By now most have heard about Donald Rumsfeld’s latest Nazification of the war on terror, and the appropriate response from Keith Olbermann. Of course there is the unhealthy attachment that this administration and friends have for their Nazi analogies, but one thing struck me in particular about this new-old line of political damage control. The war against fascism ended over sixty years ago. If we want to bemoan pre-9/11 thinking then it seems appropriate to point out that we have leaders who can’t get themselves past the Eisenhower era.
Lest anybody think that I am joking, I mean that literally. Since the end of WWII America has experienced a series of wars that have not infrequently demonstrated the undesirability of war as an instrument of foreign policy. These people genuinely don’t get that. Our current leaders, from Cheney and Rumsfeld down through the neoconservatives come from that small band who still think we could have won Vietnam. To illustrate what I mean, recall that back in early 2001 the new administration thoroughly neglected non-state threats in order to focus on armed states like Iraq. That made no sense when al Qaeda had repeatedly attacked us and Iraq had not. At least it made no sense to people like Richard Clarke with contemporary experience in national security.
Where was the current Bush administration during the rise of international terror? In government exile and obsessing about the past, Vietnam and Iraq. In the 2000 election only one party’s platform mentioned al Qaeda at all. The other, unsurprisingly, mentioned Iraq (guess which). It takes a pre-1946 mindset to think that America’s enemies can be wrapped into a discernible border and bombed into submission, yet that exact theory has driven administration policy both before 9/11 and afterwards.
Rumsfeld’s inflammatory comments and doubtless those to come from Cheney and other administration attack dogs show a dangerous lack of appreciation for the distinct problems of security in the twenty-first century. We should expect better leadership than a band of retro thinkers who look at every threat and see Hitler.
***Update***
For example, Matt Yglesias makes a brief but significant point.
***Update***
It is worth pointing out that the same criticism applies to the administration’s space policy. Why has nobody gotten fired up about a Kennedy-era race to Mars? Maybe because the only contestant is us. If we want to demonstrate America’s unstoppable betterness in industry and engineering, maybe we should shoot for energy independence.
Mr Furious
Is there an Emmy category for “Fucking Badass”?
Keith Olbermann deserves to be doing the news in an era where he would be one of three guys on television, not marooned on a second-rate cable network.
Olbermann humbly quotes Edward R. Murrow at the end of that piece, and claims not to be worthy of the words. He’s wrong. He is worthy. And he’s the closest thing to a modern-day Murrow we’ve got.
– – –
His blog, Bloggerman has the transcript.
Bombadil
Niggly point — your link goes to Josh Marshall, not Yglesias.
The Olbermann video is required viewing.
slickdpdx
Tim’s point about the dangers of analyzing everything today through the prism of WWII era challenges is valid – although it doesn’t mean we can’t draw valuable lessons from the period. And “that was then this is now” is not a persuasive counterargument.
I hope people DO read Olberman’s comments – they are worse than Rumsfeld’s! Talk about having the battery in backwards. Strained and facile. (We “barely” live in a democracy?)
Matt Y’s point about “actual sunni etc. thought” is billed as possibly apocryphal and quite possibly not actual at the link he provides. Matt Y’s point about the alliance with the Soviets is just stupid. What does it suggest? The Soviets were happy to scratch Hitler’s back until Hitler broke the pact. Thereafter, the Soviets were more than eager to snatch up the territory Hitler lost after overextending himself. There are lessons to be learned there, I am not sure they are the ones that Yglesias implies.
Moreover, it seems like the natural conclusion from MattY’s “brief but significant point” is that we should align with oppresive Sunnis to fight Shias or visa versa or both. Is the ‘Bush doctrine’ any worse? The only difference I can perceive is that it also involves toppling a dictator and attempting to generate a sea change in middle eastern society. May not work, but its a little more palatable, I would think.
Bombadil
Ooops. I read the banner, not the byline. Sorry, Tim.
matt
Keith Olbermann is becoming one of those people we’ve been waiting for.
btw, make sure you let all your firends know about his show. He’s great, but if no one watches, it won’t matter much.
How about for starters, everyone reading this comment thread sends this video out to their email list?
Sound good?
Paul L.
(UPDATED) AP takes the hatchet to Rumsfeld speech
RSA
Just to expand on this small point: I wonder how many people born after, say, 1960 (the decade I was born in), even know what fascism is, except that it’s some generic bad thing? I didn’t, well into my adulthood. I’m a bit surprised that the Islamofascist language has taken hold, because I’d guess for most people my age or younger, we don’t think WWII was about fighting fascism–it was about fighting Hitler and the Nazis (leaving Japan out), names with faces, or at least with caricatures. Bush and company were able to make very effective analogies in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq because they could say that Saddam was a new Hitler. Now they’re stuck with some vague characterization of bad guys that aren’t personified in a single individual (aside from Osama, but they can’t mention him, his still being free and all). I suspect that the vagueness of the terrorist threat, like the vagueness in their name for it, will be a continuing problem for their rhetoric.
chopper
right on. the morning of 9/11, the people in charge froze solid because they didn’t know what to make of what happened. these guys are cold warriors, they don’t know how to deal with terrorism. they yelled at clinton when he would shoot missiles into afghanistan, going so far as to state that he had an ‘obsession with bin laden’. they didn’t know how to deal with small non-state entities, they didn’t consider them to be any threat at all.
the thing that sucks is, they didn’t change their mindset accordingly. they stayed in this ‘statist’ mindset where the real threat came from nations with WMDs, the same mindset that led us through the cold war. so they got bored after a while in afghanistan fighting a group of terrorists, and decided to go with what they knew; iraq.
unfortunately, all that experience going nose-to-nose with the soviets didn’t give them any relevent knowledge of the byzantine tribal connections and politics of the mid east. and the rest is history.
they honestly thought we’d be out of there in “6 months, tops”.
jg
Its just election year posturing. Hell, by even attempting to refute Rumsfelds thoughts you play into their hands. You’re giving them ammunition they’ll use against you at fundraisers.
ThymeZone
Or a band of incomeptant boobs who look at an August 2001 briefing on Al Qaeda and a major hijacking threat, and say to the briefer, well, you’ve covered your ass now.
And then jump in the pickup and head out for some photo-op brush clearing on the faux “ranch.”
ThymeZone
Yeah, you know, if there is one thing that this nice, reasonable and competant man doesn’t deserve, it’s somebody picking apart his speeches.
I mean, how rude.
/ snark
What I really mean is, fuck him, and you.
demimondian
Not at all. In fact, it’s a useful locution for them, precisely because it is vague. Fight shadows means never losing, and never winning. It means being at war forever, with no measure of success or failure, except the ones you yourself specify.
It’s like the war on drugs or the war on poverty. Since we’ll never win either one, and, arguably, never even make much progress, any progress is a great success, and any failure is a reason to add new powers to the government so that the failure doesn’t happen again.
John S.
Those QandO folk – ever the stalwart watchdog of the media and their accuracy!
I wonder if they were so careful in vetting the voluminous lies and misrepresentations published during the runup to war…
John S.
Haven’t we already been beaten in that race by Brazil?
Ron Beasley
Excellent post and great observation Tim.
ThymeZone
Yes.
Bruce Moomaw
What Rummy was doing, of course, was announcing that anyone who questions this administration’s PARTICULAR harebrained strategy against the Islamic Fascists or whatever the hell you choose to call them (and I still regard that name for them as justifiable) is the equivalent of the Hitler-appeasers. Which is — how can I put this as tactfully as possible? — fucking dishonest of him.
The Other Steve
Yglesias linked to this interesting report.
Does any of this sound remotely familiar?
Otto Man
Well said. That Olbermann clip was so good I watched it twice. And then posted about it. And then sent it out to all my friends.
demimondian
W00t! Paul L. dislikes the interpretation that an intelligent listener puts on Runsfeld’s speech, and the blem lies *on the listener*. You see, it’s not a speaker’s job to be clear, and to avoid loaded words that can easily be interpreted as insults, but rather the listener’s job to give the speaker’s words the most charitable reading possible.
Rumsfeld is a nutcase. If he can’t play in the real world, where people will listen to his words and interpret them in a way that he can’t control, then he should go back to the military profiteer world, where you’re safe from review.
Tom in Texas
It sounds to me suspiciously like some are accusing this administration of having a pre 9/11 mindset.
slickdpdx
Tim: I like your second update a lot. It also seems like an easy sell to industry, politicians and voters. Why do you think a Manhattan project/space race for energy independence and alternatives hasn’t taken place. My sense is that the Manhattan project and space race were really about triumphing over an enemy. Who is the enemy we triumph over in the alternative energy race and how do we make a compelling case. “We are the enemy” is not a good seller.
demimondian
By the way, when the ‘pubs ask for a vision for victory in Iraq, the right answer is “energy independence”. If you want to beat Iran and the terrorists it funds, don’t fight on their chosen ground, where they’re strong. Fight them where they’re weak — they need MONEY to buy people off, so cut off that money supply.
The Other Steve
That article goes on to note that there’s a disconnect between Khamenei and Ahmadinejad, and that Khamenei is now backing some of the older reform elements.
This may explain the bizarre announcement that Khatami, the former president, will be visiting the US to give several speeches.
RSA
Good point on my expectation, demimondian; I may be too optimistic.
On the “hatchet job” post at QandO, this is rich. Rumsfeld says,
and McQ summarizes, “Rumsfeld wasn’t at all accusing anyone of anything.” Rumsfeld was apparently just asking a question, no different in import than idle speculation about whether someone might want to have a ham sandwich or a salad for lunch, I suppose. What bullshit. When Rumsfeld picks a question to pose, that carries along an assumption that the question is relevant. What would QandO say if a Democratic leader said something along these lines? “We cannot afford to have someone in the office of the President who is prepared to launch nuclear weapons without provocation on countries in the Middle East.” That’s not an accusation or anything, it’s just a question we have to face, right?
The Other Steve
The Paul L whining article from QandO is interesting. Apparently what they are complaining about is that some have interpreted Rumsfeld speech as being rather mean spirited. They’re trying to argue that is not at all the case, that Rumsfeld was not being partisan and was being fair minded.
Or something like that.
Jesus, these guys won’t even stand up for or against their own nutcases how do you expect them to stand up against nutcase enemies.
Pb
Yes, Olbermann has truly outdone himself this time–amazing stuff.
In other news, I’ve recently discovered that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is in fact not Hitler–and further, that only one man actually was Hitler, and that man was Adolf Hitler (April 20, 1889 – April 30, 1945). Fortunately, he’s dead now, so you can stop worrying about him.
However, judging by Bolton’s rhetoric today, you might think that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is actually Saddam Hussein, from 2002! That is, however, also false. Any rumors that Saddam Hussein might have had a secret program in place to develop a time machine (or that it might have been secretly moved to Syria before the Iraq war) have no factual basis whatsoever. Besides, Iran actually *has* a nuclear reactor–and we should know, because we’ve still got the receipts!
Now those guys are *really* clever–they’ve obviously been busy planning the rationale for this war for decades, just like they did with Iraq!
slickdpdx
By the way – the sudden and over-the-top Olberman love thing is kind of creepy. What is the source? Is this the same site where Hinderaker was accused of kissing the President’s ass?
John S.
That McQ is a special sort of person. You should see this post of his where he holds up a story of a national guardsman being assaulted as proof that “the meme which says ‘we support the soldiers but not their mission’ is mostly BS”, and then tries to deny he is referring to liberals. Because he didn’t specifically use the term ‘liberal’.
He likes his semantical logic, that one does.
Pb
slickdpdx,
If you don’t understand the threats posed to our Democracy by the recent abrogations of our fundamental Constitutional protections and the rank demonization of hundreds of millions of Americans by their own government, then I don’t expect that you’d understand just why some people are so happy with Olbermann’s comments either. Or, for that matter, why some people were so happy with Edward R. Murrow’s original comments:
Mac Buckets
I know most of you are just reflexive Bush-haters, but at least be consistent. You can’t whine about how the administration plays the fear card at the drop of a hat, and rave about how we must protect our civil liberties from government anti-terrorist intrusion, while at the same time whining that a vague, non-specific, and non-actionable PDB should’ve led us to take drastic measures (what? martial law? racial profiling? banning airline travel? Oh, how the Bush-haters would’ve LOVED those options!) , and that the Gorelick Wall, designed to protect potential terrorists’ civil liberties, was a disaster that impeded law enforcement from stopping the 9/11 plot.
And let’s not get carried away about that PDB and what it said about hijackings:
The last time the British moved in on a gang using the “consistent with preparations” and “recent surveillance” impetus, the Bush-haters immediately went into Full Laughable Outrage Mode: “They didn’t even have their plane tickets yet! Some of them didn’t have passports! It’s all a distraction from the Ned Lamont primary win! Now I can’t take shampoo on board??”
Zifnab
It’s a question more Democrats should be asking. Think Johnson-style Flower Girl ads. The left should be pimping this meme like its the last loose girl in the free world. Republicans will use the bomb. They’ll nuke Iran, they’ll nuke North Korea, and they’ll nuke Mexico if it makes them feel better. After the performance of the last 5 years, you don’t want a Republican standing next to the nuclear trigger. Vote Dems.
ThymeZone
Excuse me? We can’t ask for competance and respect for liberties at the same time?
Fuck that. Of course we can, and will.
Zifnab
Dear Mac Buckets,
How many times can you use the term “Bush-Haters” in a single post?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Love,
Zifnab
XOXOXOXO
ThymeZone
No, that’s a lie. Not Bush haters. Any reasonable person who examines the facts will come to essentially the conclusion that you are scoffing at. The plot was hardly a huge threat, and the liquid-explosives component of that supposed threat was not new, was not heretofore deemed worth of at-the-gate inspection, and wasn’t even a plausible threat scenario according to chemists who understand it quite well.
Give it up, man. Shovel, hole, stop digging, if you get my drift.
Jesus, can’t you guys put up anything worthwhile at all?
Is this the best crap you can do?
Pb
Zifnab,
Yes, that is their easy, all-purpose, one-size-fits-all solution to all of our problems: NUKE EM! And, it’s the ultimate way “to demonstrate America’s unstoppable betterness in industry and engineering”–I mean, really, we *already had* a Manhattan Project! We don’t need another one, because the first one put us way ahead!
Davebo
John S
McQ has become more Malkinesque by the week. And he’s desperate, absolutely desperate, to find some example that supports his view that anyone who opposes the Iraq war would also spit on troops at the airport.
What he doesn’t seem to grasp is that “if” 10% of Americans who opposed the Iraq war spit on troops at the airport we’d have aircraft floating in saliva on the flight line.
What you’re seeing here is desperation. Pure and simple.
Paul L.
And if you have to make stuff up, that is OK too afterall Bush is evil.
i.e.
US troops used Chemical weapons in Iraq.
You will note the AP changed the wording in the article.
Tsulagi
Excellent analysis by Olberman and totally on target. I’m curious, though, how many still continue to buy the Rumsfeld/Cheney bullshit. I suspect the numbers have dwindled down to the core 35% or so who still continue to approve of Bush in the face of all reason. The current marketing strategy is designed just to feed faux testosterone to the base. Get them revved up so they overlook the worst administration ever and their Republican congressional enablers.
I wonder how these Army reservists continually demonstrating for Olmert’s resignation would be described. No doubt in RummyWorld these Jewish soldiers would be classified as Nazi appeasers by the brave five-deferment Dick and Don.
ThymeZone
Apparently, you think the AP exists to act as a conduit for government press releases and transcripts of official speeches?
Good for you, I don’t. I think their job is to hold the feet of these assholes to the fire until they scream. To skewer them with their own words, to question, to criticize and to call them out on every questionable assertion.
All the time. To compare and contrast with settled fact, the twisted utterances of these lying sons of bitches.
That’s their damned JOB.
jaime
When you say “you”, do you mean America?
What’s it like to be so desperate, delusional, and pathetic Mac? What’s it like to be surrounded by enemies. Where the people who disagree with you are as much a threat to you as the people who want to kill you?
Perry Como
slickdpdx Says:
Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and Russia to start. What do all of those nations have in common? Oil. Once we can wean ourselves off of oil, we won’t have nearly as much interest in playing around with internal politics of other nations, or in the case of places like Saudi Arabia, sucking up to terrorist supporters.
ThymeZone
Well, look no further than right here on these pages. Those men are obviously anti-semitic.
Or, in the lexicon of modern punditry, “Self-hating Jews.”
See, you can’t criticize your team. That’s disloyal, no matter which team you are on. Loyalty above all else. Unquestioning, unremitting loyalty. Without that, the terrorists win.
ThymeZone
Not so much fixed, as improved.
demimondian
And you’ll also notice that they didn’t withdraw it.
AP shrugged, and said, “OK, if that’s what you meant, we’ll change the article.” They did not issue a “correction”, but an “update”. That’s an important distinction — they didn’t say “our initial report was incorrect and we should correct it”, but rather “our initial report was correct but can bre improved”.
Sorry, Paul, but you’re full of shit here. Rumsfeld said what he said, and reasonable people can read the speech and conclude that the AP’s original interpretation was entirely sound. The AP’s lawyers seem to have drawn the same conclusion.
John S.
Paul? Mister “Qana is another Jenin” himself?
Nah, he’s never full of shit.
Jon H
Did Q&O do their own “work” or are they just working off the Pentagon’s response to the AP story?
slickdpdx
pb: I understand your point, but it misses the mark. I was just curious about the sudden effusive discussion of Olberman. You like a guy who articulates your position in response to the Rumsfeld speech. I understand that. But the current atmosphere is not really like the McCarthy atmosphere. Rumsfeld isn’t threatening to do anything to his critics, he’s merely disagreeing with them. Olberman’s speech is not courageous. Invoking Murrow is self-absorption/wishful thinking not unlike calling GW Bush a great communicator.
Proud Liberal
MacBuckets:
Drastic measures? I would have settled for them doing ANYTHING. They did NOTHING. Nothing at all. By contrast the Clinton adminstration
I could go on and on but to a guy like MacBuckets it won’t matter much. He is the epitome of a Bush cultist. Like the brainwashed members of a religious sect the Bush cultists have their own unique reality. And of this cult, MacBuckets is kool-aid drinker supreme.
ThymeZone
Wrong, on both counts. The Bush Administration is worse than McCarthy, and Olbermann is every bit as courageous as Murrow. Just for the record, I may be the only person here old enough to clearly remember both McCarthy and Murrow, and I assure you, you are wrong.
Mac Buckets
Don’t flatter yourself, jaime.
…Although, if you don’t, who would?
demimondian
Any of the other sicko’s who actually approve of the New York Yankees.
jaime
Don’t hate the player, hate the game. I can’t help it that I was born and raised a mere stones throw from Yankee Stadium.
ThymeZone
Wow. Well played.
John S.
It is a rather stinky cologne.
Mac Buckets
Sure, you’ll whine out of one side of your word-hole for “competence” and “liberties” and then you’ll whine out of the other side of your word-hole about the Horrors Of The PDB and the Gorelick Wall, despite the fact that the two whines contradict each other. Which, for the hard-of-reading, was my point.
Mac Buckets
By the weight of evidence, I’d say…three. I agree — that was horrible prose, Zif.
Tom in Texas
Eric Shinseki
Colin Powell
Jack Murtha
Richard Clarke
What happened or is happening to these citizens due to their refusal to adopt the Administration’s policy goes far beyond mere disagreement.
jaime
OLE’! Way to shuck and jive and not answer a question. I’ll ask it again: What’s it like to be surrounded by enemies: where the people who disagree with you are as much a threat to you as the people who want to kill you?
ThymeZone
I’m sorry, are you one of those righty spoofs here who “complains” about the rude treatement we lefties give the righties?
See, I don’t think that a citizen speaking up for what he thinks is better government is “whining from a word hole.”
I think it’s what citizens are supposed to do.
You on the other hand just sit around and manufacture false dichotomies and cobble up harangues. Honestly, just go away for crissakes.
Tsulagi
Yeah, that PDB titled “BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO STRIKE WITHIN THE U.S.” Now let’s see, couple that with Tenet’s “hair on fire” obsessing for three months about an imminent AQ attack, what to do? I know! I know!! Go on a month-long vacation!
This one I always love to hear from the looney Bush right. It’s like they’re fiercely arguing for their own impotence.
Jamie Gorelick was a deputy AG during the Clinton admin who at one time wrote procedures for obtaining warrants in terrorism related cases. Including obtaining secret FISA warrants after taking action. The same procedures that were reviewed and reaffirmed by the Ashcroft DoJ one month before 9/11.
Now since Ashcroft’s DoJ repeatedly refused FBI field agents’ requests to examine Moussaoui’s laptop just before 9/11, Bushloons blame “Gorelick’s Wall.” Not our fault. These same Gorelick procedures that could have been instantly suspended, reversed, or simply deleted by a bold Bush admin deputy AG or by Ashcroft himself, or higher when they took office in January. But I guess Gorelick was too imposing a figure to contemplate doing that by the terrorist-fighting Bush men.
slickdpdx
Thyme Zone: In the event you are correct, what I’ve heard about the McCarthy era must be wildly exxagerated.
Mac Buckets
Any of those chemists have internet access to check out the Bojinka plot from 1995?
The Other Steve
Shorter Mac Buckets:
Clinton was responsiuble for 9/11!!!!!!!
WHAAAAA AHAHHHAAAAAAA!
ThymeZone
I wouldn’t know, I have no idea what you’ve heard, nor do I care to know.
The Other Steve
Slightly shorter Mac Buckets:
It’s all Clinton’s fault! WHAAAA!!!!!!!
Pb
slickdpdx,
First, let’s be clear on what he did say. That speech is so chock full of myths, lies, distortions, and outright hypocrisy that although I could debunk it all, it would take some time, and the refutation would probably be quite a bit longer than the actual speech. But, in short, what he’s trying to do is paint all of his critics as Nazi appeasers by comparing them to (without explicitly naming) mainly Republicans of the 1930’s, and frame dissent as yet another attack on America. I’d say that the worst of it is this:
See that? If you don’t agree with Rumsfeld, then you’re part of the problem. This irresponsible rhetoric has not changed. You’re either with him, or you’re with the terrorists.
The threat is implicit, he leaves it open. He’s making the case that opposition or dissent hurts America and helps the terrorists. And what do we do to people who help terrorists?
Maybe you just haven’t noticed it yet. I guess there is one major difference… you have to search and replace ‘Communist’ with ‘Terrorist’ (or, worse, the amazingly inaccurate and unhelpful ‘Islamofascist’). And instead of ‘pinkos’, we now have ‘terrorist appeasers’ or whatever. Same BS, different day, still just as reprehensible.
ThymeZone
Couldn’t say, but the material I cited and quoted here was dispositive AFAIC. Unless you think that a bunch of people could spend several hours painstakingly mixing smelly checmials drop by drop on a plane where the greatest danger would be that they blow themselves up, and not much else, while doing it represents a big threat to airline safety. And no, I have no intention of citing the reference again for you. Already asked, and answered here. Look it up on your own time.
Feel free to go ahead and make that argument. I’m sure a lot of people here are eager to see it.
Say, whatever happened to that big Al Qaeda threat in Miami?
Of course, then you’d have to explain why nobody seemed to recognize this big threat until three weeks ago, all this time since 911 and the zillions spent on TSA and airport security in general.
Off Colfax
It’s called being a Democrat in a red state. You should try it sometime. There were places that I wouldn’t dare wear my Kerry/Edwards t-shirt in public due to the distinct probability of, to use the common vernacular, gettin’ my fuckin’ ass whooped up one street and down the other.
“Hey Pa! Izzat one o’ dem Democrats?”
When you hear that one, just start running. Trust me. You’ll have at least a two minute headstart while the mob organizes.
Davebo
Err.. Mac,
All liquid bombs are not the same. And those chemists may or may not have known it, but the Yousef bomb was made using liquid nitroglycerin.
In other words, apples and alligators.
Davebo
But hey Mac, you did teach us all something.
Tom Corrigan doesn’t know his chemistry from his underwear.
Mac Buckets
You’re right. Bush should’ve declared martial law because of a vague, unactionable memo that didn’t answer small questions like “where.” Or “when.” Or “how.” Or “Approximately when?” Or “approximately where?” You’d have been in favor of that, right?
And please stop pretending that Bush’s “vacations” are like yours and mine — it’s insulting to our intelligence.
You’re absolutely right, which is why Ashcroft got grilled by the 9/11 Commission. The Republicans should’ve known to override and reverse all the Democrats’ idiotic and nonsensical security policies the second they got the White House back! They didn’t move fast enough to rid us of the Democrats’ terrorist-coddling — “for the sake of appearance,” in Gorelick’s words — folly. America will never make that mistake again!
Pb
Mac Buckets,
The big difference between this and Bojinka was that in “Oplan Bojinka”, al-Qaeda actually had a plot, as well as the capability and the will to execute it. The explosive in question then was nitroglycerin, not TATP mixed from precursors, and for good reason. FYI.
Mac Buckets
Dumbest. Meme. Ever. Stopped beating your wife yet, cowboy?
jaime
That’s right, the Bush Administration is now getting it’s foreign policy rhetoric from a twice divorced opportunist who was a man loving hippie when it was fashionable and now an angry proffessional muslim hater when its profitable, hates the decline of civilization but makes money off of Girls Gone Wild and who thinks ‘sodomites’ “should get AIDS and DIE”. That’s the way to secure the Travis Bickle segment of society.
Pb
Mu.
demimondian
Did you stop paying to watch?
Pb
jaime,
That would not surprise me:
ThymeZone
Nobody said that, King of Straw.
What has been said is that laughing at the warning and then going off to kick dirt and scare snakes may not have been the most appropriate response.
Perhaps asking for more information would have been a start. You know, for a person who actually gave a shit.
jaime
Really????? Liberals/ media/ judges / celebrities / ACLU as enemies and traitors every bit as dangerous as the actual terrorists themselves? This is an entirely invented construct?
Shall I scour Powerline, and LGF, Malkin, Coulter, Hannity et al stories, and print them out and staple them to your forehead?
Mac Buckets
TATP has evidently been used before in terrorist bombings, including the “shoe bomber,” the Millenium Plot, and the London 7/7 bombers. I’m not sure that any public official wants to go on record as saying they are no problem. Nor am I sure why (outside of base political motives, of course) some on the left are so eager to dismiss Britain’s efforts against this plot, an effort which has netted so many Al Qaeda terrorists, including Britain’s #1 AQ man.
Mac Buckets
Link? Of course not.
demimondian
Mac, go read the Register article before you make more of a fool of yourself. Yes, TATP has been used before — but this plot would have entailed some pretty remarkable contortions to work. The chemistry is not in its favor.
Proud Liberal
well.. for once I agree with MacBuckets. Clearing brush in 110 degree Texas heat doesn’t quite do it for me. Hey… but he also read three Shakespears… here is one of the Shakespears he read.
Mac Buckets
It is when you’re referring to me. And you were.
I’m sorry, which one of those sites do I write for, again? You don’t even understand you’re own crazy rhetoric, do you? Pathetic.
Mac Buckets
So it’s cool to you if Al Qaeda gives it a try on your next flight?
demimondian
Let’s just say that I’m willing to risk my safety to the competent and professional response of a trained flight crew if a passenger locks himself or herself into a bathroom and initiates an exothermal chemical reaction that releases corrosive and noxious fumes for several hours.
chopper
you’ve been watching too much macguyver, mac.
chopper
those bombs weren’t made from scratch in an airport bathroom, were they?
slickdpdx
pb: McCarthyism was an evil not because McCartyites criticized the beliefs of others but because of the consequences visited on others for their reasonable beliefs, especially where the beliefs were irrelevant to the other person’s vocation or where the beliefs were fabricated (not exxagerated or mis-analogized). Criticism, even sharp criticism, is not at all equivalent to McCarthy’s civil terrorism.
What you like about Olberman’s speech shares a lot with what others like about Rumsfeld’s speech. Its a lively statement of a position.
John S.
Davebo-
Speaking of desperation, McQ has really conjured himself up a little fever swamp over there. Check it out. Very amusing stuff.
Seeing how moderators of other blogs behave tends to make me think John is extremely reasonable after all.
machs
Bush “and friends” has to include Salem Radio News, aka Townhall.com. These roundheaded hacks will eventually make Oliver Cromwell look like a piker. Look how they’re trying to sack Ohio by their stone casting methods.
‘Nazi’ labelism is the new election tactic as the Right runs to defeat this November.
The Other Steve
Even shorter Mac Buckets:
WHAAAAAA! I WANT MY MOMMY!
Mac Buckets
I don’t get it — you say let him start mixing the chemicals (which you say will end very badly and release noxious fumes) FIRST, before you arrest him? Thanks, but as long as the charges stick, I like the way the British did it better.
The Other Steve
Will Mac Buckets find his mommy?
Stay tuned tomorrow for another exciting episode
Mac Buckets
That was even below your usual level of drivel, TOSser. Please try to embarrass yourself less in future.
The Other Steve
Shorter Mac Buckets:
WHAAAA! You hurt my widdle feelings.
The Other Steve
Even shorter Mac Buckets:
I’m going to go tell my Mommy!
The Other Steve
BTW, in case nobody else has figured it out.
Mac Buckets is not interested in honest debate, as evidenced by the variety of distortions and strawman arguments displayed in this thread.
The only thing you can do to children like that is make fun of them.
jaime
I agree Mac. Dumbest. Meme. Ever.
demimondian
I never said anything of the sort — I said that the plot would not succeed, and that the threat has been exaggerated.
I realize that you desperately need Al Qaeda to execute a plausible plan, because that brings back your salad days after the first set of Bush failures leading up to 9/11/2001. The rest of us want real safety, though, not bogus excuses for more presidential power.
Pb
slickdpdx,
Actually, that essentially is McCarthyism, although ‘criticized the beliefs’ is far too weak–they demonized a large segment of America. There’s a big, broad line between honest criticism and demonization of critics without evidence.
We’ve had that as well–quite a bit of it, actually. I could cite any number of examples of that in particular and other abuses–Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame, Siebel Edmonds, Jose Padilla, Spc. Sean Baker, Rich Hersh, etc., etc.,–but if you’re determined to not pay attention, then I suppose it won’t matter how many examples I can cite.
I have no problems with honest criticism, in fact, I’d welcome it–that’d be a refreshing change, at least.
First, his name is ‘Olbermann’. And second, what I like about Olbermann’s speech is that it’s actually rooted in fact, and in the actual American Constitutional tradition that stretches back to our Founding Fathers and what *they* fought for, rights that Americans are still fighting to uphold in their own country.
Tsulagi
You’re absolutely correct. No doubt that’s why when later asked why nothing was done prior given a dotted sea, Bushtard fiercely blinking whined “You can be sure if I had known the time and place and how the attacks would happen I would have done something.”
Given Katrina, when the time, place, and how were known in advance, I wouldn’t take that bet. So in addition with their impotence, the Bushbots argue for their incompetence in all things.
Apparently with this admin we have to depend on the evildoers scheduling their attacks in advance with them. Maybe be tough and demand they give 30 days notice? Then Bush and Dick can swing into action. They’re bold like that. Great. Martial law? That wouldn’t have helped with these dumb fucks. Cheney probably would’ve shot a mirror when he saw himself.
Andrew
Guys, let’s get serious. I say we refer to the radical Islamists as “Mini-Hitlers for Mohammed” and to Democrats as “Howard Dean’s Stalinist Brigades.”
It would really clear things up.
RSA
True; if I told people that I was going to a dude ranch in the middle of the Texas desert to spend time cutting brush, they’d think I was insulting their intelligence, too.
Dug Jay
Anyone that cites Keith Olbie as some kind of an “authority” on anything other than useless turds on the LEFT, is pretty stupid themselves.
Andrew
I think that this guy ate Darrell and became super-patriotic.
slickdpdx
pb: Its as hard to communicate with folks that think the Bush administration is fascist as it is with folks that think critics of the Bush administration are terror symps. You are right: all the BJ commenters, Huffinton Posters and Keith OlbermanNs are incredibly courageous.
Pb
slickdpdx,
Now that’s just a cop-out, but I guess I saw that coming. As I said before, I would welcome an honest debate, with facts, and references, and stuff. You know, all the things that I have provided here to support my arguments. The next step would be to try to refute them, and to support those arguments with other facts, and references, and stuff.
slickdpdx
Sarcasm isn’t enough?
demimondian
Well, that plus ad hominem argument is certainly enough for Darrell, so I can’t imagine why anyone else should need anything else. Certainly, nothing as dull as those pesky “facts”.
Darrell
I thought the problem with McCarthy is not that he demonized American communists and their sympathizers, which as history has shown, really were on the wrong side of history.. the problem was that he falsely accused people of being communist threats to the country and tried to railroad them for it. There really were communist spies in the US who needed to be demonized. Ever heard of Ethel and Juliu Rosenberg or Alger Hiss?
Darrell
What the hell kind of “consequences” were visited upon the Plames other than celebrity treatment from the left and a Vanity Fair spread? Yeah Pb, great examples moron.. especially in the context of comparison to the McCarthy era consequences.
Darrell
Well, Blanco and Nagin were the ones in charge to the largest extent during that time. How honest of you to lay it all on the feet of Bush.. especially with a levy breaking on a city which is largely below sea level.
Andrew
Darrell says:
Nothing like a Red Scare to show those folks! Did that fat guy poop you out, or did you burst out of his chest like in Alien?
Darrell
That’s rich, coming from such a dishonest hack like you TOS. When you have no good answers to the issues Mac raises, all that’s left are personal insults I suppose.
Darrell
Yes Andrew, the Communist threat was all just a big “scare”, nothing to it.
chopper
you don’t have to describe your MO to us, darrell. we’re well aware of it.
jaime
4:35 Darrell
4:36 Darrell
It took you less than 60 seconds to forget that you levied a personal attack?
jg
Mac, ever heard of the Guilford Four?
jaime
If by “Communist” you mean Russians with heavy coats and nukes, or those that infiltrated government agencies, then yes.
If by “Communists” you mean Playrights, Shirley Temple, Civil Rights organizations, and Jewish groups, then no, nothing to it.
jg
Not as much to it as was made out to be. Which I’m pretty sure was Andrews point.
Darrell
Regarding the threat of communism in 1971
Reason #7720269 why liberals cannot be trusted with national security
Pb
Because–according to Darrell–the Communists *were* about to take over our McDonald hamburger stands. Now where’s that script…
slickdpdx
Actually I did make arguments, use facts and even provided or referred to a link or two. But, sometimes you’ve got to know when to stop arguing and when to start chatting…there’s a point when its clear we’ve each said what we have to say. That is not a cop out, its being civil.
However, if sarcasm alone isn’t enough to warrant a comment then this isn’t Balloon Juice.
chriskoz
What? Did you never read the Hamburglar’s manifesto for the destruction of capitalist society?
Pb
slickdpdx,
Here and there, I suppose; you didn’t provide any links to me, but then again, you didn’t have that much in the way of argumentation to support, either. However, I am somewhat curious about this assertion of yours:
Now, I don’t mind being right, but I don’t recall making that assertion in the first place. Could you show me where I did?
Or, you know, just making shit up. I guess that counts as chatting?
Well, there is that, the “If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all” approach. That would certainly cut down on the comments here.
Oh, it’s enough, especially if the comment is at least somewhat amusing. I just said that I would *welcome* an honest debate, not that I *expect* one.
jaime
Sounds like a fairly accurate assesment.
chopper
what, you guys don’t know that mayor mccheese was a communist mole? made it all the way up the political ladder from councilman mccheese. almost took down the american system entirely, he did.
remember, kids: john kerry was dead wrong about mayor mccheese. yell it from the mountaintops.
Pb
chopper,
And that grimace was a real pinko. Well, purple, really, but what’s purple but blue and red mixed together–liberal pinko commie!
demimondian
And let’s not get into the symbolism of the “golden arches on a red background”, which were obviously meant to repretn the crossed hammer and sickle, although properly disguised therough scoialist realism.
slickdpdx
Pb: Why are you so disagreeable? My comment about sarcasm and saying I’ve said what I intend to say is the chat – not the substantive stuff that preceded it. Maybe that wasn’t clear.
Regarding courage (Courage!) – it was ThymeZ (I think) who used that exact word. It was the general Olbermann love fest that carried the same tone. If you agree with me that neither Olbermann, nor Hollywood HuffPos, nor even BJ commenters are especially brave merely by offering opinions in the face of incpient fascism and actual McCarthyism, then I guess I didn’t need to be arguing with you about that.
I’ll give you this: I thought this comment was brilliant.
Besides, what would you have done all afternoon without me?
Love, slick.
chopper
ronald mcdonald? his real name is vladimir milyanovich.
mrmobi
I’d like to point out that some Communists did, in fact, take over some Hamburger stands here in Chicago, but they all eventually died of heart disease.
From your link, Darrell, I gather that you are a believer in the “domino theory.” Correct?
I’d like you to know that those 57,000 or so guys who died in Viet Nam died for… NO GOOD REASON. A mistake of collosal proportions, just to prove the US had a bigger dick than the dreaded commies. Kerry had it exactly right. And unlike McFlightSuit, he had the guts to volunteer for duty when he didn’t have to. He got to see the business end of the theory as a combatant. Eisenhower was wrong, Kennedy was wrong, Johnson was wrong, Nixon was wrong, and so are you. It was all for nothing.
Albert Einstein said “Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
Andrew
We must demonize Ronald McDonald and his communal production of the secret sauce! Demonization is what won us the Cold War, and it will win us the Cold War II (nee World War VII) against the Commie-Nazi hordes of the Golden Arches. If we don’t fight the McNuggetofascists over there, they come over here and offer us the dastardly McRib.
chriskoz
But, let’s not overlook that dangerous Taco Bell dog and his Aztlan plans.
“Viva gorditas”… What is that? Some sort of code to his reconquista troops?
Are there any fast food places safe for patriotic Americans anymore?
demimondian
No, no, no. The Taco Bell dog is in league with the Teletubbies to contaminate our sons’ gender identification! I mean, really, a purple imaginary creature with a purse, and a dog which says “Io queer-o Taco Bell” (“I’m a queer because of Taco Bell”)?
How can you moonbats miss obvious things like this, anyway?
Zifnab
What was your favorite World War?
The Other Steve
Let us not forget, that it was the great McDonalds which nearly cost Rocky Balboa the fight against Ivan Drago in Rocky IV!
If he had succumbed to the temptation of that Big Mac, he never would have had the stamina to make it through Round 15!
McDonalds, who makes America fat, and Michael Moore fat, is a great Communist conspiracy to make us weak!
The Other Steve
I think we need that Rube Goldberg cartoon demonstrating how the Communist takeover of our McDonalds hamburger stands was directly responsible for the failure to find WMDs in Iraq.
Pb
slickdpdx,
I call ’em like I see ’em. :)
As far as I’m concerned, the extent to which what Olbermann said took courage is directly proportionate to the probable reaction from his his critics and his superiors on MSNBC. By that metric, I’d estimate that his remarks were at least somewhat courageous, and certainly moreso than those of the average blogger out there. But of course all of this is beside the point, because I never tried to make the case that you were apparently trying to mock in the first place.
Why thank you–I thought so too, but it didn’t get that much attention, as is often the case. Maybe ‘disagreeable’ gets better ratings? :)
jaime
Cylon – Human
Mac Buckets
Right, these 24 Pakistanis were all innocent victims…who happened to have the leader of AQ in Britain on their speed-dial. Also, the Guildford Four were the victims of the cops needing to bust someone for unsolved IRA bombings — there was no such pending unsolved crime in the Britain bust this month, so the cops had no need to move in.
Unless… MI5 really wanted to distract the Americans from Ned Lamont’s primary win!
Proud Liberal
this whole comparison to fascism is so ridiculous but we’ve come to expect silliness from this crew. But, lets remember what fascism actually is as described by someone that really knows, Benito Mussolini:
hmmm…. does that sound like our al Qaeda types? how about this:
.
demimondian
They weren’t Pakistanis, Mac — they’re Britons. Most of them were born in England. And, in fact, fewer than half of them will face charges in the long run.
Face it, dude: the threat was overblown. I think the timing of the arrests is a coincidence, but the subsequent exploitation of what appears to be an utterly lunatic plot is very troubling.
Proud Liberal
yeah but were they taxi drivers?
John S.
Now here is some funny shit:
That McQ is a real comedy genius.
slickdpdx
Proud Liberal – quoting Mussolini about the supposed virtues and lust for life shared by fascists is highly dubious. You are right that another term, say, theocratic totalitarians, would be more appropriate in a technical sense, the label “Islamofascism” has its virtues.
The Other Steve
Did Mac Buckets find his mommy yet?
RSA
I wonder if John Kerry’s view of communism in 1971, in the intervening 30 or so years, changed as much as George W. Bush’s view of cocaine?