We might conclude from this that it's also important to deny terrorism the epoch-making importance that some have tried to give it. It seems to be very much the kind of thing that you can do a competent job of handling, while also being able to devote significant attention and resources to other problems having nothing to do with it. It almost seems like the kind of thing that should be one particular subsidiary part of a country's foreign-policy agenda, rather than being a defining one.
I expressed such thoughts on my blog, and some nutjob right-winger insisted that I was all wrong -- and I was denying reality because I was still among those who thought there were no WMDs in Iraq. I shit you not.
Re: Publius- "The Dems favor a focus on identifying the terrorists through things like intelligence and multilateral cooperation". Would that be Dems like Jamie Gorelick who prevented the CIA and FBI from sharing intelligence data, or Bill Clinton who refused the Sudan's overtures to arrest Bin Laden? IMHO- the Dems- through Clinton's inaction for eight years allowed a problem to grow to such a point that they were sure to tell the incoming team that terrorism would be their number 1 problem. Talk about kicking the can down the road. Bush did not want to go down that road either, but "events. my dear boy" forced a change of focus.
The problem with stating "what the Dems stand for" is that it is always a matter of projection. On every major issue, it would appear that either (a) the Democrats actually don't have a clear alternative to the Republican policy or (b) if they do, they're keeping it a big secret. I agree with Publius that that should be what the Democrats (by which I mean, a genuine opposition party who wants to distinguish themselves from the Republicans) stand for -- but in reality, they're probably going to play this fantasy game again and again where they pretend that the country is just Republican down to its DNA and the only possible way to win an election is to finesse it and bring a handful of people here and there on board, so that it becomes like a huge complicated "heist" and every election is doomed to be an extremely close one, because their entire plan the whole fucking time is to use people's pre-existing opinions to try to pull off a 0.5% margin of victory, rather than doing the work of actually trying to persuade people.
This is why I continue to hold the Democrats in contempt, even as I vote a straight Democratic ticket every fucking chance I get.
Gorelick who prevented the CIA and FBI from sharing intelligence data
Don't be stupid -- you're talking about a memo reiterating what had been a longstanding policy. Gorelick didn't set the policy.
Bill Clinton who refused the Sudan's overtures to arrest Bin Laden
And would you like to link in what exactly you're talking about here -- as I recall, this is pretty much nonsense too: no offer was ever made or refused.
3: And not just Clinton! Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren, James Polk: Democratic presidents have been consistently lax in responding to Al Qaeda, and it is much, much, more important that we talk about those historical failures than that we talk about what the Democrats' policies are now.
My point was not that it was Clinton's fault, but that the idea that the Dem's have a better plan is proved false by how they handled the situation on their watch.
12- Oh I see, now we're serious.
Actually, I am very upset with Bush for the same reason, he and his administration are not taking the threat seriously. We are half assing the entire project, from TSA to the Iraq occupation. But half assed is better than no ass, which is what I hear from the Dem's such as Dean, Pelosi, Murtha, etc.
Are we arguing that there's some underlying "essence" of Democraticness? It seems to be widely recognized that Clinton's "triangulation" strategy was a really big change for the Democrats and that they've been wandering around in confusion since -- convinced that the old standard liberalism just can't possibly work anymore, but unable to pull off the "triangulation" strategy anymore because it can only be pulled off by perhaps the most talented and charismatic politician in the past fifty years. Clinton was a Democrat, but he's not necessarily representative of most Democrats -- and if we recall, the Democratic party actually fared pretty shittily under his watch.
Haven't you listened to the news, Mr. H? Murtha is on practically daily allowing as how we should lay down our arms and allow Al Qaeda to take over the entire middle east. Non?
Labs, I took the last sentence of your post and made it the title because not having a title was messing up the comment notification emails. Feel free to change it.
I linked this on another thread, Tassle Loafered Leech, but The Poor Man's strategy for combatting terrorism is every bit as sensible and effective as the current administration's, and infinitely less costly.
TLL, the Republicans had a majority -- in fact I believe it was called a Revolution! -- for much of the 90s, if I remember correctly. To the extent that the government didn't take bin Laden seriously in the 90s (and it isn't just hindsight talking), it was a bipartisan failure.
And while I grant you that the battle cry of 'do something, do anything, even if it isn't working' does seem to win elections, it doesn't actually make half-assed policies wise. I would be feeling more secure right now if we did not have an army pinned down in Iraq and had more options open -- including military ass-kicking ones -- that address real problems instead of making them.
psst: the war in iraq has nothing to do with fighting terrorism.
George Bush Sr. did nothing to fight al qaida. so why should we trust his republican progeny? we shouldn't. they haven't been fighting terrorism, they've been fighting iraqis.
You say that Clinton did nothing to fight terrorism. But that's demonstrably false: he received blow jobs. He didn't want them. It was a huge sacrafice. But something needed to be done to fight terrorism, and so Clinton found someone to give him blow jobs.
Now, you say, the plan didn't work. Well hindsight is 20/20. But why should I trust a party that does nothing to fight terrorism--the Republicans--over a party that does something to fight terrorism--blow jobs. Sure, blow jobs may not actually have anything to do with terrorism.
But guess what also has nothing to do with terrorism? It rhymes with "Iraq."
I think that it's a Rove myth that Clinton was ineffective in fighting terrorism. He did some effective things, and might have done more if he hadn't been fighting off nihilistic Republican saboteurs concocting an impeachment out of nothing serious.
When Bush came into office the Clinton people tried to tell what they knew to the Bush people, but the Bush people blew them off. At least two of Bush's own counterintelligence people, Clarke and Beers, were disgusted enough by Bush's inept and misdirected efforts that they quit and supported Kerry.
A went through the 9/11 report pretty carefully, and it was written very discreetly indeed, but if you paid attention you would see that the pre-9/11 counterterrorism effort was wretchedly bad. "OK, you've covered your ass", smirked Bush in August, and went back to clearing his fucking photo-op brush like a real man.
Important correction: I went through the 9/11 report pretty carefully, and it was written very discreetly indeed, but if you paid attention you would see that Bush's pre-9/11 counterterrorism effort was wretchedly bad. "OK, you've covered your ass", smirked Bush in August, and went back to clearing his fucking photo-op brush like a real man.
Labs, you crazy hippie: Stop speaking truth to power.
Posted by arthegall | Link to this comment | 08-11-06 11:55 AM
We might conclude from this that it's also important to deny terrorism the epoch-making importance that some have tried to give it. It seems to be very much the kind of thing that you can do a competent job of handling, while also being able to devote significant attention and resources to other problems having nothing to do with it. It almost seems like the kind of thing that should be one particular subsidiary part of a country's foreign-policy agenda, rather than being a defining one.
I expressed such thoughts on my blog, and some nutjob right-winger insisted that I was all wrong -- and I was denying reality because I was still among those who thought there were no WMDs in Iraq. I shit you not.
Posted by Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 08-11-06 11:58 AM
Re: Publius- "The Dems favor a focus on identifying the terrorists through things like intelligence and multilateral cooperation". Would that be Dems like Jamie Gorelick who prevented the CIA and FBI from sharing intelligence data, or Bill Clinton who refused the Sudan's overtures to arrest Bin Laden? IMHO- the Dems- through Clinton's inaction for eight years allowed a problem to grow to such a point that they were sure to tell the incoming team that terrorism would be their number 1 problem. Talk about kicking the can down the road. Bush did not want to go down that road either, but "events. my dear boy" forced a change of focus.
Posted by Tassled Loafered Leech | Link to this comment | 08-11-06 11:59 AM
The problem with stating "what the Dems stand for" is that it is always a matter of projection. On every major issue, it would appear that either (a) the Democrats actually don't have a clear alternative to the Republican policy or (b) if they do, they're keeping it a big secret. I agree with Publius that that should be what the Democrats (by which I mean, a genuine opposition party who wants to distinguish themselves from the Republicans) stand for -- but in reality, they're probably going to play this fantasy game again and again where they pretend that the country is just Republican down to its DNA and the only possible way to win an election is to finesse it and bring a handful of people here and there on board, so that it becomes like a huge complicated "heist" and every election is doomed to be an extremely close one, because their entire plan the whole fucking time is to use people's pre-existing opinions to try to pull off a 0.5% margin of victory, rather than doing the work of actually trying to persuade people.
This is why I continue to hold the Democrats in contempt, even as I vote a straight Democratic ticket every fucking chance I get.
Posted by Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 08-11-06 12:09 PM
Sorry, TLL, can't talk now, I'm receiving an urgent message from Bill Clinton's penis.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 08-11-06 12:09 PM
Gorelick who prevented the CIA and FBI from sharing intelligence data
Don't be stupid -- you're talking about a memo reiterating what had been a longstanding policy. Gorelick didn't set the policy.
Bill Clinton who refused the Sudan's overtures to arrest Bin Laden
And would you like to link in what exactly you're talking about here -- as I recall, this is pretty much nonsense too: no offer was ever made or refused.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08-11-06 12:10 PM
This post has no title, and I must cry.
Posted by My Alter Ego | Link to this comment | 08-11-06 12:11 PM
Labs, you wanna put a title on this post?
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 08-11-06 12:11 PM
3: And not just Clinton! Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren, James Polk: Democratic presidents have been consistently lax in responding to Al Qaeda, and it is much, much, more important that we talk about those historical failures than that we talk about what the Democrats' policies are now.
Don't get me started on Grover fucking Cleveland!
Posted by Felix | Link to this comment | 08-11-06 12:13 PM
[Clenis]... but "events. my dear boy" forced a change of focus.
You have pretty much trolled your own post.
Posted by Toadmonster | Link to this comment | 08-11-06 12:14 PM
My point was not that it was Clinton's fault, but that the idea that the Dem's have a better plan is proved false by how they handled the situation on their watch.
Posted by Tassled Loafered Leech | Link to this comment | 08-11-06 12:21 PM
Assuming for the sake of argument that Democrats handled it badly six-plus years ago, the fact remains that the future is not the past.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 08-11-06 12:24 PM
Why do I do this. Why?
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 08-11-06 12:25 PM
Because you, too, believe in the power of reason.
Sucker.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 08-11-06 12:27 PM
Because you can?
Posted by My Alter Ego | Link to this comment | 08-11-06 12:29 PM
Even sticking with the past, not invading and occupying Middle Eastern countries looks like a better plan every day.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 08-11-06 12:32 PM
12- Oh I see, now we're serious.
Actually, I am very upset with Bush for the same reason, he and his administration are not taking the threat seriously. We are half assing the entire project, from TSA to the Iraq occupation. But half assed is better than no ass, which is what I hear from the Dem's such as Dean, Pelosi, Murtha, etc.
Posted by Tassled Loafered Leech | Link to this comment | 08-11-06 12:32 PM
Ass me no questions, I'll tail you no lies.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 08-11-06 12:34 PM
But half assed is better than no ass
I think this is a slip.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 08-11-06 12:35 PM
Inadvertant donkey joke
Posted by Tassled Loafered Leech | Link to this comment | 08-11-06 12:40 PM
TTL, I'm not sure I follow your argument. What are you claiming is the stance from Dean, Pelosi, Murtha, etc?
Posted by mrh | Link to this comment | 08-11-06 12:41 PM
TTL s/b TLL
Posted by mrh | Link to this comment | 08-11-06 12:48 PM
Are we arguing that there's some underlying "essence" of Democraticness? It seems to be widely recognized that Clinton's "triangulation" strategy was a really big change for the Democrats and that they've been wandering around in confusion since -- convinced that the old standard liberalism just can't possibly work anymore, but unable to pull off the "triangulation" strategy anymore because it can only be pulled off by perhaps the most talented and charismatic politician in the past fifty years. Clinton was a Democrat, but he's not necessarily representative of most Democrats -- and if we recall, the Democratic party actually fared pretty shittily under his watch.
Posted by Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 08-11-06 12:49 PM
Haven't you listened to the news, Mr. H? Murtha is on practically daily allowing as how we should lay down our arms and allow Al Qaeda to take over the entire middle east. Non?
Posted by Clownæsthesiologist | Link to this comment | 08-11-06 12:51 PM
Labs, I took the last sentence of your post and made it the title because not having a title was messing up the comment notification emails. Feel free to change it.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 08-11-06 12:55 PM
24: Well, of course, and I knew that (as do all good Democrats) thanks to the message sent out by Clinton's penis.
But I'm wondering if our Loafered friend has something else in mind.
Posted by mrh | Link to this comment | 08-11-06 1:03 PM
I linked this on another thread, Tassle Loafered Leech, but The Poor Man's strategy for combatting terrorism is every bit as sensible and effective as the current administration's, and infinitely less costly.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 08-11-06 1:11 PM
TLL, the Republicans had a majority -- in fact I believe it was called a Revolution! -- for much of the 90s, if I remember correctly. To the extent that the government didn't take bin Laden seriously in the 90s (and it isn't just hindsight talking), it was a bipartisan failure.
And while I grant you that the battle cry of 'do something, do anything, even if it isn't working' does seem to win elections, it doesn't actually make half-assed policies wise. I would be feeling more secure right now if we did not have an army pinned down in Iraq and had more options open -- including military ass-kicking ones -- that address real problems instead of making them.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 08-11-06 1:21 PM
25. You ought to take out the period. Labs doesn't punctuate titles.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 08-11-06 1:26 PM
psst: the war in iraq has nothing to do with fighting terrorism.
George Bush Sr. did nothing to fight al qaida. so why should we trust his republican progeny? we shouldn't. they haven't been fighting terrorism, they've been fighting iraqis.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 08-11-06 1:27 PM
look at it this way, Leechy:
You say that Clinton did nothing to fight terrorism. But that's demonstrably false: he received blow jobs. He didn't want them. It was a huge sacrafice. But something needed to be done to fight terrorism, and so Clinton found someone to give him blow jobs.
Now, you say, the plan didn't work. Well hindsight is 20/20. But why should I trust a party that does nothing to fight terrorism--the Republicans--over a party that does something to fight terrorism--blow jobs. Sure, blow jobs may not actually have anything to do with terrorism.
But guess what also has nothing to do with terrorism? It rhymes with "Iraq."
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 08-11-06 1:33 PM
Wait, wait, I know this one.... 'crack'?
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 08-11-06 1:35 PM
Sorry, Labs. How about I violate your anatomy to make up for it?
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 08-11-06 1:35 PM
I fought terrorism just this morning.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 08-11-06 1:36 PM
Wait, wait, I know this one.... 'crack'?
Big Mac Attack.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 08-11-06 1:37 PM
I fought terrorism just this morning.
I hope you weren't employing the flypaper strategy.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 08-11-06 1:38 PM
33: I'm on my way!
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 08-11-06 1:41 PM
I hate to pick at old wounds, but nobody has ever actually enjoyed fighting terrorism.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 08-11-06 1:43 PM
If you admit that, the terrorists win.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 08-11-06 1:47 PM
Reagan and Bush, together, kicked the terrorism can down 12 whole years without getting any blow jobs to stop terrorism.
And now we're supposed to believe that this is the party to trust on security?
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 08-11-06 2:00 PM
When Standpipe gets sucked into exchanges like this one, the terrorists have truly won.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 08-11-06 2:54 PM
Note that neither "smack" nor "crack" nor "attack" rhyme with "Iraq". "Smock" sort of does.
Posted by Tom Scudder | Link to this comment | 08-11-06 3:00 PM
42: Don't mock my smock, or I'll bomb Iraq.
Posted by Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 08-11-06 3:05 PM
When Standpipe gets sucked
Assumes facts not in evidence.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 08-11-06 3:09 PM
44: Everyone has something suckable, SB. Surely you are no exception?
Posted by My Alter Ego | Link to this comment | 08-11-06 3:15 PM
I think that it's a Rove myth that Clinton was ineffective in fighting terrorism. He did some effective things, and might have done more if he hadn't been fighting off nihilistic Republican saboteurs concocting an impeachment out of nothing serious.
When Bush came into office the Clinton people tried to tell what they knew to the Bush people, but the Bush people blew them off. At least two of Bush's own counterintelligence people, Clarke and Beers, were disgusted enough by Bush's inept and misdirected efforts that they quit and supported Kerry.
A went through the 9/11 report pretty carefully, and it was written very discreetly indeed, but if you paid attention you would see that the pre-9/11 counterterrorism effort was wretchedly bad. "OK, you've covered your ass", smirked Bush in August, and went back to clearing his fucking photo-op brush like a real man.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 08-11-06 3:41 PM
Important correction: I went through the 9/11 report pretty carefully, and it was written very discreetly indeed, but if you paid attention you would see that Bush's pre-9/11 counterterrorism effort was wretchedly bad. "OK, you've covered your ass", smirked Bush in August, and went back to clearing his fucking photo-op brush like a real man.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 08-11-06 3:43 PM
B has done quite a lot to aid the anti-terrorism effort in this regard.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 08-11-06 3:52 PM
Everyone has something suckable
A forgotten line from Pippin, or a sequel to Everyone Poops.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 08-11-06 9:03 PM
49: No, the sequel is called Everyone Sucks!.
Posted by M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 08-11-06 9:12 PM
My high school once put on Pippin but they had to change most of the dirty jokes which meant really there wasn't anything left to the musical.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 08-11-06 9:18 PM