Post your thoughts and comments about this blog post.

What if our goal was to do precisely what we are doing right now: military presence and occupation in the region for as long as the world will comfortably allow us to do so.

So these sensitivities must be overcome. Rally them 'round the flag, tell them that we're getting "them" back for 9/11; intimidate the critics, move forward quickly so that it's all a done deal in rapid fashion. And then hope people acclimate themselves to it.

Not to worry Gil. Apparently a plan is already in the works to gain public support. And it must be true, because I read it on one of your favorite websites.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/2...1183/719/525088

But Pericles - if you're reading Kos without me having to direct you to it, maybe there's some hope for you after all...

So these sensitivities must be overcome. Rally them 'round the flag, tell them that we're getting "them" back for 9/11; intimidate the critics, move forward quickly so that it's all a done deal in rapid fashion. And then hope people acclimate themselves to it.

And don't forget fear. Fear works very well as a motivating factor.

We know, it's only PC to use fear regarding drinking and driving, locking your home at night, avoiding a fatty diet, and being cautious about giving out your social security number, not when considering the potential for a dirty bomb exploding in an American city, or terrorists storming an American elementary school (like the Chechens did in Russia).

That's the problem ,you people want solutions but you will settle for mere talk about solutions.

Without realizing it.

And don't forget fear. Fear works very well as a motivating factor.

The Islamists agree with you.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article...tack/article.do

The FBI was quick to point out that it had not issued any warning and that the video was not an official Al Qaeda release through its media arm, Al Sahab, but simply an ' amateur' collection of old footage spliced together and posted on the Internet.

Post your thoughts and comments about this blog post.

Yes, precisely, you see the image was not an official release...it could have simply been made by someone who was really pissed off that there are over 150,000 people with guns and tanks walking around in their backyard who have managed to kill about 100,000 of their fellow citizens with no signs of stopping.

Email from Bob Dole:

So you're saying that Al Qaeda would not use WMD if it had them?

Like the 1998 attacks on Sudan and Afghanistan, the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 again led to a big increase in recruitment and financing for networks of the al-Qaeda style. The war in Iraq had the same effect. Just this morning the State Department conceded that, as they politely put it, they were mistaken, in other words, lying outright, in their report a couple of months ago claiming that terror had been reduced thanks to Bush. In fact, it had sharply increased, they now concede quietly, which had been known before. And one of the reasons for the increase was the war in Iraq. Furthermore, it was predicted in advance that that was going to happen. It wasn’t any surprise. Intelligence agencies and analysts were predicting, if you invade Iraq, you’re going to increase terrorism, for pretty obvious reasons.

There is a kind of an odd charade going on now in the intellectual world and in Washington based on the revelations of Clarke and O’Neill and others that the neocons in the administration ranked invading Iraq higher than the war on terror. The only thing surprising about these revelations is that anybody is surprised. How can you be surprised? They invaded Iraq, after all, knowing that it was very likely to increase the threat of terror. End of story. That demonstrates what their priorities are. Furthermore, they’re perfectly reasonable priorities. They don’t care that much about terror. What they care a lot about–I’ll go back to Chalmers Johnson–is having military bases in a dependent client state right at the heart of the oil-producing region. That’s important. Not because the U.S. wants the oil–it’s going to get it one way or the another on the market–but it wants to control the oil. A totally different matter. Those things are constantly obscured. Control of the oil, it has been known since the 1940s, is a major lever of world control against your enemies. And U.S. enemies are Europe and Asia. Those are the regions of the world that could move towards independence. One of the ways to prevent that is to keep your hand on the spigot. It was understood long ago.

Once again: the betrayal.

I agree completely that if McClellan was so offended, he might have bailed when all this was happening. But it goes back to the original point; where loyalty is prized above all - and disloyalty is treated as Dole, here, treats it - who is going to be "disloyal" unless they feel there's something big in it for them?

This sort of political "loyalty" is anathema to the American republic.

Without realizing it, huh?

You're so much more perceptive and adept at seeing the truth and you're the one who wants real solutions?

Strange that every program and solution that's implemented is opposed by the Left, and they damn well realize exactly what they're doing.

So, which military industry do you work in again? Or is it the oil industry?

I hate to keep bringing up Chomsky on here, I do so only for those who really wish to be informed, but he really has been saying all of this, predicting all of it, since day one:
From 2004: http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/200408--.htm

Funny how easily people will give away their rights if the person taking them away waves the flag just a little.

This book is nothing more than a liberal's wet dream. It gives them another chance to sing and dance about the evil genius, no idiot, I can't remember which, GWB. Call for his head on a platter. Call for war crimes trials and impeachment. But when they wake up, nothing will have changed.

Why? The democrats themselves won't touch Bush. We all know that.

And really, what difference will this book make? The liberals have already made up their minds, so it changes nothing for them. For righties who support the war, it won't matter either. They support the war regardless.

No, this book won't change a thing. Sorry.

When you sign on, you're part of the team. In McCellan's case it seems that most of his objections were very subjective.

I agree with your post John. But you forgot your trademark: "You're all stupid."

what difference will this book make? The liberals have already made up their minds, so it changes nothing for them. For righties who support the war, it won't matter either. They support the war regardless.

Put it in a historical context of say Vietnam or Watergate, the longer the controversy went on, the more it became apparent it was a mistake.
Your basic assumption is flawed and generalizing. People do change their minds about issues, they more they learn about them. Very few are permanently anchored to one particular camp. Compare Bush's approval ratings and support for the war over the last 5 years as evidence.

Is lying by ommision acceptable at that little church you go to?

And in return, I say you have no right to be so cavalier regarding the safety of my children and grandchildren. That's the unfortunate aspect of your point of view. If you're wrong, the people I care about could be harmed.

The people who have changed their minds about Bush did so long ago.

Sorry Gil. There's no hope in being converted to your side. Too much inertia to overcome. I'd have to take down my picture of Ronald Reagan, remove the USMC and American flags from my home, and cancel my subscription to the Weekly Standard. Then, there's all those marches and walks that you guys do.

That is why I am fearful of the republicans. You talk a good game and get misty eyed when someone waves the flag, but what have you done to make us safe?

On another thread someone said Bush would be a good president to overhaul the intelligence system, without realizing he has been President for almost 8 years and he has done absolutely nothing in that regard.Why not?

That's the problem ,you people want solutions but you will settle for mere talk about solutions.

Without realizing it.

Yes, precisely, you see the image was not an official release...it could have simply been made by someone who was really pissed off that there are over 150,000 people with guns and tanks walking around in their backyard who have managed to kill about 100,000 of their fellow citizens with no signs of stopping.

The image then somehow goes to a press who despite knowing full well that it could have been created by anyone but still publishes the image, and then everyone gets scared and paranoid.

And then an American sees the image, posts the link and says that Islamists are to be feared, neglecting of course to clarify that it is "militant" Islamists, or because he has read too much Daniel Pipe's garbage, really believes (forgetting that whole freedom of religion thing) that all practisim Muslims who follow Islam are not radicals. And of course, also forgets to note that it could have been created by anyone, including someone in the US, since the image looks precisely like something that would have appeared in Independence Day or Men In Black.

Uh oh, Pericles, maybe Will Smith is behind it all.

Email from Bob Dole:

Scott,
There are miserable creatures like you in every administration who don't have the guts to speak up or quit if there are disagreements with the boss or colleagues. No, your type soaks up the benefits of power, revels in the limelight for years, then quits, and spurred on by greed, cashes in with a scathing critique.

In my nearly 36 years of public service I've known of a few like you. No doubt you will "clean up" as the liberal anti-Bush press will promote your belated concerns with wild enthusiasm. When the money starts rolling in you should donate it to a worthy cause, something like, "Biting The Hand That Fed Me." Another thought is to weasel your way back into the White House if a Democrat is elected. That would provide a good set up for a second book deal in a few years.

I have no intention of reading your "exposé" because if all these awful things were happening, and perhaps some may have been, you should have spoken up publicly like a man, or quit your cushy, high profile job. That would have taken integrity and courage but then you would have had credibility and your complaints could have been aired objectively. You're a hot ticket now but don't you, deep down, feel like a total ingrate?

BOB DOLE
So you're saying that Al Qaeda would not use WMD if it had them?

That may be the case Gil, but loyalty does play a critical role in both governance and business. You can't have every single person, in an organization of thousands, deciding each individual policy decision they will support, and those they won't support.

When you sign on, you're part of the team. In McCellan's case it seems that most of his objections were very subjective.

And in return, I say you have no right to be so cavalier regarding the safety of my children and grandchildren. That's the unfortunate aspect of your point of view. If you're wrong, the people I care about could be harmed.

The people who have changed their minds about Bush did so long ago. And those on the far right will not change no matter what. Those on the far left won't change either. This book will have no affect. Your (correct usage) wanting it to won't make is so.

Sorry. Please play again.