Obviously all of us have heard that a Nigerian man (Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab) attempted to blow himself up and thereby destroy the airplane on which he was travelling on a Northwest Airlines flight from Amsterdam to Detroit.
The chattering class of the right - like those who actually think of Fox News as actually reflecting anything even remotely similar to news - have since attempted to claim that Barack Obama is somehow to blame for this attempt, and further, that Obama's attempts to close Guantanamo Bay prison is therefore misguided (at best).
This is the basest form of sophistry. First, of course, Bush was tasked after 9/11/2001 with creating better inter-departmental cooperation. Based on numerous books, and including the sacrificial lamb treatment of the CIA by Dick Cheney (where he and the right-wing blamed the CIA for 'hiding' data from Cheney about Iraq, WMD, and yellow-cake) - the truth according to many at the DIA and CIA is that inter-departmental cooperation in 2006 was FAR worse than it was on 9/10/2001. Cheney insisted upon creating his own intelligence branch called the NEI located at the White House when he wasn't satisfied with the intel he got from DSA or CIA because it didn't support his and the President's desire to create a case for war with Iraq. Cheney, who essentially ran intel for the White House, had a running feud with the CIA and to a lesser extent the DIA for the majority of the Bush Presidency.
No matter, though, the fact that inter-departmental communication in fact was WORSE, that Bush failed at probably the most meaningful anti-terrorism task he should have accomplished (namely, information sharing which might have helped to stop something like 9/11 had it been in place) - no no, blame Obama. Just like they blamed Bill Clinton for secuirty breaches at Los Alamos - because after all he IS the Chief Exexutive, but when it occured in larger measure under Bush, well then, you couldn't POSSIBLY blame the President for the actions of underlings far down the food chain from him. The hypocrisy is laughable at best. Obama has only general capability to change leadership, not tone, and certainly not in less than a year is it possilbe to undo the harm created by dysfunctional intelligence service relationships fostered and festering for nearly seven years previously.
Then we go to GitMo - the argument here is that Obama is WRONG WRONG WRONG to consider locating the prisoners in Illinois, and WRONG WRONG WRONG to require trials for those still held because two of the planners of the recent attempt were ex-Gitmo detainees - unfortunately this ludicrous accusation fails to account for the following:
1. The people released were released because we lacked any evidence against them - I have no idea WHEN they were released, but it is HIGHLY likely it was during Bush's term - meaning, no policy change enacted by Obama lead to this attack.
2. Obama is obligated to follow the law (as Bush was but often failed to until threatened/ordered to by the courts) - this includes providing at LEAST military tribunal reviews for detainees. Without doubt, the men released were given a review, and in that review, insufficient or NO evidence was found to detain them and so they were released. Providing them a trial is of no relevance, because these men WEREN'T provided a trial, yet, they THEN WENT AND ATTEMPTED TO AID IN AN ATTACK - what does this say???
3. It says that when you flout the law, and hold people without charge for 4 and 5 years, they resent it - maybe the lesson then is - don't do that. Don't create MORE enemies thru unethical acts.
4. Finally, changing the location of the prison is totally unrelated to the fact that these two men helped in an attack - people are held securely within the United States all the time, people AT LEAST as heinous as these two - again assuming we actually WOULD have had evidence to hold them. Objecting to changing to a prison which isn't a. secret or b. was opened PURELY to skirt US law has nothing whatsoever to do with whether two men who were released from a prison subsequently attacked the US. We parole people, sometimes they commit other crimes - that's the price of a free society and unless we're going to jail people for life without trial - it makes no difference at all where the prison is. Further, it inreases the chance that guys like this Nigerian will decide to put a bomb in their pants and kill innocent civilians as a measure of retribution for what they perceive as our bad acts. Sometimes those perceptions are unbalanced and worthless, but we certainly shouldn't provide legitimate ammunition to their paranoid beliefs.
The worst part of all of this is that the righties know better than this. They KNOW this is pure sophistry and base lies. They know Obama really isn't to blame for these two people having been released, that it was done in compliance with directive from the Supreme Court - that if the two guys had been deemed truly dangerous based on their prior acts they'd still be in prison, and that it's also likely that we created our own monsters here - but they won't admit to that because then they'd be admitting to having erred in holding people in violation of basic human rights - AND they wouldn't get to WIN - the essential element - the argument that Obama somehow is weak on terror.
I think Barack Obama is foolish to stay in Afghanistan, but attempting to pin this on him is like blaming Harry Truman for World War II. The story below illustrates the incipid and vile reaction:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2010643179_airlineprez31.html
There was not a similar criticism of Bush by the right when the shoe bomber got on a plane and tried to detonate the same chemical, in his shoes instead of his shorts, despite anti-terrorism measures.
ReplyDeleteThere was no similar criticism when the shoe bomber was (gasp!)held in federal prison, and tried and convicted successfully in a federal court either.
Nor was their any similar criticism when the shoe bomber was sentenced to life in prison in.....wait for it!.....a maximum security prison in COLORADO.
All of which argues that the right is not making a valid criticism but looking for excuses for partisan sniping at Obama.
Do I think that this guy should have gotten a visa. Never. Did the system that should have prevented his getting on a plane to the US work? NO. Not letting him on a plane back to the UK worked; we should look at what they do differently than our procedures. What was done after the fact, may have worked, but "after the fact" is too little too late.
Even if our security procedures improve -- and I hope they will, including the right not trying to block a TSA head from being confirmed -- it is realistic to expect that at some point in time, an individual acting alone will not appear on our 'radar' and will successfully slip past even the best security. The best thing we can do is to be vigilant and to cooperate, and when necessary to act, to protect each other in that event.
Kudos to the Dutch gentleman who intervened most directly. I hope this country gives him formal recognition, perhaps a medal. Perhaps inviting him to attend the State of the Union address.
He'd be much more welcome than, oh, say the Salahis, LOL.
The main criticism I have is Napolito saying the system worked until after it came out that the guys father went to our embassy and said his son had fallen in with extremists. Until it came out that the British had denied his visa because they thought he was lying about why he was in Yemen. Then finally she admitted the system failed. The only failure here I blame on Obama is appointing someone with no law enforcement or military or any kind of anti-terrorism background as Director of Homeland Security. The problem here is the same problem we had with the Bush administration, people in the State dept and elsewhere in government are afraid of being called bigots so when someone comes in and says my son is hanging out with Islamic extremists and I am worried, they don't do anything but file it away. His father is muslim also which should have told them something. The very fact another muslim, and especially a family member, comes in and warns our embassy about someone should at least earn them a strip search before boarding the plane. I know profiling is unpopular but there is a fine line between profiling and good detective work. After the tube bombings in London Good Morning America had an Israeli security expert on with someone from the New York Police. The Israeli asked how they were choosing who to search at the subway entrances and the cop replied they searched every 8th person. The Israeli laughed and said if they did not search every arab male between 18 and 50 they may as well not do anything. Now that would not catch this guy but both this guy and Hassan at Ft Hood were known to be associating with muslim extremists, we should have looked at both of them closer.
ReplyDeletePenigma, this was another good posting. I agree with about 95% of it. Given that I find I often agree with my own recent statements only about 75%-to-90% of the time, that's really rather good. (Or, if I'm wrong, perhaps it's bad, which may be the case but I obviously hope is not....)
ReplyDeleteDog Gone, I had no idea that Mr. Reid is being held in Colorado. That's quite enlightening, and it helps prove your point.
What I am aware of, however, is the fact that only a fool would believe the bellowing from the conservative wing of the Republican party regarding President Obama's so-called "poor response" to this attempted downing of an international flight. We'll see how foolish and lock-step/reactionary we Americans are in our collective response to their childish nonsense.
I'm an optimist. I think (and hope) we will look at this pragmatically, and not in an ignorant manner. Let's do this and start 2010 off in a good way.
TTuck,
ReplyDeleteFrankly, I'm not that familiar with Napalitano's background. However, clearly she was at least as qualifed as Bernie Kerick.
As for prevention of racial profiling, that started under Bush - I don't support it anyway - but it isn't Obama's responsibility either. Candidly, this guy wasn't missed, racial profiling didn't have to work, because this guy WAS identified - but the information wasn't shared.
My ultimate point is Bush sooo broke the system that it will likely take years (at best) to fix, if they even try to fix it at all.
Hass, I'm not optimistic. What I see is about 20% of the population (on both sides, but the right is a bit more lock-step enforcing) which blames the other side - no matter the truth, and does it in an ugly and disgusting way. Case in point - this case.
Actually the no racial profiling started well before Bush, perhaps as early as Reagan or even Carter. People do not know where the line is between racial profiling and good police work. If witnesses tell you the robber was a black male it is not profiling to question black males in the area. If no one got a good look at the robber and can only say it was a roughly 6 ft tall male, then it is profiling to question only black males. Also the laws about the CIA and FBI sharing information were put in place during the Clinton administration. The problems came from people not interpreting the law correctly. The intelligence community did not want to get a FISA warrant for surveillance on Al Queda activities while the FBI was pursuing a criminal case on some of its member because they thought the law prevented that. From what I have read the law only prevented them from using FISA warrants on the specific people under indictment, which did not include any of the terrorists involved in 9/11 and in this country.
ReplyDeleteOne other point is that chances are good that the embassy workers in Nigeria and the intelligence people here are lifetime government workers that were not hired by an Obama or Bush appointee but more likely by a Clinton, Bush Sr, or Reagan appointee.
ReplyDeletePen, you're probably right. Still, I simply like to start off each year in a good frame of mind.
ReplyDeleteAfter all, Presidents Carter and Clinton were near-pariahs after their first year-or-so in office, at least according to national polling. Democrats tend to tumble in opinion polls initially, because of the "change" push during the years in which they are elected. But change at a national and international level is always slow to occur.
(Even Republican President Reagan was often broadly unpopular in the earlier stages of his first administration.)
President Obama's approval rating is right around 50% or so, much higher than Clinton was at a year into his presidency (which everyone seems to have forgotten). In point of fact, President Clinton got slammed in the 1994 cycle, but recovered to win re-election in 1996. For his part, Reagan got hit hard in 1982 before rebounding spectacularly in 1984. Carter never rebounded.
Now, let's face it--approval ratings are only one of many indicators for re-electability, and it's a few years too early to even deal with all of that.
But what this suggests to me is that a sizeable chunk of "moderate" voters are at least keeping their minds open regarding President Obama, rather than jumping on the bellowing bandwagon. That's good news, as far as I'm concerned.
You're right, of course--the "average" person can be frighteningly myopic, whether that person leans politically leftward or politically rightward. And they often get riled-up to vote...having forgotten how they voted the last time.
Yet we may be seeing a pragmatic, realistic counter-push to this, as well. If this counter-push doesn't manifest itself in 2010, it may in 2012. People may (I emphasize "may") be deciding that becoming a bit more sophisticated and thoughtful about the world in general does not at all lessen their American-ness. The two mindsets can co-exist.
If we are to retain our global influence (which I support), they need to co-exist increasingly in the coming years.
So, yes, I share your concerns. But history suggests that this Democratic president's start hasn't been bad at all. Let's see what happens from here to 2012....
TTuck, the issue isn't who hired them, and it hasn't really anything at all to do with Clinton or Bush Sr. or Reagan (or policies enacted by Carter or Reagan, etc..), because after 9/11/01 Bush (jr.) was tasked with creating a better level of informaiton sharing between intelligence services.
ReplyDeleteHe created the NCTC National Counterterrorism Command, and created the Department of Homeland Security- the NCTC was considered the "Crown Jewel" of the new counter-terrorism activity effort of the Federal government. Bush created the largest department in the government in Homeland Security - and then..
He ignored it. He allowed Cheney to side-step it, he appointed political adversaries and climbers to various leadership posts who, did what Washington climbers do - they fought with each other. In truth, Bush fostered one of the most devisive White Houses, where getting the President's attention was nearly impossible because he was so closeted, and folks like Cheney were so busy lying about Iraq, cheating and deceiving the public into and about the war, that they really didn't give a damn about ACTUAL counter-terrorism cooperation.
In short, Bush failed utterly to do what was probably THE MOST IMPORTANT TASK of his Presidency - and this shows it -- he claimed to be a 'War President' and tough on terrorism, and yet he essentially let our intelligence community get run roughshod by his Veep, let it languish into partisan sniping due to inattention, and DID NOT create more cooperative environs - but in fact created LESS so.
All of those things - the requirement to create better cooperation, the fact that he DID create an entire department to bring this about - all of it has nothing, nothing at all to do with anyone but George Bush (and his Administration especially but not limited to Dick Cheney). They failed, they DIDN'T fight 'the war' as they had the responsibility to - they fought it for political reasons and in a political way, and we are all MUCH LESS SAFE because of it.
Bush failed? There was no successful terrrorist attack on American soil from Sep 11, until the attack at Ft Hood, which happened several months after he left office. How is that failure? There were several attempted attacks and the "shoe bomber" was a near miss like the guy on Christmas day. And if you want to talk about political favors look at the current head of homeland security. She is a lawyer, was a US Attorney and a governor. Nothing there at all to give experience catching terrorists. She never saw a criminal until after they were caught.
ReplyDeleteTuck,
ReplyDeleteFirst, I don't see the infrequency of attacks as reflecting our success on an intelligence front - Bush didn't prevent attacks, there were at least two after 9/11. That's not a large number, and no, neither were successful - but neither was the Christmas day attack, and in the case of the Shoe-Bomber, Reid wasn't succesful precisely because the people near him took action, not because of the Dept of Homeland Security or NCTC information sharing work.
As well, what WAS created after 9/11 which WAS successful was better 'active' defenses - these were the ideas of many people, and some of them were silly to be sure - but the additional 'shoe-bomb' screening, etc.. has been a deterent. Does Bush deserve the credit, I hardly think so, just as whatever they decided to do about the Christmas Day attack was not and will not be Obama's brainchild - or to his credit or discredit. The real law-enforcement/bomb-detection people get credit for that - Obama/Bush only deserve credit for pushing for funding. So, our active defenses, what may have prevented additional attacks, are in no material way, a credit to the President.
In short, I don't buy, not for a minute, the meme' that Bush 'kept us safe' after 9/11.
In fact, I find it rather curious that there were ONLY two attacks after 9/11 - other than ginned up cases like Ft. Dix. That seems to me much more like the fact that our Arab allies took action after 9/11 - that 9/11 scared the crap out of them that the golden goose (US oil consumption) might get killed - and that they were afraid of just how powerful AQ had become.
I don't for a minute believe that Bush knew of and prevented many other attacks - Bush strumpted around every time a group like the fools in Florida were located - so it's not like he hid things that had been done - in fact, his penchant for publicly proclaiming victories was a real sore point for our allies - especially Pakistan, who felt betrayed when an AQ operative with very important details on his laptop was captured. Bush proclaimed that he'b been captured when Pakistan wanted him to keep silent, and revealed that we'd taken his laptop, which betrayed an ENORMOUSLY important secret had been comprimised.
But what I'm pointing out is that Bush failed utterly to improve information sharing, and that information sharing was considered his most important task at hand. He created a more devisive, not less, intelligenc community. He took his eye off the ball in Bin Laden, allowing our troops to be redirected to his personal war in Iraq - and Bin Laden escaped. He didn't PERSONALLY (so far as we know) make that specific decision about Tora Bora, but he made the decision to draw-down troops in Afghanistan to begin training them to move to Iraq, and set Afghanistan and Bin Laden as a secondary priority.
Lastly, are we truly any meaninful amount safer now that Hussein is out of the way? I say no. Isreal is, but we now have a LOT of Arabs who think we're thugs (at best), some of whom are now willing to blow themselves up in objection. The best thing we might have accomplished is scaring Syria and maybe Libya into not funding Islamic Fundamentalists, but you know, they never did anyway. Iran is ascendant, Hammas is ascendant, and we've been shown to be impotent in Afghanistan (and of course Bin Laden is still free).
The other thing is - the active defense processes we put in place are mostly just 'hope fors' - we hope anyone who wants to attack us will be stupid enough to use a method we can easily identify at the airport. But where Bush failed was in passive defense, in the critical element of FINDING the attacker BEFORE it occured, and of eradicating the attackers in the main. He started off well on the latter point by going into Afghanistan, but then he lost focus and interest, and instead insisted upon doing what he WANTED - which was to take over Iraq. On the former, most attacks (including the Christmas Day attack) aren't going to attempt to overcome our active defenses by direct effort. Anyone with even a modicum of military training knows that you can't defend everything (Klausewitz) - and that no defense is perfect. You try to make the job of attacking you difficult - but you know that unless your enemy is stupid or has no choice, they are going to attempt to attack you in a way you don't expect. THAT is where Bush has failed utterly, he failed to create an environment where the planning stage was where things were being routinely caught - because the role of a military intelligence is to ferret out what the enemy is going to do to help prevent defeat - and in this case the additional role is to FIND the enemy. Since 2001, other than those found in Afghanistan, damned few terrorists have been caught - and virtually NO large or small scale attacks have been prevented due to our intelligence finding them first. In short, in the task of 'passive defense' - the most important element of preventing attacks - Bush generally failed miserably to create a functional cross-departmental information sharing apparatus.
ReplyDeleteSo yes, Bush failed in his task to help find terrorists - As for attacks - we were basically NOT attacked at all - so he prevented really nothing - and instead he created a dysfunctional intelligence community.
Pen, it took me 5 minutes on google to find where the FBI says it has stopped at least 23 attacks since 9/11. These were stopped in the planning stages using information sharing and info from some of the FISA warrants. I know a guy who is on the Dallas Sherriffs reserve swat team, he is older and mainly trains on weekends but still goes out on calls. They caught a college student at UTA who was planning on being the first suicide bomber in the US, had a belt of nails and c4 all made up. His roommate saw jihadist literature he picked up at his mosque and some reciepts for electronics and called the cops. Now this was completely local but the point is I never saw this on the news. After he told me about it I found a small article on a back page about a college student arrested for illegal explosives, nothing about the jihad literature, the belt bomb, or the football tickets he had where they presume he planned to detonate, since everyone said he was not a football fan. I will be the first to admit the system is far from perfect but it is not completely broken either. There have been attacks stopped in the planning stages.
ReplyDeleteBy the way on a related note here is a very good article on how Israel runs their airport security. It has been about 12 yrs since I was over there but it was very fast and efficient.
http://www.thestar.com/printarticle/744426
Tuck,
ReplyDeleteI'll look to see if I can find what you found.
Ttuck,
ReplyDeleteI did not find comments about 23 attacks stopped, but I did find comments about 19 - which seemed significant, until you read thru them.
Among them are Richard Reid, a plot stopped by the UK (not the US), and a host of other disorganized, very VERY loosely proven or very VERY stupid and unlikely to succeed individuals - some of whom, like the people in Florida, were at best lead down the path, or worse, were so unlikely to be successful that claiming them as 'attacks stopped' is the height of hubris (at best), a guy planning to cut down the Brooklyn Bridge, operating by himself, is hardly a real threat - by the measure used, anyone crazy enough to try to do any damage anywhere constitutes a terrorist attack. I reject that on it's face - it represents no meaningful threat and certainly is NOT evidence of interdepartmental cooperation.
Included in the list, however, WERE two actual threats, one the plan in the UK which we didn't stop, and the other the case of Dhiren Barot, a Pakistani scientist who, as I recounted, WAS planning a host of things, including attacks, and WAS captured by the Pakistani Intelligence Service (ISI) - a service which helped fund the Mumbai terror attacks - I wonder WHY Barot was apprehended - and further, it wasn't US (U.S.) - AND when captured Bush spilled the beans to the world in probably the most aggregious breach of security since 9/11.
There was one other case Assam Hammoud which I would consider meaningful - and was discored by monitoring on-line chat rooms and was a threat, but that's ONE case - not 23 or 19 - ONE found by this greater level of inter-departmental cooperation, found by OUR intelligence services...
The rest either weren't us, weren't credible, and certainly with the exception of PERHAPS two cases, weren't anything related to AQ directly.
So the question is, since the facts seem to point out that in fact press favorable to Bush has ginned up the number of attacks, and that in fact we've maybe MAYBE stopped 2-3 attacks on the US since 9/11 which AQ might have been planning, and they've conducted HUNDREDS of attacks world wide since then - do you REALLY think Bush was successful? I don't - and I wonder why AQ hasn't attacked us - I certainly don't think it's because they've been running and hiding in Pakistan - or because they directed their attacks against Iraq.
I think it's because they got more than they bargained for out of 9/11. They have no compunction about blowing up airliners - and our security measures have stopped TWO attempts - in that they made it harder to try, but in once case only after the fact. But I also think they simply decided bringing down buildings was not something they could afford the kind of attention-getting it created in MANY Arab nations.
Quite simply, I don't think detecting three credible attacks constitutes success. Calling the Batiste group a threat is a joke, and calling Michael Reynolds, Jose Padilla or the Virginia "Jihad" Network credible threats is a joke (not your joke a joke from the right-pandering press). Further, I think the Christmas Day attempt, an ACTUAL AQ attempt to blow up an airliner, about which there was serious chatter in the on-line AQ network, the fact that it WASN'T detected and stopped proves with some real validity that our/Bush's work was effectively fruitless and a failure. With a couple of exceptions, what he "found" were pathetically stupid "attacks", or ginned up stories of supposed attacks.
Pen, couple of things here. If AQ has not attacked us because of unwanted attention you think maybe some of that attention was losing their safe haven in Afghanistan? Also do you really believe they have attempted attacks everywhere in the world except the place they want to attack the most? Something else that happened just today. John Brennan, a white house aide, was on State of the Union. He stated that this attack was not the result of agencies not sharing info like 9/11, there was some human error, and the system did not completely work. According to him and a Brit that was on the reason this guy was not on a no-fly list is that he had not yet made it to that stage. Apparently you first get on a list saying you associate with extremists and might be worth watching. The Brit said this list is way to extensive to put them all on a no fly list. If your name or the name of the people you associated with comes up in connection with anything violent then you go on a no-fly list. Since the only info they had on this guy was that he might have associated with extremists in Yemen then he never made it past the first list. The Brit said lots start on the road to terrorism and get off before doing anything and he fit the profile of one of those.
ReplyDeleteTuck,
ReplyDeleteFirst, I hadn't said this yet, so please allow me, thank you for your cogent and civil discussion of facts here, it is refreshing to say the least.
I was aware of the two lists you mention and this guy's placement on one, but not the other. You are correct, the first list is FAR too large to use as a tool to prevent everyone on it from flying.
However, what WAS a flag, and what SHOULD have been reacted to was that his father reported him as being a danger. It was not passed along - and human error or not, that's a problem.
As regards the spate of attacks elsewhere in the world vs. in the US - AQ has committed hundreds of other attacks since 9/11, from the Bali bombing, to the Mumbai attacks, to the bombing of trains in Spain, killing thousands of people. If we are so high on their target list (and I suspect we WOULD be all other things being equal) - why so few even remotely documentable attempts (numbering no more than 4, likely more like 2) since 9/11?
As I said, it seems that AQ has made a decision to not attack the US, certainly not with the kind of highly public/high profile attacks of 9/11.
Also, as you pointed out, but I did too, attacking Afghanistan was ABSOLUTELY the right path, but then we fumbled it, and even so, it is not the point in question - the point in question was that you made a claim that Bush kept us safe as a response to my (and many many many) other's assertions that he collosally bungled creating a cooperatinve intelligence apparatus.
Nothing about attacking Afghanistan is germane to the latter. I acknowledged the former, but that was now 9 years ago - and while it worked at first, clearly there are people who can and do travel to Pakistan now - clearly AQ is still active conducting attacks, so whatever retarding effect our attack on Afghanistan had, it has long since expired. The genesis of Wahabism isn't in Afghanistan anyway, it's in Yemen, and always has been. Our attacks under Obama and Bush on Yemen are meaningful, but there still is NO evidence of significatnly better information sharing as there should have been.
So, given that AQ HAD the time and chance to attack the US more often - but hasn't - and hasn't based on a paucity of evidence of any meaningful attempt, I don't agree, not for a moment, that "Bush kept us safe", Bush kept us safe only in that it appears AQ was ambivilent. He specifically did almost nothing right - he attacked Afghanistan and then took his eye off the ball, and then, when he was supposed to be creating a cross-functional communication process, he instead fabricated intelligence about a country not involved in the slightest in either 9/11 or Wahabism. He abused the intelligence community, and he started a war which lead to a civil war and the death of not less than 150,000 Iraqi civilians needlessly - probably closer to 600,000, and created probably hundreds of thousands of highly resentful muslims and Arabs about such conduct. He failed to create the 'crown jewel' correctly in the NCTC - and we are frankly no tangible amount safer today (on an intelligence front) than we were on 9/12/01 except as people are more focused on terrorism in the main, but NOT because of Bush accomplishing his duties.
ReplyDeleteHe also has farmed out private companies a great deal of our intelligence service, in the venal pursuit of his reckless and unfounded belief that paying somebody the least amount possible leads to the best and most efficient results. Private contractors, though, here just as in the military logistical cannard, in fact wound up costing much more, and sharing much less.
In short, George Bush was probably the biggest failure as a US President with respect to his responsibilities to prosecute the CORRECT war that we've ever experienced, and his sham claim that he kept us safe is more due to blind dumb luck, the work of dedicated operatives entirely independent and divorced from his creation of Homeland Security or NCTC, (and maybe some pressure from his friends in the family Saud) than anything he accomplished - and not just more, probably almost exclusively.
Finally, between his utterly irresponsible use of the term 'crusde' about our invastion of Iraq, and the promoton of Christian missionaries in Iraq both which inflamed Muslims world wide at our enormous arrogance at attempting to convert an already devoutly Muslim (monotheistic populace - something never succesfully accomplished without violence) - between both of those, he created a vast impression that the US is looking to forcibly export Christianity - and I'd be hard-pressed to successfully argue against that impression.
Finally part Dieux - he took 42% of his days on vacation or working vacation, not including Sundays, which he ALSO took off. All told, the man barely did his job - and this is the most important job in the world - and he took nearly 50% of the time off.
We will have to just agree to disagree about the job Bush did. I seriously don't like some things he did (spending like he was a democrat) but I don't think he was our worst president ever. One thing though, Wahabiism started in Saudi Arabia. This is kind of a scary thing because the majority of the terrorists on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia also finances the construction of about 70% or more of the mosques in the US. There is one right down the road from where I was living until we bought our house. The mosque in Irving, TX was financed by Saudi Arabia and had a celebration day on the birthday of the Ayatollah Khomeni, the same guy who held our embassy for over a yr 30 yrs ago. From what I have been told there is plenty of Jihad literature to be had inside but it is written in Arabic. For a country that every president in my lifetime and probably longer has considered a friend these are some troubling facts.
ReplyDeleteAgreed, we disagree.
ReplyDeleteBTW, personally, I find the claims that Democrats 'spend' like crazy to be, well, crazy, at least as compared to Republicans.
During the Carter Presidency the national debt increased about 80 Billion per year (on average), during the Reagan years, it was almost 250 Billion. Due in part to decisions by George Bush Sr. RAISNIG taxes, Clinton enjoyed surpluses. When elected GWB ran up the debt $4.3 Trillion in 8 years. Clearly Obama is spending a lot, but then again, we were in the worst economic situation since the Depression.
In truth, I have NEVER seen Republicans fail to spend at least as much as Democrats on a national level - they just spend it differently, usually on defense, and frequently on private endeavors which make their friends wealthy. They also give away VAST public interests - as did James Watt - rather than achieve an honest price in the interst of the people they were elected to protect - and they frequently fail to pay for maintenence on the infrastructure they were entrusted to maintian, thereby running up massvie stealth debt.
As for Bush, he was a dismal failure, imho, with respect to investigating and preventing terrorism - if you can offer substantive proof that he accomplished more than it appears - outside of the rather unimpressive case list of joke 'attacks' he strumpeted about all too often, I'm happy to discuss it, but failing that, yes we disagree, respectfully of course, but we disagree.
An observation gentlemen, I will leave it to you respectively to interpret for purposes of this discussion.
ReplyDeleteA story just came out in the news about a supposed terrorist threat to the Obama inauguration aproximately a year ago. The threat information is reported to have turned up some 72 hours in advance of the ceremony, indicating an attempt to disrupt the swearing in, possibly to attempt to kill Obama or others.
The story details the response to the threat, which eventually resolved as a so-called 'poison pen' threat, where one group was attempting to use a fake terrorist threat to initiate a response by the U.S. which would remove or at least damage seriously a rival group.
That was not news at the time. It suggests to me in the context of reading this exchange that we as citizens are not genuinely aware of what threats do or do not exist, or the response to them.
It also provides a valuable context imho, to the delays in responding by Obama. I would argue that it was a lesson learned by Obama to be sure of facts, not just appearances which can be misleading, before making acting.
I will say that I very much like no-drama Obama. His deliberate and analytical approach is reassuring to me that thought is guiding the decisions, and information, rather than ideology and preconceptions.
I have heard a lot of comments about Obama's supposed executive ability. The best executives I have had the pleasure to know and work with worked like this president, and not so much like the previous administration which seemed more focused on being reactive and emotional and creating an impression of action but less on being deliberate and analytical and making the right choice of action.
Pen, if you read any conservative blogs about 90% of the complaints about Bush were that he was trying to outspend the Democrats. Seriously a large part of the reason the country was prosperous during Clinton was Congress actually cut spending on some programs and slowed it on others. There was also a huge technology boom then so the government was taking in more money than ever and for the first time in my lifetime not coming up with new programs to spend the surplus. As far as economic policy Clinton was probably to the right of Bush. It also helped that there were more 1st and 2nd term congressmen in office than in the past 40 yrs or so at that time also. Of course these same Congressmen, 10 yrs later, assisted Bush in spending all those gains.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete(previous comment deleted because after hitting submit I noticed some really bad spelling errors)
ReplyDeleteDog, I think you are right that there is a lot going on we are not aware of. During the campaign Obama talked about doing away with the Patriot act laws enacted after 9/11, he hasn't and in one article I read his administration has petitioned the court to strengthen a couple. I think when he got into office and became privy to info that only the Pres and VP see, he realized they were more useful and far less intrusive to the average American than he had previously believed.