 |
 |
   During a recession, should college presidents face the same pay cuts as CEOs?
 Forty years of writing from Taylor Branch, James Fallows, Katherine Boo, Marjorie Williams, Joshua Micah Marshall, and more.
 With help from Washington, the for-profit college industry is loading up millions of low-income students with debt they'll never pay off.
 The best recent memoir from republican Washington is a hoax. That should tell you something.
|
   |
|
|
June 17, 2008
By: POLITICS AS USUAL....So Barack Obama tells Jake Tapper that we can fight terrorists and follow the constitution at the same time ("for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center, we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial"), and we get the standard talking point reaction from the McCain team. You know the drill: naive, September 10th mindset, etc. etc. All the usual dumb little campaign comments. But wouldn't it be nice if we could have a real conversation about this? We could compare, say, the amount of terrorism we've stopped via police work, intelligence, international cooperation, financial interdiction, and so forth, and compare it to the amount of terrorism created by our military intervention in Iraq. And then we could talk about how the real September 10th mindset is the one that says it doesn't matter what other people think of us because, you know, we've got the biggest military in the world and we can squash 'em all like bugs anyway. I say: bring 'em on. Let's talk about who's naive vs. who's learned some lessons from 9/11. The sooner the better. —Kevin Drum 1:56 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (127)Comments
I think that you're right, Kevin. At this point, the American people might be tired of using a hammer to solve every problem, and would be willing to see the inherent nuance that always was there, exacerbated by the complexities of the Iraq war aftermath. Posted by: Boorring on June 17, 2008 at 2:08 PM | PERMALINKTPM has Richard Clarke's response to this, and I think it was too defensive. Law enforcement is only one method, it often works, and it sure beats McCain's solution of unending war. Posted by: David in NY on June 17, 2008 at 2:09 PM | PERMALINKAlso, McCain was recently yelling at Obama for wanting to shoot at bin Laden with Predators. So, which is it? Naive and wanting prosecutions only? Or naive and wanting to bomb al Qaeda? Confused isn't an age-related comment when McCain's campaign has the message discipline of an infant. Posted by: riffle on June 17, 2008 at 2:13 PM | PERMALINKI for one would like to see the "9/11 changed everything" meme completely destroyedbut I guess we're too attached to over-simplifications. Posted by: Tim (The Other One) on June 17, 2008 at 2:15 PM | PERMALINKWe could compare, say, the amount of terrorism we've stopped via police work, intelligence, international cooperation, financial interdiction, and so forth, and compare it to the amount of terrorism created by our military intervention in Iraq. We could compare them, but neither the stopped nor the created terrorism would be measurable. Both would be inflatable according to the imaginations and extrapolations of advocates. The conversation would only be nice if it were honest, which is highly unlikely. Posted by: Boolaboola on June 17, 2008 at 2:16 PM | PERMALINK And this was all over an "inside job" on 9/11 I would bring up the post-9/11 London Bombers, who were captured via good police work. Posted by: ed on June 17, 2008 at 2:17 PM | PERMALINKThe SLA and Weathermen were stopped by police work. The Red Brigade and Baader-Meinhof were stopped by police work. The IRA was not stopped by police work. England selected a military solution to stopping the IRA, which prolonged the conflict for decades, and also led to extreme civil rights violations. The neo-conmen will solve their bad apple problem by compelling Rumsfeld to sign a false confession of innocence. Posted by: Brojo on June 17, 2008 at 2:21 PM | PERMALINKIn Scalia's dissent in the recent habeas case, he says something like "We are at war with Islamic extremists" and lists a number of overseas attacks starting with the Marine barracks in Lebanon early in the Reagan administration. He then says something to the effect that "on September 11, 2001, the enemy brought the conflict to these shores." I wondered why he had left out the first attack on the World Trade Center. At first I thought he might have forgotten it; then I thought that it might have ruined his rhetorical flourish. But then I realized that he left it out because to remind his readers of that case would remind them that everyone involved in that attack had been arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced, with full due process including the right to bring habeas corpus actions. That would have undercut his whole argument. So best just to forget about it, and hope that his readers forget about it too. Posted by: VinnyD on June 17, 2008 at 2:31 PM | PERMALINKNo, the September 10th mindset, still mostly adhered to, is that we can be the largest consumers of the world's most important natural resource, and effect the extraction of that resource in the region where it is most readily available, via paying off whatever thugs keep the population of that region under their boots, without becoming a party to the internecine conflicts within that region. When that fantasy fails, it is often replaced with one which supposes that greatly reducing the centrality of that natural resource to the global, and our national, economy, is something other than a long, long, drawn-out process. It is shameful that in 2008 our would-be political leaders still encourage the electorate to pursue these fantasies. The discouraging thing is that our next President is likely to take to heart what happened to George Bush's popularity as the price at the pump soared, and thus decide to pursue some aspect of the status quo that prevailed for most of the 20th century. Frankly, if the U.S. is to extricate itself from the conflicts of the region, the price of gasoline needs to get a lot more expensive, but what occupant of the Oval Office is going to look at what happened to the Carter and W. Bush Administrations, and decide to risk that? Look for more kissing of Saudi hind ends, no matter what happens come November. Posted by: Will Allen on June 17, 2008 at 2:37 PM | PERMALINKI know what you mean about naive military bluster. One candidate was even naive enough to say: "You know, Iran, they spend one-one hundredth of what we spend on the military. If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn’t stand a chance." Obviously, the candidate who said this is ignorant of the problems of asymmetrical warfare and has too much American bravado. Wouldn't you all agree he should not be let anywhere near the Presidency. Posted by: John Hansen on June 17, 2008 at 2:41 PM | PERMALINKAs brojo noted above, this question has been answered by the British experience in combating the IRA, or the French, Italian, and German experiences. Authorities in all of those countries have all concluded that the police approach is effective and that the Cheneypath approach is not. Posted by: Chris Brown on June 17, 2008 at 2:42 PM | PERMALINK" " Man you really need to cut back on the psychotropics no-name. Should we call Nurse There really aren't that many 'lessons of September 11.' But there's a lot of lessons to be learned from the U.S. response to 9/11. All we've done is get ourselves embedded in two wars that were both 'won' years ago, but that we can't manage to extract ourselves from now. Oh yeah, and we've tortured a bunch of people, some fatally. And so forth. Done us a lot of good, hasn't it? Posted by: low-tech cyclist on June 17, 2008 at 2:45 PM | PERMALINKComparing Baader-Meinhoff, Red Brigades, or even the IRA to being entwined in the conflicts of the Middle East is really pointless. The situations are not the least bit analagous. Posted by: Will Allen on June 17, 2008 at 2:46 PM | PERMALINKI would bring up the post-9/11 London Bombers, who were captured via good police work. Posted by: ed on June 17, 2008 at 2:17 PM Not good enough for the 52 persons who were killed and more than 700 wounded because the "good police work" they did failed to prevent the attack from happening. Which is the inherent weakness in any strategy that treats Islamic terrorism as a crime that can be effectively dealt with in the civilian court system, which is intended and designed to punish lawbreakers after the fact. Prior to them murdering the aircrews and crashing the planes into the World Trade Center what "crimes" had Atta and the others done that would have justified arresting and putting them into prison without bail so as to prevent what happened on 9-11? Overstaying their tourists' visas is the only illegal thing that I can think of them doing prior to their actions on that morning? What say you Kevin? How would following Obama's proposed strategy prevented 9-11? "asymmetrical warfare" You need to look that phrase up champ. It would include police work. FAIL Posted by: Tim (The Other One) on June 17, 2008 at 2:47 PM | PERMALINKAs long as we are going to bring up really stupid ways of thinking, what are the odds of either Obama or McCain noting that our idiotic War on Drugs is one of the largest impediments to having a good outcome in Afghanistan? Posted by: Will Allen on June 17, 2008 at 2:51 PM | PERMALINKOne thing is that the whole Republican line on this is just ridiculous. When Bush was doing this to Kerry, Bush said that it wasn't enough to "serve legal papers on the terrorists" in response to when John Kerry said the fight against terrorism was more about intelligence and law enforcement than it is about using the military. But of course John Kerry wasn't saying that we were going to just send people legal papers to the terrorists and hope the terrorists stop. When the FBI or any cops go after any criminals who are nearly as dangerous as a terrorist, they arrest them first. So if you read Bush's line as being about what's safest to protect us, well, the law enforcement approach is just as safe as the military approach-- it gets the terrorists off the streets. And anyway, if our law enforcement (or another country's law enforcement agencies who were working with us and our cops) needed the military to help them arrest someone for some reason, of course the US military would be able to help out with that. If Bush wasn't arguing about what approach was safer for America, then what he was really arguing for was lynching and vigilante justice, which is not what most Americans would have understood him to be saying, and not what most Americans want. So Bush was (and now John McCain is) just being deceptive. Remember it was John McCain who just a while ago was one of the people criticizing Barack Obama for saying he would support military operations inside Pakistan to get terrorists, with or without the Pakistani government's approval! Yet that line easily could have come from a Republican. They change what they say and their criticisms just to make themselves look good, not based on truth in any way. Posted by: Swan on June 17, 2008 at 2:53 PM | PERMALINKTim ( the Other One ) The point was who said the quote. If you don't know. Look it up. Posted by: John Hansen on June 17, 2008 at 2:54 PM | PERMALINKSwan, what is worse, a candidate who changes what he says, or one that actually states that he would mount a small invasion of a very unstable country with nuclear weapons? Posted by: Will Allen on June 17, 2008 at 2:56 PM | PERMALINKObviously, the candidate who said this is ignorant of the problems of asymmetrical warfare ... Nowhere does the quote refer to asymmetrical warfare. The "argument from silence" is a logical fallacy. FAIL. Maybe Barack Obama IS thinking like it's September 10th - September 10, 2008. But McCain is stuck in time. Which one is naive and dillusional here? Posted by: eric on June 17, 2008 at 3:04 PM | PERMALINKJosh Marshall points out that one of the guys calling Obama "naive" for McCain was a lobbyist for Ahmed Chalabi. Talk about naive -- or evil. Anyway, I don't see what these guys think is the alternative to good police work. Torture every Muslim everywhere until somebody confesses? Come on. Posted by: David in NY on June 17, 2008 at 3:04 PM | PERMALINKHow about we compare McCain's 9/11/01 mindset with Obama's mindset rooted in the present day (or 9/11/08 if you allow some poetic license)? Posted by: Chris on June 17, 2008 at 3:04 PM | PERMALINK"You know, Iran, they spend one-one hundredth of what we spend on the military. If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn’t stand a chance." I politely disagree with your assessment GMT. The very essence of this quote is the stupid bluster that since we outspend Iran on military, we should easily defeat them. Yes we could easily defeat the country of Iran in a test of who had the most bombs and who had the most planes. But, as wikipedia says, "Asymmetric warfare originally referred to war between two or more actors or groups whose relative military power differs significantly. Contemporary military thinkers tend to broaden this to include asymmetry of strategy or tactics; today "asymmetric warfare" can describe a conflict in which the resources of two belligerents differ in essence and in the struggle, interact and attempt to exploit each other's characteristic weaknesses. Such struggles often involve strategies and tactics of unconventional warfare, the "weaker" combatants attempting to use strategy to offset deficiencies in quantity or quality." The very reason the statement is so dumb is because of the existence of asymmetrical warfare. BTW - do you know yet who said this stupid statement? Posted by: John Hansen on June 17, 2008 at 3:06 PM | PERMALINKTo paraphrase Homer Simpson, "We haven't learned a thing." Posted by: jame on June 17, 2008 at 3:14 PM | PERMALINKPrior to them murdering the aircrews and crashing the planes into the World Trade Center what "crimes" had Atta and the others done that would have justified arresting and putting them into prison ...? ... How would following Obama's proposed strategy prevented 9-11? Chicounsel You, my dear young person, are an idiot. Have you never heard of conspiracy, in this case conspiracy to commit murder or terrorism? Had the Bush administration, and the FBI under its control, simply followed leads that they had and that agents were urging that they follow (which is simple police work), they would have discovered the conspiracy, arrested the conspirators, convicted them in courts of law, and saved us a great tragedy. (Since then the government has brought numerous conspiracy cases against those who were plotting additional acts of violence, well before they committed other crimes.) I do not see how there was any other way that the WTC attacks could have been avoided. What was the "military" solution in that case? To invade Iraq, which Bush was already contemplating? No, police work would have done it, but Bush and his administration ignored the warnings. This once again shows the shallowness of the thinking of conservatives. They assume, without knowing much, that war is the answer. The hell with that. The hell with their ignorance. Let's look at this strictly from the standpoint of campaign tactics. First, the response to the argument Kevin is making is that reliance on police work, treating terrorism as a law enforcement matter, is what preceeded 9/11. No more than any other national Democratic politician does Sen. Obama and his campaign want to have to deal with that, for while it's a response that leaves President Bush open to criticism it is also consistent with many critiques made of the Clinton administration's record on terrorism, critiques made by, among others, Richard Clarke. In the second place, and just as obviously, the only reason we and NATO has an army in Afghanistan is to fight terrorism, and Obama isn't proposing to walk away from that effort. Just in the context of the campaign, what is the real weakness in the position Sen. McCain has taken on this subject and the language he is using to take it? The weakness is that it is President Bush's position, and President Bush's language. McCain's campaign is even employing some people who previously worked for President Bush. He's also desperately trying to create the appearance of distance between his campaign and a President who is wildly unpopular among the voters McCain needs to make this election competitive -- a long shot effort even if Obama's campaign did nothing to oppose it. In Obama's position, I'd oppose it. The correct response to a charge that Obama is taking a naive approach to terrorism is a countercharge that McCain's position is based on his loyalty to Bush, and on the similar loyalty of the people working for him. There's nothing subtle about this approach, and much as I regret this it isn't terribly sophisticated as far as the substance of policy is concerned. If you're running against a Republican candidate when the incumbent Republican President has nearly 70% disapproval ratings, you place the two together every chance you get -- ideally, not with stylized stump speech rhetoric about Bush's "failed policies" but in highly personal terms. Your objective is twofold. One is to put McCain in a position where he is under pressure to either emphasize his differences from Bush (thereby alienating Bush's remaining Republican admirers) or defend him (thereby alienating everyone else). The second is to generate responses from the White House itself. On this particular issue it should be possible to do this; the resort to abusive interrogation techniques in the early years after 9/11 can be attributed not to Bush administration tough-mindedness but to panic. Bush and Cheney let themselves be caught napping on 9/11, and rather than admit their error lurched into all manner of abuses from interrogation practices to wiretapping, and the product of their panic is what McCain, out of loyalty to Bush, is defending now. Bush has a history of resenting personal criticism and of showing his resentment, and if he can be provoked into attacking something Obama has said, McCain is toast. Once again -- really, this kills me -- this is not a subtle or sophisticated line to take as far as policy substance is concerned. We're talking about a campaign, though, in which the Democratic candidate is going to do a lot better if he runs against George Bush than he will if he only runs against John McCain. Posted by: Zathras on June 17, 2008 at 3:17 PM | PERMALINKAnd I don't get that smarmy John Hansen either. He's about as ignorant as Chicounsel. If Iran engaged in warfare against the United States, assymetrical or otherwise, its leaders would end up where Saddam Hussein has. And Iran would end up where Iraq has. And Iran knows that. Do you disagree? Posted by: David in NY on June 17, 2008 at 3:21 PM | PERMALINKThe natural retort, it seems to me, is to call McCain, neocons, etc out on their "pre-iraq mindset". Posted by: MLE on June 17, 2008 at 3:26 PM | PERMALINKBy the way, does the name "Chicounsel" mean that that person is an actual lawyer? If so, don't hire him/her, at least not for criminal work. I can hear his/her advice now: "You guys can plan all the terrorist acts you want, and take steps to carry the plan out, and the government can't touch you!" Back to first-year law, Chicounsel. Posted by: David in NY on June 17, 2008 at 3:26 PM | PERMALINKComparing Baader-Meinhoff, Red Brigades, or even the IRA to being entwined in the conflicts of the Middle East The conflicts in the Middle East are resistances to occupations by foreign imperial forces. Police work is not being suggested as a strategy to combat insurgencies. The best way to combat the insurgencies in Afghanistan and Iraq would be to withdraw the imperial troops and try the president for war crimes. Then pay the offended Afghans and Iraqis lots in reparations. The best way to deal with domestic terrorist violence is with police work, which is how the British should have dealt with the IRA. The terrorist threats from the Weather Underground, SLA, Red Brigade and Baader-Meinhoff were extinguished with police work, while the militarized IRA conflict lasted decades. Iran poses no threat to the US, asymmetric or otherwise. It is the US who threatens Iran's sovereignty, in every way, including nuclear annihilation. If the US should attack Iran, it will be the end of US prosperity and democracy. Posted by: Brojo on June 17, 2008 at 3:34 PM | PERMALINKActually the bomb builder from the 1993 WTC bombing, Abdul Rahman Yasin got away. Yasin is on the FBI's list of 22 most-wanted terrorist fugitives; there is a $25 million reward for his capture.More here. Yet another Obama gaffe! Posted by: Everett on June 17, 2008 at 3:38 PM | PERMALINKmhr: the first plot against the world trade center was hatched just across the river from Manhattan. Damn! I don't want to invade Hoboken! Secaucus, maybe? Although following GWB's logic, if we were attacked by terrists from NJ we ought to be in Maryland. Posted by: thersites the peace troll on June 17, 2008 at 3:39 PM | PERMALINKDavid, you may not be aware, but Iran is waging war on American military forces at this very time. The U.S. does not respond because the cost of responding would outweigh any benefits gained. The question regarding Iran gaining nuclear weapons are at least twofold: 1) Is Iran stable enough politically to guarantee that whatever nuclear weapons they have will not fall under control of a faction that is not sensitive to traditional nuclear deterrence due to their being possessed of some sort of apocalyptic theocratic vision? 2)At what point does traditional deterence fail, due to their being too many actors in possession of nuclear weapons, thus decimating predictability? I tend to think the answer to question 1 is "yes", although I certainly can't be sure, and if I was an Israeli living in Tel Aviv, I might be rather less sure. The answer to question 2 is certainly "I don't know", although with a caveat. At some point, once enough nations acquire such weapons, especially nations in unstable, conflict ridden regions, deterrence will certainly fail eventually. The fact that I doubt that Iran's acquisition of such weapons wold be the tipping point isn't especially comforting. Posted by: Will Allen on June 17, 2008 at 3:40 PM | PERMALINKmhr accusing anyone of lacking brains and/or guts is like a whore accusing anyone of being unchaste. Posted by: DJ on June 17, 2008 at 3:47 PM | PERMALINKWill Allen at 2:56: I don't remember that Obama said anything about a nuclear attack, and I think you are wrong that he said that. If that's what he said, please provide a link. I think he just said "a missile attack," not a nuclear attack. Since the terrorists don't really have the resources to build hardened bunkers that are some kind of command centers that we need to hit with nuclear weapons to save lives, I think it is really unlikely that Barack said that. You are lying. Second, it is not a matter of Republicans just changing what they said. They make this a way of doing business- they do it to deceive people, not just to correct a mistake or to refine a point. In our civilization, political leaders are supposed to serve people, not deceive them. Also, it is a symptom of more that is wrong with them. The fact that they treat us this way shows that they are just out for their own narrowly selfish interests, and don't care about policy that helps the people of our country. If they had better character, they would be more honest, and wouldn't have so much reason to lie. Finally, look at the things they lie about!! Those Republicans are really screwing us, including screwing many of their most dedicated supporters, who are like dumb dogs who get kicked in the head by their abusive masters every day, but keep snuggling up to the masters and coming back for more abuse. Posted by: Swan on June 17, 2008 at 3:48 PM | PERMALINKWill A., thanks for your response. Do you think Iran has nuclear arms at this point? That seems to be the premise of what you say. I'm dubious. Posted by: David in NY on June 17, 2008 at 3:49 PM | PERMALINKBrojo, the 1993 and 2001 bombings were not domestic terrorist violence, nor were they a response to foreign occupation. The Khobar Towers bombing in Sunni Saudi Arabia, with Iranian and Lebanese Shia sponsorship, was not a response to foreign occupation. The occupation of Afghanistan was a direct result of the recognized goverment of Afghanistan giving safe harbor to the entity which killed 3000 people on American soil. The people of Iraq should be given the opportunity in their upcoming elections to state whether they want American forces to leave immediately. There is nothing you have written in your post which actually responds to something in the post I wrote. Posted by: Will Allen on June 17, 2008 at 3:49 PM | PERMALINKLet's Fisk this bucket of slop. Liberals looked benignly on such as Abdul Rachman, the blind guy who planned the operation and would have fought any plan to spy on a church and its members- liberals get religion when it protects enemies of the US. After the operation one of the bombers fled to Hussein's Iraq -which, according to liberals -had no connection with terrorists. Clinton thought so little about the bombing that he never bothered to visit the site. And when he had the chance to kill bin Ladin did not do so because he didn't want anyone to get hurt. Weak-kneed liberals like Clinton and Obama have no few brains and are short on guts. Come a little closer to my fist so I can hand you your guts on a platter you brainless keyboard commando coward. Swan, I never wrote anything about a "nuclear attack". You are lying. I said Obama proposed a small invasion of a politically unstable country with nuclear weapons. He has, and if he's even halfway serious, he is a lunatic. Posted by: Will Allen on June 17, 2008 at 3:53 PM | PERMALINKBy the way, that Yasin story that Everett mentions is truly fascinating if Wikipedia has it right: "Soon following investigation of the attack on Feb. 26, 1993, Yasin was picked up by the FBI on March 4, 1993, the same day as the arrest of Mohammed A. Salameh, in a sweep of sites associated with Salameh. Yasin was found in the apartment in Jersey City, New Jersey, that he was sharing with his mother.[3] "Yasin was taken to New Jersey FBI headquarters in Newark, where he was reportedly very cool and cooperative. Agents had Yasin retrace where and how the WTC bomb had been built in New York and New Jersey. "One of seven men indicted for 1993 WTC attack, with full knowledge and approval of US Attorneys involved in the case, Yasin was set free and encouraged to leave the US. "Yasin said he was released after giving agents names and addresses, and went to Iraq." Yasin is apparently the only actual Iraq-9/11 link, and we seem to have sent him there. I am very confused. Posted by: David in NY on June 17, 2008 at 3:53 PM | PERMALINKGet it out of the way and call me Anti-Senitic but I don't think US national security concerns are Israel's siamese twin. Maybe it's because I don't live in Tel Aviv and I've seen Israeli forces in action. Also, to appropriate a common phrase in a more useful context; how about we leave all deterrents "on the table" ? Posted by: Tim (The Other One) on June 17, 2008 at 3:53 PM | PERMALINKCorrection of above: "Yasin is apparently the only potential Iraq-al-Qaeda link, ..." Not clear there is any "actual" link. And I think Will Allen is sort of twisting what Obama said. Posted by: David in NY on June 17, 2008 at 3:56 PM | PERMALINKOh, no, David, I don't think Iran has such weapons yet. I think their current government is very determined to acquire them, and very likely will. Posted by: Will Allen on June 17, 2008 at 3:57 PM | PERMALINK"nor were they a response to foreign occupation." epically incorrect. They were (in part) a response to the US military presence in Saudi Arabia . Posted by: Tim (The Other One) on June 17, 2008 at 3:57 PM | PERMALINKI for one would welcome returning to that dirty old "pre-9/11 mindset". It would mean returning to a time before this administration lost its fucking mind. Posted by: ckelly on June 17, 2008 at 4:00 PM | PERMALINK"Obviously, the candidate who said this is ignorant of the problems of asymmetrical warfare and has too much American bravado." Not obviously, but you are obviously ignorant of the problems posed by nuclear warfare to Iran. Posted by: Boronx on June 17, 2008 at 4:01 PM | PERMALINKMaybe you're right, Will. I mean, the Israelis have nukes and seem to view Iran as enemy #1, so Iran has some incentive to get them. On the other hand, they could have incentives not to if we were not encouraging the Israelis and worked on such incentives. Posted by: David in NY on June 17, 2008 at 4:07 PM | PERMALINKWell, Tim, every place American military personnel are present overseas does not entail an "occupation", unless you wish to say that, for instance, the U.S. still occupies Japan. Your understanding of the language is epically incorrect. Posted by: Will Allen on June 17, 2008 at 4:08 PM | PERMALINKDavid, I haven't twisted anything said by Obama. The quote.... "I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges," Obama said, "but let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will." Obama is stating he will mount a small invasion of an unstable nation equipped with nuclear weapons. That's plain nuts. Posted by: Will Allen on June 17, 2008 at 4:12 PM | PERMALINK"Your understanding of the language is epically incorrect." My understanding is not the point. It's the interpretation by Bin Laden and his followers that matters vis-a-vis their reasons/motives for attacking us. I believe they're the ones that would consider our presence an occupation. Get it ? Posted by: Tim (The Other One) on June 17, 2008 at 4:12 PM | PERMALINKwe get the standard talking point reaction from the McCain team. You know the drill: naive, September 10th mindset, etc. etc. All the usual dumb little campaign comments. It's worse than that, Kevin. By echoing Bush's dishonest rhetoric, McCain is pissing on the law enforcement and intelligence personnel who have protected this nation from terror. Posted by: Gregory on June 17, 2008 at 4:17 PM | PERMALINKClinton thought so little about the bombing that he never bothered to visit the site. Too busy arresting, trying, convicting, and imprisoning those responsible, all in eighteen months, I guess. And when he had the chance to kill bin Ladin did not do so because he didn't want anyone to get hurt. Assumes bullshit not in evidence. http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0132206420070801 Obama said if elected in November 2008 he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani government, a move that would likely cause anxiety in the already troubled region. "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Obama said. Geez, it was hard work to find out that Obama didn't say anything about attacking the Taliban with nuclear weapons. It took me about 30 whole seconds to Google the quote. Maybe I'm ready to be President. Tim, words have meaning. Brojo asserted that foreign occupation was the source of conflicts in the Middle East. The U.S. does not "occupy" Saudi Arabia, no matter what Bin Laden claims. Furthermore, there is strong evidence that Khobar was largely, if not entirely, a Hezbollah, not Al Queda operation. Posted by: Will Allen on June 17, 2008 at 4:22 PM | PERMALINKObama is stating he will mount a small invasion of an unstable nation equipped with nuclear weapons. That's plain nuts. You think? cowalker, I never said Obama asserted he would employ nuclear weapons. Posted by: Will Allen on June 17, 2008 at 4:24 PM | PERMALINKMaybe I'm ready to be President. By Republican standards, you're already a fucking doge. "Tim, words have meaning" You didn't just bust out the "words have meaning" cliche did you ? Posted by: Tim (The Other One) on June 17, 2008 at 4:26 PM | PERMALINKYes, Texan, I think promising to mount small invasions of unstable countries with nuclear weapons is crazy. I can only hope your question was ironic. Posted by: Will Allen on June 17, 2008 at 4:27 PM | PERMALINKYou didn't just bust out the "words have meaning" cliche did you ? Cliches have meaning, too. But jeepers, kids. Are we really wasting brain cells responding to MHR? Posted by: thersites the language troll on June 17, 2008 at 4:28 PM | PERMALINKWell, Tim, since this truth has apparently escaped you, it became necessary. Posted by: Will Allen on June 17, 2008 at 4:29 PM | PERMALINKBrojo, the 1993 and 2001 bombings were not domestic terrorist violence, nor were they a response to foreign occupation. Maybe you should tell bin Laden that: Although India is the only recognised enemy in the region, in reality the true enemies are the Christian and Jewish allies led by the US who occupy Saudi Arabia, and Israel which violates our holy places. - Osama bin Laden, May 29 1998 Posted by: Grand Moff Texan on June 17, 2008 at 4:30 PM | PERMALINKWell, Tim, since this truth has apparently escaped you ... Don't look down, dumbass. I can only hope your question was ironic. No, just informed. Texan, Bin Laden can claim that the airplane crashers were serviced by 72 virgins in the hereafter. That dosn't make it true. Brojo made the same false assertion Bin Laden did. That doesn't make Brojo's assertion accurate. If Brojo had claimed that the 1993 and 2001 attacks were made by people who falsely claimed that Saudi Arabia was occupied by American military forces, I wouldn't have written what I did. That isn't what Brojo wrote. Posted by: Will Allen on June 17, 2008 at 4:35 PM | PERMALINKWill Allen wrote: "David, you may not be aware, but Iran is waging war on American military forces at this very time." What is your evidence for that assertion? Posted by: SecularAnimist on June 17, 2008 at 4:36 PM | PERMALINKAlthough following GWB's logic, if we were attacked by terrists from NJ we ought to be in Maryland. Posted by: thersites the peace troll Well Maryland is a good choice because that is where Norman resides in the winter months. And no doubt John Hansen visits on a regular basis, so maybe a single attack could kill 2 birds with one stone. Posted by: optical weenie on June 17, 2008 at 4:40 PM | PERMALINKTexan, Bin Laden can claim that the airplane crashers were serviced by 72 virgins in the hereafter. That dosn't make it true. No, but I expect that he knows why he did what he did, dumbass. If you don't know what outrage was produced among Islamists by the US mobilization for the first Gulf War, your ignorance isn't my problem. Once again, you wrote: Brojo, the 1993 and 2001 bombings were not domestic terrorist violence, nor were they a response to foreign occupation. The mastermind of the 2001 bombings says they were in response to the occupation of Saudi Arabia. Your word was "response." You were wrong. SA, I really have to go, but if you wish to dispute the assertion that Iranian arms, and possibly personnel have been used to attack American military personnel in Iraq, well, we will disagree, but I'll try to get back later with some links. Texan, I didn't say Bush did not entertain similarly silly notions, although my quick scan of your link didn't appear to me to contain any statement by Gates that he would approve such an "incursion" without cooperation with the Pakistani government. Posted by: Will Allen on June 17, 2008 at 4:42 PM | PERMALINKAs long as we are going to bring up really stupid ways of thinking, what are the odds of either Obama or McCain noting that our idiotic War on Drugs is one of the largest impediments to having a good outcome in Afghanistan? Nil. So you should definitely vote for Bob Barr. But you're going to vote for McCain. Posted by: shortstop on June 17, 2008 at 4:44 PM | PERMALINKWill Allen: the fact that we have already attacked inside Pakistan without such cooperation makes your objection tendentious, at best. As for the other guy: BTW - do you know yet who said this stupid statement? Do you mean the statement as written, or the statement as you are abusing it? Do I have to give a shit first? Texan, if Bin laden makes a factually false claim, namely that the U.S. occupies Saudi Arabia, then it is factually false to assert that the attack was a response to occupation by American forces, since there is no such occupation. You neither grasp language or logic, do you? If Bin Laden said the attacks were in response to B-52s dropping pornography on Mecca, that would still mean it would be false to say that the attacks were in response to pornography drops on Mecca, because such drops didn't take place. Sheesh, I had no idea you were this mentally deficient. Posted by: Will Allen on June 17, 2008 at 4:49 PM | PERMALINKWill Allen wrote: "... if you wish to dispute the assertion that Iranian arms, and possibly personnel have been used to attack American military personnel in Iraq ..." I would just like to see some actual evidence of this, other than the unsupported claims of Bush administration and US military officials that it is so. Will Allen, thanks for the clarification, but your original comment about nuclear weapons was too ambiguous and easy to read as claiming Barack wanted to fire our nukes. Anyway, Barack is not a lunatic for wanting to do (non-nuclear) ops in Pakistan. What's loony is thinking that Pakistan would bring a shit-storm down on itself by throwing a temper-tantrum and firing one of its nukes at a target within its range (India, I guess) just because we scooped up some terrorists there. Pakistan, despite being "unstable," is not dumb enough to do something like that any more than we are to do the same thing if Canada chased some terrorists across its border with us without our permission. You are being dishonest, Will Allen. Posted by: Swan on June 17, 2008 at 4:58 PM | PERMALINKThe US, by president W. Bush's own words, is waging war in Iran with clandestine operations. From a preventive war point of view, Iran would have license to mount an attack on the US. But wars are almost never started by the weak against the strong. Usually only the strong start wars, just like the US did in Iraq and Vietnam. Will Allen failed to mention the killing of Marines in Lebanon, occupying Marines. The Twin Towers' bombing and the 9/11 attacks were domestic terrorist attacks because they occurred here, even if the terrorists were not citizens. Had W. Bush followed and acted upon the terrorist intelligence as intently as W. Clinton did, 9/11 probably is foiled by police work. The conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq are a result of the US occupations of those countries. The US voted to withdraw from Iraq in 2006, but we do not live in a society that is responsive to the desires of the majority. Hopefully Iraqis will have a more responsive government after they vote later this year. Will Allen makes a very good point about Obama and his reckless announcement about attacking terrorists in Pakistan. I doubt Will Allen is going to vote for Cynthia McKinney because of it though. Will Allen prefers wars against the weak and wants America's youth to attack countries that do not possess defensive nuclear weapons and have oil. Posted by: Brojo on June 17, 2008 at 5:01 PM | PERMALINKJust so I'm up to speed... Will Allen thinks that someone other than the 9/11 mastermind should determine what his attacks were in response to. and John Hansen thinks we shouldn't vote for the guy who says Iran is not a threat because that "dummy" doesn't recognize the threat of asymmetric warfare but rather we should vote for the guy who is urging perpetual, disastrous "asymmetrical war" in Iraq. Is that about right? Posted by: ckelly on June 17, 2008 at 5:05 PM | PERMALINKDave in NY: Yes, I'm a real lawyer but not involved in criminal law. Still, my memory of criminal law is that in order to be guilty of being a member in a conspiracy, the government must prove that the defendant agreed to take part in a plan or scheme to engage in whatever criminal activity that is the purpose of the conspiracy and that someone in the conspiracy undertook one or more overt acts that were taken in furtherance of that criminal activity. In the context of 9-11, what would have been the overt acts that any one of the terrorists did that the government could claim to be have been done in furtherance of their plans that would have justified arresting and detaining any one of them prior to 9-11? As I stated earlier, the only illegal thing that these people had done was their overstaying of their tourists' visas. What other evidence would the government had available to it pre-911 to show that these people were a real threat? You further state: "Had the Bush administration, and the FBI under its control, simply followed leads that they had and that agents were urging that they follow (which is simple police work), they would have discovered the conspiracy, arrested the conspirators, convicted them in courts of law, and saved us a great tragedy." If this were true, wouldn't it also justify Bush, as C-in-C, to simply order the military to assassinate these conspirators for being a "clear and present danger" to the national security of the United States? Would you regard such an order as being "illegal" if such evidence did exist? SA, I really have to go, but if you wish to dispute the assertion that Iranian arms, and possibly personnel have been used to attack American military personnel in Iraq, well, we will disagree, but I'll try to get back later with some links. I know that American arms have been used to attack American military personnel in Iraq. Does that mean that America is at war with America? Russian and Chinese arms have also been used. Does that mean we're at war with Russia and China as well? Posted by: Stefan on June 17, 2008 at 5:21 PM | PERMALINKDave in NY: Yes, I'm a real lawyer but not involved in criminal law. Posted by: Chicounsel It's true. I've seen his diploma. And the piece of bubblegum he got with it. All for a nickel! Can you imagine...? Posted by: DJ on June 17, 2008 at 5:26 PM | PERMALINK In the context of 9-11, what would have been the overt acts that any one of the terrorists did that the government could claim to be have been done in furtherance of their plans that would have justified arresting and detaining any one of them prior to 9-11? As I stated earlier, the only illegal thing that these people had done was their overstaying of their tourists' visas. What other evidence would the government had available to it pre-911 to show that these people were a real threat? If you hadn't said it already, the above para. makes it obviously clear that you're not a criminal lawyer (plus that you seem to have slept through that class in law school). Among the ample evidence that the government had was audio and video records of the defendants' conversations and email revealing their plans to commit terrorist acts. The very fact of the actual plane hijackers travelling to the US and enrolling in flight school for the purpose of engaging in plane hijackings was itself an overt act. Buying a plane ticket for the plane they were planning to hijack was an overt act. The "overt act" threshold for criminal conspiracy is extremely low. Moreover, their very membership in al Qaeda, an officially designated terrorist organization, was itself a criminal act, as it is illegal under federal law to be a member of a terrorist organization. Mere membership, even absent any other act, is enough to get you arrested and convicted. Posted by: Stefan on June 17, 2008 at 5:29 PM | PERMALINKObama is stating he will mount a small invasion of an unstable nation equipped with nuclear weapons. He's talking about a targeted attack against high-level AQ leaders, particularly OBL, not an invasion of a country you dishonest piece of shit. We get it, you'll always find a reason not to vote for Democrats--they're just as bad as Republicans so you might as well vote for the Republican. For those who don't already know, that's Will Allen in a nutshell. Posted by: haha on June 17, 2008 at 5:36 PM | PERMALINKThis country does need a real debate about how much liberty people are willing to sacrifice in the name of preventing terrorism. I fly regularly for business and routinely meet people while standing in security lines who think that the TSA should be abolished even though it could potentially make it easier for terrorists to get onboard an airplane. Most note that with cockpit doors reinforced and openable only from the inside, the worst that can now happen is that terrorist could blow up a plane and kill a couple hundred people, and that horrible as that might be, it's a price they are willing to pay in order to get their freedom back. I don't necessarily agree with that line of reasoning, but I'm hearing it a lot more often than I used. Would love to hear McCain & Obama have a serious discussion about the security vs. personal freedom conflict.... Posted by: mfw13 on June 17, 2008 at 5:37 PM | PERMALINKMost note that with cockpit doors reinforced and openable only from the inside, the worst that can now happen is that terrorist could blow up a plane and kill a couple hundred people, and that horrible as that might be, it's a price they are willing to pay in order to get their freedom back. That isn't even the price they'd be willing to pay -- they recognize that the risk of a terrorist act isn't worth the loss if civil liberties, and also that TSA's so-called "protections" -- take your shoes off! -- are hardly likely to mitigate the risk in the first place. Posted by: Gregory on June 17, 2008 at 5:42 PM | PERMALINKIf this were true, wouldn't it also justify Bush, as C-in-C, to simply order the military to assassinate these conspirators for being a "clear and present danger" to the national security of the United States? Would you regard such an order as being "illegal" if such evidence did exist? President Reagan, through Executive Order 12333, reiterated the assassination prohibition: 2.11 No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination. So, if you asked a real lawyer, or someone who can use Google, he or she could tell you the answer. As opposed to asking Chicounsel, who is probably better suited to making things out of the Play-Doh his mommy bought him for his birthday. Posted by: DJ on June 17, 2008 at 5:45 PM | PERMALINKckelly - No, I think the gaffes by Obama show he really has not thought through his foreign policy positions. His clichés offered on the stump ( followed by apology/retraction and explanation that we did not quite understand the "nuance" ) continually show that although intelligent he is not very serious about foreign policy and its ramifications. This is one of the reasons, I think this man of gifted rhetoric is not ready to be the Commander in Chief. What other evidence would the government had available to it pre-911 to show that these people were a real threat? Hmmm, yes, what other evidence could the US government possibly have had that men like Mohammed Atta were a real threat..... In late 1999, Atta, al-Shehhi, Jarrah, Bahaji, and Binalshibh decided to travel to Chechnya to fight against the Russians, but were convinced by Khalid al-Masri and Mohamedou Ould Slahi at the last minute to change their plans. They instead traveled to Afghanistan to meet with Osama bin Laden and train for terrorist attacks. The information above is related to intense surveillance of the Marienstrasse apartment and telephone surveillance by the CIA and the German Verfassungsschutz. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Atta Posted by: Stefan on June 17, 2008 at 6:32 PM | PERMALINKChicounsel, do a little research. Go read a treatise on conspiracy law. And check out 18 U.S.C. § 2332. An overt act does not have to be significant. It does not have to be (as you seem to assume) illegal. Traveling somewhere will do. Making a phone call will do. Looking up airplane schedules will do. Taking flying lessons is more than enough. Had Bush's administration engaged in the kind of actions Richard Clarke has said were commonplace under Clinton, the attacks of September 11 might never have happened. There was ample legal ground long before that date to arrest and convict the conspirators. Given the depths of your delusions, I feel no need to engage in the silly speculations you invite. Posted by: David in NY on June 17, 2008 at 6:53 PM | PERMALINKThanks, Stefan. As I recall, Clinton tried to alert Bush to this kind of stuff, but Bush wasn't interested. Too bad. Posted by: David in NY on June 17, 2008 at 6:57 PM | PERMALINKAnonymous at 2:17 PM left out the Homerun system that allows for remote control of jet liners, which was developed as a response to hijackers. Posted by: Brojo on June 17, 2008 at 6:58 PM | PERMALINKStefan, membership in Al Qaeda, without the specific intent to engage in terrorism, may be protected under the First Amendment. What the statute prohibits, and what most courts have found passes constitutional muster, is "material support." Now, "material support" turns out to be not much, but it may require more than simple membership, and the constitution may require a specific intent to engage in, or assist, terrorism. Posted by: David in NY on June 17, 2008 at 7:03 PM | PERMALINKI would suggest that "the real September 10th mindset is the one that says it doesn't matter what other people think of us because, you know, we've got the biggest military in the world and we can squash 'em all like bugs anyway" gets the date wrong. We thought we could squash 'em all like bugs until we invaded Iraq. A pre-2003 mindset perhaps? Or a pre-Tora Bora mindset? But "we can squash 'em all like bugs" was a big, BIG mindset on Sept. 12 and for months and months following. Posted by: Cal Gal on June 17, 2008 at 8:08 PM | PERMALINK[i]Obama is stating he will mount a small invasion of an unstable nation equipped with nuclear weapons. That's plain nuts.[/i] Way to twist his words. He said he would take action against known AQ targets if Pakistan did not. He never proposed an invasion. And guess what? Shortly after McCain and the Bush admin called Obama "naive", we bombed AQ targets in Pakistan, killing a number of them. So who are you calling nuts? Posted by: broken on June 17, 2008 at 9:11 PM | PERMALINKHey look everyone, it's the idiot Will Allen supporter of mindless warmongering everywhere! And look at that, he spouts off on how we shouldn't pay thugs to keep their boots on the necks of their countrymen - instead Will's plan is to put American boots on their necks and pay for it all with the resources Americans can steal from "those people." Oh, and look at what this two time Bush voter is selling now "Iran is waging war on American military forces at this very time." Wow, Will, support for Khmer Rouge, support for the unprovoked assault on Iraq, and now trying to drum up war with Iraq. You really are a bloodthisty piece of shit aren't you? Posted by: Will's Allen's Concience on June 17, 2008 at 9:21 PM | PERMALINKMr. Unsel, how did following Bush's brilliant strategy prevent 9/11? Oh, that's right, it didn't. How many further terrorist attacks have been prevented? Oh, that's right, we can't see the evidence that any have been, so (and I'm sure as a regular watcher of Law & Order, Chico, you understand this) all we have is the word of the liars who brought us the war on Iraq and no rational person would accept that as evidence. Posted by: Will's Allen's Concience on June 17, 2008 at 9:30 PM | PERMALINKhaha, you apparently are too stupid to grasp that when you have military personnel enter a country without permission, or detonate armaments in that nation, that's a form of invasion, in that you have violated the country's territorial sovereignity. ckelly, apparently logic and language are beyond you as well. If Bin laden said Martians living in the World Trade Center were what the attacks were in response to, it would be untruthful to assert that Martians in the World Trade Center were what the attacks were in response to, because, ya' of intellectual titan, you, there are no such things as Martians. Similarly, because there is no American military occupation of Saudi Arabia, it is logically impossible that the attacks were in response to an American military occupation of Saudi Arabia, even if Bin Laden claims otherwise. Swan, Pakistan is not a person, nor even a particularly unified polity. It's a mess with nuclear weapons. Mounting small invasions against such a nation is a bad idea. If what incursions have taken place by the American military have done so without permission of the Pakistani government, that is a spectacularly bad idea, given that one of the best ways that those nuclear weapons could fall under control of factions most hostile to U.S. interests would be for the sitting government to be seen as tolerating violations of Pakistani sovereignity by the United States. Brojo, apparently you believe I asserted something that had something to do with bombing of the Marines barracks in Beirut. I did not. Your defintion of domestic terrorism is such that German saboteurs who landed on Long Island during WWII could be considered domestic terrorists. This is rather odd. Stefan, nations which assist in the smuggling of arms into Iraq, with the intention of having such arms aid the attack of United States military personnel, are waging war on the United States, just as the United States was waging war on the Soviet Union when it smuggled arms into Afghanistan with the intention of having such arms aid the attack of Soviet military personnel. I'm a little surprised that this needs to be explained. Finally, to all those who expressed interest or speculated as to who I may vote for, I'm probably not voting. Posted by: Will Allen on June 17, 2008 at 9:31 PM | PERMALINKMeathead, you've been stealing from the Iraqis your whole life, you're just too much of a liar to admit it. Posted by: Will Allen on June 17, 2008 at 9:33 PM | PERMALINKJohn Hansen, are you sure we should trust our national security to someone too stupid to tell the difference between Shiite and Sunni? Someone so stupid that he thinks (like Will Allen) that bombing the fuck out of innocent Iraqis is a way to cut into terrorism? Rational people think otherwise. You are welcome to your idiocy though. Posted by: Will's Allen's Concience on June 17, 2008 at 9:42 PM | PERMALINKAw, poor Will, he just can't get over his support for the Khmer Rouge and wants to bring their brand of tolerance to every foreign nation. And really using the same technique he did in the 60s and early 70s - turn the nation into a bloody civil war and then pretend that the brutal survivors are the fault of those who opposed his thuggery. Listen boy, here's the problem: you have been stealing from the Iraqis, the Saudis, and the rest. The difference between us is that you also supported the murder of Iranians under Hussein and the murder of Iraqis under Bush. Posted by: Will's Allen's Concience on June 17, 2008 at 9:47 PM | PERMALINKMeathead, you think the way to cut terrorism is to pay thugs to steal the oil that belongs to the population of the Persian Gulf. Brilliant. Posted by: Will Allen on June 17, 2008 at 9:49 PM | PERMALINKMeahead, you really can't write a single post without lying, can you? What, exactly, did I do in the '60s and 70s, when I was riding a tricycle or bicycle in my parent's driveway? Are you insane? Double the Thorazine dosage, meathead. Posted by: Will Allen on June 17, 2008 at 9:55 PM | PERMALINK"The SLA and Weathermen were stopped by police work. The Red Brigade and Baader-Meinhof were stopped by police work. The IRA was not stopped by police work." Part of the choice between police work and a military response is determined by the enemy. Part of it is a matter of scale. When the enemy can gather enough strength to take to the field in large numbers, then simple policing doesn't work. Putting down an insurgency takes more than arrest warrants. We must use police where the situation calls for them, but they are not suitable as a field force. Posted by: trashhauler on June 17, 2008 at 9:58 PM | PERMALINKWill, just because you are still riding tricycles doesn't mean I have to ignore your constant rhetorical support for the Khmer Rouge. Every time you twist your pet McGovern quote into "full-throated support" it really is a victory for the Khmer Rouge. Every time you defend the creation of a civil war in a nation that isn't a threat to the United States, it is a victory for the Khmer Rouge. Your entire posting life, it seems, is dedicated to the aid and comfort of the Khmer Rouge. When people google Khmer Rouge, the thing they will find is Will Allen. That's how strongly you have become associated with the Khmer Rouge. Now, tell the nice people what you did that exempts you from a history of stealing oil from the Iraqis? Nothing? Oh, then I guess that line of attack is just as fucking stupid as you are. Oh, you supported the brutal invasion and dissolution of their nation? Well, that's better then. We can ignore the hundreds of thousands of dead in that case. Their lives certainly couldn't mean more than your ability to continue stealing their oil - this time with dozens of military bases on their land to ensure it doesn't fall into the wrong hands. You know wrong hands like those natives who you obviously don't think are good enough to determine their own fate. Your understanding of world politics hasn't improved since the 60s. You are just in a position to do the wrong thing - like vote for Bush - twice. Posted by: Will's Allen's Concience on June 17, 2008 at 10:16 PM | PERMALINKFor your amusement Will, here are 51 more Iraqis you have helped. Perhaps you can explain to them why the chaos you champion in Iraq is better for them. Posted by: Will's Allen's Concience on June 17, 2008 at 10:30 PM | PERMALINKMeathead, how is reproducing the McGovern quote "twisting it"? Look you're the one who constantly brings up the Khmer Rouge, not me, and then posits that McGovern wasn't just so stupid that he didn't grasp what the Khmer Rouge was, but rather he was so titanically stupid that he thought some entity other than the Khmer Rouge would take power after aid was cut off to the Lon Nol government. Why do you hate McGovern so much, and why do you keep raising the issue? Who raised the Khmer Rouge as a topic in this thread, and the one in another forum yesterday? Me? Or you? You're not only psychotic, you're obsessive. Just how many ingrediants are in your psychotropic cocktail? I never claimed innocence in the theft of Persian Gulf oil. I'd like to stop the theft, for many reasons. There are thus two options; advocate a rapid return to a preindustrial society, or advocate for a revolution in the predominant political culture of the Persian Gulf. I think option one would result in suffering never before witnessed in human history. I think option two is fraught with peril and suffering, but not more so that continuing with the status quo of thievery. You're just too much of a phony to clearly state that you favor continued theft for decades to come. Posted by: Will Allen on June 17, 2008 at 10:35 PM | PERMALINK"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." Some of the 9/11 Conspirators ruined this thread. Maybe I just have more trouble scrolling thru all of that cause I have an old pc with too litttle RAM. Posted by: KDelphi5950 on June 18, 2008 at 12:14 AM | PERMALINKThe 50 dead people in Iraq today have your name on their graves. They thank you for your grave concern. They thank you for the American bootheel on the throats of their countrymen. They thank you for the military bases your tribesmen have worked so hard to create so that you can continue to steal their oil. Their deaths, and the deaths of their hundreds of thousands of countrymen stand as a testament to your goodwill towards them. They thank you for your great paternalistic bombings that have so enriched their lives. The millions of displaced Iraqis likewise thank you and your Khmer brethren for the electricity you have helped them conserve and the food they would have just wasted by eating. Now fuck off and stop pretending that you are even a simulation of a human being. You are right to admit that you freely take part in the theft of the oil, but you have done nothing to stop it. What you've done is to cut out the man in the middle. You are still a fucking thief. Worse, you are a murderer. Be proud comrade, your Red brothers from Cambodia cheer you and the boot you have placed on the necks of the Iraqis you so hate. Posted by: Will's Allen's Concience on June 18, 2008 at 1:29 AM | PERMALINKYeah, meathead, keep pining for the days when Iraqis had zero ability to halt the thievery which you are so fond of, because you gladly paid thugs to keep boots on their throats. Oh, but you weren't really doing it were you? You just paid somebody to do it for you, and really, that mitigates things. Here's a clue, dimwit. Elected politicians in Iraq, representing various factions, are now attempting to negotiate a settement which will divvy up oil revenues among them. The population of Iraq is closer to controlling their mineral wealth than they have ever been. Will they get there? I don't know, because nobody can ever tell when something unprecedented will occur. If you want to claim that the best possible option was for you to participate in the theft of their oil for several more decades, fine, it's certainly possible. You are such a gutless cretin, however, that you are unable to frankly state this, and instead pretend to care about the welfare of Iraqis now suffering. You are about as believable as the rapist who offers concern for his victim's comfort after committing his crime. Posted by: Will Allen on June 18, 2008 at 1:52 AM | PERMALINKJohn Hansen: No, I think the gaffes by Obama show he really has not thought through his foreign policy positions. His clichés offered on the stump ( followed by apology/retraction and explanation that we did not quite understand the "nuance" ) continually show that although intelligent he is not very serious about foreign policy and its ramifications. This is one of the reasons, I think this man of gifted rhetoric is not ready to be the Commander in Chief. I see... Let me follow your logical train. You make assertions, offer opinions and then draw conclusions based on the opinions you initially offered. Convincing. Posted by: snicker-snack on June 18, 2008 at 8:03 AM | PERMALINKDear Will, I reeds and rytes just fine. Bin Laden is on record as stating that the attacks were in response to US forces in Saudi Arabia. I think it is hilarious that you will twist, mince, puree, and nuance the definition of an "occupation" in order to tell the mastermind of 9/11 that he is wrong as to why he ordered the attacks. Keep up the good work. Posted by: ckelly on June 18, 2008 at 9:48 AM | PERMALINKLemme see, the US attacked Iraq and is still warmongering today because Iraq posed an imminent threat and had WMDs...but wait, Iraq didn't pose an imminent threat and didn't have WMDs so I guess the US attack was NOT in response to this threat because it didn't exist. Right Will? Asshat. Posted by: ckelly on June 18, 2008 at 9:52 AM | PERMALINKSo Obama has a 1776 mindset. This is a bad thing? McCain apparently is prepared to argue we should pitch 225 years of American jurisprudence out the window to justify torturing a bunch of terrorist cave dwellers. It sounds like McCain is not as prepared as Obama to protect and defend the Constitution. Posted by: pj in jesusland on June 18, 2008 at 9:55 AM | PERMALINKviolated the country's territorial sovereignity President W. Bush has violated the territorial sovereignty of Iran by ordering clandestine military operations within Iran. State sponsored terrorism was ordered by the president of the US against Iran. Posted by: Brojo on June 18, 2008 at 11:52 AM | PERMALINKBrojo, I wasn't having a debate on the goodness or badness of George Bush. He'll only be around for a few more months. He doesn't matter any more. You somehow wish to argue with me about things that I haven't addressed. My discussion of territorial sovereignity was in regard to the wisdom of violating such soverignity with unstable countries which possess nuclear weapons, like Pakistan. ckelly, no, you don't read well. You somehow think tha word "occupation" means whatever Bin Laden says it means, just as you must also then believe that the word "Martians" means whatever Bin Laden says it means. You're an idiot. I never made any assertion regarding the rationale Bush put forward with regard to invading Iraq. I have in the past stated that I would have preferred it if Bush had simply said that the Baathist regime in Iraq was in violation of the 1991 cease fire accords, therefore the firing was gong to resume until the Baathist regime was no longer in power. Posted by: Will Allen on June 18, 2008 at 12:18 PM | PERMALINKWith W. Bush as president, the US is an unstable country with nuclear weapons violating the sovereignty of another nation. Instead of calling for retaliation against Iran for defending itself from US aggression, Americans should be calling for the prosecution of their president for violations of international law and crimes against humanity. Posted by: Brojo on June 18, 2008 at 12:46 PM | PERMALINKIt makes me angry as hell every time I see McCain and his foreign policy lackeys say you can't simultaneously protect the country from terrorists AND protect the constitution, as if the two are mutually exclusive. I hope Obama hits them upside the head every day on this issue. Saying the GOP uses terrorism as a club to make people afraid is a good start. Obama should finish the thought by saying "The GOP uses terrorism like a club to make people fear their law enforcement and courts aren't up to the job of catching and incarcerating terrorists." In reality all those big GOP proponents of law and order have no faith in the system they seek to create. People feared organized crime years ago but it was our commitment to law enforcement and the courts that eventually crippled the mafia's power. Posted by: pj in jesusland on June 18, 2008 at 2:25 PM | PERMALINKWill Sez: haha, you apparently are too stupid to grasp that when you have military personnel enter a country without permission, or detonate armaments in that nation, that's a form of invasion, in that you have violated the country's territorial sovereignity. Yep, I am way too stupid to realize dropping a missle an AQ camp is the same as sending the 10th Mountain Division to sieze western Pakistan. I hope I grow up to bee az wize as yoo. By your logic, the special forces (Seals and Delta) that have been operating in western Pakistan since 2002 also constitute an invasion. So Obama is "crazy" or "nuts" for wanting to "invade" by dropping a bomb on Bin Laden. Got it. Posted by: broken on June 18, 2008 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINKWhy, yes, broken having special forces in Pakistan is a form of invasion. How stupid are you? Posted by: Will Allen on June 18, 2008 at 4:08 PM | PERMALINKI should note that such action is an invasion only if it is being done without permission of Pakistan's government. Posted by: Will Allen on June 18, 2008 at 4:10 PM | PERMALINKCan someone PLEASE explain to me why it is that hardcore "bomb 'em all" warmongers like Will Allen get so squishy about Pakistan and only Pakistan's sovereignty? Somehow I don't get the impression that Will Allen and his neocon brethren are quite so respectful of, say, Iran's sovereignty (or, hello, Iraq). I'm at least as liberal as the next guy, but I have always said that on Sept. 12 President Bush should have called up General Musharaf and said this: "We are going to capture or kill Bin Laden if it is the last thing I do. If that means sending special forces into Wazuristan to secure the border region, so be it. If your troops or tribal groups fire on our troops, we will respond accordingly. Now here's a huge military aid package." Instead, Bush just gave him the huge military aid package. I don't want to hear about how fatuous "destablizing" military action in Pakistan would be from the same people who advocate destablilizing military action in other countries that DON'T HOUSE OSAMA BIN LADEN. Pakistan, India, Israel, and in the future Iran, are deterrable using the same Mutually Assured Destruction formula that kept the U.S. and the Soviets from exchange nuc-u-lar volleys. Just because they're Muslims doesn't mean they are willing to to give up their positions of power for martyrdom, nor are they willing to destroy their own populations. Iran is not going to nuke Israel, killing millions of Arabs and Muslims in the process and of course bringing the immediate obliteration of their entire nation. Nuclear material is traceable and offers the same deterrent against "rogue" states passing them to terrorists. While we're playing "Whose Quote Is This" Mr. Allen, how about this one: BLITZER: If you had good, actionable intelligence in Pakistan -- where they [bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and/or Mullah Muhammad Omar] were -- would you give the order to kill him or capture him -- ???: Absolutely. BLITZER: -- and go into Pakistan? ????: Absolutely. BLITZER: Even though the Pakistanis say that's their sovereign territory? ????: Absolutely. We would take the action necessary to bring them to justice. Posted by: Piper on June 18, 2008 at 4:56 PM | PERMALINKStefan, membership in Al Qaeda, without the specific intent to engage in terrorism, may be protected under the First Amendment. What the statute prohibits, and what most courts have found passes constitutional muster, is "material support." Now, "material support" turns out to be not much, but it may require more than simple membership, and the constitution may require a specific intent to engage in, or assist, terrorism. Since all the 9/11 hijackers had attended terrorist training camps and were actively plotting to commit terrorist acts I think we can agree this standard was met..... Posted by: Stefan on June 18, 2008 at 5:07 PM | PERMALINKWhy, yes, broken having special forces in Pakistan is a form of invasion. How stupid are you? I must be really, really stupid. And confused. Because if you think Obama is nuts to even propose missile strikes against known AQ bases, then you must think Bush is a real looney-toon for "invading" Pakistan with special forces AND striking AQ bases. Which behaviour has been protested by Pakistan, with a wink I'm sure. So, what you are calling Obama "nuts" for is actually current US policy. Wrap your wingnut mind around that little paradox. Obama's specific point, which (no surprise) you missed entirely, was to criticize the Bush admins' failure to hit some known AQ leaders in Pakistan in 2005. Obama was saying he wouldn't pass up such an opportunity. The Bush Admin, McCain, and Clinton's reaction was to call Obama "dangerously naive". Shortly thereafter the US hit an AQ base in Pakistan, killing some AQ leadership, resulting in a mild protest from the government. Posted by: broken on June 18, 2008 at 8:40 PM | PERMALINK
November 2009
October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 |
|
|
    |
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
