Happy Hour Roundup
*Congressional Democrats are emerging from their cocoon. In interviews with The Hotline, Rep. Eric Massa and DCCC Chairman Chris Van Hollen called the GOP out for playing politics, but also pushed back against the Republican attacks on Obama’s foreign policy.
Here’s Van Hollen:
“In general, we are facing the consequences of the Bush administration’s failures to deal with al Qaeda,” Van Hollen told Hotline OnCall. …
“The Obama administration has been much more aggressive about going after al Qaeda than the Bush administration, which turned its focus from al Qaeda to Iraq,” he added.
And Massa impugned Dick Cheney’s credibility:
“I would remind the American public that the apparent leaders of the al Qaeda cell in Yemen were 2 terrorists who were released by Vice President Cheney in secret. I think there’s a level of accountability that has to be levied personally on the vice president,” Massa said in an interview.
Neither Democrat is making themselves vulnerable to the claim that they are standing in the way of investigations into the problems that let to the incident over Detroit.
*The White House responds to Cheney, et al. Money paragraph:
There are numerous other such public statements that explicitly state we are at war. The difference is this: President Obama doesn’t need to beat his chest to prove it, and – unlike the last Administration – we are not at war with a tactic (“terrorism”), we at war with something that is tangible: al Qaeda and its violent extremist allies. And we will prosecute that war as long as the American people are endangered.
*National Security Network Executive Director and former Gore Bill Clinton staffer Heather Hurlbut gives Democrats advice on how to defend Obama’s foreign policy without excusing the “systemic failures.”
*Steve Benen thinks Sen. Jim DeMint has backed himself into a corner with that TSA hold.
*Rep. Pete King gives a preview of what congressional hearings on Detroit will look like.
*Gingrich advocates ethnic-based profiling to catch terrorists. (Would it have worked with the Nigerian Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab?)
*Sen. Dianne Feinstein wants the Administration to stop transferring Gitmo prisoners to Yemen.
*Rep. Pete Hoekstra declares victory, but over what?
*One of his challengers from the right goes after his fundraising appeal.
*Josh Marshall breaks down the Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen’s talking point about how Richard Reid was treated differently.
*Thiessen fires back, says the problem is that Abdulmutallab’s legal rights.
*Toby Harnden goes through the list of questions and complaints—from the pragmatic to the ideological—about Obama’s handling of the Abdulmutallab issue.
*Tea Partiers upset at pricey donor dinner held in their name.
*Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson worries about the 2012 election, will run an ad tonight defending his healthcare vote.
*Democrats start negotiations over the conference committee for the healthcare bill.
*How the Dem decision to stack the House Financial Services Committee with vulnerable rookie moderates in search of fundraising cash led to the gutting of financial regulation.
Heather Hurlbut! Is that a real name?
If Dick Cheney was the big bad @ss that stood up to terrorists, like he claims he was, then why did he spend almost all of his time, for the last seven years as VP. cowering in undisclosed locations?!
Cheney was cowering from the Terrorists, at least as much as Bin Laden was staying in undisclosed locations.
Lucky for you Congress is in recess!
As a Canadian, I can not believe that you are playing politics with a security attempt on your country.
The USA is a divided country and Al-Qaeda is just encouraging and using it.
The Republicans are the ones who are encouraging and inviting it. The Republicans are enabling Al-Qaeda in their efforts to make the American people cower, and live in constant fear.
From the Naked Capitalism blog:
” Guest Post: Economist Says Health Care Bill “Is Just Another Bailout Of The Financial System””
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2009/12/guest-post-economist-says-health-care-bill-is-just-another-bailout-of-the-financial-system.html
Liam, I am not saying that Republicans are not encouraging and inviting it. I am just saying that I am appalled by the situation.
I can understand that political parties play the game but I can not understand that the citizens buy the ****.
P.S. Please do not mind the English errors, I am French-speaking.
Sen. Dorgan responds to GOP attacks on President,
“I hope those few members of Congress who are trying to use this terrorist attack for their own partisan gain will knock it off,” Dorgan said in a statement issued Wednesday. “Our country deserves better than to have people try to use a terrorist attack for political gain.”
Dorgan also called on the ranking member of his subcommittee, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), to lift his hold on President Barack Obama’s nominee to head of the Transportation Security Administration.
“Our country needs leadership now at this important agency, and our national security interests are more important than the political interests that prompt senators to hold up nominees,” Dorgan said. “Having this position vacant at this time is hurting our national security.”
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/73959-sen-dorgan-to-gop-knock-it-off-on-plane-attack
Lizzie – “I can understand that political parties play the game but I can not understand that the citizens buy the ****.”
I don’t think the public is at all. In fact, I think the public is noticing that Obama is doing things right.
“Heather Hurlbut! Is that a real name?”
Are you making fun of someone’s name or her gender or her ethnicity?
I don’t like that kind of humor here. Stop it.
See how much fun you are, sbj?
Tena – Then why am I reading all that **** from people saying that Obama is not doing the right thing?
P.S. Is **** a bad word?
Tena – I think “merde” is a bad word.
Tena – When I talk about citizens encouraging or inviting it, I think about all those armchair quarterbacks.
As for the English translation of “merde”, I leave you this link.
http://www.wordreference.com/fren/merde
“The difference is this: President Obama doesn’t need to beat his chest to prove it, and – unlike the last Administration – we are not at war with a tactic (“terrorism”), we at war with something that is tangible: al Qaeda and its violent extremist allies.”
This is typical intellectual dishonesty and demoguery from the WH. Dems again don’t engage in honest debate. They attack straw men.
Byron Dorgan had no trouble harshly criticizing GWB’s handling of terrorism and AQ for his own and Dem’s political gain.
I guess that was then, this is now. Shoe is on the other foot, so he has changed his position on criticizing the President.
“This is typical intellectual dishonesty and demoguery from the WH. Dems again don’t engage in honest debate. They attack straw men.”
The first year is almost over.Try to be patient and good natured about it. Otherwise, it is going to be 3 more long, miserable years for you and your ilk.
Thank you President Obama for doing things your way. That is why the people of this country put you in the office. Until the next election, continue to lead us. To all the people throwing a fit.. I feel for you (Not!) but you will have to wait until the next election. There is not much you can do. Sorry!
A question for those of you all in high dudgeon over R’s “playing politics” with the attempted plane bombing:
If, as many of you have argued, and as Obama seems to agree, this was simply the act of a common criminal, what’s the big deal with R’s “playing politics” with it? And if this is was indeed an attack on the country rather than a simple criminal act, shouldn’t Obama be treating as something other than a simple criminal matter for law enforcement?
Yes, the first year is almost over. OBL is still uncaptured despite Obama’s supposedly uber-brilliant, competent, and “more aggressive” terror policy — oops, I mean “man-made disaster” policy.
Conservatives unlike liberals generally are patient and good natured, but it will be 3 more miserable years for the country, and we’ll be doing all we can to thwart Obama’s disastrous policies. And he will be a one-termer, thrown out in ignomy.
Now, what about the intellectual dishonesty of the WH statement? I know, you can’t defend it.
The GOP has proven that they care not for this country or our safety. Their only concern is wounding Obama and the Dems and regaining power. They are quick to assess blame but loathe to accept responsibility. They blithely ignore all of the consequences of eight years of dishonest and incompetent foreign policy at the hands of Cheney/Bush, but would hold Obama responsible for all.
The GOP leadership are calculating and cynical in their selective assignment of responsibility. The teabagger fools who respond with shrieks and howls are gullible morons who are too stupid to recognize they are being played. Meanwhile, Cheney/Bush’s Aegean Stables still reek from the mountains of dung which they and the GOP left behind. I would respect the GOP if they had shovels in their hands. Instead they stand outside and kvetch. Grab a shovel and lend a hand or STFU.
Meanwhile, the teabaggers hyperventilate. Now there’s news.
“The GOP has proven that they care not for this country or our safety.”
How on earth can anyone take you seriously when every comment you make says something like this?
As a Canadian, I can not believe that you are playing politics with a security attempt on your country.
It has been going on for the last 9 years and you can’t believe it?
It wasn’t just over a year ago Americans heard from the party of D that all this terrorist stuff was fake and to scare us. That is just one of the thousands of examples that can be googled.
Gee what a change of party at the CIC level does to one’s mind.
Maybe one should be wary of the cheer they lead for over 7 years others just might use the same cheer.
quarterback | December 30th, 2009 at 07:26 pm
“The GOP has proven that they care not for this country or our safety.”
How on earth can anyone take you seriously when every comment you make says something like this?
____
Gasman
That didn’t take long to proof your point.
All this terrorist stuff fake? Politicians using terrorism to scare people, true.
Just over a year ago the leader of the D party and now the CIC said he would take the fight to Al Qaeda and its violent extremist allies and he has. Maybe you thought he was faking.
“If, as many of you have argued, and as Obama seems to agree, this was simply the act of a common criminal, what’s the big deal with R’s “playing politics” with it?”
I think Liam tried to address this earlier today when he said…
“Greg and Avi,
Calm down. You are hyperventilating about this. You have made the same point over and over. You are keeping the Republican attacks on the front burner as much as they are.”
The genius response Liam got was:
troops | December 30th, 2009 at 02:31 pm
poor Liam is surrendering.
PLEASE CHANGE THE SUBJECT GREG
pretty please Liam can’t take the facts that his party and messiah are pantywaists that can’t protect this nation.
poor poor liam so weak and surrenders so easy!
_________
“And if this is was indeed an attack on the country rather than a simple criminal act, shouldn’t Obama be treating as something other than a simple criminal matter for law enforcement?”
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab attempts an attack on our country. Can we agree it was an attempt? I know Fox noise has an issue with words like alleged and probably attempt etc. So… we can charge him with attempting to harm our country. Then lock him away in a military jail and try him before a military tribunal. Ok? WAIT, Newt says we need to torture him first, so we get any intel he has and then we can try him.
Andy:
Can we agree it was an attempt?
Sure.
So… we can charge him with attempting to harm our country. Then lock him away in a military jail and try him before a military tribunal. Ok?
Sure.
WAIT, Newt says we need to torture him first, so we get any intel he has and then we can try him.
When.where did Newt say we need to torture him?
“The United States must have a policy of effective interrogation to understand our enemies and disrupt their planned attacks.”
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=35025
Andy (quoting Newt):
“The United States must have a policy of effective interrogation to understand our enemies and disrupt their planned attacks.”
Perhaps you misunderstood my question. I asked you when/where Newt said we need to “torture” people. To clarify further, the relevant word/concept here is “torture”.
BTW, I agree that we need to have an effective policy of interrogation to better understand our enemies and disrupt their plans. Don’t you?
Damned html.
So… we can charge him with attempting to harm our country. Then lock him away in a military jail and try him before a military tribunal. Ok?
Sure.
_____
You’re certain he can be tried in a military tribunal? If not, then what do you suggest we do? Given that we prosecuted and convicted Richard Reid (shoe bomber) in civilian court for basically the same thing, why shouldn’t we do the same here?
Ahh… wordsmithing does wonders. Torture or enhanced interrogations or just like I quoted Newt,”effective interrogation”. But it’s not just my opinion. The folks at Think Progress drew the same conclusion.
“Gingrich calls for the firing of Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, the renewed use of torture (”a policy of effective interrogation”), and the end of any civilian trials for suspected terrorists, even if they are American citizens.”
BTW we have an “effective policy of interrogation” and it does not include torture. Maybe that’s what you want but Newt said he wants a “policy of effective interrogation”, a subtle but important difference.
Andy:
You’re certain he can be tried in a military tribunal?
Pretty certain.
If not, then what do you suggest we do?
Hold him as a prisoner of war.
Given that we prosecuted and convicted Richard Reid (shoe bomber) in civilian court for basically the same thing, why shouldn’t we do the same here?
Because it is generally a bad idea to make the same mistake twice, and unlike when Reid made his attempt, we actually now have a military tribunal system in place for just such an eventuality.
Can you provide me with where Newt said we need to torture this new captured enemy?
Andy:
Newt said he wants a “policy of effective interrogation”, a subtle but important difference.
Just so I understand, are you saying that any interrogation that is effective, or in other words an effective interrogation, is torture? If so, and you oppose torture (which I assume you do), doesn’t that necessarily mean that you will only support non-effective interrogations?
You’re certain he can be tried in a military tribunal?
Pretty certain.
____________
Doesn’t sound very confident and given how SCOTUS treated military commissions under Bush I can understand why.
____________
If not, then what do you suggest we do?
Hold him as a prisoner of war.
____________
I’ll just assume you don’t know what that designation means. Since we can’t do that what would we do?
___________
Given that we prosecuted and convicted Richard Reid (shoe bomber) in civilian court for basically the same thing, why shouldn’t we do the same here?
Because it is generally a bad idea to make the same mistake twice, and unlike when Reid made his attempt, we actually now have a military tribunal system in place for just such an eventuality.
___________________
Same mistake twice? Reid is in prison for life, I don’t consider that a mistake but if you do then I get your point.
___________________
Can you provide me with where Newt said we need to torture this new captured enemy?
__________________
I did.
Let me repeat… we have an “effective policy of interrogation”. You said that you agreed we needed that. But if you meant we should torture people I am sorry for misinterpreting your comment. As far as my comment, let me be clear. We know how to interrogate people without torturing them.
“Some of the same Republican lawmakers currently criticizing the President for softness on terrorism voted back in July 2007 against legislation that, among other reforms, provided $250 million for airport screening and explosive detection equipment.
The Improving America’s Security Act of 2007 was a relatively non-controversial measure that effectively implemented several un-acted-upon recommendations from the 9/11 Commission. Eighty-five Senators voted in favor of the bill’s passage. Seven missed the vote (several of whom were on the campaign trail, including Barack Obama, John McCain and Chris Dodd).
Eight Republican Senators, however, voted against passage, including Sens. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), Tom Coburn (R-Okl.) Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) Elizabeth Dole (R-N.C.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), James Inhofe (R-Okl.) and Jon Kyl (R-Ari.).
The opposition was, at the time, a bit perplexing, considering the praise the legislation received from many of the revered members of the 9/11 Commission itself. Now, following a botched terrorist attack that nearly brought down an airliner over the city of Detroit — and subsequent conservative complaints that Democrats mishandled matters of national security — the bill and that vote contain obvious, additional meaning.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/30/eight-gop-senators-oppose_n_407712.html
Andy:
I’ll just assume you don’t know what that designation means.
I was usign the term as a layman, not as an official legal designation. In any event, he should be held just as all the other people at Guantanamo are being held.
Reid is in prison for life, I don’t consider that a mistake…
Nor do I. What I consider to be a mistake is that he was afforded the same legal rights as an American citizen.
we have an “effective policy of interrogation”. You said that you agreed we needed that.
I was not making the distinction that you seem to be making. I believe we need an effective policy of interrogation, a policy of effective interrogation, and/or an effective policy of effective interrogation.
So I repeat…is it your contention (as must be the case for your claim about Gingrich to hold any truth value) that any “effective interrogation” is torture? And if so, doesn’t that imply that you support only non-effective interrogations?
Rush Limbaugh was rushed to the hospital in Honolulu. He had chest pains and was in serious condition.
Andy:
Off to bed. back tomorrow.
Hmm… I thought I was making this easy but I guess not. Since you have trouble with nuance, I do not believe effective interrogation is torture. I wish Newt believed we could have effective interrogation without torturing people. But I am guessing you disagree since you seem to think torturing is ok.
Abdulmuttallab absolutely could be tried in a military tribunal and/or held in military detention. You might recall that Obama is continuing military tribunals and is actually using them to prosecute some enemy combatants, which is what this terrorist is.
Instead of detention and interrogation, however, he has been read his rights and taken into custody in the criminal justice system. He was given a lawyer and refused to answer questions, according to the reports. He’ll be entitled to a speedy trial and, in the best case scenario that is now available, will go away to prison. Anyone think that will deter other terrorists or advance our offensive against them?
So you can forget your idea that “we know” how to interrogate. Sure “we know.” But this terrorist will not be interrogated. He will be entitled to have his lawyer with him, and his lawyer will prevent any interrogation. He has invoked his right not to answer questions, and unless something changes you can forget extracting any intelligence information from him.
Lots of people were critical of the handling of the Reid case, but that was also a very different time, in which the contours of how we should respond to these threats was still formative, military tribunals were not even developed, and we didn’t know as much as we do now.
The bottom line is that Dems and Obama primarily treat terrorism as a law enforcement matter, and it is a huge mistake.
Andy:
Since you have trouble with nuance…
Newt says we need effective interrogation, and you claim he says we need torture. That is not nuance. That is blatant misrepresentation.
I do not believe effective interrogation is torture.
Then your claim that Newt says we need torture is, to put it bluntly, an out and out lie.
But I am guessing you disagree since you seem to think torturing is ok.
I haven’t said anything that could reasonably lead you to think that.
Limbaugh rushed to Hawaiian hospital likely with a serious heart attack. Obama is in Hawaii at the very same time. Glenn Beck will connect the dots.
Bernie:
FYI – http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/economy/happy-hour-roundup-126/
Sorry, should have been this:
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/economy/happy-hour-roundup-126/#comment-146614
@Scott – good morning. I’ll pop over there and respond a bit later.
Bernie:
Limbaugh rushed to Hawaiian hospital likely with a serious heart attack.
And there was much rejoicing?
The karma/irony nexus…
“While unfortunate, Limbaugh’s hospital visit is rife with irony. The ailing radio show host was sent to the same medical center that a United Press International reporter misidentified in an article published in 2008 as the facility in which President Obama was born. Though the error was corrected to accurately indicate that Obama was born in the Kapi’olani Medical Center, the mistake fueled “birther” conspiracy theories that Limbaugh then dedicated significant airtime to promoting.” http://thinkprogress.org/2009/12/31/limbaugh-hospital-hawaii/
DEMS ned to stop releasing statements and get their a zz es on TV. Campbell Brown, gma, TODAY, American Morning, CNN Tonight, Candy Crowley, etc…have been MORE tahn willing to give the gop SPACE to push these talking points without a challenge. Dems need to CALL the programs and request EQUAL TIME to RESPOND… all they can do is say NO and admit they are bias. At least try to get on TV and go on probgressive radio, reach out to the blogs or something.
Where is the DNC? Do we have a commuinications strategy?
Every regular dem strategist on TV should have their talking ready to go by now… let’s step up the communiucations game DEMS.
From the wasteland where Gingrich’s honesty ought to be:
“In the Obama Administration, protecting the rights of terrorists has been more important than protecting the lives of Americans.”
What are the consequences to a national polity where the leaders of one party speak such falsehood-laden sentences on a daily basis?
From torture-implementor and justifier Dick Cheney:
“As I’ve watched the events of the last few days it is clear once again that President Obama is trying to pretend we are not at war,” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/30/AR2009123001696.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
These two men, and many others along with them, mark a national party’s descent into serial misinformation strategies designed to facilitate access to power. There is no apparent vestige of awareness or concern regarding the certain result here – that some significant percentage of the American citizenry (as large a percentage as they can manage to create) will hold untruths as being true.
There is a way to spot the seriously bad people in community. They will act knowingly so as to bring about a population who believe things that are not true. They will act to make the community stupider and more hateful. And they do these things to gain access to power.
Also, on a larger point… the DNC and Whitehouse have NOT taken advantage of the fact that there are supportive progressive and minoirty media willing to support them.
I listen to one of the top r&b/Hip hop radio stations among young AA people in the country most mornings. Before I leave ther house to get in my car and listen to the radio I will catch a little of Moning Joe and notice several Obama officials frequently on that show. That’s fine.But they need to hire a young communications aide, an AA aide, and hispanic aide that are making just as many regular appeorances on radio stations that young people, young blacks and older black, young and older hispanics ( different radio stations), and progressives are listening to. The DNC and whitehouse MUST begin reaching out to their bae on a regular basis befroe the 2010 elections. MAybe they can have someone that can go thse black and hispanic radio stations 1 x week or 1 x month to kep the base informed and energized.
Also, I notice that when Obam has done black radio it has been the staions my parents or grandmother listens to. It is fine for them to do an interview with Tom Joyner, Steve Harvey and Michael Baisden b/c they have millions of listeners but they need to rach out to some of thbe younger shows and if they are unfamiliar with them they need to hire some people that are in touch with youth culture. They need to do the same with progrssive blogs and popular minority blogs.
The extraordinary duplicity of the right wing is only matched by right wing hypocrisy and the right wing’s double standards.
Liars like “quarterback” and “Scott C.” clearly believe that lies repeated often enough will eventually become the truth.
While it’s good to see the effort made to respond to the right winger’s lies, I’ll just skip that this morning and say that:
Right wingers “quarterback” and “Scott C.” are liars.
The falsehoods right wingers “Scott C.” and “quarterback” spew aren’t errors but very deliberate and calculated lies.
Clearly they are taking their cues from a dishonest Republican leadership that can’t even keep themselves from engaging in deceits and hypocrisies for a single whole day.
Modern day Conservatism is now synonymous with LIES.
Yglesias recommends Rory Stewart’s piece on Afghanistan (see link below). I haven’t read it yet but Jonathan Raban’s piece on Sarah Palin is well worth attending to…
http://www.nybooks.com/
Bernie:
The karma/irony nexus…
So Limbaugh was brought to a hospital that Obama was not born in? Ah, the irony.
Bernie (quoting cheney):
“As I’ve watched the events of the last few days it is clear once again that President Obama is trying to pretend we are not at war,”
Are we at war with radical Islamic terrorists, Bernie? Was the attempted bombing last week an act of war in your estimation? What, as far as you can tell, does Obama think about these questions?
@Scott – Imagining/hoping that the application of simplistic terminology and concepts to that which is complex will somehow create order elsewhere besides your own noggin is probably a fool’s pursuit.
As Robinson notes, Obama’s statements (and acts as CIC) don’t reflect anything close to what Cheney attempts to imply. Cheney is not seeking to make citizens more accurately understand intentions or facts. Cheney is attempting to push a narrative (Dems are weak on defence/don’t properly appreciate the threat of terrorism) which Rove explicitly stated would be a fundamental narrative which had the purpose of electoral gain.
Ed Kilgore on Cheney’s in the gutter dishonesty and on his absolute blindness to the consequences of his own acts and policies…
“Forget for a moment the stupid little slur at the end about “social transformation,” an obligatory nod to the conservative movement’s bizarre suggestion that Barack Obama is in the process of creating a Soviet America of some sort. What’s amazing about Cheney’s statement is his extraordinary assertion, in the absence of any real evidence on the subject at present, that the attempted bombing was some sort of major act of war like 9/11 warranting a major reaction by the nation and its chief executive.
Has it crossed Cheney’s mind, even once, over the last nine years that routine overreaction by U.S. leaders is one of the most cherished goals of al Qaeda and its alllies? Does Cheney understand that conceding the ability of a scattered band of terrorists to completely control the foreign policy of the world’s great superpower, to dominate its news, to panic it into abandoning its own values and legal system, “emboldens” terrorists more than anything else we could do?”
http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/
A very smart sentence from Krugman’s blog (on a non-econ technical matter):
“I’ll defer to the experts, if I can figure out who they are.”
Bernie:
Imagining/hoping that the application of simplistic terminology and concepts to that which is complex will somehow create order elsewhere besides your own noggin is probably a fool’s pursuit.
Actually my experience here suggests that trying to get you to answer questions is a fool’s pursuit. And yet I continue to try. Call me crazy.
Cheney clearly believes we are in a war with Islamic extremists. (It is equally clear, BTW, that they think they are at war with us.) You may think that this belief is “simplistic”, and therefore you may think that Cheney is a fool, but I don’t think you can or would want to dispute the fact that he does believe this.
So, if Cheney does indeed believe this, and if, as I suspect is also the case, Obama does not (him being to clever and all to believe such a simplistic thing), then why is it not possible, or indeed even likely, that Cheney is indeed trying to more accurately understand facts…ie understand them in the same way that he does?
BTW, I suspect the only thing that makes the situation so complex to you is that the people who are attacking us are not associated with any official state or government. If a foreign government had declared war against us, and was using paid government employees to secret explosives aboard US airliners in order to blow them up, not even you guys on the left would be confused as to whether this was an act of war. The fact that it is non-state actors doing this certainly makes our approach to ending it more complex (ie it is difficult to bomb the cities of non-states), but it doesn’t really change the nature of the attacks.
Bernie:
Read “Cheney is indeed trying to more accurately understand facts” to say “Cheney is indeed trying to get others to more accurately understand facts”
“Cheney is attempting to push a narrative (Dems are weak on defence/don’t properly appreciate the threat of terrorism) which Rove explicitly stated would be a fundamental narrative which had the purpose of electoral gain.”
The Dem/Obama narrative for at least five years has been that the GOP is not only weak on national security and defense but, take your pick, stupid or dishonest, or both, and even traitorous.
So cry us a river.
Sccott C said:
“I suspect the only thing that makes the situation so complex to you is that the people who are attacking us are not associated with any official state or government.”
Indeed. But it is not that this difference makes it more complicated for me it is that it makes it hugely more complicated in resolution. Given the organization of a nation-state, termination of a state of war is relatively simple. The executives of one nation-state surrender, the military structures below wrap up activities, peace ensues and everyone goes home.
Nothing like that possibility exists in this situation. There’s no central “enemy” executive with a descending organizational structure which can flip a switch to “off”.
Further, there’s no limited geographical region which holds or represents this enemy. These people are spread across every continent and what, 300 countries?
The term “war” used undiscerningly and simplistically here obscures the reality in a manner that makes understanding it and prosecuting some solution to it harder and often is often counter-productive (this “enemy” is now far larger and far more widespread than it was on 9/11).
I don’t know what Cheney really believes. He’s a deeply dishonest and manipulative individual who has managed to gain immense power and wealth through bureaucratic machinations within government and within the intersections between government, the military and related corporate entities. Whether he is motivated by his radical ideology or whether his radical ideology comes as a natural consequence of his clearly totalitarian personality is the question unanswerable. This is a man Stalin would understand.
Theissen’s response to Josh’s criticism really just dug himself deeper into a hole. His last complaint that now the bomber would be allowed to remain silent is so dumb even a ratwinger should be ashamed of it.
No where is there any suggestion that this jerk can’t be interrogated about who sent him, what their plans are, where they are, how they work, who else is involved, and so on. They have all the evidence they need to convict him, so anything else they get doesn’t need to be introduced and probably is irrelevant to the bombing attempt anyway.
For those of you who think that somehow treating the present situation as a military engagement, look up some history.
Europe has a long history of dealing with terrorists only a couple generations ago (Bader Meinhof gang, the Red army in Italy, remember?). They did it with police work. They didn’t go bombing whole neighborhoods with attack helicopters. The problems were solved in a lot shorter time than the Cheney/Bush campaign has done.
What the Cheney/Bush methodology has done is prolong the agony rather than reduce it by creating terrorists, either deliberately or through stupidity. Their techniques are guaranteed to enrage people who otherwise wouldn’t have cared that much. This is so obvious that the right wingers don’t even try to dispute it. That no change in method was ever made suggests that someone may be gaining something from continuing the attacks (military/industrial complex?).
The question then comes down to what your goals are. Those who want to reduce terrorism follow the police work philosophy. Those who want to feed their egos and appear to actually have a chest to thump (remember 5 deferments, National Guard?) go the military way. After all, look at the results. We’ve been doing the military bit about seven years and things are worse than at the beginning. Obama is switching to more actual law enforcement and he has taken out a lot more terrorists and potential terrorists than Cheney/Bush did the whole time they were in office. The Brits and Germans have always gone the law enforcement way and they have had a lot more success eliminating actual terrorists than C/B ever did (the Miami gang who couldn’t even read a map were going to destroy some skyscraper in Chicago?)
Scott: Read “Cheney is indeed trying to more accurately understand facts” to say “Cheney is indeed trying to get others to more accurately understand facts”
If that were the actual case, then he wouldn’t spout falsehoods and distortions. Check Rachel Maddow for an excellent analysis of Cheney’s smokescreening. What Cheney is trying to do is OBSCURE the facts since they put him in a very bad light.
Scott: Was the attempted bombing last week an act of war in your estimation?
It was an act of terrorism. There is a difference. An act of war is the attack on Pearl Harbor. An act of terrorism is the bombing of a plane.
I agree with Texas Aggie . A war is much different from act of terrorism.
Texas Aggie,
Your comments are about as misinformed and off base as they could be.
“No where is there any suggestion that this jerk can’t be interrogated about who sent him, what their plans are, where they are, how they work, who else is involved, and so on. They have all the evidence they need to convict him, so anything else they get doesn’t need to be introduced and probably is irrelevant to the bombing attempt anyway.”
You have no idea what you’re talking about.
First, the terrorist was read his “rights” and given a lawyer. He’s under the Fifth Amendment now. Sure, he can be interrogated. Only his lawyer will be sitting beside him, and he’s now going to be entitled to refuse to answer all questions. Which is exactly what he’s doing.
Second, the objective isn’t just to be able to convict him. We didn’t need to interrogate him to do that. We didn’t need any evidence at all beyond the eyewitnesses to his attempt to destroy the plane. The purpose of interrogating him would have been to get intelligence to stop further terrorism.
“Europe has a long history of dealing with terrorists only a couple generations ago (Bader Meinhof gang, the Red army in Italy, remember?). They did it with police work. They didn’t go bombing whole neighborhoods with attack helicopters. The problems were solved in a lot shorter time than the Cheney/Bush campaign has done.”
There is a huge difference between those terror groups and international Islamo-fascism. If you can’t see that, you have nothing intelligent to say about this subject.
Moreover, you are even in disagreement with your own party and President, who appear to agree the evil, war-mongering Republicans that military action is needed to combat the Islamo-terrorists. Indeed, by some accounts, Obama is more prone to leveling “whole neighborhoods” than Bush ever was.
“The term “war” used undiscerningly and simplistically here obscures the reality in a manner that makes understanding it and prosecuting some solution to it harder and often is often counter-productive (this “enemy” is now far larger and far more widespread than it was on 9/11).”
So Bernie has a semantic objection to using the word “war.” Is there a better suited word we should be using?
“I don’t know what Cheney really believes. He’s a deeply dishonest and manipulative individual . . .. Whether he is motivated by his radical ideology or whether his radical ideology comes as a natural consequence of his clearly totalitarian personality is the question unanswerable. This is a man Stalin would understand.”
Someone who routinely and casually makes declarations like this is not a serious person and shouldn’t expect to be taken seriously.