBS, UK Mirror, National Review, Time Magazine. That's just the first page.
don't you think Bush would be screaming it from the roof of the White House
No, because Bin Laden is bush's Emmanual Goldstein. As long as he can keep using this bogeyman, bush can justify doing whatever he wants.
Goss ... but I suspect that he's more plugged into the reality of all the evidence
Given that bush only appoints people who agree with &/or say what he wants, I wouldn't give him too much credibility.
even the ones that the CIA had verified were real
The same CIA that verified bush's WMD claims, the connection between 9/11 & Saddam, the connection between Saddam & Al-Queda. They're not doing too good these days.
Let's try googling "bin Laden not dead"
Just did. About a third of the page overlaps the previous search.
BBC, CNN CBS, UK Mirror, National Review, Time Magazine. That's just the first page.
You do understand that all of those run opinion pieces? In fact, the National Review is all opinion.
We have a tape this week indicating that he is still alive. Until I see real proof that he's dead, I am going to continue to assume that he is still sucking oxygen. And by proof, I mean physical evidence, not "according to Iranians I trust" as the guy from the National Review said.
A body would be nice.
The same CIA that verified bush's WMD claims, the connection between 9/11 & Saddam, the connection between Saddam & Al-Queda. They're not doing too good these days.
Actually, other then Tenet, a lot of CIA agents expressed doubt about the WMD's, and Saddam's connection to 9/11 and Al-Quaeda. They were just ignored by Dick and Dumbass.
Gee, looks like the CIA has already verified that it is OBL's voice on the tape:
http://news.yahoo.com/fc/world/osama_bin_laden_and_al_qaida
Again, if people are going to claim he's dead, the burden of proof is on them.
I know Bush and his apologists would very much like to say that OBL has died quietly so that they can focus on the Project for a New American Century, but I want to see the body. Or at least the dental records.
If Bin Laden were dead, and Bush knew it, yet continued to play the "get Bin Laden" game, he'd be too at risk for the embarrasment of being wrong. For that reason alone, I think he's still alive, or at least there's no evidence that he's dead. Plus, Bin Laden is worth more to his own movement dead than he is alive.
The US' best option is to quietly capture him, then keep him locked up somewhere for the next 20 years.
What "get bin laden" game? Bush has spent the past four years trying to equate Iraq and 9/11 in our minds. He doesn't give a rat's ass whether OBL is dead or alive. He's already as admitted as much. He would be very happy to have news that OBL has died quietly so that he can forget all about him.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060119/ts_nm/religion_catholic_evolution_dc
Uh-oh, God has been voted out of Rome! The Pope better prepare himself for the hurricanes and blood clots coming his way.
A commentary on NPR’s “All Things Considered” by Emory University professor Robert Franklin put Clinton’s and Nagin’s comments into the context of call and response rhetoric used in the Black church. This link will take you to the NPR website, and you should be able to listen to the commentary.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5162860
Rick
It's not the Pope who has to worry...it's the feminists, the atheists, the pagans and the gay people.
We have a tape this week indicating that he is still alive.
We have a tape purportedly with bin Laden's voice, a voice the CIA now has "verified" to be bin Laden's.
But then, we're back to the fact it was "verified" that Saddam had WMD and so forth.
Besides, some of the stuff in this tape isn't very bin Laden-like. A truce? Umm, okay...
But, just like "the good people of Dover", the RCC has turned their back on God by saying that intelligent design isn't science. The pope had better worry. God is still planning on smiting Dover. Pat said so.
Love this one from Comedy Central:
http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=36400
It makes me wonder if they have any spear carriers in the organization at all.
One of the articles I read about the incident said that 2 or 3 bodyguards were killed as well. They didn't get mentioned by name because who cares? Al Qaeda get killed all the time in Afghanistan, many of them probably the "spear carriers" you mention but it's not deemed newsworthy.
The tape also says that they're preparing another attack and heightened security in the US is not the reason why they haven't had another one on US soil since 9/11. So, I guess having grandmothers take their shoes off at the airport and spying in US citizens hasn't been working.
Well, two points-- one, why should we take Bin Laden at his word? If he says that heightened security isn't working I, for one, am inclined to keep it at least as heightened. Second, from reading a few far left blogs, the talking points that THEY are issuing is that this is obviously a fake, engineered by Bush to encourage people to pass the extension of the Patriot Act. I know, I don't quite get the logic either but there it is.
re Jimmy Hoffa-- "Our top story tonight: dedication ceremonies for the new Teamsters Union Headquarters building took place today in Detroit, where Union President Fitzsimmons was reported to have said that former President Jimmy Hoffa would always be a cornerstone in the organization." (Chevy Chase)
Given how many were pulled off the hunt for bin Laden to fabricate, I mean interpret, the "slam dunk" evidence about Saddam's WMD program, I would say no.
Ok. How many were pulled off? I mean, how many spooks do you need to fabricate evidence? Or was I not meant to take this seriously?
You gotta love the paranoia though--Some say that Bush KNOWS that Bin Laden is dead but keeps it quiet because he wants to keep us all scared. Others say that he knows he is alive but he is trying to downplay this...which would kind of contradict the keeping us scared part. Some say the tape proves Bush's incompetence in chasing Bin Laden while others think Bush MADE the tape. Theresa Heinz Kerry thought that Bush might have already captured Bin Laden and was waiting until the right moment to make the announcement (must be a hell of a poker player, since he's still sitting on the big news).
Unless someone can come up with a unified field theory to tie it all together...One thing I can say with certainty--when and if Bin Laden turns up dead some of the same loud voices complaining now will claim that his death has not really made much of a difference. And actually, they'll be right. Zarqawi would be a far more important kill but the justifiable desire for vengeance on our part would probably make a Bin Laden death more popular.
Others say that he knows he is alive but he is trying to downplay this...which would kind of contradict the keeping us scared part. Some say the tape proves Bush's incompetence in chasing Bin Laden while others think Bush MADE the tape.
I'm looking at this as a combination: we could pretty much guess that bin Laden was alive, but since this Administration stated that bin Laden no longer mattered, well, another tape does prove Bush's incompetence in the half-ass attempt that was made to get him.
"True. That's Bush's job."
Actually, it's supposed to be the job of both the National Squirrel Agency and the Clueless Idiots Associated. With a degree in Arabic, I had the "pleasure" of working with both of them. The Liberal, I mean, Progressive, gubmint employees were too busy building their little empires to actually have a desire to protect this country.
The Liberal, I mean, Progressive, gubmint employees were too busy building their little empires to actually have a desire to protect this country.
Well, it's about time somebody on the Right admitted that Bush is more liberal than conservative.
Second, from reading a few far left blogs, the talking points that THEY are issuing is that this is obviously a fake, engineered by Bush to encourage people to pass the extension of the Patriot Act. I know, I don't quite get the logic either but there it is.
I give the far left blogs about as much credibility as I do the far right ones, so that means nothing to me. Tell you what. The CIA has weighed in as the tape being authentic. So has every major news media organization, including Fox News, so if someone can produce at least one credible source that the tape is fake, I'll concede that it's at least possible that bin Laden is dead.
You gotta love the paranoia though--Some say that Bush KNOWS that Bin Laden is dead but keeps it quiet because he wants to keep us all scared. Others say that he knows he is alive but he is trying to downplay this...which would kind of contradict the keeping us scared part.
Actually, that just proves that the left isn't the monolithic block the right makes it out to be and vice versa.
One of the articles I read about the incident said that 2 or 3 bodyguards were killed as well. They didn't get mentioned by name because who cares? Al Qaeda get killed all the time in Afghanistan, many of them probably the "spear carriers" you mention but it's not deemed newsworthy.
Maybe, but that still doesn't explain why we never seem to kill or capture any number 3 or 4 guys. It's always number 2. Why is that?
Probably because after numbers 1 & 2 it gets a bit harder to place them. Take the USA for example. The president and VP make an easy #1 and #2 but then it gets tougher. What number would a Condi Rice or Donald Rumsfeld be?
At any rate, wouldn't the very subject of our discussion, the guys taken out this time, be pretty much a #3 or #4? Bin Laden is #1, the guy they tried to kill was #2. Abu Khabab al-Masri had something like a 5 million dollar bounty on his head so he was no small potato.
What number would a Condi Rice or Donald Rumsfeld be?
So, you're comparing the officials of a constitutional republic with a terrorist organization?
OOOOOKay.
At any rate, wouldn't the very subject of our discussion, the guys taken out this time, be pretty much a #3 or #4?
Possibly. But of course, they weren't the primary target that we were going for. At best, they're consolation prizes.
So, you're comparing the officials of a constitutional republic with a terrorist organization?
Considering the depths this Administration has gone to to allow themselves to be easily compared to a terrorist organization, it's not much of a stretch at all.
I'm just surprised that one of this administration's strongest defenders would make that comparison.
Besides, some of the stuff in this tape isn't very bin Laden-like. A truce? Umm, okay...
Not really. He offered a truce to Europeans in his 2004 tape as well.
Of course, I'm sure that one was faked, too, even though it was certified by the European intelligence agencies as well as the CIA.
I don't know which is weaker-evading the point or calling me one of the administration's strongest defenders! I guess if you aren't blindly rabid you're automatically a supporter. Oh well. If I'm one of the adminstrations biggest supporters, God help them.
At any rate, back to the, ahem, point. You asked why we never get the #4 or #5 guy. I pointed out that maybe we did but it is hard to say who the number 4 or 5 guy is and, as an example of this difficulty, pointed out that in our own government it would be difficult to prioritize people (one could just go down the list of who would become president in what order but I don't think that would be very useful--if one wanted to strike at the USA there are a lot of people who would be higher on the list than the secretary of transportation even if they aren't in the officail line of succession).
Anyway, that was my point. Thought it was obvious but OOOOOKay.
I don't know which is weaker-evading the point or calling me one of the administration's strongest defenders!
Oh, please. I have yet to see you not defend the position of the Bush administration here when it comes to the war or foreign policy.
As for prioritizing people by the line of succession, that is a perfectly logical way to do it, because it goes: president, vice president, speaker, president pro tempore, and then through the cabinet officials, making the Sec. of Transportation far below #4 or #5. So, I don't see how hard it is to do.
But, you made the analogy between our government and Al Qaeda, so don't get upset when someone questions that.
Or, to quote you: "Waa waa waa."
Hey, whatever. It's not like I'm claiming I lost all my respect for you. Heh.
But at least you've amended your overstatement to just the war and foreign policy. Lurching ever so slowly toward reality but a step nonetheless.
It must be nice to have such an enormous opinion of yourself.
I didn't make any overstatement. It's just that war and foreign policy are the two issues that I am aware of your opinion on. If there are numerous domestic policy issues with which you disagree with Chimpy McFlightsuit, you haven't listed them in this forum, so excuse me for not knowing them.
I should also say that I'm not in the habit of combing the archives of PAD's site to find out of context quotes so that I can play, "gotcha" with people in order to feed my need to feel superior to other people, so if I missed your lengthy essays decrying Bush's plan to privatize social security or the No Child Left Behind plan, well then, excuse me.
I guess if you aren't blindly rabid you're automatically a supporter.
Well, when it comes to Bush, there apparently is no middle ground. :)
Bush tore up the middle ground years ago with his "you're either with us or with the terrorists" rhetoric. So you're either a "Bush tush" as PAD called them or you're a terrorist hating pinko traitor who "wants America to fail."
Here we go, quote of the day:
"Obviously, when you're looking at the issue of congressional reform, the first person you turn to in the United States Senate is X, and we've done so," said Sen. Rick Santorum , R-Pa.
I'll leave you guys to guess who X is (or you can find the quote yourself). It'll make you laugh to see how much of an about-face the Republicans are taking in the wake of Abramoff's guilty plea.
Found the quote. What a surprise: It's John McCain.
He'll of course go along because he sincerely wants to reform how things are done in Washington. Plus, it's perfect timing for him to show what he can accomplish as he seeks to boost his presidential ambitions.
Of course, once the window dressing reforms are passed, they'll go back to ignoring him and denigrating him as a "RINO."
It must be nice to have such an enormous opinion of yourself.
It's not that i have such a high opinion of myself it's that I have such a low one of your argument. Though I can understand how you might confuse the two.
If there are numerous domestic policy issues with which you disagree with Chimpy McFlightsuit, you haven't listed them in this forum, so excuse me for not knowing them.
You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you?
...if I missed your lengthy essays decrying Bush's plan to privatize social security or the No Child Left Behind plan, well then, excuse me.
But at least you admit you don't know what you're talking about. Which is something.
I wouldn't know about your opinion of any of my arguments, since you spend most of your time attacking me personally instead of my arguments.
You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you?
Well then, why don't you share your natural superiority and enlighten me?
I'm still waiting for all of those points where you disagree with our beloved emperor.
You're still waiting? Gee, and I don't even remember you asking...
And I thought it WAS your arguments I was disagreeing with. Not the same as you and not the same as "attacking" but apparently you see them as one and the same.
Now, as to my disagreements with Bush:
gay marriage, No Child Left Behind, the Medicaid Drug fiasco, the decision to dismantle the Iraqi army, the overrealiance on the WMD argument to justify the war, the fiscally insane overspending, the decision to let Europe handle the Iranian threat, the approval of Intelligent Design teaching, the Meirs nomination, signing a campaign finance bill that he himself thought was unconstitutional, stem cell research...
Just to name a few.
Doubtless this is insufficiant to anyone who seriously thinks we are about to enter a dark age of jackboot trampling oppression but there you are. Bush's biggest advantage has always been the silliness of his opposition. Like Bill Clinton he seems to have the gift of making his enemies so froth mouthed mad that they bite themselves more often than not.
Doubtless this is insufficiant to anyone who seriously thinks we are about to enter a dark age of jackboot trampling oppression but there you are. Bush's biggest advantage has always been the silliness of his opposition. Like Bill Clinton he seems to have the gift of making his enemies so froth mouthed mad that they bite themselves more often than not.
And you don't see this as a personal attack? Also, the "lurching towards reality" comment was another one.
Well, at least you did finally list those disagreements. I guess that's something. But just about every comment you make towards me contains at least one personal swipe. Before that pissed me off, but now I realize that's just your way of compensating for some sort inadequacy in your personal life, so now I just laugh it all off.
I freely admit that I sometimes engage in a little hyperbole just for effect, but obviously, most of the sarcasm just sails straight over your head as you try to prove to yourself that you're smarter than me.
Anyway, if you ever want to actually discuss the issues, I'm always here.
Well, at least you did finally list those disagreements
Yeah, "finally". It still cracks me up that you never actually asked for them but you can say that with a straight face.
I freely admit that I sometimes engage in a little hyperbole just for effect, but obviously, most of the sarcasm just sails straight over your head as you try to prove to yourself that you're smarter than me.
I think this is a case of pots and kettles but maybe we are just too much alike to get along consistantly.
Anyway, if you ever want to actually discuss the issues, I'm always here.
Ditto, though I would point out that it was my trying to actually discuss why we never seem to get the #3 or #4 Al Qeada guy that brought on the latest shoutfest.
Yeah, "finally". It still cracks me up that you never actually asked for them but you can say that with a straight face.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize that you needed an official request filed in triplicate. I just assumed that my stating I didn't know of any points of disagreement between you and Dumbass was enough of an invitation for you to give some examples. My bad. For future reference, is that form 720-AX or 720-AZ?
I think this is a case of pots and kettles but maybe we are just too much alike to get along consistantly.
Maybe you're right there, but I generally don't approach political discussions with the assumption that the person on the other side is stupid or unbalanced, which your posts often imply that you do. I don't have the same need to tell people they should "lurch towards reality." I save my insults for the politicians, because they're the ones that deserve it.
Ditto, though I would point out that it was my trying to actually discuss why we never seem to get the #3 or #4 Al Qeada guy that brought on the latest shoutfest.
Please. This was barely a tiff.
Here's an amusing link as an olive branch:
http://70.102.129.65/core/vid/VillageVoice.wmv
Ok.
For the sake of peace, lets all start our posts with something we can all agree on.
I'll start.
Oxygen is good.
Anyway, about the issue of Osama offering a truce...methinks that we have discussed just such an issue before. Way back when the IRA called for a truce, PAD posted a blog asking what America would do if Bin Laden did the same thing.
I guess we now have the answer.
Admittedly, I don't really think we can fault the administration for turning him down out of hand.
Water is pretty ok too.
Hey am I misremembering or didn't Osama once offer something tot he effect that any state that voted against Bush would be off limits in future attacks?
Toast is fun!
Personally, I think if Osama has any brains he would want to keep Bush in power. I mean, Bush doesn't consider him a threat....hes looking in the wrong place....he can only kill those # 2 men (and oh how many there are.) Heck, at least Clinton came CLOSE to getting him.
Terrorist organizations don't really have 1# 2# 3#'s and 4#'s. They are much less hierarchic than armies, which makes thtam more difficult to defeat. What they have is 1, than many loosly affiliated 2's and 3's, and then a lot of 4's etc.
There are many reasons for Bin Laden's proposal, here in Israel we have them all the time (proposals, not ceasefires). Here are some reasons:
1) It makes it seems as if has actual control of terrorist attacks around the world. Actually he controls only some of them. If terrorism continues after withdrawl, it will be some other organization, whose cause is completely understandable (he wil say to his audience) considering the US's other actions around the world.
2) It creates a sense of equality and balance between him and the U.S. If the U.S. were to withdraw, than everytime they did something he did not like, he would claim that it broke the truce, and this would justify his attacks. If the US does not withdraw, this gives justification to his attacks, which is more tangible than his original objectives in 9/11.
3) He thinks that by making that proposal he will weaken the US by strengthening the opposition to the war. (I'm not saying I support the war, but this is how I think he thinks).
4) He wants to show that his war has realistic objectives. This is good because it means that he thinks that his public is buying his more farfetched objectives, and/or questioning the idea of an endless war.
5) Although Bush draws recruits to his cause, defeating Bush on the international political level will be a greater success.
6) The propsal makes him seem as a stateman as well as a warrior, but since he is offering a temporary truce, it does not seem as if he has given up his cause.
In any case, although in the future some offers coming from al-quaida should be considered seriously, this is probably not one of them. The Al-Quida situation is a little more difficult than the IRA's because the IRA was located in a specific country with a specific political wing. It is more difficult to treat Al-Quida as a political faction than, say, the Baathist in Iraq.
I like eggs.
....hes looking in the wrong place
You know something I don't? hey, there's a 50 million dollar reward, you tell me where he is and we split it 50/50.
(And those who seem to imply that it is only a lack of desire that keeps us from finding him--don't you think there are beaucoup mercenaries combing the sand for the chance to collect the biggest dead or alive paycheck in history? Nothing would make me happier than to have some greasy tattooed Rupert from survivor type pop up on TV holding Osama by his scrawney neck, bellowing "Wha's mah 50 MILLION???" Wouldn't that be great?)
(Except for those who are one of the truly demented 41% (at last count) who voted on dailykos that they despise Bush more than Bin Laden: http://www.dailykos.com/poll/1137742415_nANToluZ)
I like America.
You make excellent points Micha.
Actually, on a different topic...you are a lot closer to this issue than I am, and I would be really interested to hear your what you think will happen now that Sharon has been incapacitated.
AS for your most recent post.....I am not sure that Osama is trying to appear like a statesman. Certainly he remains incredibly popular in the Muslim world, not to mention the recruits that the War is driving to him or other similar groups. Personally, I would have expected him to come out fighting, and only when he was more on the ropes to go for diplomacy. Possibly he is getting worrried. Of course, you may be right, and he is trying to improve his image in the west.
Although he probably should have thought of that BEFORE 9/11. Or as Jon Stewart says:
Osama said he offered the truce because polls show the majority of Americans are against the war. Uhhh...thats the war in Iraq. Everybody here is still pretty much in favor of bombing the f*** out of YOU.
Bill, do you really think that we are gonna see Rupert with Osama? Because I think the guy has pretty good security. I mean, he has suicide bombers working for him. Kinda hard to fight that.
As for that 41%, hell, there might be some few idiots who feel that way, but most of them are probably like 8th graders filling out one of those drug surveys so popular in school. You always say that you mainline heroin 5 times a week, even if you think "mainline" is what they call the part of Route 1 that runs through New England.
"Well, at least you did finally list those disagreements."
You know...I recall Bill making plenty of critical comments regarding the current administration in the time I have been visiting the board. So "finally" seems rather unfair.
"I guess that's something. But just about every comment you make towards me contains at least one personal swipe"
Um, actually, it seems like he makes a lot of general statements that you take as personal affronts. And plenty of times are related to comments that are clearly NOT aimed at you personally.
I enjoy the general discourse you both bring to the board, but seriously, you take offense to things that are clearly not personal slams from Bill. I am not saying he has not taken ANY swipes, but often, it seems those come after you take offense to items that were clearly not aimed at you personally.
Asian girls are rad.
Oh, I have no doubt that Osama has security up the wazoo. Anyone who tries to catch him will earn every penny of the 50 million (and have to spend a good chunk of it to go into hiding under a new name). And if he does get nailed it will probably be by a missle. But I'd love to see someone collect the bounty.
Thom, thanks for the kind words. In Den's defense, I'll be the first to admit that I've let my temper get the better of me and said some unkind words. It's usually when I feel like I've been on the receiving end of them myself but that doesn't entirely excuse them.
I think if we both just sort of stand back and cool ore jets for a bit it'll be ok. Den does bring some good stuff to the board.
I agree. I would be disappointed to see either of you leave. I've been given plenty of good fodder for thought from both of you guys.
I regret my post a bit, because I don't want to come off as being to hard on Den...I have no interest in fighting anyone on the board. I think Peter has assembled quite a collection of interesting people on this blog. :)
Yeah, this is a very interesting group...I like to hope that someday a bunch of us could meet at some con or something, go out for dinner and cheap hookers or whatever the kids want to do. We need to have a secret signal so we will know each other--maybe the Loyal Order of Woodchucks Hi Sign (what do you mean you don't know the Loyal Order of Woodchucks Hi Sign? You wiggle your hand under your chin. My God, did NONE of you watch The Little Rascals???)
I don't know, I think "Peter David dot Net Reader" T-Shirts would work. Of course, with "Peter David" in huge, eye-wrenching, comic style letters. :P
Oh, you said a SECRET signal...
-Rex Hondo-
Oh sure and get hassled by members of Phi Alpha Delta or sympathies from fellow sufferers of peripheral artery disease.
Maybe we could use some kind of code. Walk up to random people and say "The sheep run North when the crow flies highest." and if they don't call for security we know we've found the right person.
Hey am I misremembering or didn't Osama once offer something tot he effect that any state that voted against Bush would be off limits in future attacks?
I remember something vaguely about this. If memory serves me though, it was just a false internet meme that got spread around.
(Except for those who are one of the truly demented 41% (at last count) who voted on dailykos that they despise Bush more than Bin Laden: ">http://www.dailykos.com/poll/1137742415_nANToluZ)
I haven't looked at the wording of the poll, but tweak the wording slightly and I'd be in that 41%. if the question was "fears Bush more than Bin Laden", then count me in. Bin Laden's a boogeyman; Bush is making policy decisions every day which are having a more direct impact on me. I don't think that's hyperbole, and I would certainly object to any characterization of myself as "truly demented." (Well ... in THIS context, anyway.)
TWL
But if Bin Laden is just a bogeyman doesn't that mean you actually agree with Bush when he downplays his importance? Much of the criticism here has been that Bush is deliberately trying to minimize how critical it is to catch Bin Laden. I realize that you haven't been one of those saying so but it's another case of Bush Can't Win--if he focuses on Bin Laden he's creating bogeymen to keep us in fear; if he doesn't then he's excusing his own incompetence in allowing a dangerous killer to walk free.
I think you're rewording of the poll is a major tweaking. While I would disagree with your position it's a very defensible one.
Maybe we could use some kind of code. Walk up to random people and say "The sheep run North when the crow flies highest." and if they don't call for security we know we've found the right person.
I see no real problem with finding each other.
We will be the most rabid fans at PAD's book signing table.
The real problem comes later, when this group is all together. I mean, seriously, can you imagine ANY of the people on this blog getting along for any length of time? I mean, you can say: "I like cheese" on here, and instantly get attacked by two or three people who are ovalactovegans. Not to mention the sometimes slightly-left-of-Lenin liberals (you know who you are Craig :) )
I have a feeling that any such meeting would be soon broken up by a combination of local riot squads, rabid John Byrne fans, and the Department Of homeland Security.
James Carter -
(While I'm a little more optimistic than you about such a situation) - heh heh heh!
James,
About Sharon:
Polls seem to suggest that his party will win the elections even without him. But since Sharon has placed himself and his party in the center of Israeli politics after shifting from the right, I have no idea if he was planning on moving further left and pursuing peace negotiations, continuing with the centrist approach of partial unilateral withdrawls, or back to the right's no withdrawl policy. It is also unknown if his successors will have the power he had to achieve things. His popularity was based on his can do image.
About Bin Laden:
I am no expert. I'm try to guess how he thinks by extrapolating from the experience with our local brand of terrorists.
Although Bin Laden is popular in the Muslim world for his attacks against the US, this does not mean that all of them are as committed as he is to the more far fetched objetive of rebuilding a Muslim Empire. So, to keep his popularity it might be necessary to present more tangible goals. It is also possible that his popularity has decreased. I'm not sure how well he is doing. In any case, he doesn't have the Muslim world in his pocket.
I didn't say that he is pursuing diplomacy per se. He is interested in appearing to be paying on the diplomatic field.
I also didn't say that he was trying to improve his image in the west. Although, I suspect he would like the people in the west to think of him as a freedom fighter, or something like that. Terrorists usually do.
Bin Laden probably perceives the disagreements in the US about Iraq, as a sign of weakness and a proof of the success of the use of terrorism. (He thinks, not I). So its less about his popularity in the west as about the west giving in to some of his demands because of its (perceived) weakness.
Osama Bin Laden is not a boogyman, but he is not that important either. You really shoudn't personalize this conflict. Getting him would be nice, but it will not be the end of the story.
How did a thread about Hilary Clinton turn into a discussion about Bin Laden?
How did a thread about Hilary Clinton turn into a discussion about Bin Laden?
Micha, by now you should know that these threads can take directions that can only be predicted with a working knowledge of chaos theory.
Actually, I think we'd get along GREAT. Seriously. First off, it would be a sorry convention indeed that left us with so little conversation fodder that we had to dredge up politics. Plus, it's easier to smooth over differences in a conversation than it is in writing, where jokes may look like serious criticism and visa versa.
Also, anyone who misbehaves will have to face the endless torment of all the other members writing about his or her malfeasance.
I, for one, will be as gentle as a churchmouse.
But if Bin Laden is just a bogeyman doesn't that mean you actually agree with Bush when he downplays his importance?
I wasn't planning to get into that particular semantic question. You made a statement that needed addressing, I addressed it. I haven't really got time to wade into the rest of this at the moment.
I think you're rewording of the poll is a major tweaking.
As I said, I hadn't looked at the actual poll itself, so I didn't know how big or small a tweak it was going to be. Having since looked at it -- yes, I think it's a significantly different set of wording, but I also think "despise" is such a loaded and vague term that it's hard to work with properly. (In other words -- bad poll. Bad, bad poll.)
TWL
No argument there. Not that I go to Kos for good polls or much else, other than the same sort of thrill some probably get from a porn site. Seriously. And now that Kerry, the real Kerry, is posting there I'll have to go more often, if only to see how he does at a place where the moderator once opined that, quote, "But what makes me angry was Kerry and his gang's inability to take advantage of the situation. I may regret saying this later, but fuck it -- they should be lined up and shot. There's no reason they should've lost to this joker. "I voted for the $87 billion, then I voted against it." That wasn't nuance. That was idiocy."
Tough, tough crowd. But that's where the money is and Kerry intends to run again, no doubt about it. Hell, gotta give him some credit for sticking his head into the lion's den.
I wasn't planning to get into that particular semantic question. You made a statement that needed addressing, I addressed it.
Tim.
Tim, Tim, Tim, Tim, Tim.
How COULD you? You don't want to go into semantics? Why, thats a violation of our most basic principles, the most basic code of the Peter-David-blog-posting-people! Semantics are responsible for 50% of the posts on the politcal threads, and 95% of those on the TV, Movie, and comic threads! Without semantics, we are nothing. Well, not NOTHING. Say rather, we are not what we are without semantics with semantics.
But that's where the money is and Kerry intends to run again, no doubt about it.
Should Kerry run again? I would say no. He just isn't presidential material. too dry, to smart sounding, and just not....president-y.
What we really need in a canidate is more of a popular canidate. NOT Hillary, she has too much fallout from Clinton Homme Perhaps someone like Barak Obama, or a so-called "new democrat."
In my own personal preference, I say we let Jimmy Carter run again. I mean, the mans MAIN fault was that he micro-managed. Other than that, he is a briliant, and GOOD man. Compared to a man who couldn't give a crap unless you are rich, and is dumber than a drunk sack of hammers (hammered hammers?) and has the ethics of Khan (Genghis or Noonien Singh, whichever) that looks really good.
Plus he is a one time canidate, meaning that he doesn't have to worry about election, and can get stuff DONE! How much do I want him to run? I have taken to wearing "Carter for President" buttons around. The wired loks alone make it worth it.
DANG IT!!
That SHOULD be "wierd looks" not "wired loks" and "Brilliant" not "Brilant"
Curse my lack of noticing till it is too late.
Only the weeniest of weenies bitches about spelling. But you can nip all hurtful words in the bud by using Firefox, which can have a spell check tacked right on to it. You can tell when I'm using it by the presence or lack of bonehead mistakes.
SHOULD Kerry run? Hell no! If he couldn't win in 2004 he has ZERO chance in 2008. His "I'm not Bush" platform will not resonate all that much considering that his opponent will not be Bush.
There are some safer choices than Hillary out there but she can raise more money in a weekend than they will ever hope to raise. And Bill can double that number. Money isn't everything but she also has name recognition and a solid core of Black and feminist voters--not a bad thing to have when running in the Democratic primaries.
The only thing that will stop her is the fear that she is unelectable--and that's what made the Democrats shoot down Dean and put up Kerry, to their eternal regret.
(I haven't forgotten Wesley Clark but unless he has seriously changed his style, it won't happen. He would make a hell of a VP candidate for Hillary though, shield her against the erroneous idea that she would be soft on defense).
Not to mention the sometimes slightly-left-of-Lenin liberals (you know who you are Craig :) )
*shrug* Like Bill said, I'd think we'd get along fine.
Sometimes, some of us push a little too hard with our views, but I don't think any of us are too far to the left or right to be considered off our rockers.
And for the great majority of the time, the conversations here are enjoyable and intelligent.
On another forum I visit (which is there mostly for sports, but has an Off Topic forum), it's much more rabid on both sides.
There are a couple of self-proclaimed liberals who are literally saying "Bush sucks" with every post they make, while you've got self-proclaimed conservatives who agree with spying on Americans, and the torture & killing innocent civilians in the Middle East.
In the end, most of them have views on issues that fall in both camps; only one guy claimed to be a complete right-wing nutjob (he calls all liberals 'commie pinkos' and says Pakistan is a terrorist state).
I'm sorry I missed this one. SNL has gotten a bit funnier lately.
SNL TOOK UP GAFFES [Tim Graham]
The first skit on Saturday Night Live last night was a fake "Anderson Cooper 360" satirizing Ray Nagin (by Finesse Mitchell), Jesse Jackson (by Darrell Hammond) , and Hillary Clinton (by Amy Poehler). Cooper was played by a guy who seems a lot like Ben Stiller. It was not politically correct. "Jackson" was saying we need more flavors on the national "dessert cart," not just chocolate or vanilla, but some "caramel" to represent Latinos and "custard" to represent the Asians. "And the dessert cart....rolls on," he sermonized.
Color me biased, but the funniest part was the Hillary "plantation" discussion. "I was pandering," the ersatz senator explained. She would have used other evil metaphors for other constituencies. To a Latino audience, she claimed, she would have said Congress operated "like a landscaping business." For gays, Congress was like "a figure skating coach." For whites, Congress is a "mismanaged hedge fund."
In the end, most of them have views on issues that fall in both camps; only one guy claimed to be a complete right-wing nutjob (he calls all liberals 'commie pinkos' and says Pakistan is a terrorist state).
Well, I happen to believe that selling nuclear secrets to North Korea and Iran does make Pakistan a terrorist state, so call me a right-wing nutjob. :)
On another front, I think the 2008 election is going to be a tough one because both parties have a real dearth of quality candidates on the national scene.
On the Democratic side, Hillary is too polarizing. Kerry is, well, Kerry. So is Gore. Obama is one that everyone seems to love, but he's probably still too young for 2008 and he said he's not running anyway. Wesley Clark needs better media consultants (Hint: gag Michael Moore before he endorses you again!). Leiberman is now more popular in the Bush camp then McCain, which is killing his chances in his own party. Dean has effectively killed his chances by being the party firebrand.
On the GOP side, McCain is the one everyone touts, but he has the same weaknesses he did in 2000: temper and a maverick reputation that makes party insiders nervous. The other one people push is Rice, but she's already said she's not going to run, plus, I think when push comes to shoeve, being black and a woman is still too much of a liability for a candidate in some parts of the country. Frist and DeLay have ethical issues. Santorum is, to be blunt, a dick. Some people want to draft Jeb Bush, but even republicans are starting to get sick of the name Bush.
Who else?
Well, I happen to believe that selling nuclear secrets to North Korea and Iran does make Pakistan a terrorist state, so call me a right-wing nutjob. :)
The point being that Pakistan is supposed to be one of our great allies in the war against terror.
Yet, some conservatives would just as soon bomb the crap out of Pakistan as well.
Which isn't a sentiment I really disagree with, but it's just another Bush Administration irony that we're allying ourselves with terrorists.
The key word, Craig, is "supposed". They are "suppposed" to be our great ally in fighting terrorism, but their actions indicate otherwise.
If I were going to bet on a ticket, for the Democrats it would be Evan Bayh and Mark Warner, and for the Republicans, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani.
If H. Clinton, Kerry, Gore or Dean are in the mix, I predict the Democrats will be crushed. Clark, surprisingly (to me, at least), has a weak public presence, and would drag down a Democratic ticket. Obama is way to young and inexperienced for 2008, and he knows it (which is why he bowed out).
Powell limped out of the political spotlight, and I don't think he can recover. Rice might have been a good VP candidate in 2008, but she has too much pre-war baggage to get her over the hump, and, like Obama, I think she knows it. And I agree Jeb Bush would be a ticket liability.
The key word, Craig, is "supposed". They are "suppposed" to be our great ally in fighting terrorism, but their actions indicate otherwise.
Yeah, well, our government is "supposed" to be fighting terrorism too, but we all see how that's gone *cough*Iraq*cough*.
So, I'm not going to hold it against the Pakistanis. :)
The US (and Europe also) had and still has relationships and alliances with countries who were non democratic, oppressive, and tolerated or supported terrorism.
Packistan is just one such country.
Romney is an interesting case. Being Mormon is a liability among two diverse groups--those who think Christians are too conservative and conservative Christians.
A sizable percentage of conservative Christians see Mormons as members of a cult. I don't know if Romney can break through that wall.
Potentially then, a Romney/Gulliani ticket would be one hell of a gamble--Romney scaring moderates and fundamentalists and Gulliani annoying the arch conservatives. personally, I could easily get behind a ticket like that but I don't know how the primary voters will react.
McCain seems to drive some republicans into a tizzy--they give the same kind of crazy "I'd rather vote for Hillary and the reanimated corpse of Lenin than vote for McCain!" response that I usually have to go to Dailykos to find. Don't understand it much myself but it's there. Still, every decent poll I've seen has him leading the pack, such as it is.
Packistan is just one such country.
That doesn't mean we have to like it.
And besides, I think that Pakistan's actions in recent years have been so counter to our interests in the region, that some may question whether we are actually getting enough of a benefit out of this to justify this alliance. I put them up there with Saudi Arabia and France in the "with friends like these" category.
Romney has Mormon "baggage" in the same way John F. Kennedy had Catholic "baggage."
If you go back and re-read contemporary discussions about the 1960 presidential race, JFK's religion was a huge issue. Today, such a controversy over a candidate's Catholicism is hard to imagine. However, JFK's charisma and poise on TV helped sway many undecideds, and he won a nail-biter of a race against Nixon (a Quaker).
McCain seems like a good person, and he has great qualifications, but his unpredictability will scare too many people away, I believe.
Den, international diplomacy is full of dilemmas, especially for a country such as the US. It's a damned if you do damned if you don't kind of situation most of the times. The answers are usually not as easy as rightist or leftists present it. And the solutions offered by both right and left, US and Europe, are not very satisfying.
I don't know what the right course of action for Pakistan may be. Presumably war is not a good option. Cooling down the relationship with it might make things even more difficult for the US considering its involvement in Afganistan, and the threat of even further strengthening of the Islamistic forces. /but an alliance means tolerating a dictatorship, which is probably involved in terrorism in Kashmir, and that is a center for Muslim extremism. However, it would seem that its involvement in selling nuclear weapons, in terrorism, and in support of the Talliban actualy stopped after 9/11. In any case, it is a tough choice to say the least.
I dislike France as much as the next guy (France is really not popular with Israelis), but they are mostly harmless.
Now, I may be going out on a limb here, but I think Obama's relative youth, telegenicity (sp?), and the fact that he doesn't seem as steeped in senatorial bullcrap as many others could be definite assets as running mate to the right candidate, getting him in the White House so he can come out strong with his own presidential bid in 8 (ideally) years.
-Rex Hondo-