US Losing War on Terror: Book by CIA Official

Fang-Face writes "Here's something that should fan the flames of hysteria. An article about
a book entitled Imperial Hubris . The name of the author is given as "Anonymous". This author, however, is an insider and 20 year veteran of the CIA, and he does not treat the administration kindly, it seems. Although he was also critical of the Clinton administration, so the Bushites can capitalize on that to trumpet, "I Told You So!"

Also, I'm sure that all the conservative leaning among us will be quick to point out that this person's opting to not reveal his name invalidates anything he could possibly have to say, but I will pre-emptively reply to that with Tomeboy's refrain. He has to be allowed to remain anonymous because getting caught speaking out could cost him his job. (Even though the CIA pre-approved the book.) Personally, I think it could cost him his life, given the precedent the Bush administration established by outing Jack Plame's wife."

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Re:One person's viewpoint.....

I think reasonable people could disagree about the current success of the War on Terror, unfortunately much of the left is not reasonable or rational about it.Granted, there is a segment (I would say a minority) of those on the left who are incapable of judging any Bush administration objectively; however, there is an equally shrill, equally loud minority on the right who equate ANY criticism of the administration's actions with treason or being "soft on terror."

20 year veteran

Are you sure he isn't part of the problem? 9/11 called for a complete change in how we deal with terrorism and countries that support it. Institutions like the CIA contributed as much to the disaster as any president.

Also please keep in mind the source of the review. There have been a number of books and news stories that mass media said were supposed to make Bush look terrible and when they finally came out there wasn't really any there there.

One person's viewpoint.....

One guy's opinion, albeit someone with more knowledge than you or I; however, I'm sure there are others as knowledgable as this anonymous CIA agent who may disagree. I think reasonable people could disagree about the current success of the War on Terror, unfortunately much of the left is not reasonable or rational about it.

Hold on, how on earth could a government employee get away with publishing a book critical of the government in the United States? I thought the Bushies controlled everything.

Re:One person's viewpoint.....

I thought the Bushies controlled everything.

Political spite. I imagine that the CIA is feeling less than its usual sterling loyalty for that president who tried to blame them for the WTC attack, and then committed a felony by revealing one of their covert operatives. I wonder if allowing this book to be published is also any fallout from the political tensions that drove Tenet from the agency.

Re:One person's viewpoint.....

Would somebody like to list Bush's policies and actions on terror that the Left does agree with?

Re:One person's viewpoint.....

Greg, the problem is not so much what Bush wants to accomplish -- a better, more secure America -- it's how he's going about it. Everything he is doing is exactly the wrong thing. If Bushites had any capacity to comparmentalize they would realize that you can protect the physical security of the citizenry AND their civil liberties at one and the same time. Instead, Bush is destroying all liberties. In his overzealousness to eradicate terrorism, he has actually exacerbated those conditions which give rise to terrorism, and provided millions of potential recruits for suicide missions. Bushites have no ability to understand any of this, however, and continue to demand blind obedience to The Word of the King, and to proclaim any criticism, no matter how valid or real and true, as unAmerican and anti-patriotic; in short: the same kind of treason it was to criticize King George III.

Re:One person's viewpoint.....

Again, are there any policies the Left does agree with?

Also, I'm going to say something, and its going to sound like flame and I don't want it to be a flame but I'm not sure how to say it and not be a flame but anyway:

'Dude, according to your site you're from Canada. If you put as much energy into investigating the lack of energy your country puts into its own safety as you do in criticing my country's excess of energy you might find that everything in the world is not Bush's fault.'

Re:One person's viewpoint.....

The invasion of Afghanistan.Going after the funding of terrorist organizations._Some_ _parts_ of the so-called "PATRIOT Act"; along with the anti-civil liberties crap, there are also provisions in it that were overdue, such as updating our laws on wiretapping for the early 21st century, where people have a phone, a cellphone, a wireless PDA, etc.That's just the obvious stuff, off the top of my head.

Re:One person's viewpoint.....

Everything he is doing is exactly the wrong thing

Instead, Bush is destroying all liberties

Absolute nonsense!

You do realize that this is pretty absolute language which leaves you very little wiggle room?

Do you honestly believe the stuff you write? Do you even think about what you write?

Bushites have no ability to understand any of this, however, and continue to demand blind obedience to The Word of the King,

Sheesh, talk about being blinded! You've been blinded by your irrational hatred of Bush, conservatives and Republicans. You are the same guy who is tossing about terms like "Christian Taliban", "Republican National Guard" and comparisons of Bush to Hitler (specifically, calling Bush Hitler is unfair to Hitler).

Honestly, some of the stuff you write is downright silly.

Re:One person's viewpoint.....

Dude, our elected assholes aren't fucking around anybody but Canadian citizens. The government of Canada has never gone in for such wholesale imperialism that we've become hated around the world; quite the contrary, Canada is generally respected in foreign countries and Canadians who visit those countries are usually treated warmly; so much so that Americans have been known to wear clothing that implicitly identifies them as Canadians. We haven't perpetrated genocide against the Iraqi people and pretended nobody got hurt because those civilian casualties were only "collateral damage" anyway, and that doesn't count. We haven't invaded any foreign countries, ever, using an excuse that was obviously bullshit from start to finish as part of an effort to extirpate a sociological phenomenon, and certainly not against two of our former puppets. And speaking of puppets, Canada has never gone in for destabilizing governments and then installing a pet bloodyhanded butcher. In short, we have never comported ourselves in such a manner that we would have to enact such knee-jerk reactionary, paranoid measures because we haven't made ourselves a target.

You won't like to hear it, but it is a fact that the United States acted against an elected, popular, and progressive Prime Minister in Iran to install the Shah. Osama bin Laden was trained and funded by the CIA. Saddam Hussein brought the chemical weapons he used to gas the Kurds from the United States. The U.S. government continues to refuse to reign in the depredations of the Israeli government who has adopted the American method of blowing up civilians in the streets and marketplaces with helicopter gunship missile fire.

Get with the program, fella. A credibility gap is: when what we see does not match up with what they say. And nothing Bush has said is an accurate reflection of reality. Even to this very day, his lackeys are attempting to distort the perception of the American people so they won't believe the 9/11 commission report that the entire invasion of Iraq is based on a lie. To this very day, one year and seventy-seven days after the start of the invasion, nobody has found anything even vaguely resembling nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons.

Everything Bush continues to do plays into the hands of the terrorists. And, no, you ineffable, idiot, that does not mean that I blame Bush for everything that's going on in the world. But I do blame Bush for what he's done and doing to make matters worse.

And one last thing: stop asking individuals to speak for the entire left-wing political spectrum; you have no idea how stupid that looks, but rational people do.

Re:One person's viewpoint.....

Honestly, some of the stuff you write is downright silly.

Then why can't you refute it? You're saying it is silly doesn't make it silly. If you have any facts that run counter to those I put in my essay, show them to me. If you have any well reasoned arguments that show how my analogies don't stand up, post them for the world to see. But you're saying that my arguments are silly in neither proof, nor refutation, nor well reasoned.

Re:One person's viewpoint.....

Instead, Bush is destroying all liberties

Bush has not destroyed all liberties and is not in the process of destroying all liberties. If he has destroyed all liberties then how does the Chicago Tribune, the LA Times, Indymedia or the Palm Beach Post have the right to run any editorial or editorial cartoon critical of President Bush? Or is that just lower on the George Bush "destroy-all-liberties to-do" list? Will that be in late 2005 or early 2006?

How come Michael Moore hasn't been arrested, executed or at the very least ordered to take a bath?

Tell me, why do I even have to help lawyers and law clerks research the law? Can I tell my director that we can cancel all those subscriptions to case reporters and statutory codes because fang face said the President is destroying all our liberties? The next time someone comes up to the reference desk, can I just tell them that the fang face said that President Bush has destroyed or is in the process of destroying all our liberties so you really don't need that service of process form? This morning I had a summer clerk who is interning for Federal District Court Magistrate and she was writing a draft for a summary judgment order. I helped her with a bunch of things including her citation format. How do you think it would go over if I called her up and told her to tell her judge that they should just forget about that order and forget about everything because fang face said all our liberties have been destroyed by President Bush? I bet that would get me a big fat Christmas bonus this year, don't you think?

A "comparison of Bush to Hitler is unfair to Hitler" is your comment. This is silly, plain and simple. So Bush wants to kill all the Jews? He wants to kill all the homosexual? He wants to take over vast parts of who-knows-where so that America has more living space? Are we going to annex Canada soon like Hitler did Austria? I guess that is contigent upon a Harper victory, eh? In which parts of New Jersey, Florida, Idaho, California or Texas are those death camps located? I seemed to have misplaced that Karl Rove memo about the date and time of the Crystal Nacht 2004? How come Howard Dean or John Kerry have not been arrested and imprisoned? How can the CIA allow this anonymous CIA agent the ability to publish this book critical of Bush? For goodness sake, why do I have to hear the ABC News "Decision 2004" theme song? Why are we holding another election?

I thought this was Nazi Amerika?


So these hordes of Christian Taliban in the United States are given sanction by the government to stone and murder gay people? How come President Bush didn't dissolve the U.S. Supreme Court upon the issuance of Lawrence v. Texas last year? I didn't receive that letter from the government or the Christian Taliban telling me that my girls can't go to school in August because they are girls. Should I notify the Post Office that my mail isn't arriving.


You can click your heels together and wish the nonsense you spew is real but that won't make it real.

Re:One person's viewpoint.....

To this very day, one year and seventy-seven days after the start of the invasion, nobody has found anything even vaguely resembling nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons.


I thought the coalition forces found a 155 artillery shell with sarin in it that was rigged up as roadside bomb in Iraq back in May.

Re:One person's viewpoint.....

Did they? Goodness! I stand corrected. Although, cynic that I am, I suppose I should ask if they really found it or if they planted it themselves.

Well, well. That's great. One [1] 155 mm arty shell. I suppose that's a good start. And, of course, your weapons inspectors have properly verified that this sarin was from Saddam's still missing stockpiles and was not bought on the black market just for the invading forces after they'd already overrun the country; right?

Re:One person's viewpoint.....

I'm glad you stand corrected. That means that you were wrong when you stated that there was not anything even vaguely resemembling nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.

See what happens when you use absolute language like that?

Re:20 year veteran

As opposed to books that were supposed to make Bush look good, but ended up affirming what administration critics have claimed and shedding some light on the retaliations the white house made against the author....

Re:One person's viewpoint.....Yessiree

We sure do see what happens when absolute language is used, 'pchuck, and we'll always defer to you in the use of absolutes!

Re:One person's viewpoint.....

Tenet left because he couldn't fall on his sword any more and still make it look convincing. He was past his useful shelf-life.


The political tensions in the CIA are much further down the chain. The guys toward the top know that their job is to do whatever the president says.


It's among the line analysts who want to fight the good fight where you find all the political cognitive dissonance. These are folks who remain concerned that the administration used the bogus Niger/Yellowcake report, in spite of their warnings about its implausibility. They remain worried about what else The Office of Special Plans might cook up and blame on them.
This book is only the latest tugging on the leash. The ones you want to pay attention to are the ones who have already slipped their collars. They're less concerned about retaliation. They can let their consciences inform their decisions again without the fear that it might get them fired.

Re:One person's viewpoint.....

You didn't answer my question, pchuck. Did the U.S. weapons inspectors verify that sarin was from Saddam's still missing stockpiles, or that the resistance fighters buy it on the black market after their country was overrun by invaders?

Re:One person's viewpoint.....

Considering the hype Moore is getting for his documentary I would think even Afghanistan is open to debate since he makes the arguement that we went there to build a gas line to the Caspian Sea(?)

Re:One person's viewpoint.....

Yeah I knew bringing up Canada was going to be considered a flame. Oh well.

Canada is beloved around the world because they don't really do anything that might offend anybody. (Though they did provide a handful of very impressive snipers in Afghanistan)

People from all over the world were killed when the towers fell, not just Americans. But it is only America that has made any significant attempt to take on terrorists where they live instead of waiting for them to come to us.

If other countries don't like the way we do it their entitled to their opinion but I don't feel any obligation to care until they are willing to take action on their own.

Re:One person's viewpoint.....

Good points by the way... but since none of those are going to end terrorism on their own would you care to suggest what a plan of action by the Left might involve?

Re:One person's viewpoint.....

What I've read in a May 17, 2004 BBC report (and some other newspaper accounts), it didn't say that. That could be a possibility.

However, your statement was that coalition forces didn't find anything "vaguely" resembling N,B or C in Iraq. Now it appears that you are adding qualifications and exceptions to your very broad and sweeping statement.

Give it up, you got stuck. I seem to recall reading somewhere if you are in a hole, the first thing to do is stop making the hole deeper.

Re:One person's viewpoint.....

Bush has not destroyed all liberties and is not in the process of destroying all liberties.

That might be your call on it, but I see it differently. And I am a multidisciplinary thinker, not someone who merely rearranges his prejudices. Right now, there are only two amendments, the Second and Third, that I would say with any confidence Bush has not violated, and I can certainly make a pretty good argument that his unilaterally extending the term of service of armed forces personnel in Iraq constitutes a Second Amendment violation in that the right to keep and bear arms also means the right to lay down arms.

If he has destroyed all liberties then how does the Chicago Tribune, the LA Times, Indymedia or the Palm Beach Post have the right to run any editorial or editorial cartoon critical of President Bush?

They don't. Ask the Republicans and you'll be told that those editorials and cartoons are unAmerican, unpatriotic, and support the war on terror. The papers just go ahead and publish anyway and get away with it because the Bush drones can't completely stop them yet, but you can bet anything that conservatives would be just as quick to call for censorious boycotts of those papers as they are to attack Michael Moore, and -- funny thing -- your King George the Pathetic does absolutely nothing to reign them in. One of the principles of leadership is: You're in charge, it's your fault. Bush is responsible for what is done by the members of his government, and moreso when they are done in his name and on his behalf.

By the by, pchuck, how do you explain Ari Fleischer's proclamation just after the WTC attack, that Americans are required to watch what they say? A proclamation he was forced to recant. If the Bush administration had the respect for civil liberties and human rights that you impute to them, that comment would have been out of character. Instead, it is perfectly within character for a member of that administration.

How do you explain the shameless and censorious ass-kissing by Clear Channel when Natalie Maines said she was ashamed Bush was from Texas? "Just business?" I don't think so. Clear Channel was kissing up to the government to curry political favour and was willing to sacrifice some profit to do it.

How do you explain the attack on CBS by republicans for daring to criticize another republican president? The documentary on Reagan. Free speech? Censorship is not a mode of free speech or free expression. A patriot, a real patriot, not your republican, double-thinking, sunshine patriots, understand that the answer to free speech is more free speech, not enforced silence.

How do you explain that the Bush administration created 14 million secrets in 2003, up twenty-five percent from 2002 -- itself a record breaking year -- and some of those secrets were material that had been previously declassified and some of it was stuff that couldn't rationally be classified at all, so the Bush administration created the category of "Unclassified but Sensitive".

Dick Cheney's Energy Task Force documents are still in a legal limbo after years and rulings by the court system that he had to cough them up, and now your Supreme Court has ruled that this government by secrecy is perfectly acceptable. The only thing that keeps me from thinking of the U.S. Supreme Court as "Bush friendly" is the fact that they shot down the Bush adminstration's blatant attempt to enslave the reproductive faculties of women.

For that matter, the first thing Bush did on taking office was to expand censorship in matters of sex, sexuality, sexual health, and human reproduction, and his most recent act, as of June 16th, was to emplace total Abstinence Only Ignorance on the Center for Disease Control and Prevention.

Or is that just lower on the George Bush "destroy-all-liberties to-do" list? Will that be in late 2005 or early 2006?

If the Republican National Guard has anything to say about it they'll start on 03 Nov. I'm willing to bet that if Bush is re-elected they'll find an excuse to savage a major metropolitan newspaper in The Name of the President before December.

How come Michael Moore hasn't been arrested, executed or at the very least ordered to take a bath?

How come your conservative groups have taken up trying to silence his criticism of the president since Disney didn't manage to do it for them? You think they wouldn't arrest Moore if they had half an excuse? As near as I can tell the only reason they haven't touched him so far is that: 1) he is too visible to just disappear him like a minority immigrant, and 2) he's white so disappearing him is not politically feasible.

This morning I had a summer clerk who is interning for Federal District Court Magistrate and she was writing a draft for a summary judgment order. [...] How do you think it would go over if I called her up and told her to tell her judge that they should just forget about that order and forget about everything because fang face said all our liberties have been destroyed by President Bush?

Here's a clue, pchuck: try telling her instead that her reproductive faculties are under the control of George Bush and that she is forbidden to know anything about how her own body works and that she must consider herself the slave of any pregancy that results from this forced ignorance.

Then try telling the same thing to the rest of the women in the U.S. and around the world.

Let me know how it goes. By mail, not in person.

A "comparison of Bush to Hitler is unfair to Hitler" is your comment. This is silly, plain and simple.

To quote your own words back at you: You can click your heels together and wish the nonsense you spew is real but that won't make it real.

If you have anything concrete you can use to refute any of my parallels and analogies, put them out here where everybody can see them. If all you have is a lot of bluster based on an Argument from Personal Incredulity, then you cannot refute anything I've said.

The salient facts in my commentary are as follows:

  1. Adolf Hitler was an effective political leader who led his country out of hyper-inlation to become an economic force that challenged the allied might of the free world.

    George Bush has rammed the American economy into the toilet with a plunger.

  2. Adolf Hitler saw combat in World War One.

    George Bush is a draft dodger.

  3. Adolf Hitler returned to combat after he was wounded; he was wounded at least twice -- by one account, which I cannot verify, he returned to combat as many as five times, with his being wounded a sixth time in October of 1918. He was awarded the Iron Cross second and first class.

    George Bush deserted, in legal parlance, his military service. And it is being covered up to this day.

All other things being equal, as far as I am concerned, these facts make Adolf Hitler a person of higher moral fiber than George Bush.

If you have any facts to refute any of the above, post them here.

So Bush wants to kill all the Jews?

Oh, no. But he is clearly willing to stand by while the Jews kill all of the Palestinians. And he has certainly proven that he is willing to kill any number of Iraqi women and children -- that would mean non-combatants to anybody who has served in the military -- even down to the last one to "free" them.

He wants to kill all the homosexual?

It sure looks that way to me. In fact, in what way would that not be in keeping with the ultra-conservative mantra, "Homosexuals are morally disordered and intrinsically evil". And what place does a religious doctrine like that have in any government that is supposed to be secular?

As far as that goes, pchuck, I'll even go one step further and say that Bush's promoting the spread of AIDS is tantamount to using the HIV as a Biological Weapon in an ideological war on homosexuality. And, of course, he doesn't care one whit about all the collateral damage that will ensue among those who are heterosexual but insist on having sex in violation of ultra-conservative guidelines. I will allow, however, that he not using HIV as biological weapon consciously. He isn't smart enough to figure that out. Like most everything else he does, it's being done out of ignorance.

He wants to take over vast parts of who-knows-where so that America has more living space?

So America can have more oil, in any event.

Are we going to annex Canada soon like Hitler did Austria?

I wouldn't put it past him, but Canada is still in the position of Martin Neimoller's political victim. If we don't speak up, and a Liberal government certainly won't, the day could very well come when Canada becomes another American satrapy. After all, we not only have oil, we also have uranium.

In which parts of New Jersey, Florida, Idaho, California or Texas are those death camps located?

Ah, a straw man argument. Taking into account the qualifier "death camp" as opposed to concentration camp, and disqualifying it, you can find your concentration camps at Guantamao Bay, Cuba, Abu Ghraib Prison, Baghdad, and there is another prison in Afghanistan the name and location of which escapes me. You might want to argue that those places are not within the purlieu of America, but they are all under American sovereignty/control.

As for internment camps within the U.S., there was the prison in New Jersey where all the wogs were sequestered and held incommunicado as terrorists for the crime of being immigrants.

I seemed to have misplaced that Karl Rove memo about the date and time of the Crystal Nacht 2004?

It was cancelled. The idea of a law whereby even a white bread, American born citizen could be disfranchised and locked up as a terrorist was too much even for the drones in Congress. What is pertinent here, however, is not that that law was not passed, but that Bush's administration tried to enact such a law in the first place. Plus, even though it failed to pass as a law, there are indications that it is being enacted piecemeal as riders to various other laws.

You know, it's kind of funny. When I heard about the proposal for that law I immediately thought of the short story The Man Without A Country. Where would a person go who has no national citizenship whatsoever? I guess you could always send him to France to live with that guy who's been residing in the Charles de Gaulle Airport terminal since 1988 because he doesn't have any citizenship.

How come Howard Dean or John Kerry have not been arrested and imprisoned?

How come the Republican National Guard members are comporting themselves with a clear and present double-standard morality in their dealings with those candidates? Why is it acceptable for Republicans to scourge political opponents as Nazis, while it is forbidden for others -- me, for example -- to show the obvious parallels between Bush and Hitler?

And as I ask in my commentary: Why, if Republicans don't like being compared to Nazis, do they insist on acting like Nazis?

How can the CIA allow this anonymous CIA agent the ability to publish this book critical of Bush?

I already answered this one: Political spite.

For goodness sake, why do I have to hear the ABC News "Decision 2004" theme song?

Why are you such a simple-minded idiot that you can't turn off the television? Or at least change the channel or hit the mute button? Why can't you understand that it is you that controls what access you have to the media and not the media that controls your access?

Why are we holding another election?

Yeah, that's what I'd like to know. I asked that question too. Why is it the Republican Party is allowing an election to be held when its attitude is very clearly that you aren't allowed to vote for anybody but Bush? I wrote it in a commentary I haven't uploaded to my site yet. The pertinent section is this: Michael Moore is an American citizen, that is his political system, and he has every bit as much right to influence those politics as the profit-mongering, capitalist owners of the congresscritters. Kaloogian makes it sound as if, by wanting to see elected a government not under the Bush heel, Moore is advocating the violent overthrow of the U.S. government and actively engaged in terrorism. Has it now become illegal for a private citizen to vote against a sitting president in the U.S.? If so, I will simply point out that this election is as much a sham as the last election held by Saddam Hussein where he got 100 percent of the vote. In fact, why is the U.S. even bothering to hold an election if you're not allowed to vote the president out of office?

I thought this was Nazi Amerika?

You're getting there.

How's that movement to reinstate the draft coming along, by the way?

So these hordes of Christian Taliban in the United States are given sanction by the government to stone and murder gay people?

That is certainly what the Christian Reconstructionists want. Check out their web site some time. That is also pretty much what happened to Mathew Shepherd, by the way. Make no mistake about it, pchuck: rabid misohomonist bullies like white supremacists will be quick to jump on any anti-homosexual bandwagon to at least assault homosexuals or any person mistaken for one. Keep in mind that a Bishop of Canterbury was once murdered by a pair of lackey's when they overheard their king intemperately demand, "Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?!" It is from this incident we get "The Word of the King". Misohomonists of all stripes will see constitutionally institutionalized misohomonism as a cart blanche to discriminate. Faith-based initiatives will give the religious hatemongers the excuse to institutionalize their bigotry against non-christian faiths.

However, most of the "righteous" won't have to sully their lily-white hands with the blood of the victims. They'll just let AIDS do their dirty work for them.

How come President Bush didn't dissolve the U.S. Supreme Court upon the issuance of Lawrence v. Texas last year?

Because it is more politically advantageous to turn the bench and make it a rubber stamp for ultra-conservatism. Adolf Hitler was legally and democratically elected to dictatorship, don't forget. All of his bloodyhanded lunacy was perfectly legal under the laws of Germany. Ask any usurper what's the first thing he does upon seizing the throne and he'll tell you that you have to consolidate the legality of your claim. Doing that means doing two things. 1: Execute any other pretenders to the throne. 2: Marry a member of the deposed royal family. I doubt if Bush could conceptualize the principle, but I'm sure even he must know subconsciously that his actions on American soil must still be kept within the bounds of American law. And if he doesn't know that his handlers will.

I didn't receive that letter from the government or the Christian Taliban telling me that my girls can't go to school in August because they are girls.

Patience, my young Padawan. They'll get around to that in due time. While the slippery slope is a fallacy in logic, it is also a very real force in the physical world. It's just that some slopes take longer to slip than others.

While we're on the topic of the slippery slope, though, tell me something, pchuck. Given the samples I have at my site of materials which have come under censorship attacks by Christian groups, can you honestly think of anything that some raving idiot somewhere couldn't challenge?

Let's set the upper limit at the Bill of Rights, since that is already under constant attack, and let's set the lower limit where the Tailban did: paper bags and applause. Pick anything, or everything in between, and I'll come up with a rationale for why it should be banned.

Heck, make it fun! Choose the bible.

Of course the most likely rationale will simply be: it's unGodly. It's amazing how you won't see how so much of ultra-conservative Christianity is just like ultra-conservative Islam.

Coke, Pepsi; what's the difference?

Should I notify the Post Office that my mail isn't arriving.

That could be just a slow down from their reading it. The Bush regime will have to keep an eye on everybody's loyalty, after all.

You can click your heels together and wish the nonsense you spew is real but that won't make it real.

It's not un-real just because you don't like to consider it might be real.

While you're waiting for your church appointed overseer to come by and forbid you to send your girls to school, and to measure the lengths of the hems on their dresses and skirts, you might want to read Harry Harrison's To The Stars trilogy. It's amazing how contemporary society is looking more and more like that society every day.

Or, if you'd like a glimpse of what the Christian Taliban have in store for your little girls or maybe your grandchildren, try reading that epistilary first chapter of Alice Walker's The Color Purple, and try really hard to understand how a woman can be so ignorant that she can't understand that she is pregnant or why people are telling her the baby is hers after she gives birth to it. Because that is exactly the kind of society ultra-conservatives everywhere want for women. It used to be a crime in the Confederate States, or so I understand, to teach a slave how to read. Reading gives them ideas, you see, and that makes them harder to control.

Re:One person's viewpoint.....

Come on fang face, your conspiracy theories are just a bit too much of a stretch. Honestly, do you really believe all this stuff?

So according to your most recent post Bush hasn't destroyed or isn't in the process of destroying ALL liberties?

Once again, fang face says in one post Bush is destroying all liberties and then says in another he is not really destroying ALL liberties, just some. More qualifications and exceptions. Words like "all" and "everything" mean something.

Come on fang face, you've lost the argument. Nothing left to do but pick up your dead arguments.

Re:One person's viewpoint.....

I wrote:

I seemed to have misplaced that Karl Rove memo about the date and time of the Crystal Nacht 2004?

fang face responded with:

It was cancelled. The idea of a law whereby even a white bread, American born citizen could be disfranchised and locked up as a terrorist was too much even for the drones in Congress. What is pertinent here, however, is not that that law was not passed, but that Bush's administration tried to enact such a law in the first place. Plus, even though it failed to pass as a law, there are indications that it is being enacted piecemeal as riders to various other laws.

I'm sorry fang face, I just got a secret message via Nickoleoden's Rug Rats that I have to go to Old Navy and meet up with Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Tim McCarver (from Fox Sports Baseball Game of the Week -Fox, F.O.X.!!! ), Wayne Newton, Janeane Garofalo (yup, it has all been an elaborate ruse designed to fool the masses), Venus Williams, Phil Mickelson (he deliberately three-putted the 17th hole at last week's U.S. Open to allow that South African guy to win and inflame the passions of having a foreigner win the UNITED STATES Open!!!) and Ronald Reagan (he's not really dead, it was an elaborate hoax-shhh, it is a secret) to revive those plans for the canceled Crystal Nacht 2004.

We are also going to make a few phone calls and have the National League institute the DH rule after the All-Star game.

BTW, the Old Navy at the Crossroads Mall is that "secret undisclosed location" that everyones been talking about.

So I'll be gone for a while.

Re:One person's viewpoint.....

Oh, bravo. Way to live in denial, Greg. You know that, "We're always only the victim" attitude is a big part of America's problem. It really does take two to tango, you know.

Re:One person's viewpoint.....

So according to your most recent post Bush hasn't destroyed or isn't in the process of destroying ALL liberties?

Bush is destroying all liberties. I don't see why you can't understand such a simple statement if you do not disagree with it. It's short, it's simple, it's in plain English.

Re:One person's viewpoint.....

Damnation, that's what I get for letting myself be distracted by the fireworks outside.

I don't see why you can't understand such a simple statement even if you do not agree with it. It's short, it's simple, it's in plain English.

Of course, you can select the earlier message to crow about at your discretion. That sort of thing is right up the alley of someone who twists the words of others.

Re:One person's viewpoint.....

Greg -- no, strangely, I don't feel personally responsible for every opinion or comment made by every person who agrees with me on some issues. The war in Afghanistan had overwhelming support from across the entire political spectrum. I suggest you stop trotting out Michael Moore's comments on Afghanistan as proof that "the Left" didn't support the war--unless, of course, you wish to claim responsibility for Rush, Coulter, O'Reilly, Hannity, etc.If you're interested in honest discussion, you might even stop capitalizing "the Left" as if it were an organized, monolithic political entity, rather than a catch-all of everyone whose opinions are "somewhere to the left of the political centerline, rather than to the right of the political centerline."As for the points I mention not being sufficient to "end terrorism on their own"--uh, reality check, Greg. Terrorism is a _tactic_, not an entity. We need to go after the terrorISTS, not "terror", and we also need to change the conditions, to the extent possible, that provide a fertile breeding ground for terrorism.And it's on that last point that George Bush has engaged in dangerously counterproductive policies. Going into Afghanistan was good, necessary, sound policy. Failing to devote the resources necessary to provide real security in Afghanistan and build a functioning government there was a disastrous mistake. The warlords controlling most of the country; the Taliban is regaining its foothold--these things are not in our interest. It was the decision, post-USSR pullout from Afghanistan back in the prior Bush administration, that nation-building was bad, that created the situation that gave Osama bin Laden Afghanistan as a base. Now the younger Bush is letting those conditions be recreated.Going into Iraq, pulling resources away from Afghanistan and the pursuit of bin Laden in order to take out a man who, evil as he was, was _contained_ and _not_ _a_ _threat_ to the US, when we should have been concentrating on Afghanistan and bin Laden, was a dangerous mistake.Telling our allies to do what we told them or piss off was a dangerous mistake.What we need to do now is what George Bush CLAIMED in his first campaign he was going to do: pursue a foreign policy based on humilty and respect for other countries. Repair our relationships with our allies. Make an HONEST case for why it's in their interest to support the war on Al Qaeda, and the rebuilding of Iraq. Now that we've knocked down Saddam, we DO have, not only an obligation, but a practical, self-interested _need_ to rebuild Iraq better than it was under Saddam. By ourselves, we don't have the resources to do that and vigorously pursue an Al Qaeda problem that has metastasized while Bush has been diverting our resources and attention to another war, one that needed to be on the agenda for the future but which wasn't necessary _right_ _now_, when we were facing an _immediate_ threat from Al Qaeda.Some increased internal security is necessary for this--see my previous comments about parts of the so-called "PATRIOT Act" being necessary and even somewhat overdue--but yes, I honestly think we can do what we need to do without Ashcroft's preferred approach of using the Constitution and the Bill of Rights for toilet paper.So sue me.

Re:One person's viewpoint.....

I don’t expect you to take responsibility for Moore; I do expect you to take responsibility for the endorsement of him by the Democratic Party, ALA, and the Left in general. I’m not responsible for Rush but the Republicans certainly benefited from him and as far as I’m concerned they support what he says. So do I.

There is a ‘Left’, the same as there is a ‘Right’. There may be some varying degrees of disagreement within those groups but I think its safe to say that a majority of the Left oppose Bush and the war in Iraq, and a majority of the Right support both.

�we also need to change the conditions, to the extent possible, that provide a fertile breeding ground for terrorism.�

Okay. I don’t believe simply locking down Afghanistan isn’t going to do that. Whenever any country in the Middle East talks about terrorism they inevitably start talking about Israel. That kind of ‘group think’ is an example of how it is the entire Middle East that will have to be dealt with in terms of terrorism. I consider Iraq to be a step in that direction.

We did not tell our allies to piss off, we told them to stand by their own words in over a dozen UN resolutions and they refused. The current oil-for-food scandal explains in part why.

Suppose we did make nice, suppose Europe as a whole suddenly decided to cooperate. What do you see happening from that point?

Re:One person's viewpoint.....

Greg, I'm not even a member of ALA; when did I acquire any responsibility for what some organization I'm not a member of says or does?When you say that you "suuport" what Rush says, does that mean you "support" his remarks about Chelsea Clinton--specifically, the occasion when he referred to her as Bill & Hillary's dog, or the fabricated story about a "why I feel guilty about being white" essay assignment at her school? Or is it utterly ridiculous to suggest such a thing?I wasn't aware that the Democratic Party had endorsed Michael Moore. Could you provide a link for that? Cite a source other than Rush or O'Reilly?If you mean that many people who are members of the Democratic Party think Fahrenheit 9/11 is a good movie--ah, newsflash, Greg: it is, AND it's a lot more grounded in _facts_ than any given half-hour of Rush or O'Reilly. You may disagree with Moore's interpretation of the facts in F 9/11 or the conclusions he reaches from them, but the facts themselves are real and verifiable.Moore has strong opinions, some of which I agree with, some of which I disagree with. Oddly enough, the same is true of the Democratic Party: I agree with many of its positions and policies, disagree with others. And of the vast number of individual Democrats in the country, or the smaller but still substantial number of them in various elected offices, there some I agree with nearly totally, others I disagree with nearly totally, and every point in between on that spectrum.But Michael Moore isn't even a Democrat. He's an independent who supported Ralph Nader in 2000. You knew that, right?

Re:One person's viewpoint.....

I agree with Rush on some issues and probably disagree with him on others, as a conservative in general I support him whole-heartedly. It sounds like your saying the same about you and Moore.

That said would you like to take another crack at arguing what your solution would be for dealing with terrorism, specifically that in the Middle East?

Re:One person's viewpoint.....

Which solution would you like, Greg? The one that's simple, obvious--and wrong? Or the one that requires real work, patience, and the recognition that this isn't a problem that will be solved overnight?We need to:A)Build relationships with our long-standing allies, and with new allies, rather than fraying them. This means, among other things, that when we don't always succeed at persuading them that our preferred course of action is correct, we don't go around publicly insulting our oldest ally, talking about "surrender monkeys" and giving silly new names to what were misnamed food products in the first place. Yes, this does mean "even if the French have said something stupid in public first." This is international diplomacy, not grade school.B)Build intelligence resources. This means, among other things, actively recruiting Arabic speakers, Farsi speakers, Urdu speakers, etc., especially but not exclusively Muslim ones. This, in turn, is a process that could be significantly aided by not treating every American Muslim who has relatives in the Middle East or who has gone on the Hajj as a possible suspect. It even means, when you thought someone was a bad guy but they turned out not to be, saying "sorry!" rather than searching desperately for something else to prosecute him on. (Cf. Capt. Yee, but he's just the most egregious case.)C)We need to actually go after the terrorists and the terrorist havens. By that I mean, first and foremost, Al Qaeda. We need to pay attention to who is a threat to us. Al Qaeda is and was a threat; they have and had a policy of planning and executing terrorist actions against US targets. Saddam was an evil guy, making Iraq a bad place, but he was not a threat. He was contained. His last effort to take real action against the US was in 1993. Bill Clinton responded to the attempted assassination of former Pres. Bush forcefully enough to convince him that was a bad idea. Al Qaeda was the threat. Afghanistan was a good start, but we didn't finish the job. Instead, resources were pulled out of Afghanistan to prepare for the invasion of Iraq. Bad idea, Iraq now really is a hotbed of terrorism, and Al Qaeda, instead of being destroyed, has metastasized.(And, yes, Greg, it really _is_ a serious argument against the correctness of Bush's policy that there turned out not to be any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Yes, other people thought Saddam had WMDs, too; however, most of them, except Bush and Blair, thought the evidence wasn't good enough to justify an invasion--and their doubts turned out to be correct.)D)We need to support projects and policies that actually address the daily needs of people living in the Middle East--in ways that make sense to them, not in ways that assume everyone wants to live on Main St., Celebration, Fla. We're in trouble in the Middle East in part because we have happily supported brutally repressive regimes that, in fact, _encourage_ anti-American propaganda in their state-controlled news media, as long as they supported us in whatever immediate issue we thought was important _right now_. Pakistan an ally, India not? What the *&^% were our politicians thinking, the last thirty years?We need some of that humility in foreign policy that Bush talked about in 2000. We need to remember that we're stronger than anybody, but we're not stronger than everybody. We need allies, not splendid isolation. Right after 9/11, we had virtually everyone on Earth as our allies. EVERYONE supported the invasion of Afghanistan--because Afghanistan really had been used as a base for a major attack and a series of smaller attacks on us. No one except the UK supported the invasion of Iraq without major arm-twisting--because Iraq was not an Al Qaeda ally, and was not a threat. That invasion has played into Al Qaeda hands, helping them to portray us as fanatical Christians bent on a new crusade against the Muslim world, rather than freedom-loving people fighting a dangerous enemy.This is a serious problem, fixing it is going to be very, very difficult--and the "war on terrorism" is not going to be "won" by a simple program of "who do we invade next." We need a _different_ _approach_, one that involves taking other points of view seriously--something GWB is unwilling to do, and something JFKerry gets called a "flip-flopper" for doing.

Re:One person's viewpoint.....

The problem of terrorism isn’t going to be solved over night, that’s why I believe Iraq should be allowed to play out before everyone judges it a failure.

A) I have no problem calling the French ‘cheese-eating surrender monkeys.’ If Powell starts doing it I’ll start to worry. International diplomacy is a funny thing. It means getting other countries to see that our interests are their interests too. A country’s leader is going to do either what’s in their own interests or their country’s but never what is in another country’s interest. Britain, Australia, Spain’s former leader, Poland, Japan, and others all made the decision that America’s actions in Iraq and Afghanistan benefited their own national defense. France, Germany, and Russia: 1. were not willing to risk the money they were owed by Iraq, both legally and illegally, by supporting what they knew to be a legitimate war on Iraq (Putin himself recently confirmed connections between Iraq and Al Queda), 2. didn’t and don’t care about terrorism because for the most part its directed at us and Israel and not them. Oh, and we are building relationships, if we stay in Iraq and Afghanistan and do the job right, they will be friends for a long time to come.

B) Better intelligence: the recent beheadings always show five or six guys standing behind the victim. These are little groups located all over the place that can act completely independent if they so choose. Better intelligence will not help with this. Better intel would have been nice for Iraq but too be honest I’d rather send in 100,000 armed troops to fix an obvious problem than risk one unarmed man getting caught poking around and being subjected to tortures that were considered a hobby and favorite pastime of Saddam.
This is a cultural war, we know what they teach in their schools, we know what they think of other religions, we know how they treat their own women. We don’t just need better intel, we need a strong front from democratic countries saying the behavior of countries in the Middle East is wrong and unacceptable.

C) Al Qaeda is a symptom of the problem I just finished talking about, not the problem itself. If it has metastasized in Iraq then good, its not a literal cancer, it can’t just continue growing indefinitely. If we stand firm it will wither out.
(I have no doubts about WMDs, there a enough mass graves to prove they existed. With certain WMDs a large infrastructure is not required, simply the know-how is the largest factor. We had a choice, we could either keep a total lock down on Iraq forever, and any other country that also sought them as well, or we could simply take them out. In the long run its safer and more practical to just take them out. As for other countries opinions, see A.)

D) Sept 11 was a moment of clarity. Foreign policy had to change dramatically and did change dramatically. Exactly what ‘projects and policies’ would you like to see in place?
And what makes you think they don’t want to live on Main St USA? There was a story a few weeks ago about a hairdresser who went to Afghanistan to help as a nurse and wound up doing more work as a hairdresser. The first things that pop up when a repressive regime goes down are satellite dishes. They want the exact same things we do.

No legitimate foreign policy is based on humility, strictly self-interest. That headline from Paris after 9/11 that said “We’re All Americans Now� also went on to say in so many words that we deserved it, so don’t kid yourself into thinking we had actual support. Everyone did not support Afghanistan but they knew momentum was on our side so they didn’t get in the way. Belittling those countries that do support Iraq is lame, their military assistance is no less than what France or Germany would have had available.

The Great Seal of the USA has an eagle with an olive branch in one talon and arrows in the other. We went to the UN, we got a resolution, we went to Congress and got their permission, we sent inspectors back into Iraq and they were lied to yet again. We offered peace, they denied it, we brought war, and the world is better for it.

Syndicate content