Congrats to the FBI. With nary an illegal wiretap or any of the other intrusions on civil liberties that the administration seems to believe is the only way to fight terrorism, the FBI arrested a home-grown terrorist cell composed of amateurs and incompetents. I don't phrase it that way to diminish the accomplishment, because even morons with rocket launchers can still inflict serious damage, and it's not like the Virginia Tech guy was an experienced merc. It's just a factual description of a group of would-be terrorists so stupid that their cell was infiltrated practically from the begining because they wanted to transfer a training video from VHS to DVD, couldn't figure out how to do it, and wound up with an alert video store clerk tipping the FBI.
The Feds then effortlessly infiltrated them and, sixteen months later, busted them when they tried to buy weapons for an intended strike on a military base. Dix: It's not just a name for an army post. They're now dubbed the Fort Dix Six. I'm hoping that someone does indeed try to make a movie about them called "The Cell That Couldn't Shoot Straight," which they would then turn down, so that Variety could run a headline that says, "Dix Six Nix Pix."
PAD
Posted by Peter David at May 9, 2007 06:47 AM | TrackBack | Other blogs commenting"With nary an illegal wiretap or any of the other intrusions on civil liberties that the administration seems to believe is the only way to fight terrorism"
Yeah, well if the video store guy had not tipped off the FBI then they would have to have relied on ... wiretap (why are you calling that illegal, exactly?), or any of the other "intrusions on civil liberties" (which ones again? I'm not getting your anti-FBI/Bush Admin propaganda. Can you be more specific? No? Oh. Ok.).
So overall, I give this post a D-. And basically, your attitude is that there's no reason for the FBI to have "illegal" authority? What? Huh? Ok, well I guess you prefer if they can't protect us. Ok. Please go move to Mexico or any other country. I'm sure it will be much better for you there and you won't have to Hate Bush all day. Thanks.
PS - the Bush Admin and the FBI are not the enemy. The Terrorists are the enemy. But you won't get that, so I'll stop wasting my breath now. Bye.
"So overall, I give this post a D-."
Well crap, PAD there goes your GPA!
Yeah, well if the video store guy had not tipped off the FBI then they would have to have relied on ... wiretap (why are you calling that illegal, exactly?), or any of the other "intrusions on civil liberties" (which ones again? I'm not getting your anti-FBI/Bush Admin propaganda. Can you be more specific? No? Oh. Ok.).
You are referring to a privilege that existed before the Bush administration's expansion of powers -- like when they refused to begin surveillance on Middle Eastern suspected terrorists flagged by flight schools July 2001.
I'm pretty sure the Variety headline would go better as "Dix Six Pix Nixed."
Yeah, well if the video store guy had not tipped off the FBI then they would have to have relied on ... wiretap
And, without a tip, how would the FBI have known whose phones to tap? Can you answer that? No? Ok. Ok.
Can you be more specific?
I believe PAD is referring to wiretaps w/o a warrant from the rubberstamp FISA court as required by law. You know the law, right? That pesky thing that every administration except Bush and Nixon had the silly idea that they were bound to?
Though I doubt you're still here to read this, since you already said "Bye" in your smug little superior way, I should point out that there was a report last year in which the FBI complained that virtually all of the non-FISA authorized wiretaps that the Bush administration ran did not produce any viable leads and simply wasted a lot of the FBI's man-hours investigating.
But, hey, at least you didn't forget to repeat the tired conservative mantra of: America, love it or leave. I'm sure you made Sean Hannity proud.
well as you gentlemen have pointed out so well the foolisness of poster #1's arguments I'll just sigh at him and say for the rest of us "into every life some trolls must fall".
"Please go move to Mexico or any other country. I'm sure it will be much better for you there and you won't have to Hate Bush all day. Thanks.
PS - the Bush Admin and the FBI are not the enemy. The Terrorists are the enemy. But you won't get that, so I'll stop wasting my breath now. Bye."
The Bush administration may decide that Mexico needs to be "liberated" at some point, and then may take over Mexico, making it a new American state. I wish I could have your ignorance again poster #1, so that I wouldn't realize how really scary the world is....
Rob
I laugh when trolls post questions in their post, and then imagine the silence that their "clever" with engenders, and then "move on."
What makes me laugh even more is my own imaginary PAD replying real-time to the question with a list of civil rights violations perpetrated by this administration...due process, habeus corpus, invasion of privacy, now the restriction on 40 years of judicial precedent over abortion (although this may be a case of right result, wrong method)...just to name a few...followed by catotheelderii's stammering, stuttering..."yeah, so?"
Ah, good times.
"I believe PAD is referring to wiretaps w/o a warrant from the rubberstamp FISA court as required by law."
Yeah, pretty much. I think the statement was self-evident to anyone who doesn't have an agenda.
Where DO these guys crawl out of, eh?
PAD
If the video guy hadn't tipped the FBI, the cell probably would have been able to do whatever was on their agenda. The FBI, in that case, would only be involved in the clean up after the disaster...
If the video guy hadn't tipped the FBI, the cell probably would have been able to do whatever was on their agenda.
Judging from reports of their videotaped plans (apparently formulated by the Three Stooges), I seriously doubt these halfwit, would-be terrorists would have made it past the base's front gates before being shot down.
But then again, martyrdom was obviously the endgame here.
I'm not familiar with Fort Dix, but I used to teach a class at the Army War College in Carlisle, PA. The amount of security (checking IDs, searching the vehicle, all with armed guards watching everything, etc), we had to go through just to get on base was pretty strict.
Apparently, the plan these yahoos had was to sneak onto the base as pizza delivery guys. If the security at Fort Dix is anything like that of the AWC, I can't see them getting past the front gate.
"..that Variety could run a headline that says, "Dix Six Nix Pix."
Man, you are just full of them (it?) today! :-)
I was stationed at McGuire AFB in the early nineties, and it is right across from Fort Dix. At that time Ft Dix (during Desert Storm) was relegated to like a skeleton base. I don't know if that is still the case or not...and from reading comics, I think in the Marvel GI Joe it was their home base (or at least visited during the run)
Rob
My point exactly, Den.
I can't imagine pizza delivery guys are just waved thru at military posts without checking out their cars. Plus, these morons apparently had bizarre ambitions of killing the power to Fort Dix (as if it had a master switch on-post with no backups), and running around picking off soldiers as if in a video game.
I'm glad these individuals were busted before doing any harm to anyone. But ultimately, they were undone by their own stupidity despite Fox News painting them as would-be master criminals last night.
"I can't imagine pizza delivery guys are just waved thru at military posts without checking out their cars."
When I was at McGuire AFB (right across from Ft Dix), they had a crazy retired guy that was like their number one person to not let on the base. He got in one day, and got into a secured building on top of it, with a box that supposedly had a bomb in it. It seemed like most of our Security Police on that base were concerned more with picking up girls at the gate then actual security.
Rob
"It seemed like most of our Security Police on that base were concerned more with picking up girls at the gate then actual security."
Pre- or post-9/11?
PAD
Hey PAD,
That was pre-9/11 in the early nineties (Desert Storm).
Rob
Jeez, Rob, that's incredible. Was that before or after 9/11? I taught at AWC both pre- and post-9/11 and the security there got 100% tighter afterwards. As of 2006, they had never slacked off. In fact, my class this year was moved off base to a local high school because they didn't want to let any more outsiders on base in the evening.
Okay, Rob answered the same question from PAD while I was typing it. Nevermind.
I'll willing to bet the crazy old guy would not get base the check points now.
Agreed. I assumed (or at least hoped) Rob's story pre-dated 9-11.
It's been a lucky break for us that so many of the terrorists, would-be and actual, have not been too clever.
I seem to recall that the first WTC bombers were caught because they tried to get a refund on the car the rented to explode the bombs or some such idiocy.
The scary thing is that they only need to ratchet down their goals a bit to be effective. Replace Fort Dix with a hospital, day care center, high school football game, or any of a thousand other soft targets and you have an attack that would actually be much more horrific than an attack on an army base.
catotheelderii
But you won't get that, so I'll stop wasting my breath now. Bye.
Maybe it's just me, and maybe it's just coincidence, but why does it now seem like every time PAD starts a political thread, we get some person with a name never seen before that is just here to rip PAD a new one?
I'm seriously starting to wonder why so many people are messed up in the head that they're intentionally looking for forums to troll, forums that they would never visit if not for the chance to play human shield for Bush.
"The scary thing is that they only need to ratchet down their goals a bit to be effective. Replace Fort Dix with a hospital, day care center, high school football game, or any of a thousand other soft targets and you have an attack that would actually be much more horrific than an attack on an army base."
That same thing more or less was said by Jesse Ventura (still Governor at the time) in a post 9/11 interview. He stated it would be nothing to get up with some of his old military buddies and they could do things that would make the country come to a stand still. At the time, he was also thinking of living for a while in another country. I don't know if he ever followed through with that or not...
P.S.
The crazy retired guy who got onto the base and into the secured building, by official reports, ended up shooting an officer in his office in the building. The hastily covered up evidence (as I worked in the building, just wasn't on shift when the incident happened), indicated that the Security Police shot at the guy in the hallway, and their bullets went through the wall and killed the officer. The section of wall to where the bullets went thru was cut out and replaced very quickly. The guy was crazy, but to this day, I have my doubts if he killed the officer. The crazy guy was shot dead at the scene, so they didn't have to worry about him coming back onto the base again...
Rob
"PS - the Bush Admin and the FBI are not the enemy. The Terrorists are the enemy."
IMNSHO, they're ALL the enemy. One wants to control me, the other wants to kill me. I want neither.
Sure, terrorists (not a capital "T", please... it's not a proper noun) and the philosophies behind them are a great danger, but so are the subjegation and surrender of our civil liberties. Neither one to me is acceptable.
The scary thing is that they only need to ratchet down their goals a bit to be effective. Replace Fort Dix with a hospital, day care center, high school football game, or any of a thousand other soft targets and you have an attack that would actually be much more horrific than an attack on an army base.
There's no arguing that America is not a target-rich environment.
However, it seems Al Qaeda (and their 2-bit sympathizers) are obsessed with hitting larger targets carrying greater symbolic value than a H.S. football game.
Not that such soft targets are safe by any means; it just seems Islamic terrorists are driven by bigger (albeit twisted) goals intended to draw attention to their "great sacrifice."
If someone shows up at the last minute and turns around the rejected movie deal, Variety could run a headline about the "Dix Six Pix Nix Fix."
After reading Catoheelderii's post, maybe we should add:
Right Mite Slights Site...
"Where DO these guys crawl out of, eh?"
Scary thing is they're all around, only waiting for someone to say something rather than venture forth an opinion on their own. I have a guy at work that swears Bush is the First Coming, since by his talk no one has ever been greater. Now, he's been spouting this for a while, and we still haven't figgered out whether or not he's serious.
Craig, I've noticed the same thing, and I have to wonder just how many non-verbose lurkers there are.
Rob--speaking as probably the Biggest Joe Freak around here, originally the Pit was under Wadsworth, a lovely little fort. Dix was only mentioned once or twice in the early issues.
Posted by Hugh Casey at May 9, 2007 11:32 AM
IMNSHO, they're ALL the enemy. One wants to control me, the other wants to kill me. I want neither.
There is little value in answering catotheelderii's irrational right-wing extremism with irrational left-wing extremism. Having a chief executive in the form of a president, and a federal law enforcement agency in the form of the FBI, are both necessary for ensuring an orderly society. No nation can truly be one hundred percent "free," as that would result in anarchy. The question is not whether to place restrictions on individual liberty, but whether specific restrictions are acceptable under the U.S. Constitution.
Bush is not the first president to overstep his authority, nor will he be the last. We have survived Imperial Presidencies before (remember Nixon?) and will survive this one as well. The FBI has also overstepped its bounds in the past (remember J. Edgar Hoover, everyone's favorite Cross-Dressing Abuser of Civil Liberties?) and will again. The key is to recognize that we needn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. We need an executive branch of government to enforce our laws -- we just need them to do it in a way that is consistent with the U.S. Constitution. We can do that without declaring the executive branch of government is "the enemy."
everyone's favorite Cross-Dressing Abuser of Civil Liberties?
Rudy Giuliani?
I think it's mainly about, a government in power who cries "freedom" while slowly making us a communist society, by sacrificing those freedoms under the facade of protecting them. As long as we embrace a two party system, that lives well above the common mans means, we will have laws that only serve those that are "the haves" (in the words of Bush). As long as an officials salary for the job is minuscule versus the funding it takes to get them in office, their first obligation will not be to the people. And as long as there is no profit in cleaning up the planet, it will continue to have it's resources used to the inevitable conclusion...ok, I have it out now, I hope I haven't scared anyone :)
Rob
"Where DO these guys crawl out of, eh?"
Scary thing is they're all around
Or they're one person who uses a different name each time.
Everywhere...not just on PAD's site. One troll who is very very busy.
I used to work on a military base with two major commands during the early nineties. Sadly, at that time, security was fairly lax. One guy got saluted through the gate without an ID -- he had folded up a dollar bill and slipped it into the license section of his wallet. (Well Washington *is* a four-star, so...)
But if you really wanted to get on the base without showing an ID, all you really needed was a Domino's bucket on your antenna. And from what I have heard (but haven't confirmed) one of the would be terrorists was a pizza delivery guy who had driven on the base a number of times and knew the layout fairly well as a result.
If someone shows up at the last minute and turns around the rejected movie deal, Variety could run a headline about the "Dix Six Pix Nix Fix."
And if someone made a film about the efforts of making the film (it's been known to happen!) then the ad in front of the theater window could read "Dix Six Pix Nix Fix Tix".
As I recall from a little documentary titled "Hot Shots," all you need to get in to most Air Force bases is a quarter at the gate. :)
Couldn’t the guys in question just be referred to as the Six Dix?
I remember making a delivery at Ft. Bragg about 2 weeks after 9/11. Security was tighter than a nun's whatever. Guards with MP5's, dogs, reportedly Delta Force snipers. Lotsa fun for the whole family.
I note that catotheelderii (a tad presumptuous, I associate his form of venom more with Kato Kaelin) ignores the old saying that "in a democracy the greatest treason is silence".
How about "Dix Six Nix Pix. Terror Error to star Ferrer says Lehrer"
Wasn't the whole point of the wiretaps to intercept communications between people in the U.S. and people outside the U.S.? I hardly see how thwarting a homegrown terrorist cell refutes the notion that wiretaps can't be of great help in thwarting U.S. terrorist plots involving operatives in other countries.
-Dave OConnell
Wasn't the whole point of the wiretaps to intercept communications between people in the U.S. and people outside the U.S.?
Yeah, that must be why DHS asked Verizon to give them all domestic phone records.
I hardly see how thwarting a homegrown terrorist cell refutes the notion that wiretaps can't be of great help in thwarting U.S. terrorist plots involving operatives in other countries.
Actually, they weren't "homegrown". They were from Kosovo and other parts of the Balkans. Some were even here illegally.
"everyone's favorite Cross-Dressing Abuser of Civil Liberties."
A good title for a reality TV show?
the old saying that "in a democracy the greatest treason is silence".
What's that from? Couldn't find it.
Posted by: Dave OConnell at May 9, 2007 04:05 PM
Wasn't the whole point of the wiretaps to intercept communications between people in the U.S. and people outside the U.S.? I hardly see how thwarting a homegrown terrorist cell refutes the notion that wiretaps can't be of great help in thwarting U.S. terrorist plots involving operatives in other countries.
Peter was careful to specify that illegal wiretaps are an intrusion on civil liberties. Recognizing that some wiretaps are illegal is not the same as declaring that ALL wiretaps are illegal.
You're engaging in the fallacy of the syllogism. An example of a syllogism: "This apple is red, therefore all things that are red are apples." In much the same fashion you are assuming, wrongly, that Peter's reference to "illegal wiretaps" is tantamount to calling all wiretaps illegal. This is simply not the case.
Wiretaps are like any other form of "search & seizure." Per the U.S. Constitution, such searches are permitted only upon issuance of a judicial warrant, with only certain narrow exceptions allowed (such as when a search is agreed to voluntarily by a suspect). The Bush administration has chosen to circumvent the U.S. Constitution under the auspices of the so-called "U.S. Patriot Act." But the U.S. Constitution is the highest law of the land. Thus, regardless of what is stated by the "Patriot Act," a warrantless wiretap is by definition illegal.
See the difference? Not all wiretaps are illegal. Just warrantless wiretaps.
The controversy over wiretaps isn't about legality. It's about doing things quickly and easily, without bothering with the legalities of warrants and judicial approval.
And the thing is...the quick and dirty way yields the same results as the correct and legalistic way. They're functionally equivalent--except the right way respects constitutional safeguards.
In my book, if you're backing the Bush way of doing things, you're letting the terrorists win.
"Can you be more specific?"
-----
(not really in response to this specific post; just telling a story)
This reminds me of the time a guy at work was asking others if they wanted to go in on the pizza order he was placing. He asked my friend Roger what he wanted on the pizza.
Roger said: "Well, anything."
Other guy said: "Can you be more specific?"
Roger said: "Well, anything, Asshole."
.
FBI infiltrates the Apple Dumpling Gang and it takes them 16 months to make a case?
Or is it that the poll ratings are down again, so it is time to make another public display?
I hate having to live my life being this f****** cynical about the Presidency.
The controversy over wiretaps isn't about legality. It's about doing things quickly and easily, without bothering with the legalities of warrants and judicial approval.
The argument that we need to do things quickly, therefore we don't have time for the niceties of FISA is just plain absurd if you look at the actual law. The law allows the government to set up a wiretap and then apply for a warrant retroactively within 72 hours.
The argument that we need to do things quickly, therefore we don't have time for the niceties of FISA is just plain absurd if you look at the actual law. The law allows the government to set up a wiretap and then apply for a warrant retroactively within 72 hours.
Exactly.
But they just don't want to be bothered with it. They're taking the easy way and not doing it the right way.
Oh, and did you hear that Bush is threatening to veto the new spending bill? Because it asks him to make reports on Iraqi progress and to ensure troops are combat ready and rested?
You really have to marvel at the stupidity of some of these terrorists. From the '93 WTC bombers going back to the Ryder Van company to get a refund, to people like Mullah Omar thinking that our military is weak (up until his country was invaded), and now this, you wonder if terrorists get their ideas by watching Police Academy movies.
I hate having to live my life being this f****** cynical about the Presidency.
Honestly, Allan, has there been any point in the last few years that couldn't be considered a good time to have some good news? Every single positive development that has happened has been greeted with at least one person (and usually more) wondering if the timing wasn't just a bit too coincidental. It's ridiculous. Would it have been less suspicious next week? Two weeks ago? When?
Just take the good news as it comes and be grateful for it. Nobody is going to question your anti-Bush credentials.
Nah, we're too far away from an election for this to be part of a conspiracy. Bush's biggest problem right now isn't terrorism in the homeland. It's the fact he literally is down to three people who still believe he hasn't completely fucked up in Iraq: Cheney, Laura, and the dog.
And the dog is already starting to blog some of his doubts.
Catching six pizza delivery boys isn't going to help him with that problem.
God help us all if the terrorists gain access to Blu-Ray.
There was an article in the Daily News yesterday which went into a little more detail of how they were going to inflitrate using pizza delivery. Apparently the pizza driver has been a regular on the base for quite some time and had the necessary paperwork to deliver pizzas to the base. Since this was a person that had been there regularly and had passed the "tests" to get on the base, I would think that second looks would not be given since to the guards it would be that pizza guy who has been delivering pizzas to the base for years which is how if it was going to happen it would have.
Bad news, Peter, Republican senators have marched up to Bush to set a timetable, a deadline, September--this year. By Fall if there's no progress in Iraq, that would be the effective end of the Bush presidency and a significant of his political power.
You want have Bush to kick around anymore.
-- Ken from Chicago
P.S. And it gets worse of AG Gonzales is kicked out before then. FBI abuse or use of Executive power will be a moot point.
"You really have to marvel at the stupidity of some of these terrorists."
Kinda makes you wonder if the "stupidity" is just being thrown out there to mask the terrorists real plan...
"Ignore the left hand and stare at our right hand as we dip it in the boiling water, the left hand isn't doing anything noteworthy...."
You want have Bush to kick around anymore.
What makes you think Bush will listen to Congress this time when he's ignored them for the past six years?
"Kinda makes you wonder if the "stupidity" is just being thrown out there to mask the terrorists real plan..."
No. Terrorists are not necessarily that smart. But it is always better not to be too complacent.
From what I've read, these guys sound like they were using only ten percent of their brain:-}
Bad news, Peter, Republican senators have marched up to Bush to set a timetable, a deadline, September--this year.
Let's see if they have a change of heart by then if things don't improve.
At the beginning of the year, Bush asked for more time. He got it, and is now asking for more time, all while threatening to veto anything the Dems put on his desk. By September, I'm sure he'll be begging for more time yet again, continuing to do whatever he can to push this on the next president.
I hate having to live my life being this f****** cynical about the Presidency.
Honestly, Allan, has there been any point in the last few years that couldn't be considered a good time to have some good news? Every single positive development that has happened has been greeted with at least one person (and usually more) wondering if the timing wasn't just a bit too coincidental. It's ridiculous. Would it have been less suspicious next week? Two weeks ago? When?
Just take the good news as it comes and be grateful for it. Nobody is going to question your anti-Bush credentials.
A comment I’m sure you’ve heard before but is worth repeating is: “The one thing I hate most about this administration is how they’ve turned me into a conspiracy nut.”
Five years ago, if someone told me that the Bush & Co. was going to sanction torture and suspend habeus corpus, I would have laughed them off as being ridiculous.
Nowadays, not only have these paranoid ravings become sober realities, the administration has used these outrages to the American Experiment to attack its critics and political opponents as weak and traitorous. That, coupled with BushCo.’s numerous conflations, exaggerations, and outright lies, as well as its abuse of the spoils system and its campaign to politicize the US Attorney system, has made me a thorough skeptic.
Yes, I believe these arrests are a good thing and, yes, I am grateful for the good news. But this Presidency has long ago ceded the privilege of having its and its executors’ actions be reflexively considered anything but completely self-serving.
I suspect most Americans are at the point that they cannot trust Bush to be straight with them about anything of consequence. This is a sad, sad thing.
TIME CAPSULE
When Nixon was in office the Watergate scandal was enough to get people to impeach him...my how times have changed....
Rob
Nixon didn't have 9/11 to hang over everyone's head and shout "Terrorism! Terrorists!" to scare the hell of of the Sheeple of the USA....
Funny how this story didn't get nearly the same national attention as the Six Dix Dipshix.
It's a good thing there weren't muslims or people might think they were dangerous terrorists or something.
Posted by: Bladestar at May 10, 2007 01:18 PM
Nixon didn't have 9/11 to hang over everyone's head and shout "Terrorism! Terrorists!" to scare the hell of of the Sheeple of the USA....
No, but Nixon did have the Soviet Union to use as a bogeyman, as did all presidents who served in office while the U.S.S.R. was in existence. That bogeyman was what got us embroiled in the Vietnam War, which was far costlier to us than Iraq has been thus far.
History tends to be cyclical.
Good point Bill,
But I was thinking from the point of view that 9/11 was an attack on American soil.
At least the al-Quaeda terrorism hasn't reached the level of the stuff we used to hear about day in and day out on the news about "Suicide bomber boards bus/walks into restaraunt/shopping mall in Isreal" level yet.
I'd think that'd strike more terror into Americans if they couldn't go into their local mall without being afraid of a nutjob suicide bomber... The attacks on the WTC (the one in the 90's and the final one 9/11) were high profile, but I can't help but think how much worse the American state of mind would've gotten if they'd left the WTC alone and instead sports arenas, shopping malls, and hospitals had been dozens of individual targets instead of one big one...
Posted by: Bladestar at May 10, 2007 03:58 PM
But I was thinking from the point of view that 9/11 was an attack on American soil.
Fair enough. Certainly, there are differences between our reaction to the Soviet threat versus the threat of Islamic terrorism. During the Cold War we stockpiled nukes and kept U.S. troops stationed in any strategically located nation that would accept them. Conversely, many of the responses to Islamic terrorism have consisted of
domestic intelligence-gathering initiatives of dubious legality that are ostensibly designed to make us safer.
On the other hand, both threats led us to engage in unwise foreign adventurism. The more things change...
Posted by: Bladestar at May 10, 2007 03:58 PM
At least the al-Quaeda terrorism hasn't reached the level of the stuff we used to hear about day in and day out on the news about "Suicide bomber boards bus/walks into restaraunt/shopping mall in Isreal" level yet.
I'd think that'd strike more terror into Americans if they couldn't go into their local mall without being afraid of a nutjob suicide bomber...
Perhaps, perhaps not. Micha, who lives in Israel, has stated on more than one occasion that Israelis have been able to adapt. Of course, the U.S. is not Israel. Our cultures are different, and it's possible that we might have more trouble adapting. I'd hate to have to find out.
Yes, I believe these arrests are a good thing and, yes, I am grateful for the good news. But this Presidency has long ago ceded the privilege of having its and its executors’ actions be reflexively considered anything but completely self-serving.
I just don't see how reflexively assuming the worst is much better than being one of those who reflexively assumes the best. Two sides of the same coin. The people who feel justified taking the most cynical view are really doing no more thinking than those who worship the very ground Bush walks on.
I think a lot of what Bush this far was his luck in having opponents who made themsleves look so badly. In the end it wasn't enough but it was still plenty.
You know, now that I think about it further, during the Cold War the U.S. Government did indeed trample on civil liberties domestically. The more I think about it, the more our reactions -- and overreactions -- to the threat of terrorism resemble our response to the Soviet threat.
I must be tired or something!
I just don't see how reflexively assuming the worst is much better than being one of those who reflexively assumes the best. Two sides of the same coin. The people who feel justified taking the most cynical view are really doing no more thinking than those who worship the very ground Bush walks on.
Perhaps I was a bit too strident in my phrasing. I do not mean to automatically assume the worst about the administration and I try to guard against such intellectually lazy thinking.
That being said, when you consider the administration's past behavior, if you were given a reasonable example where you could either conclude that BushCo. acted primarily to serve the public good or acted primarily to serve itself, the latter assumption is what I expect most people would lean towards.
I don't believe that this arrest was intentionally timed to help W's numbers, but I've gotten to the point where if it were revealed that it was, I would not be in the least surprised (and I would almost have expected it).
And I guess that's pretty much the sum of it: The Bush administration has acted in such a spectacularly unethical fashion that musings and speculations which would have been considered downright silly a few years ago now seem at least remotely possible (if not probable).
I think a lot of what Bush this far was his luck in having opponents who made themsleves look so badly. In the end it wasn't enough but it was still plenty.
Do you mean, having opponents who disliked Bush enough to overdo it? I'm trying to think of a recent (post 9-11) example of an opponent of significance who made themselves look like a true ass in the way that, say Gingrich, overreached with Clinton. Maybe it's just been a long day, but I'm having no luck.
Hmmm. Have to agree with Sasha. Bush has lost a lot of credibility in just the past year. Heck, eleven GOP Congressman told Bush that any news about Iraq should come from his General as Bush has no credibility with the voters anymore. (Yes, I know that I am paraphrasing). When your own party does not trust your word, you got problems.
There's no doubt that Bush has problems--absent an almost impossible turnaround in Iraq (and all Al Qaeda needs to do is blow up an occasional car bomb to make sure that doesn't happen) it's hard to see him going out as anything other than a failed presidency. Whether history will make that judgment depends in large part on What Comes Next.
I'm trying to think of a recent (post 9-11) example of an opponent of significance who made themselves look like a true ass in the way that, say Gingrich, overreached with Clinton.
Well, one problem is the lack of opponents of significance, no question there. It's true that Gingrich was a genuine threat to Clinton, which made his failure all the greater. Had he the smarts to match his intelligence I wonder how far he could have gone. As it is, II have to chuckle whenever he is mentioned as a possible candidate for higher office. Yeah, when Hell freezes over. It's only slightly less amusing than the time people were claiming that Rick Santorum was a possible candidate for president.
But look--Rasmussen had a poll that asked "Did Bush Know About the 9/11 Attacks in Advance?"
This is a no-brainer. Yet while 1 in 7 Republicans and 1 in 5 Independents believe it, Democrats were almost split evenly-- 35% actually said they believed it and 39% said they didn't.
To me that's mind boggling and it's hard to see how anyone can actually say it with a straight face. I have no problem saying that the folks who thought Clinton was selling drugs in Arkansas and arranging for various witnesses to die were...well let's just say they were showing evidence of being batshit crazy. When people say that FDR knew about Pearl Harbor ahead of time and let it happen...batshit crazy. Loco in the cabasa. Wears all the equipment, doesn't play on a team.
When this level of craziness gets it's hooks into a significant chunk of the electorate it's time to take a good hard look at the level of paranoia out there. Again, it doesn't in any way reduce one's anti-Bush street cred to understand that he is not the nexus of all evil.
I should add--assuming the poll is correct and people were actually answering what the question was asking.
Den: hat makes you think Bush will listen to Congress this time when he's ignored them for the past six years?
He hasn't ignored them for the past six years. Up until 4 months ago Congress wasn't doing anything to oppose him.
Bill Mulligan, I wouldn't be so sure that the "FDR let Pearl Harbor happen" idea is "batshit crazy."
Day of Deceit by Robert B. Stinnett uses recently declassified documents suggesting that FDR did indeed know that such an attack was coming and let it happen. Not every historian agrees with him, but he's not a "tinfoil hat" conspiracy theorist by any stretch of the imagination.
Sigh... just in case anyone decides to infer more into my words than is justified, I'm not saying that Stinnett is necessarily right. He may well not be. He hasn't proven his case beyond a reasonable doubt in my view. BUT -- if Stinnett is wrong, it's still not tantamount to being "batshit crazy."
The people who continue to believe that we don't know the identities of the 9/11 hijackers, and that Bush or the Jews or the X-Men or the Beardstown Ladies were responsible for the attacks -- THOSE people are batshit crazy.
Here's the thing though--it isn't just that I don't think FDR was evil enough to do that (I don't though). It's that the idea falls apart on simple logic.
Had the Japanese actually fully pressed their advantage that day the result could have been catastrophic. They made a mistake by not completely destroying the fleet. many of the ships sunk were even raised and used against them. The failure to destroy the aircraft carriers Enterprise, Lexington, and Saratoga certainly came back to haunt them. The base was largely unharmed and the hundreds of millions of liters of fuel were still there.
The point is, it could have been an UNBELIEVABLE disaster for us and it was only the reticence of the Japanese to go for broke that kept that from happening. So FDR allowing it to occur seems unthinkable.
But let's say he did know it was going to happen. Why would he not have gotten the armed forces to prepare for the attack, maybe even destroy it? The result of an unsuccessful attack would have been the same as a successful one except that we would still have had all of the Pacific fleet. Would Americans have said no to war with a country that tried to attack us?
It just doesn't pass the logic test, unless there is much I'm missing. It just seems batshit crazy and if it IS true...then FDR was batshit crazy. I'd need a lot of solid evidence to think that badly of the man.
Re: wiretaps.
It's this simple, Bushies: American democracy depends upon checks and balances. Once you remove them--regardless of how well intended--you open the door for tyranny.
What a shame it is that some folks are perfectly happy to kill freedom in the name of expedience. (And why are these the same people who vehemently reject gun regulation because our freedom--from a tyrannical gov't, no less--is so fragile?)
No checks + no balances = no freedom.
It's that simple.
Agreeing with Bill Mulligan:
FDR gained nothing from Pearl Harbor that fighting the Japanese forces in open seas wouldn't also have gained him. The simple movement of the Japanese fleet near an American naval base would be an act of war itself. The conspiracy of allowing Pearl Harbor's destruction simply wasn't necessary.
Disagreeing with Bill Mulligan:
YOU might not find such conspiracies or forehand knowledge possible, but they are possible nontheless. Many historians have illustrated that FDR had foreknowledge that Japan was going to attack the U.S. somewhere. And there's a famous intelligence report that Bush is supposed to have read (and Condi Rice insisted he read all such reports) that predicted 9/11. So while YOU might not find it possible that presidents have had foreknowledge of attacks, the facts and simple logic tell us that it IS entirely possible.
I would hope that the definition of "batshit crazy" would be limited to those who believe things that are not possibly true, instead of your more loose definition of those who believe things you don't believe.
Posted by: Bill Myers at May 10, 2007 04:20 PM :
"At least the al-Quaeda terrorism hasn't reached the level of the stuff we used to hear about day in and day out on the news about "Suicide bomber boards bus/walks into restaraunt/shopping mall in Isreal" level yet.
I'd think that'd strike more terror into Americans if they couldn't go into their local mall without being afraid of a nutjob suicide bomber...
"Perhaps, perhaps not. Micha, who lives in Israel, has stated on more than one occasion that Israelis have been able to adapt. Of course, the U.S. is not Israel. Our cultures are different, and it's possible that we might have more trouble adapting. I'd hate to have to find out."
There are differences between America and Israel, but also similarities. When I lived in the US people used to ask me if it was very different. I would reply that it Israel is similiar to the US but very condensed. This is an oversimplification of course, there are cultural differences, but Israel is part of the same 'western' cultural sphere, if you will.
When talking about adapting to recurring suicide bombing you have to distinguish between the way Israelis dealt with their existence during the few years in which they were happening at great frequency, and the way that Israel eventually was successful in reducing suicide bombings (or the suicide bombings were redced for other reasons) to such a degree that they no longer affected everyday life.
In general I think people have a strong ability to adapt. Sometimes it is not a good thing. In this case it was.
While visiting New York it seemed to me that people adapted to the idea of having their bags checked at the entrance to museums and such.
"YOU might not find such conspiracies or forehand knowledge possible, but they are possible nontheless. Many historians have illustrated that FDR had foreknowledge that Japan was going to attack the U.S. somewhere. And there's a famous intelligence report that Bush is supposed to have read (and Condi Rice insisted he read all such reports) that predicted 9/11. So while YOU might not find it possible that presidents have had foreknowledge of attacks, the facts and simple logic tell us that it IS entirely possible."
There is a big difference between a general security alert about a possible attack somewhere by someone, and exact foreknowledge of a specific attack at a specific time. If somebody in US intelligence had thought it possible that planes will be used by terrorists, and wrote a paper about it that reached the White House, but nobody thought to reexamine security measures concerning planes, that would be the kind of negligence that is all too common in many places. But this is completely different than saying that Bush knew about 9/11 and deliberatly let it happen, or worse, that he did it himself.
What Micha said.
Anything IS "possible", except skying through a revolving door or my Uncle Paul picking up a check at dinner. I can't dismiss as beyond the realm of physical possibility that FDR was secretly in the employ of the Knights Templer and this whole thing was part of the Great Illuminati Conspiracy. But when the evidence is thin and the logic is missing...the only reason to believe is to satisfy some self indulgent wish for the people you don't like to be, not just mistaken but Evil with a capital E. It's just crazy.
I think people believe in conspiracy theories because they help them make sense of the world. Some people would rather believe that we have a government that is so evil as to murder 3,000 of its citizens rather than a believe in a government that was so inept that they didn't see the warning signs.
As I said before, I don't believe that Bush knew about the attacks in advance because, if he did, he would have been ready with a stirring speech, rather than sitting in a classroom listening to a story about a goat with that deer-in-the-headlights look in his face.
I agree with Bill Mulligan that both Bush and Clinton have benefited from enemies who were willing to throw out even the most half-baked theory about nefarious deeds.
Unfortunately, the more we learn about what Bush has actually done in terms of illegal wire tapping, misrepresenting intelligence, polliticizing the US Attorneys, etc, even some of the more "out there" theories start to look plausible.
>The U.S. is not Israel. Our cultures are different, and it's possible that we might have more trouble adapting.
Or less? For the cost of a few months in Iraq, the U.S. government could set everybody in the states with a basic computer and Internet connection and a line of credit which they could then use to order via Internet (as many already do), thus rendering mall/restaurant bombers ineffective. Many people already work out of home, just increase that and it gives the nutcases that many fewer targets. So forth ...
>The more I think about it, the more our reactions -- and overreactions -- to the threat of terrorism resemble our response to the Soviet threat.
Worse. They resemble the actions of the Soviets themselves. Remember when the Soviets attacked other countries (Afghanistan, Chechnya, etc...)? Or required 'travel papers'? Or Had people detained indefinitely with no legal representation at gulags (Gunatanamo, anyone?)? Or ...
But I guess it's OK when the U.S. does it, because they're the good guys right?
>But let's say he did know it was going to happen. Why would he not have gotten the armed forces to prepare for the attack, maybe even destroy it?
Some say he did have them prepared, to an extent. If I recall correctly, some of the ships at Pearl were of older designs and due for decommissioning anyway. Too, the carriers were already considered the core of a fighting element and they were conveniently away at the time of the attack. But this doesn't mean I honestly believe the 'FDR knew' scenario to be true. Just 'possible'.
> I don't believe that Bush knew about the attacks in advance because, if he did, he would have been ready with a stirring speech, rather than sitting in a classroom listening to a story about a goat with that deer-in-the-headlights look in his face.
There's a difference between not knowing, and knowing, and not believing. I'm NOT saying this was the case, merely that it could have been. But it would explain his expression even better. "Shit, [the reports] were right. Now what do I do?"
It won't matter if Bush agrees with Congress if in September, Iraq is still not meeting "benchmarks", and the Repub congress members join the Dem congress members to form a veto-proof law to draw down forces in Iraq.
Some might say Bush's balance would have been checked and mated.
-- Ken from Chicago (Rook)
One thing I note from the comments above (and in previous threads over the past few years), and this is that a great many people feel the President is either incompetent, or criminally/evil motivated. This may not in fact be the case (I'm not judging Shrub on his actual actions, or lack thereof, here) but the PERCEPTION clearly is. And, in politics, be it office politics or international-level politics, perception is almost everything.
That people increasingly have that perception, and that Shrub does nothing to deal with that is in itself very worrisome as far as the health of the American society is concerned.
"I think people believe in conspiracy theories because they help them make sense of the world."
You may be right. In that respect, it's not entirely dissimilar from religion, is it? People embrace conspiracies with remarkable zeal because they feel a need to find a connective tissue to all events.
What else is explaining random and unfair disease, death and destruction as "It was God's will; God has a plan" than ascribing to a cosmic conspiracy theory?
PAD
Right on, PAD! Kudos on a well put statement. No wonder I love your writing :)
Rob
There's a difference between not knowing, and knowing, and not believing.
True, but I think there is also having only a few pieces of the puzzle and being unable or unwilling to put the pieces together in time. I think that might be closer to the truth for both 9/11 and Pearl Harbor.
Some say he did have them prepared, to an extent. If I recall correctly, some of the ships at Pearl were of older designs and due for decommissioning anyway. Too, the carriers were already considered the core of a fighting element and they were conveniently away at the time of the attack. But this doesn't mean I honestly believe the 'FDR knew' scenario to be true. Just 'possible'.
The aircraft carriers were on missions and had been for some time. Nothing particularly "convenient" about it. And if they had been there, I'm sure some would call that convenient too.
From Wikipedia In fact, the two carriers then operating from Pearl Harbor, Enterprise and Lexington, were on missions to deliver fighters to Wake and Midway Islands. (The third, Saratoga, was in routine refit in Puget Sound.) These assignments sent the carriers west, toward Japan and the Japanese Navy, lightly escorted. At the time of the attack, Enterprise was about 200 miles (370km?) west of Pearl Harbor, heading back. In fact, Enterprise was scheduled to be back on December 6th, but was delayed by weather. A rescheduling had her estimated time of arrival as 7:00, almost an hour before the attack, but she was also unable to make this schedule. Furthermore, at the time, aircraft carriers were classified as scouting elements for fleets, not capital ships; the most important vessels in naval planning even as late as Pearl Harbor were battleships (per the Mahanian doctrine of both the U.S. and Japanese navies at the time).
Again though, even without the carriers, had the Japanese really gone all out they could have seriously crippled the facilities at Pearl Harbor and made it quite likely that the Battle Of Midway--which was already a pretty close thing--have gone their way. There's no way that Japan would have won, in the long run, but if we had been forced to concentrate solely on the Pacific theater it could have given Germany the opportunity to last a lost longer and maybe even win (unlikely, yes.)
I don't think it's expecting too much to ask that conspiracy theories at least have some internal logic. FDR wants the USA to defeat the Germans and Japanese so he allows our Navy to be potentially destroyed? Bush allows or even initiates the mass murder of 3000 Americans but declines to plant some WMD in Iraq because...well, just because!
Not buying it. Not a bit. No evidence, no logic, no way.
I think people believe in conspiracy theories because they help them make sense of the world.You may be right. In that respect, it's not entirely dissimilar from religion, is it? People embrace conspiracies with remarkable zeal because they feel a need to find a connective tissue to all events.
What else is explaining random and unfair disease, death and destruction as "It was God's will; God has a plan" than ascribing to a cosmic conspiracy theory?
Well, with language, words are not the things they represent, yet there are temperaments that go so far as to consider Nature as representative of platonic ideals -- so the need for structure provided by the conspiracy theory is part of a deeper need for a stable model of reality.
The Bush conspiracy theories may come from an unconscious attempt to reconcile Bush's intentions -- which die-hard conservatives cite as a mitigating factor in judging him -- with the severe damage he's done.
If our ability to challenged authority and privilege were not so retarded, the environment would be more conspiracy-theory-hostile.
It won't matter if Bush agrees with Congress if in September, Iraq is still not meeting "benchmarks", and the Repub congress members join the Dem congress members to form a veto-proof law to draw down forces in Iraq.
The Republicans in Congress haven't shown any balls so far in standing up to Bush, so I doubt they'll be growing any in the next few months.
What really pisses me off is that Bush doesn't even seem to take the notion of 'benchmarks' seriously. He just keeps expecting the blank check, regardless of whether it means we'll be in Iraq for another 50 years and the Iraqi government never becomes self-sufficient.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at May 11, 2007 09:23 AM
Not buying it. Not a bit. No evidence, no logic, no way.
First of all, I'll mention that I've sworn off Wikipedia. It's too unreliable. Their motto should be, "When You Don't Need to be Confident About the Facts."
My suggestion regarding FDR/Pearl Harbor: read Day of Deceit. You may finish it and still decide that it's garbage, but it's worth a read nevertheless.
Granted, there are those who have challenged the author's interpretation of the evidence. What he's written is by no means a "slam dunk."
And you know I'm not a conspiracy theorist, Bill. I agree with many of your assertions about the holes in the "FDR knew it and let it happen" argument. I just think Day of Deceit is a bit more substantive than most conspiracy theories is all.
As far as the "Bush was behind 9/11" bunk: as far as I'm concerned, that stuff's on a level with Holocaust denial. It's not even worth dignifying with a discussion.
What really pisses me off is that Bush doesn't even seem to take the notion of 'benchmarks' seriously. He just keeps expecting the blank check, regardless of whether it means we'll be in Iraq for another 50 years and the Iraqi government never becomes self-sufficient.
Jon Stewart did a great comparison last night between Bush's demand for draconian level accountability for public school teachers and his demand for a complete lack of accountability for the Iraqi government.
I've sworn off Wikipedia. It's too unreliable.
While I wouldn't use it to write a term paper or as the last word in a political argument, it does some uses. When I here a name on TV or the radio that I don't immediately recognize, I often use wiki as a quick check to find out what movies they've been in or what offices they've held. Often, I can use that as a jumping off point if I want to search for a more reliable source.
"Posted by: Peter David at May 11, 2007 07:47 AM
"I think people believe in conspiracy theories because they help them make sense of the world."
You may be right. In that respect, it's not entirely dissimilar from religion, is it? People embrace conspiracies with remarkable zeal because they feel a need to find a connective tissue to all events.
What else is explaining random and unfair disease, death and destruction as "It was God's will; God has a plan" than ascribing to a cosmic conspiracy theory?"
I think the relationship between conspiracy theories and reality is similar to the one between Intelligent design and evolution. It's hard to believe that the complex social/political phenomena in our world are not the result of some grand plan instead of a lot of small, often stupid, events.
-------------------
Posted by: The StarWolf at May 11, 2007 06:52 AM
>The U.S. is not Israel. Our cultures are different, and it's possible that we might have more trouble adapting.
"Or less? For the cost of a few months in Iraq, the U.S. government could set everybody in the states with a basic computer and Internet connection and a line of credit which they could then use to order via Internet (as many already do), thus rendering mall/restaurant bombers ineffective. Many people already work out of home, just increase that and it gives the nutcases that many fewer targets. So forth ..."
Thre idea that people stay at home for fear of suicide bombers is not recommended. It is very depressing. During the hight of the suicide bombings many people used take aways in Israel. And placed like a bar I used to go to (not often)had to move to smaller places. Part of the way people adapted was having metal detectors at the entrance of malls, and security guards at the entrance of restaurants and bars. Malls are actually safer because of that. At a certain points they placed gates with guards at a promenade in the center of Jerusalem to make it more like a mall. Eventually this, as well as other factors, made suicide bombings a rare occurance, people felt safer and started going out again. The bar I go to moved to an even larger place than the original, and then to a larger place. So hiding at home is certainly not recommended.
"Thre idea that people stay at home for fear of suicide bombers is not recommended. It is very depressing."
And that's what I was getting at in my post. Thank you Micha
"Or less? For the cost of a few months in Iraq, the U.S. government could set everybody in the states with a basic computer and Internet connection and a line of credit which they could then use to order via Internet (as many already do), thus rendering mall/restaurant bombers ineffective. Many people already work out of home, just increase that and it gives the nutcases that many fewer targets. So forth ..."
And I'm sorry, StarWolf, but how delusional are you? The US government can't be bothered with LISTENING to its citizens or providing affordable health care to them, much less giving them all computers, I-net access, and another method of gettting deeper into debt than they already are (then again, if there's one thing the right wing knows, it's running up a huge debt, but when you're the US, can you really afford the reprecussions of declaring that bankruptcy?
Posted by: The StarWolf at May 11, 2007 06:52 AM
For the cost of a few months in Iraq, the U.S. government could set everybody in the states with a basic computer and Internet connection and a line of credit which they could then use to order via Internet (as many already do), thus rendering mall/restaurant bombers ineffective.
This would radically change our economy, putting many people employed in traditional "brick & mortar" establishments out-of-work. Many of them would probably end up on unemployment in the near term, and perhaps welfare in the long term, both of which would cost taxpayer dollars. The long-term solution to their problem would be retraining, and this again would require an outlay of government funds.
Also, who would administrate the lines of credit? Would there be interest charged? Who would be responsible for that interest? Again, more costs.
Your "solution" would incur many costs that go beyond merely providing the computer equipment and the lines of credit. Besides, have you been paying attention to world history? Government-managed economies have proven to be a failure, and that's what you're proposing: that we adopt a system that's a proven failure.
Posted by: The StarWolf at May 11, 2007 06:52 AM
Worse. They resemble the actions of the Soviets themselves.
No. Not even close. In the Soviet Union, the media had no ability to criticize the government the way ours does. And yes, yes, I'm well aware that the corporate media has its own set of biases but look at all of the negative stories about Bush you see today. That would NEVER have been possible in the Soviet Union, with its state-run media.
And those of you who cynically (and lazily) declare that our "system" is busted beyond repair, take note: in last year's elections, an angry electorate gave the Republicans a bloody nose, kicked them between the uprights, and took their lunch money. Is our democracy perfect? No. But at least we have one. The citizens of the Soviet Union didn't have the option of kicking out the Communist party.
I'm not saying Bush hasn't overstepped his authority. I am saying that it is absurd in the extreme to conflate the actions of our government with those of the Soviet Union.
Posted by: The StarWolf at May 11, 2007 06:52 AM
But I guess it's OK when the U.S. does it, because they're the good guys right?
No, it's not OK. And people within the U.S. have said "it's not OK." And the U.S. Democratic party is trying (albeit in its charmingly fumbling way) to put its foot down and say "it's not OK." Hell, the courts have even ruled against Bush in at least one case I'm aware of related to detaining a terror suspect. And that, right there, is exactly why we're not at all like the Soviet Union: because our system of government -- even when it goes wrong -- contains within itself the mechanisms that allow us to put things right.
Posted by: The StarWolf at May 11, 2007 06:52 AM
There's a difference between not knowing, and knowing, and not believing. I'm NOT saying this was the case, merely that it could have been.
Using your logic, for all I know you could be the product of a union between a pig and a cybernetic monkey from outer space. But I highly doubt that to be the case. Why? Because in life, as in poker, you learn to play the probabilities, not the possibilities.
Bill, I wouldn't use Wikipedia to prepare for any serious surgical procedures but it's adequate for casual use.
I'll probably give Day of Deceit a read though. I suspect thatthe truth is that FDR may well have hoped for some japanese provocation (and the country was well ready for it--reading the Time magazine from right before december 7th you can see that a confrontation with Japan was expected) but I have little doubt that he had no inkling of the magnitude of what was to come.
It's also worth remembering that, according to some historians, the military ability of the Japanese was woefully underestimated by many Americans who should have known better. Of course the racism was a two way street--some Americans thought that Asians couldn't fight and some Japanese thought that Caucasians would fold up at the first setback.
As far as the "Bush was behind 9/11" bunk: as far as I'm concerned, that stuff's on a level with Holocaust denial. It's not even worth dignifying with a discussion.
You'd think but when such a arge percentage of peple supposedly entertain the thought maybe it's time we DID dignify it. It's like creationism; for too long those of us who understood evolution just ignored creationists as beneath us, unworthy of discussion. They, on the other hand, just kept on plugging along, unmolested, thanks to that attitude. I think the lesson is that if you ignore the crackpots early you will just have to deal with even more of them later.
"The Lone Gunmen" on FOX did the whole "Government Officials try to crash a plane into the WTC" first, so it's doubtful Bush's masters would've gone that route :)
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at May 11, 2007 03:30 PM
Bill, I wouldn't use Wikipedia to prepare for any serious surgical procedures but it's adequate for casual use.
Bill, I can't think of ANY circumstances in which I'd feel comfortable with you performing surgery.
But since Condi said that no one could have imagined hijackers crashing planes into the WTC, she must have missed that episode.
Well, on the show (I think it was the short-lived series' premeire), the goverment agency did it to boost funding for their anti-terrorism team or something along those lines, and the had some sort of remote control set up, rather than physical hi-jackers...
So Condi was semi-honest
Den: But since Condi said that no one could have imagined hijackers crashing planes into the WTC
In Vixen 03 one of the earlier (and better) Dirk Pitt adventure books by Clive Cussler there is a group in Washington tasked with makign up a whole bunch of plans for doing things nobody would think of doing. Plans for a US invasion of Canada. Plans for sneaking up the Potomac and lobbing bombs on Washington. Etc.
I realize it's a fiction book, but this made a lot of sense to me and I would actually be a bit suprised if there isn't something at least vaguely similar in reality. If you're going to protect against enemy action, you should spend some time planning what you would do if you were them. You may not choose to implement any defenses against a plan you consider too unlikely, but at least think it thru.
Certainly TPTB in DC send enough time anticipating what tactics the folks across the aisle are likely to come up with.
I saw an interview with the guy that played Langley about their series premiere and his reaction to the WTC attacks on that day and the similarities therein. I have said it before, I'll say it again I'm sure. Most people that think they can imagine the very worst that people can do aren't bad people, so they can't imagine the depths to which people will go. Most of the people in power are better at administrating(relatively speaking) than at trying to hurt people.
"Bill, I can't think of ANY circumstances in which I'd feel comfortable with you performing surgery."
You couldn't have told him that before he took out my appendix, Bill? Once again, my timing's lousy. And Dr. Mulligan, the green stuff IS supposed to be coming out of the incision, right?
>The idea that people stay at home for fear of suicide bombers is not recommended. It is very depressing.
The idea that as many people as do think that the government's measures are perfectly reasonable is pretty damn depressing to me. As is turning buildings into fortresses, and being unable to go into various places without being practically strip-searched. Silly me. Here I grew up in a North America where this was unthinkable. Now? "Business as usual" for many. I'm glad I don't have any kids. I'd be unhappy thinking of them growing up in such an unhealthy environment.
>This would radically change our economy, putting many people employed in traditional "brick & mortar" establishments out-of-work.
As opposed to how many people now buy books from Amazon instead of real shops? We're pretty much headed that way as it is ...
>In the Soviet Union, the media had no ability to criticize the government the way ours does.
Tell that to the U.S. show host who was canned for his comments shortly after the attacks. Or the Editor-in-Chief of Ottawa's daily newspaper who was canned for an anti-government editorial.
>And people within the U.S. have said "it's not OK."
But a lot think we haven't gone far enough.
>Because in life, as in poker, you learn to play the probabilities, not the possibilities.
Given the attack on the Trade Center nine years previous, what was the probability they'd try again? I'd rate it as more than just 'possible'. Especially after the Cole thing.
> Condi said that no one could have imagined hijackers crashing planes into the WTC
I guess Tom CLancy is "no one" as his DEBT OF HONOR ends with a demented passenger airliner pilot doing a kamikaze on the White House. After the fact he spoke with people high up in the administration and they admitted that most either hadn't read the book or, the few that had just didn't take the idea seriously.
> In Vixen 03 one of the earlier (and better) Dirk Pitt adventure books by Clive Cussler there is a group in Washington tasked with making up a whole bunch of plans for doing things nobody would think of doing.
As written above, someone had thought of a very similar situation. But no one took it seriously. This was very much like that eye-opening moment in THE LONGEST DAY where a German general, heading for war games, tells his aide that he expects to win as usual because, although playing Eisenhower, he'll have the allies attack in Normandy where no one would expect it. His aide considers this and starts to reply "But, what if ..." and the general pooh-poohs him by pointing out that Eisenhower is too conservative and would never take such a risk. Another case of underestimating the enemy's ability to come up with the same idea our side has.
Posted by: The StarWolf at May 12, 2007 12:55 AM
The idea that as many people as do think that the government's measures are perfectly reasonable is pretty damn depressing to me. As is turning buildings into fortresses, and being unable to go into various places without being practically strip-searched. Silly me. Here I grew up in a North America where this was unthinkable. Now? "Business as usual" for many. I'm glad I don't have any kids. I'd be unhappy thinking of them growing up in such an unhealthy environment.
I'm not sure what "various places" you cannot go into without being "practically strip-searched," but the only place where I've been subjected to security measures like you describe is at the airport. I have to take off my shoes and my belt, empty my pockets, and let them search my bags. Not a big deal. Hell, last month they were moving things so efficiently at LaGuardia that I got through security in under 15 minutes.
The measures they take at the airport are reasonable given the threat. And no one is forcing you to "endure" those measures: if you don't like airport security, you can always choose another mode of transportation.
Posted by: The StarWolf at May 12, 2007 12:55 AM
As opposed to how many people now buy books from Amazon instead of real shops? We're pretty much headed that way as it is ...
Have you been to the mall lately? The grocery store? A "brick & morter" Barnes & Noble? They're all still doing brisk business where I live.
Even if we are "headed that way," it's best to let the economy evolve on its own, with minimal government interference. I'm not one of those radical "deregulate everything" conservatives. But the kind of radical government intervention you propose would be severely damaging to the economy, would cost a bloody arm and a leg in the long run, and actually represents the kind of restrictions to our freedom you claim to abhor. Think about it: the government encouraging us to stay in our homes and do nothing but order stuff by computer? Very Big Brother.
Besides, terrorists can adapt. If we no longer congregate in public places, they can attack neighborhoods with poison gas or biological weapons.
If we crawl into a hole, the terrorists win.
Posted by: The StarWolf at May 12, 2007 12:55 AM
Tell that to the U.S. show host who was canned for his comments shortly after the attacks.
I'm not familiar with the details. What was the name of the host? What were his comments? And who canned him? Was he canned because of pressure from the government?
Posted by: The StarWolf at May 12, 2007 12:55 AM
Or the Editor-in-Chief of Ottawa's daily newspaper who was canned for an anti-government editorial.
My remarks were focused on the U.S. Canada is an entirely different nation. Still -- I think it's irrational to compare the "Great White North" to the Soviet Union. Canada has definitely gone overboard with socialism, but people can still vote in legitimate elections, something that was never possible in the Soviet Union.
Starwolf, it's obvious you live in North America, either in the U.S. or Canada. I think you're among those who have lived with the blessings of freedom for so long that you don't know what you have relative to people in other nations. In a world where some governments will imprison, torture, and kill people for speaking out, and where the state-controlled media would never report such an abuse, people in North America have it pretty damn good. It's a bit... crass... to complain about the U.S. and Canada as a "police state" while we enjoy freedoms that others would give their eyeteeth for.
Are the U.S. and Canada perfect? No. But the solution isn't to throw up our hands and say, "Everything is shit, let's give up!" The solution is to recognize that we have blessings of freedom that others don't -- and to use those freedoms to correct the problems we face.
Posted by: The StarWolf at May 12, 2007 12:55 AM
But a lot think we haven't gone far enough.
I disagree. George W. Bush's approval rating is in the toilet because of the war in Iraq. A lot of U.S. citizens have had more than enough.
Posted by: The StarWolf at May 12, 2007 12:55 AM
Given the attack on the Trade Center nine years previous, what was the probability they'd try again? I'd rate it as more than just 'possible'. Especially after the Cole thing.
I wasn't referring to the probability that the terrorists would try again. I was referring to the probability that Bush either allowed 9/11 to happen or was the cause of it. Given that there is no credible evidence that Bush did such a thing, and that on its very face it is illogical, I'd have to say it's about as likely as you being part pig and part cybernetic monkey space alien. In other words: the chances are virtually nil.
"I'm not familiar with the details. What was the name of the host? What were his comments? And who canned him? Was he canned because of pressure from the government?"
I think he was talking about Bill Mahr. The way he lost his original show was wrong, but he's not really suffering for his beliefs.
"The idea that as many people as do think that the government's measures are perfectly reasonable is pretty damn depressing to me. As is turning buildings into fortresses, and being unable to go into various places without being practically strip-searched."
Metal detectors make strip search unnecessary. and considering your alternative is turning your home into a fortress, I'll take the security guards on the mall anyday. Having a vibrant daily life is worth the few seconds it takes to unzip a backpack and pass threw a metal detector.
The only airports where I was asked to take off my shoes and jacket was in the US.
"you wonder if terrorists get their ideas by watching Police Academy movies."
If they were really planning to sneak onto the base disguised as pizza delivery men, I think the answer to that is a resounding "Yes."