Via Andrew Sullivan, a contrast in styles that is rather telling. Ken Livingstone, Mayor of London:
“This was not a terrorist attack against the mighty and the powerful; it is not aimed at presidents or prime ministers; it was aimed at ordinary working class Londoners, black and white, Muslim and Christians, Hindu and Jew, young and old, indiscriminate attempt at slaughter irrespective of any considerations, of age, of class, of religion, whatever, that isn’t an ideology, it isn’t even a perverted faith, it’s just indiscriminate attempt at mass murder, and we know what the objective is, they seek to divide London. They seek to turn Londoners against each other and Londoners will not be divided by this cowardly attack… I wish to speak through you directly, to those who came to London to claim lives, nothing you do, how many of us you kill will stop that flight to our cities where freedom is strong and where people can live in harmony with one another, whatever you do, how many you kill, you will fail.”
George Galloway (hero to the far left):
The loss of innocent lives, whether in this country or Iraq, is precisely the result of a world that has become a less safe and peaceful place in recent years.
We have worked without rest to remove the causes of such violence from our world. We argued, as did the Security Services in this country, that the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq would increase the threat of terrorist attack in Britain. Tragically Londoners have now paid the price of the government ignoring such warnings.
We urge the government to remove people in this country from harms way, as the Spanish government acted to remove its people from harm, by ending the occupation of Iraq and by turning its full attention to the development of a real solution to the wider conflicts in the Middle East. Only then will the innocents here and abroad be able to enjoy a life free of the threat of needless violence.
Ugh. Via Arthur Chrenkoff, Al Qaeda speaks:
SomeCallMeTim
Livingston is, I believe, either a Socialist or a Communist. His nickname, IIRC, is Red Ken.
JonBuck
Galloway lives in a fantasy world where he thinks trying to be as small and inoffensive as possible will prevent such attacks. What he doesn’t understand is that groups like Al Qaeda sees that as a weakness and will capitalize on it.
John Cole
Yes, Somecallmetim. He is nicknamed ‘Red Ken.’
Doug
Ken Livingstone is hero to the left for his attacks on George Bush:
washerdreyer
Follwing SCTM, it seems reasonable to note that the contrast you are drawing is between two people, both of whom are further left than any Democrat holding a natioanl office, and almost certainly further left than the one Socialist (I don’t know enough about Sanders to say that definitively).
dagon
so it looks like what we have is competing quotes from two “heroes of the far left” now don’t we?
i guess this sort of negates any of the partisan juice that one could hope to squeeze out of these two statements.
…..ehhh, telling of what exactly?
peace
John Cole
It is the contrast in the damned approach to terrorism, you bloody fools, not in the political philosophy.
Good Gravy. I don’t think Tony Blair is a right-winger, either, just to settle things.
Bruce Moomaw
Best printed response to the attack I’ve seen so far.
Hear, hear. The worst thing we can do at this point is let these creatures so infuriate us as to cloud our judgement in how to deal most effectively with them. (Which as the message indicates, is not the same thing as failing to respond to them at all.) I am taking great satisfaction in the fact that Britain’s overall reaction seems to be, “Who the HELL do you people think you are?”
carpeicthus
Ouch, John. pwned.
Galloway is generally a fool. That’s the difference.
Tim F
You have to pretty goddamned far left to find any real Galloway fans. Don’t act surprised after the way you phrased your post.
John Cole
Bruce- You still aren’t getting the links right (I edited it for you). In the last post, here is what you should have done:
highlight ‘this far’
while highlighted, click on the link button just above
a window will pop up, where you should insert your url
finsish typing and hit preview
if it looks right, press post.
Jimmy Jazz
This liberal doesn’t want to curl up in a ball and hope the bad men go away. This liberal wanted to finish the job in Afghanistan and form a united front with our traditional allies to cut the legs out from under Al Queda. This liberal wanted to use 9/11 as an opportunity to prove to the vast majority of Middle Easterners that we really are committed to increasing liberalism (ironic, isn’t it?) and opportunity in that region, rather than use it as an excuse to invade a country that had tenuous (at best) connections to international terrorism. This liberal wanted to spend the money and intelligence resources we’re pissing away in Iraq to turn it into an ally of Iran on hardening our ports and border security.
This liberal is more convinced of these things than he was on 9/12/01.
KC
Solid point, Jimmy Jazz. I think a lot of other liberals and Dems would say the same. Of course, other people thought invading Iraq, that is creating a new front on terrorism, was the way to go. I was always iffy about that second option but we did it anyway. Now the point is to go back and make sure we are fulfilling the first option as best we can.
Sojourner
This liberal would only add to Jimmy’s thoughtful list:
This liberal wanted to see the U.S. unite with other countries to create an international front against terrorism. A much better approach than pissing off the other countries and fracturing our unity just to demonstrate what bullies our adminitration is.
Bruce Moomaw
Sorry, John. Maybe I’ll just avoid the damn links from now on.
Monty Burns
This liberal agrees with the previous 3. Afghanistan is where Bin Laden is and that is where the focus should have always been. Iraq is a quagmire bogging much needed troops down. Iraq just took the focus off where it should have always been.
Mike S
This liberal thought the “flypaper” theory was bunk and wanted, just like many above, to finish the job in Afghanistan.
RA
Jazz, KC and Sojourner are good examples of why liberals cannot be trusted to run foreign policy. They have been around since Nevile Chamberlain proclaimed peace with Germany, waving a piece of paper. Liberals always know better, but never produce results.
The middle east is a completely changed state. The Arab street is now focused on why their governments don’t allow them to vote instead of making holy war against the west.
The dead enders will continue to strap explosives to their stupid children and murder innocents. Let Arabs vote and this will become unacceptible. Then we will have won. Letting Saddam continue his atrocities and pay the families of suicide bombers for their acts of terror is wrong headed and defeatist. But that is what you leftists do best.
Tony Blaire is a conservative when it comes to national defense. Great Britain should be praising God for it.
Phillip J. Birmingham
Britain is now burning with fear, terror and panic in its northern, southern, eastern, and western quarters.
Somehow, I think they were more scared of Hitler.
My sympathies go to London today.
pmm
I bet Mr. Cole could post an essay on the merits of various coffee brands or where he buys his shoes and it would only take you guys three comments or less to get into a flame war on the Bush administration’s foreign policy.
mac Buckets
More vague, partisan silliness from those who will stretch to great lengths to turn every incident into a Bush-bash.
You wanted to “finish the job.” What are your criteria for “finishing the job,” and how many men and how long a timespan are you thinking it will take?
And which of our traditional allies is not pulling its weight against AQ?
If they can’t see that with their own eyes, then they are choosing not to see it.
One, I don’t think the facts agree with your characterization of Saddam’s “tenuous” links to terrorism. Two, 9/11 was never used as an excuse to oust Saddam. The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 made regime change in Iraq the official policy of the US, so US action to replace Saddam with a hand-picked government in Iraq precedes Bush. Bush gave multiple reasons for invasion, and 9/11 was not one of those. 9/11 was cited only as the incident that showed what can happen if you wait too long to recognize a threat.
And from Sojourner:
Are you seriously under the impression that the US is acting alone in the War on Terror? You can’t possibly be that uninformed — you are living in Ted Rall Fantasyland.
Jimmy Jazz
Iraq’s election resulted in a smashing victory for the pro-Iran Shi’ite slate sanctioned by Iraq’s senior Ayatollah.
Iran’s election resulted in a smashing victory for the hardest of hardliners.
Lebanon’s election (at least in the south) resulted in a smashing victory for Hamas and the pro-Syrian faction.
Elections are not the answer, changing attitudes is the answer.
John S
Seriously, how about one day where nobody tries to score points for their side. Galloway is a cock, Livingstone is not, and all other commentary is a bit pathetic on a day like this.
ppgaz
I’m with JohnS. It’s a day for reflection, not reaction.
“Wanted: Dead or Alive”.
“Mission accomplished.”
“Bring it on.”
That’s the sort of thing you get when you react, mouth in gear without brain engaged.
Surely, we can do better than that. I have no interest in what the talking heads are saying today, really. I don’t need a daddy or a talking head to tell me what I see or what I should think about it.
mac Buckets
George Galloway was elected from Bethnal Green (“Little Fallujah”), a poor, heavily-Muslim district. His bullyboys managed to intimidate many into not voting by using roving gangs of thugs , and now he is an MP.
To expect such a punkass to act like anything but a punkass would be unrealistic.
pmm
Thanks for proving my point, ppgaz. Even when ostensibly agreeing w/ John S to take partisanship out of the comments for a bit, you still take a shot at the administration.
The fact that folks feel compelled to make political points out of anything and everything gets old. Remember folks who turned around on Spain last March and went from expressing their condolences to denouncing the Spaniards in extremely dismissive terms as weak?
Regardless of whether the British decide to respond to today’s bombings by becoming more or less involved in the GWOT, does it change your level of sympathy? If so, why?
Jimmy Jazz
Heh, ppgaz gives us a lesson in how to bash while appearing to appeal for calm reflection =)
Seriously though, I don’t think a discussion about varying approaches to terrorism is exactly off topic or inappropriate in a thread about a contrast in attitudes to terrorism, with all due respect to the victims of this tragedy.
jdm
Reading the proposed liberal responses to the war on Islamic fundamentalism reminds me of certain scenes in The Life of Brian, but this one in particular:
JUDITH: They’ve arrested Brian!
REG: What?
COMMANDOS: What?
JUDITH: They’ve dragged him off! They’re going to
crucify him!
REG: Right! This calls for immediate discussion!
COMMANDO #1: Yeah.
JUDITH: What?!
COMMANDO #2: Immediate.
COMMANDO #1: Right.
LORETTA: New motion?
REG: Completely new motion, eh, that, ah– that
there be, ah, immediate action–
FRANCIS: Ah, once the vote has been taken.
REG: Well, obviously once the vote’s been taken.
You can’t act another resolution till you’ve voted
on it…
Tim F
Thanks for that jdm. It’s always reassuring to hear that we should act without thinking.
Mike S
Even when ostensibly agreeing w/ John S to take partisanship out of the comments for a bit, you still take a shot at the administration.
Some of us felt a shot was taken at us and responded to it. On further reflection I should have just ignored it. I hope everyone else will.
mac Buckets
Livingstone is a cock, too — which just goes to show that even the farthest left pol will speak a little differently when terrorism comes to his town.
And yes, any assessment of any portion of blame to anyone but murderous terrorists is always pathetic.
KC
Sorry to make you mad RA, though I didn’t think what I said was all that offensive. The point is is that whatever the merits of invading Iraq–I admit, I was iffy about going in at the time–we’re there now and cannot afford to let it drift into being another Afghanistan. On the other hand, we need to make sure that Afghanistan is secure, bin Laden is caught (silently killed would be better), and that we’re doing more than just beefing up the political center of Kabul. Isn’t that why the Brits are shifting some of their forces from Iraq over there? Ultimately, I think a democratic Iraq and Afghanistan (this doesn’t mean I’ll always like who these countries elect as leaders) would be better than another cluster of failed states.
mac Buckets
I thought of The Life of Brian, too, when I heard the name of the alleged Al Qaeda group claiming the bombing: “The Secret Organization of al-Qaida in Europe?” Wouldn’t “Judean People’s Front” be catchier?
jdm
No problem, Tim F. Thanks for the second.
Pan is a non stick goatman
RA – Unless you can provide an enlightened explication of the mechanism by which letting Arabs vote makes mass murder unacceptable (as if it isn’t already to secular voting Arabs), your comments can only be perceived as base, partisan play-making far removed from reliable tactical considerations. You are throwing around the massive, unwieldy concepts of magic democratic transition as if this process is a simple matter of pushing a few buttons, and as if it is isolated from or somehow unaffected by the other diverse political currents that are playing large roles in greater Arabia. This outlook is so simplistic that it would disqualify you from the debate if not for the fact that it’s been fed into the mainstream by the neoconservative wing of the Republican Party.
John – Galloway has assumed the same position that he’s been taking all along regarding Iraq. Disagree with it you may, but you should take care to avoid the connotation that Galloway was somehow swayed by today’s attacks. If Galloway today determined that it was necessary to ‘stay the course’ in Iraq, it would demonstrate a susceptability to terrorist influence that would be far more disturbing than the actual comments he made.
Jimmy Jazz
Sufficient control of the country so that Opium production isn’t the mainstay of the Afghan economy.
Sufficient control of the country that the Taliban can’t reconstitute.
You don’t think it’s significant at all that the Brits feel the need to withdraw their troops from Iraq and redeploy them to Afghanistan?
jdm
> an enlightened explication of the mechanism by
> which letting Arabs vote makes mass murder
> unacceptable
Yeah, those wogs… they’ll never figure this democracy thing out. They’re almost as stupid as neoconservative Republicans (who rarely explicate anything, much less in an enlightened manner… sheesh).
Nikki
It is the contrast in the damned approach to terrorism, you bloody fools, not in the political philosophy.
Then why the statement “hero to the far left?”
p.lukasiak
It is the contrast in the damned approach to terrorism, you bloody fools, not in the political philosophy.
unfortunately, Mr. Cole, Livingston and Galloway share the same approach to the war on terror. Neither of them wants to “give into” the terrorists, both of them want to see a rational foreign policy that denies terrorism the popular support it needs to grown and thrive and continue to threaten innocent people.
Pan is a non stick goatman
By the logic of some posters who feel the need to reassert that the terrorists are the only people responsible for these attacks, there must be no need for any law enforcement or military to protect people.
Lets say, for a hypothetical case, that the Hokeyville police department decides to send half of its resources to neighboring Podunk to dig for lucky charms, resulting in a rise in violent crime and new fatalities in Hokeyville. Two different groups of citizens devise their response. One group declares that the rise in crime is caused by the decline in local police power, and criticizes the negligence of the local politicians. The other group declares that because the police did not commit the crime, they bear no responsibility in the events, even though there is a clear statistical correlation. Because only the criminals are responsible for their crimes, they demand that Hokeyville send the remaining 50% of its police resources to hunt for lucky charms, with the understanding that bringing lucky charms to Hokeyville will make crime less acceptable. Which response is wise and which is foolish?
I ask again why it is not okay to criticize our politicians and law enforcement when they fail to protect us from violent crime.
Peter Moore
Bruce, that letter to the editor was awesome. Please don’t stop posting links….
ppgaz
Jimmy, don’t blame me. It’s not my fault that we need look no further than the Emperor if we want classic examples of things that are dumb, not thought through, insulting to the intelligence of citizens, regrettable, short-sighted, emotional ….. You know, all the things we do here in the blog world ;-)
Except, the thing is, we aren’t presidents. That’s the depressing part. We have a president who is really just another knucklehead on the streetcorner, slingin’ this stuff out there and watching the crowd react. Har-de-har, in your face, “Hey, whatta YOU lookin’ at” leadership. I am so fucking tired of it.
Call it a bash, or just call it what it is: The musings of a citizen watching the Potatohead Government bumble its way along and playing us for fools all the time. I must call a spade, a spade.
If I stood here and said, “Bring it on!” I’d expect a truckload of tomatoes, fizzing with putrefecation, thrown at my head. But if I am president, I can say that, and be hailed for “resolve”.
Go figure. These are troubling times.
Floyd McWilliams
This liberal wanted to finish the job in Afghanistan and form a united front with our traditional allies to cut the legs out from under Al Queda.
One will get you ten that “this liberal” spent the fall of 2001 pissing and moaning about how the attack on Afghanistan was sure to fail, and that the Bush Administration had given the Taliban tens of millions of dollars.
This liberal wanted to use 9/11 as an opportunity to prove to the vast majority of Middle Easterners that we really are committed to increasing liberalism
I can’t imagine anything more pathetic than a “liberal” who cries and snivels because a dictator was deposed.
Jimmy Jazz
Yeah that would just be irresponsible.
Tim F
Tell you what Floyd. When those imaginary evil liberals excape your head I’ll do my patriotic duty and beat them up. Deal?
Mike S
I can’t imagine anything more pathetic than a “liberal” who cries and snivels because a dictator was deposed.
I can. A jackass who creates strawmen so he can defend the endless changing reasons for the war in Iraq.
Jimmy Jazz
The safer money is betting that you’ll make me into a strawman so that you can continue to support a failing strategy and instantly dismiss reasonable alternatives.
I can: a conservative who is out of valid justifications for a miserable mistake of a war.
Jimmy Jazz
Mike S: LOL, are you my alias? Heh.
mac Buckets
Several big problems with that straining analogy (I’m assuming it was supposed to ba an analogy to the US split presense in Afghanistan and Iraq?).
First, are you under the impression that the terrorist attacks today occurred in Afghanistan? And that if we had more soldiers in Afghanistan, we could’ve stopped the attacks? I assure you, no London police were sent to Iraq, if that’s where you were trying to go with that. In fact, there are more police and investigators trained in counterterrorism in London now than there were in 2002, when our attentions weren’t “split.”
Second, there’s no evidence of anything being coordinated by Osama’s boys in Afghanistan/Pakistan. There are plenty of wacko Muslims willing to die and kill in the name of their mullah and al-Qaida who aren’t affiliated with Osama. These attacks seem so rudimentary that your high school science club could’ve done them, but so concealable that it would’ve been very lucky to catch even some of the perps. It was just people carrying bag-bombs onto a train or bus. Not exactly hijacking four planes at once.
So can you blame law enforcement and politicians for not keeping you safe? Sure, it’s a free country, whine about whoever you want to whine about, but I’ll bet that some of the same people whining about the government not keeping us safe are the same people whining that the Patriot Act goes too far. You’ll never be a perfectly-policed state until you become a police state. Pick your poison.
Tim F
I’ll bet that some of the same people whining about the government not keeping us safe are the same people whining that the Patriot Act goes too far.
You assume that ordinary police work would not have prevented our own terrorist attacks. Your assumption is wrong, the serial failures of the FBI in early 2001 are well-documented. If you think that a police state is the only thing that will protect us from danger then you are not only wrong but dangerously, self-destructively wrong.
ARROW
“Go figure. These are troubling times.”
Everytime I read ad hominem trash that gets presented as some sort of enlightened view, I say the same thing.
Tim F
Would ordinary police work have prevented these attacks as well? That’s an interesting question. It seemed to be going well enough until the Bush administration blew a double agent and wrecked British surveillance of domestic al Qaeda cells.
Pan is a non stick goatman
No mac, the theoretical case had nothing to do with Afghanistan vs. Iraq specifically. I suggested a dichotomy between military and police actions which protect the public and those which detract from protecting because they are based on completely unreasonable assumptions, ala. the War in Iraq -> democracy promotion -> freedom -> security.
mac Buckets
They want to outlaw ISLAM? Hmmm, seems a bit extreme, but whatever works.
I find no evidence to support that Galloway doesn’t want the US to lose the war on terror to Muslim extremists. From what I’ve read, anything that brings the evil capitalist to its knees is well and good by Commie George!
Spectator Consumer
What has to infuriate the pro-war folk is Galloway’s middle paragraph.
Rather a polite way of pointing out the obvious: illegal war and occupation of Iraq has some rather nasty consequences. You foolish people who support this war are partly to blame. Of course, 45 dead is nothing compared to the tens of thousands Iraqis dead, and you have their blood on your hands as well.
If one thought humans acted rationally, you’d suspect the pro-war crowd would, by now, see the error in judgment made. But people aren’t rational. Most of you that support the war will not, maybe cannot, allow yourself to change your mind and admit your error. Pride, hubris, embarrassment, ignorance, whatever it is, I do not have the answer. I do suspect that you won’t change your opinion easily and many additional unnecessary deaths will be the price for your folly.
ARROW
“Your assumption is wrong, the serial failures of the FBI in early 2001 are well-documented.”
Yes, and we can thank Jamie Gorelick (Janet Reno’s number 2) for creating the environment that made the serial failures possible.
Tim F
Another teflon conservative. Everything is always somebody else’s fault.
KC
Spectator Consumer, it may be a waste of time to reply, but a lot of people supported the war in Iraq for various reasons, many people I know, and the end consequence of it, whether our reasons for going in or not were right, could be a positive one. The fact of the matter is if Iraq is a success, it’s something we can all be proud of as Americans. A democratic Iraq is a good thing. That doesn’t mean terrorism will end, it doesn’t mean everything that Iraq does is something we Americans will agree with, but it does mean that we helped the people of Iraq do something great–determine their destiny for themselves.
Now, there are a lot of things I don’t like about this administration. I think they’ve been deceptive on a number of crucial matters with the American public. I also wish they did a little better job of working with our European allies on various issues. It would be much more conducive to garnering international support on security matters. That said, we really have no choice now but to make sure our ventures in Afghanistan and Iraq work. If we don’t, we’ll probably be sorry in the end.
Tim F
Now let’s see, when did this famous ‘Gorelick Wall’ come into common practice in the government? Oh yeah, under Reagan and HW Bush in response to the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. So Reagan caused 9/11! No wait, that sounds simpleminded. Like something NewsMax might print.
Gosh, reality might not fit into a little ARROW-sized box. Who’d have guessed.
ppgaz
Yes, important for ARROW to stay on message with the demonization themes. Otherwise, people might figure out that there are real issues at stake. If they figure that out, well, the Potatohead Government would have to take responsbility for something, and we can’t have that.
Earth to ARROW: The present government has been in place for four and a half years. What is the cutoff date, after which they actually start being held accountable for anything? Anything at all.
mac Buckets
Waitaminute, waitaminute, waitaminute! Spectator….baby…read again.
“that the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq would increase the threat of terrorist attack in Britain.”
What’s that long word there that begins with A? Is it “Iraq?” Nooooooooooo. Oh, so we shouldn’t have “attacked” the Taliban after 9/11, Mr. Galloway’s minions? We should’ve allowed them to state-sponsor Al Qaeda forever? I’d love to hear the rationale for how THAT would’ve made the world safer!
So before the loonies start to pretend (and it is pretending, make no mistake) to believe that “illegal war” — which we have no reason to believe Iraq was — and “occupation of Iraq” were the pretend-causes of this murderous attack on innocent civilians, I guess they’ll have to disavow the war against the Taliban, which the vast majority of them tell us they supported!
So spare me the silly rhetoric for JUST ONE DAY, and maybe put the blame on the murderous terrorists, and not your partisan political enemies, children.
ARROW
“Another teflon conservative. Everything is always somebody else’s fault.”
Cute, but what does it mean? Are you saying Jamie Gorelick shouldn’t receive the greater part of the blame for the serial failures?
ARROW
“Yes, important for ARROW to stay on message with the demonization themes.”
You have no shame, do you?
The Bush Administration is responsible for every initiative/program it undertakes. Did you have something specific in mind?
mac Buckets
And if you think that ANYONE or ANYTHING can always protect you from anyone who wishes you dead, you are naive.
mac Buckets
Really. Hmmmm. Then how is that germane at all to blaming politicians for terrorist attack in Britain?
mac Buckets
I hate to harp on this, but I never got an answer from before.
Which of our European allies do you “US is alone because we pissed off all our allies” folks think isn’t pulling their weight in the War on Terror?
Tim F
If that is part of your argument for a police state then it’s not much of an argument.
ppgaz
Uh, yeah. You might want to write them and tell them that.
ARROW
Nice try. FISA came in under President Carter. Prior to Gorelick
Tim F
The WSJ opinion page…reliably wrong since…forever.
For all their huffing and puffing they can’t deny that Gorelick invented precisely nothing. This ‘wall’ became common practice under Reagan and HW Bush and kept going until after 9/11.
Like I said, teflon conservatives. No personal responsibility for anything.
ARROW
Can you read Tim?
Sojourner
Well, we can see how well the Bush strategy is working, can’t we?
Al Qaeda attacks us. We attack Iraq. Al Qaeda attacks Spain and England. We’re bogged down in Iraq. And our military falls apart as the American public realizes they’ve been lied to.
We give tax cuts to the wealthy. There’s not enough money to protect our ports and our nuclear power plants.
Wonderful.
And all you guys can do is blame Clinton, Gorelick and the liberals. Now I get it. Bush couldn’t figure out who to attack and neither can you.
Tim F
joint House and Senate Intelligence Committees’ report of pre-September 11 intelligence failures:
“The ‘wall’ is not a single barrier, but a series of restrictions between and within agencies constructed over 60 years as a result of legal, policy, institutional and personal factors.”
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review
The origin of the wall lies at “some point during the 1980s”
Yeah, can read. The WSJ opinion page, as opposed to their news division, is one of the best places to find nonsense in the entire MSM.
Tim F
joint House and Senate Intelligence Committees’ report of pre-September 11 intelligence failures:
“The ‘wall’ is not a single barrier, but a series of restrictions between and within agencies constructed over 60 years as a result of legal, policy, institutional and personal factors.”
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review
The origin of the wall lies at “some point during the 1980s”
Yeah, can read. The WSJ opinion page, as opposed to their news division, is one of the best places to find nonsense in the entire MSM.
Tim F
404 errors can please bite my ass. That is all.
Tim F
I should add, those links are big PDFs. Don’t click if you don’t have a really fast connection.
ARROW
Tim F:
Nothing you have posted changes the fact that Gorelick wrote a memo, the effects of which were felt in the serial failures you mentioned. The FISA Appeals Court has ruled that FISA really doesn’t impose much of a “wall,” and that the Patriot Act was not needed to get greater intelligence sharing of the kind needed to eliminate the serial failures we’re talking about.
What’s with the teflon meme. I have no vested interest in the mistakes of ANY politician. Just because you’re a blind partisan, doesn’t mean everyone else is as well.
Spectator Consumer
For all of you that feel Iraq is a success, legal, or something to be proud of, I suggest your opinions only prove there is no objective reality. You could be right. We all know people that believe in bigfoot, ghosts, angels, magic, deny the holocaust and hold other absurd positions. I qualify your opinion in the same category; perhaps a subcategory of ridiculous views in times of war. Every nation in every war has supporters, some turn supporters turn out to be fools the others sage. For your sake, for all of our sakes, I hope I am the fool.
Legality of this war? How can it be legal? If you argue UN resolutions, I’ll remind you.
1.The UN Charter is a treaty which the US is signatory to, which took effect October 24, 1945.
2. Article VI of the US Constitution declares all Treaties “the supreme law of the land.”
3. UN Security Council is established under Article 23 of the Charter.
4. UN Charter Article 42, limited by Article 51’s exemption for national self-defense, controls use of force by the UN Security Council.
5. Article 27 subsection 3 requires “the affimative vote nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members” for a use of force resolution to pass.
6. Bush sought to obtain a use of force resolution, as set forth by UN Charter in March of 2003. CNN: Bush Seeks UN Resolution: March 8, 2003
7. Bush failed to obtain a use of force resolution.
For exactly what Bush DID claim he based the invasion on, see his March 17, 2003 address to the nationAn Annotated Critique of President George W. Bush’s March 17 Address Preparing the Nation for War
Even Richard Perle in November 2003, expressed his opinion the war illegal. For that and lots more coverage check out Iraq War wiki
mac Buckets
I can think of one big reason that Bush would reasonably think there is nothing illegal about the US attacking Iraq because of assumed presense of WMD…
Where is Bill Clinton today? Jail?
ppgaz
I have a crisp five dollar bill right here that says that in January, 2009, as George Bush and his potatoheads are packing up to move out of the White House, ARROW will still be here ranting about things that happened during the Clinton administration.
Right here. Crisp, new. Takers?
Sojourner
ppgaz:
That’s a sucker’s bet. ARROW wouldn’t have anything to say if he couldn’t bash Clinton.
ppgaz
Yes, but I am not too proud to take five bucks from a sucker!
It all goes into my retirement fund.
ARROW
ppgaz:
The Clinton Administration was a nearly complete failure in its foreign policy. The fact that I didn’t vote for him, and you did, does not change the obvious weakness of his Administration in dealing with the terrorism threat that built-up during his two terms. For me, Mogadishu was the straw. (I was just as clueless as the rest of America about the seriousness of threat that manifested itself on 9/11.)
Tim F. brought up the serial failures of the FBI in 2001, I just added information I was aware of. At least I try to weigh in on issues and provide information, rather than undertaking to produce unprovoked ad hominem attacks that are clearly based on OPINION.
ARROW
“That’s a sucker’s bet. ARROW wouldn’t have anything to say if he couldn’t bash Clinton.”
I don’t recall bashing President Clinton when we were commenting on Kerry and the Swift Boat Vets. Although I have to admit, President Clinton is an easy mark for criticism.
The question is, why do you defend his behavior and really poor legacy??? Is it because he’s so brilliant? What was it that Forrest Gump’s mama used to say about “stupid?” Stupid is, as stupid does… or something like that.
ppgaz
Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahaha! Two MORE posts about Clinton?
You are caught in a time warp, compadre. Jesus, just too funny.
BTW, you have no idea who or what I have or have not voted for, nor will you ever. So shoot your mouth off about it at your peril, because I will be right here to say this, every time.
Nobody could invent you, if you didn’t exist. I swear to Dog.
Mike S
The fact that I didn’t vote for him, and you did, does not change the obvious weakness of his Administration in dealing with the terrorism threat that built-up during his two terms.
Every year of Clinton’s second term saw a decline in terrorism.
ARROW
“Nobody could invent you, if you didn’t exist. I swear to Dog.”
I don’t care who you voted for. Just remember who brought the subject up with his cute little bet meme. You got nothing man.
ppgaz
Correct, Mike. Just take a look at the bar graph on this blogpost. You can rather easily spot where Bush’s term begins …. it’s where the bars stop going down, and start going up.
Terror on the Increase — KOS
Jesus, these potatoheads are funny. I mean, really, who needs the Comedy Channel when you have these guys around?
Funny, that is, until you realize that their hyperspin and their deflections and their goofy malapropisms are costing billions of dollars and thousands of lives…to say nothing of the confidence of the American people. Somehow, not so funny then.
ppgaz
Uh, you did, ARROW, until I pointed out that you don’t know anything about it.
As for “bringing up” the subject? You aren’t even a good liar. The subjects are all yours. You couldn’t stop talking about Clinton years if your life depended on it.
Go ahead, prove me wrong.
ARROW
What do you conclude from this? Appeasement is the way to go? We should have listened to MoveOn.org, Rev. Sharpton, and others, and just made excuses for the people that attacked us on 9/11? Try to understand what motivated them and turned the other check? Abandon our support for the Israelis or perhaps send the bin Laden some cash?
As I understand it, the parts of our culture he hated most was women rights, homosexuals rights, prostitution, pornography, and the like. Maybe a ritual sacrifice of our homosexual Americans. Or removing women’s rights and requiring them all to wear burkas. What do you think?
ARROW
Mike S:
My last comment was aimed at you.
ARROW
“As for “bringing up” the subject? You aren’t even a good liar. The subjects are all yours. You couldn’t stop talking about Clinton years if your life depended on it.”
You are like a child with these stupid retorts.
You can read, I know you can. Pretty clearly I referenced your bringing up Clinton with the bet meme. But you are right, I won’t stop talking about President Clinton. Happy??
Darrell
Spectator Consumer wrote:
In 1991, Saddam signed terms of surrender agreeing to abide by very specific set of conditions.. He signed that document in exchange for us stopping the destruction of his armed forces and other assets.
Any violation of his ’91 terms of surrender such as ejecting weapons inspectors out of the country, shooting at our planes = Full legal justification to resume hostilities
Any other questions SC?
Mike S
What do you conclude from this?
The first conclusion I come to is that you are an idiot who is incapable of making any statement that does not include the most asinine talking points available.
Darrell
Whoa there. You cited data that showed how every year of the Clinton administration had a decline in terrorism. Yet Clinton never aggressively retaliated after terrorist attacks. At most, shooting a couple of tomahawk missiles.
So given the data you cited, and Clinton’s weak response to terrorist attacks, it was entirely reasonable to ask you where the hell you’re going with this..
ppgaz
Honestly, I tell you this in the most caring and nurturing way possible, you are terrible at this. Really. You dig a hole, somebody says “hole”, and you are off to rant about how somebody else said “hole.” Ad nauseam. But you see, you dug the frigging hole yourself.
Put down your shovel. Stop making an ass of yourself. You are embarassing your family now.
Oh, I forgot: CLINTON! Boo!
ARROW
ppgaz:
If I wrote, what you wrote, what would you think of my comment? You are sooo childish. And if what you’re doing at “this” is good, I’m glad to be terrible.
ARROW
“The first conclusion I come to is that you are an idiot who is incapable of making any statement that does not include the most asinine talking points available.”
Enlighten me man, show me the light. Just because you can’t think for yourself, doesn’t mean I need someone to tell me what to think. The “talking points” are mine. Care to respond with something a little more intelligent that the ole “talking point” meme?
ppgaz
If you’re happy, I’m happy.
WJ Phillips
Speaking as a lifelong Londoner, I can tell you that most of us are embarrassed by effusive Yanks telling us “we’re praying for you” and quoting Churchill at us. We sacked Winston in 1945 for being too much of a warmonger; and we have an established Church, so we don’t talk about religion.
Most Brits, and Londoners more than most, are not with America. We think the Iraq War is a total crock of crap and want our boys out asap. We certainly won’t be dragged into any more ME crusades. Blair only got re-elected because he dropped hints he will retire soon and be replaced by his more socialistic heir apparent, who thinks as little of Emperor George and his Neocon Minstrel Troupe as the majority of voters do.
As for today’s bombings– having lived through the IRA campaign, and with parents who experienced the Blitz and the V-weapons campaign, today’s action was no big deal. London will be virtually back to normal tomorrow.
Terrorist attacks just don’t have the same impact here as in NYC, where they were a total novelty. London has been periodically assaulted this way since the Fenian dynamitards started letting off infernal devices in the mid-19th century. We look upon bombs more like natural disasters. Grin and get over it. Very few of us care who is “behind” them (or why).
All this historically ignorant, scaremongering conspiracist guff about Islamo-fascism and whatnot is besides the point, which is to stop explosions. That means better intelligence, tougher immigration laws (you know, the kind George won’t enforce) and disentangling ourselves from foreign alliances and obligations. Blathering about the threat to our way of life (whatever that is) cuts little ice with the pragmatic British.
Britain is getting sick of the European Union and NATO. There is little love left for America. We don’t see it as an Anglo nation any more, it’s getting too mongrel these days. We’re still 90% white, thank the Lord, and working on persuading the other 10% to go home. Some of us hope for a future of splendid Scandinavian-style isolation. If America wants to fight eternal wars for oil and Israel, feel free. Just stop expecting us to join in. WW2 is soooo over.
PS: All these efforts to shoehorn everyone into ‘left’ and ‘right’, ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ are futile too. It was a bad day when Americans discovered European ideology and got drunk on it.
PPS: Anyone who thinks Neville (sic) Chamberlain was a liberal badly needs re-educating.
AlanDownunder
Those nancy-boy liberals haven’t got a clue. For NYC 9/11 the US invaded Iraq. For London 7/7 the US should invade Iran. For the next one the US should invade Venezuela or North Korea or somewhere else on the axes of evil. And so on. For every nest of terrorists in a western capital there should be a new war where the terrorists aren’t. That’ll show ’em.
ARROW
“Legality of this war? How can it be legal?”
Darrell, I agree with your comments. But would say that the President does not need anybody’s approval to defend this nation. Bush made a good faith effort to get the U.N. to do the right thing. Unfortunately, France and Russia, and maybe others that voted no as well, were too busy collecting oil for food bribes.
And, oh yeah, the “no” votes weren’t saying that they didn’t want to enforce UN Resolutions because there was no WMD. How could they have been so wrong?
ppgaz
Thanks, Alan. Good advice. But before we can implement the Axis of Evil Wanted Dead or Alive Mission Accomplished Bring It On Doctrine, we’ll need to get a draft going. Not enough troops, you see, to declare war on the whole world.
Since the criminal justice system has taken the lead on this, I propose that we start drafting at age 12.
No whining, please.
Compuglobalhypermeganet
Very cute, and very wrong. In a month after 9/11, the US troops were in Afghanistan, ousting the Taliban. Sorry if reality messes up your little comedy routine. Work it out on the road before you bring it to the city.
ARROW
WJ Phillips:
“Blair only got re-elected because he dropped hints he will retire soon and be replaced by his more socialistic heir apparent”
Good luck with your socialist heir apparent. Rumors are we might get ours, Hillary Clinton, in 2009.
I like Prime Minister Tony Blair, not that it matters to you. I also like President George Bush, and really don’t care if everyone in Europe, including you, hates him. I think he’s doing what he thinks is best for our country and I trust him.
“It was a bad day when Americans discovered European ideology and got drunk on it.”
In case it’s not covered in your history books, our republican form of government is unlike anything in Europe. You guys started off with monarchies and aristocracies and have been dealing with versions of totalitarianism ever since. Of course we are the new kid on the western civilization block and are not as decadent as you folks, yet.
We started off with a version of a limited central government, with a healthy fear of a strong government that could talk away man’s “natural rights.” We have been heading for socialism, fascism, or whatever variant of totalitarianism you want to apply, ever since. The biggest blow to our freedoms came when the income tax was passed in 1913, and was further significant damaged when FDR passed all his government programs in the 1930’s. It is not been a pretty picture since.
As for controlling borders, I think the U.S. should do a much better job. While I think this country is MUCH BETTER because of our diversity, I believe we should round up every illegal, of whatever race, creed, or color, and give them the boot. It’s a question of security at this point (not that citizens can’t do a hell of a lot of damage on their own).
Sojourner
I conclude that we were a whole lot safer when Clinton was in charge.
ppgaz
Welcome back, Doctor Pangloss! If it weren’t for the sheer impracticality and uselessness of your proposal, it would be, in the best of all possible worlds, a really great idea.
Good lord.
I know! How about putting up signs, every 30 feet along both borders: Terrorists Keep Out.
In English, French, Spanish and Arabic, of course.
mac Buckets
ARROW
ppgaz:
I should have also said they I would be in favor of protecting our borders with Mexico and Canada, as well. For somebody in Arizona, I would of thought you would be a little more practical about the problem. You have heard of the gangs in the U.S. with ties to drugs, illegal immigration, etc., that are becoming an ever-increasing crime problem for this country. Not to mention the terrorist implications. Canada full of terrorists.
As far as the Mexican that come for work, I respect a lot of them. Much more than I have for a lot of Americans, such as yourself. Unlike Americans that have no idea of what they have, these people put their lives on the line for a better life. The problem is, many no longer want to become Americans. They just want the jobs. Which of course is why Mexico doesn’t do anything to stop them (They sent billions of dollars back across the borders to their families in Mexico to help the Mexican economy). California has a huge problem in this regard. Have you read Mexifornia, by Victor Davis Hanson?
ppgaz
I posted the link to the graph, and made no assertion of “proof” of anything. Feel free to interpret it as you see fit.
In our next episode, we’ll examine the topic: Insurgency. In its last throes?
After that, the ever popular: Terror Alert Color Codes: Pretty, or insulting? The Debate Rages.
Our last session will examine the all-important question: Tastes Great, or Less Filling? The Argument That Pits Brother Against Brother.
ppgaz
Uh, Arrow? You are in meltdown now. Random babbling. Completely incoherent.
I’m your pal, trust me on this: Take a few days off. Rest, take a bubble bath, drink some tequila. Get a pedicure.
Then, come back, refreshed and rejuvenated. New material. You’ll thank me for it, I kid you not.
mac Buckets
I was referring to the blogger in the blockquote (not the Kos
statisticspin that you linked to). I trust that you are smarter than that guy. You’d never imply that the meaningless graph had anything to do with Bush’s policy vs. that of Clinton (except that you kinda did…and, “potatoheads?”). LOL.ARROW
ppgaz:
You appear to be the one in meltdown. You only reply is a childish little retort and false advice. But then again, I’m thinking that false advice is what you give on a regular basis. Why I should I get special consideration.
Pretty soon you’ll play the Limbaugh card. You really don’t have nmuch else to offer. Do you?
Darrell
War for oil? You buck-toothed idiots in England still swallowing that load of crap? Figures. WJ, keep hoping that your inbred whiteness will enable you guys to put your head in the sand.. I hope it works out for you, I really do. But what happens when some festering boil of a region in the world ends up sending their guys to carry out more deadly bioweapon or nuclear attacks on London? Think it’ll be “back to normal the next day” after they take out 300,000 of your neighbors? yeah, that isolation thing you have planned has a great historical track record, doesn’t it?.. it was working pretty well for the Tibetans for quite a while.. how’d that turn out?
HH
The Kossacks (you know, best friends with Barbara Boxer, et al.) praise Galloway and dissent from this party line is not tolerated…
Kimmitt
Take up the white man’s burden!
Spectator Consumer
Legality of Iraq war.
I’m sorry for the previous double post…404 error.
Additionally, it would have helped had my link to the Annotated Critique of Bush’s March 17th Speech would have been working. It wasn’t, but it handles the 687 cease fire nonsense that Bush used as last second justification. But for fun, let’s examine for ourselves.
1. Resolution 678 authorized use of force to remove Iraq from Kuwait.
2. UNSC 687 is the “cease-fire” resolution, not signed by Saddam, but unilaterally imposed by the UNSC(legally btw, Saddam need not sign it since he was in violation of numerous resolutions to begin with,) which is only to correct the common misconception that Saddam signed the cease-fire. But, importantly, paragraph 6 of 687 is where the only condition is laid out for 687 to execute:
Note the requisites 1. is that the Secretary General report back to the UNSC, about 2. Iraqi compliance with Resolution 686. This in accordance with paragraph 5:
3. Resolution 686 made two sets of demands for Iraqi compliance:
4. The Secretary General did report back under 687 that Iraq was in compliance with 686, which executed the cease-fire of 687, ending the “Gulf War.”
5. 687 did demand Saddam halt certain weapons programs, but what is important is that the execution of the cease-fire itself was only conditional on compliance with the Sectrary General reporting back that Iraq was in compliance with 686, as set forth in paragraph 5 of 687. 687’s other demands never provided a mechanism for enforcement and were not conditions that effected the cease-fire’s taking effect. It is critical that you read 687 in its entirety to understand why Bush didn’t originally justify this war on 687. 687 came in force the second the Secretary General reported back. Bush made it sound as if the cease-fire required complete compliance with every demand and condition or the cease-fire was void, ignoring operative paragraph 6. This was Bush’s “last resort” for a reason.
6. Iraq’s non-compliance with 687 could have been the basis for a NEW use of force resolution, but Bush attempts to get a use of force resolution in March ’03 did not use this flawed reasoning (they were relying on 1441 not 687).
7. Even if you accept Bush’s argument, it wouldn’t mean the US would be at war with Iraq, only that UNSC 678 was still in force. 678 was a UN operation, under UN auspices, not the US’. Alone, the US would have had to rely upon, defense of another nation requesting US aid (this was the US’ reasoning for its actions in Nicuragua, supposed requests made by Honduras for its self defense- exception to UN Charter Article 42). Last I checked, Kuwait wasn’t under attack in 03 and didn’t make any such request.
The next ridiculous justification is 1441’s “serious consequences” language. Ask yourself why Bush went back to the Security Council at all in March of ’03 if this was a “use of force” resolution. You might also check out Russia, France and China’s statements the day they passed 1441 regarding what “serious consequences” meant, as they all agreed it didn’t mean use of force and that another resolution was needed.
The next argument is that a US President isn’t legally bound to follow any UN resolution. Well then, I ask, what is the purpose of Article VI of the US Constitution regarding treaties as the “supreme law of the land.” Furthermore, Bush lied to Congress at least in regard to the infamous “yellow cake” claim, not to mention all the mounting evidence of additional mendacity: Downing Street Memos, Paul O’Neil’s claims, or Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski’s, Condi’s Iraq can strike in 45 minutes claim…etc.
This war is a lot of things, but one of them it’s not is legal. And remember, I have uber-hawk, Richard Perle, backing me up on this one.
Please see Robin Miller’s complete analysis if you’re interested in a more thorough examination of 687, 1441 and legality of the the war.
Pan is a non stick jay
Very, very well done SC!
AlanDownunder
For NYC 9/11 the US invaded Iraq.
Very cute, and very wrong. In a month after 9/11, the US troops were in Afghanistan, ousting the Taliban. Sorry if reality messes up your little comedy routine. Work it out on the road before you bring it to the city.
I did. Remember Richard Clarke?
ARROW
“The next argument is that a US President isn’t legally bound to follow any UN resolution. Well then, I ask, what is the purpose of Article VI of the US Constitution regarding treaties as the “supreme law of the land.” ”
The U.N. did not exist when the U.S. Constitution was ratified, so it can hardly be said that the Constitution had these kinds of membership organizations in mind when they provided the Article VI language regarding “treaties.” In the context of the Constitution, “treaties” were between two or more independent nations or sovereigns (like Great Britain or the State of New York).
But regardless of the nature of the U.S.’s membership in the U.N., the U.S. Supreme Court, in Reid v. Covert, has found that “no agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution.” Much of what the U.N. supports is unconstitutional, which calls into question the validity of our entire membership; and nothing they resolve, or fail to resolve, with or without the approval of our
ARROW
Richard Clarke is your source?
mac Buckets
Again, Spectator:
I can think of one big reason that Bush would reasonably think there is nothing illegal about the US attacking Iraq because of assumed presense of WMD…
Where is Bill Clinton today? Jail?
Spectator_Consumer
Arrow- actually the US Constitution is like the UN itself. It is a league of states, not nation states, but states coming together to form a larger organization. The strange “supreme law of the land” language is because of this. It is unusual to think of the US as independent states these days, but it is, essentially, itself a treaty.
Now, your point about no other treaty coming before the US Consitution is correct. In fact, it is somewhat damaging to my argument, but the President need not follow any treaty and can break them at will(for the country). Bush has left the ABM and Nuclear Test Ban Treaty already, if memory serves. So, really, if Bush wants to leave the UN, he can, he has the power. The problem with this is that he probably can’t simply disregard parts of it and leave the Treaty in place, although in practice this happens all the time.
But then there is another unusual aspect to consider, that is what the federal courts have adopted through common law, namely the basic tenets of International Law. What they’ve allowed in isn’t all of the World Court stuff, but the fundamentals of international law, such as it being it illegal for one nation to attack another without cause…sort of common sense. So, theoretically, he might be sued under Federal Common law, but one wonders who has standing…maybe an Iraqi? hard to say really, and it isn’t likely the Sup. Crt would rule in their favor leaving the war making powers to Congress, and thanks to the War Powers Act to el Presidente(which I happen to think is unconstitutional but we’ll leave that for another day.)
But, it is pretty difficult to argue this was legal under any form of international or treaty law, and that is exactly what Richard Perle says. That said, Bush might be breaking US common-law, but that’s purely subjective.
Finally, mac Buckets, no having WMD does not justify war legally speaking unless the UNSC authorizes use of force. The US currently has the largest stockpiles of illegal chemical and biological weapons, and I don’t think you would agree that any nation-state is within their legal rights to attack us for it. Anyway, please see my two or three previous posts for why I don’t believe this has any legal basis under our current law (if we are to accept it as we did back in 1945 when we joined).
ARROW
Spectator_Consumer:
A reasoned response? I agreed with most of what you said in the comment that prompted my response. It is obviously in the U.S.