So I turned on the news this morning, and MSNBC is replaying 9/11 as it happened.
Instead of being easier to watch, it isn’t. In fact, it might be worse. Not only do I have to deal with the horrors of that day, but I am also thinking about all the petty squabbles, the divisions, the fighting- the nonsense, basically, that has gone on since then. How many lives were ruined. How many fathers and mothers killed that day and since then. What a terrible chain of events it set off- leading to the mess in Iraq, in large part.
Just a depressing day, all around.
And as I type this, Tunch is walking a little figure eight between my legs, rubbing up against me and chirping, letting me know he wants food or water or attention or all three. I didn’t get Tunch until Fall of 2002, so I guess everything isn’t so bad after all.
*** Update ***
Osama bin Laden was mentioned for the first time at 11:07 am, which leads to two thoughts:
1.) I was surprised how early in the day this was brought up- just a few hours after the attack. I didn’t remember that happening so early. It does reinforce the concept that thi country was unprepared to deal with terrorism, if we knew he was a threat prior to the attack but did nothing or littleto nothing anyway.
2.) The speed that his name was brought up could, in large part, help to fuel conspiracy theories that this was a government plot and Osama was the fall guy. One of the recurring themes re: the Kennedy assassination was that the speed Lee Harvey Oswald wss named as the assassin indictaes that the act was a pre-planned coup.
The Other Steve
Hmm. I’m not someone who likes to wallow in grief. I prefer moving on with your life. So I’m not interested in attending any memorial services or seeing 9/11 replayed on CNN.
Now some might say that I’m being callous when I term it wallowing. Perhaps, but that’s what I see. I don’t see memorial, I see wallowing. Each year it seems as though the asshats in Washington come up with a new way to wallow.
In 2004 it was about throwing parades and having a bit party with bands and such.
This year it’s petty political stunts like laying a wreath at each of the three sites.
Now some may say, how dare you call this a petty political stunt. The Queen of England lays a wreath at Westminster every year in memory of the British who died in WWI.
And my only answer is, yeah, but the Queen of England actually gives a shit about her country and all of it’s people.
The Other Steve
I don’t like conspiracy theories. I’ve seen the youtube video supposedly describing the great conspiracy behind 9/11. I don’t find the evidence convincing. Rather it’s a bunch of random bits and pieces taken out of context and assembled together with paste.
That being said, I think the callous way the President has used 9/11 as cheap political theatre has only helped fuel the speculation.
The Other Steve
I got my cats in the fall of 2003. :-)
This is Bubbles
It’s a grainy pic, took it on my new cell phone just to see if it would work. :-)
Joey
I’m not big on the conspiracy theories (at least in regards to 9/11). They raise some intersting facts, some of which certainly cast doubt on the official story, but if anybody honestly expected the government to tell us the entire truth, well, they’re stupid. On the whole though, I just can’t bring myself to believe the conspiracy theories, and the evidence for them, while interesting, isn’t enough to convince me.
Tax Analyst
To “the Other Steve”…good point about the “wallowing”. I don’t refer to the folks who lost loved ones or friends…they are entitled to express their grief or loss however they want…I AM referring to prancing and posturing politicos who would use this tragedy as a cudgel in their frantic and cynical effort to retain undeserved and untrammeled power. I don’t think I have to name names here…but one of them is SUPPOSED to be our “Leader”…hmmm…maybe a little “wallowing” is in order at that thought…”Oh, Woe is US”…
The Other Steve
Oh yeah, one more thing…
I was not surprised Osama was brought up.
In ’93 they tried to bomb the WTC building.
In ’95 when the Murrah Federal building in Oklahoma City was bombed, the initial speculation was that it was some Muslim group. At the time I thought that was unlikely, as they’d want to bomb a target recognized by the world, not some building in the middle of nowhere nobody has ever heard of. There had to be something about that building that made it symbolic to someone, and I couldn’t think of anything at the time for it to be Islamic extremists.
I was right, it was McVeigh, who’d been fueled by ridiculously partisan anti-Clinton videos blaming the government for Waco. That building was the HQ for the ATF agents who had been involved at Waco.
But the WTC was the sort of international symbolic target that you’d expect islamic extremists to go after.
Richard Bottoms
Interesting to hear Porter Goos talk about possible state sponsors of terror who might be behind this.
Giess we know now who he was talking about.
Wrongly of course.
Redleg
Rumsfeld also talked about Saddam on 9-11. He knew Saddam wasn’t behind the attacks but he saw it as an opportunity to launch the long dreamed of invasion of Iraq.
Sherard
Listening to the Stern show replay this morning, they brought up Bin Laden within an hour or two as well. Unless some lunatic thinks Howard Stern is part of some government conspiracy, the fact that we knew it was Bin Laden so quickly just reflects the reality of the situation 5 years ago.
We knew, but just were in denial.
Sherard
Nice to know that all this “wallowing” is brought to you exclusively by the “Rethuglicans”. Give me a fucking break.
MSNBC, CNN, and the Howard Stern Show – what do they have in common ? All replaying their 9/11 coverage in real time, and NONE OF THEM with any love lost for GWB.
Anyone thinking that this wallowing is brought to you by Bush is just clearly showing how deep their Bush Derangement Syndrome really is.
scs
One thing I learned from watching the first part of that 9/11 movie last night was just how very aware the Clinton Admin really was of Osama before 9/11. The movie showed desperate concern over Osama at the the highest level, years before 9/11. That cuts negative for both Clinton and Bush, because Clinton knew and didn’t get anything done and Bush and Condi can’t claim they didn’t know, because the people in the Clinton admin knew, and I’m sure someone told them- like maybe the CIA.
I think that movie was interesting and should be commented on more.
Anderson
Osama bin Laden was mentioned for the first time at 11:07 am
That startled me, too. We were all unaware that a few people in FBI & CIA were daily expecting an attack from this guy, so that when they turned on their TV sets and saw the WTC in flames, they instantly knew who’d done it.
That’s the amazing thing about books like Against All Enemies, Ghost Wars, or The Looming Tower–that this unforeseeable attack was all but foreseen.
scs
I guess the question remains – if the top levels of the FBI and the CIA knew clearly what the threat was, why didn’t they send out the word more about it to the local FBI and police.
Richard 23
Since we all know that Osama bin Laden was responsible for the attacks why doesn’t the FBI want him for 911? See the FBI wanted poster. It doesn’t mention 911 at all. Why not?
The Bush Administration assured us that they had evidence proving that he was behind it and that it would be provided in due time. Did they? What is it? Where is it?
I’m not saying he wasn’t behind it. Just asking questions.
The Other Steve
Time until some moron claims this is a left-wing media conspiracy against America.
10…9…8…
too late
The Other Steve
The top levels didn’t. It was the guys in charge of different operational stations.
The top levels are political appointments, and they were instructed to be more interested in Iraq, because that was the real threat according to Bush campaign statements.
Actually that’s still the unique thing about the Bush Presidency. They actually believe their campaign crap. Most people say a bunch of shit on the campaign trail (like Kennedy’s missile gap) and then when they get into office evaluate what’s really going on and work with that. But the Bushies actually believed their own crap.
John S.
No doubt AFTER they heard it mentioned by government officials, like so many people did glued to their radios and televisions that morning. Of course, that minor detail escaped your feeble mind…
Tulkinghorn
Richard23:
I don’t recall the administration ever coming up with any proof. The conclusive proof was the tape where Bin Laden admits to directing the plot, which IIRC was in late 2002.
In those trusting days I assumed that president had good reason to pin it on bin Laden, but the secrecy meant he could not tell us what it was.
John S.
Congratulations! You can be taught.
They tried to pass this information on to the incoming Bush administration, but apparently they weren’t really interested in hearing anything that didn’t include the terms ‘Iraq’ and ‘Saddam Hussein’.
Mac Buckets
What surprised me is that Tom Brokaw and the NBC crew were saying we were “now in a War on Terrorism” just an hour after the planes hit. Didn’t they know that “War on Terrorism” is a stupid nonsense prase concocted by RoveInc, a subsiciary of BushCo?
Oh, and what did not surprise me is that TOS is being a completely partisan prick.
Richard 23
Hey Tulk, what ever happened to that guy that confessed to the murder of Jon-Benet Ramsey? Taking credit, even for political reasons, is not proof. Bush needs bin Laden and bin Laden needs Bush. They each both boost the other’s credibility.
So where’s the beef?
Richard 23
Mac, can you make your points without childish namecalling?
Nikki
I was at work in DC when it happened. I was the first one in my office to know. Around 1030, as the guys in my office watched the event from their satellite TV, I came in their lab to tell them that Tom Joyner was broadcasting that the Pentagon was in flames. I then asked them what were the chances that Bin Laden wasn’t involved. They said zero to none.
I am no one special. Just about everyone suspected that Bin Laden was involved from the beginning.
Sojourner
I was slow to figure out it was a terrorist attack but as soon as I did, I knew immediately that it was Bin Laden. I still remember how I felt when I heard that Barbara Olson was on the Pentagon plane. How ironic that her cheering on the impeachment mess may have contributed to her own death.
Remember all that wag the dog crap that she and her friends indulged in? Whoops.
scs
I don’t know where you all get your news from, but I never even heard of Bin Laden before 9/11.
Ryan S.
Sheesh. I can still remember I was watching CNN Headline news in the student center lobby of the University I was attending. Trying to kill an hour between classes when it happened. That was prolly the worst breaking news newscast I’d ever seen. They had a constant live feed of the towers after the first plane, and when the second hit it took them like 5 mins before they even realized that the other tower was on fire let alone that another plane hit it. When they did finally realize it one of the anchors, said something to the effect of, “I hope they have someone calling the tower to tell them that they are guiding planes into the towers.” Thats when I knew they had no idea, and I should go to class instead of continue watching the clueless.
Sojourner
The New York Times. I read it daily.
John S.
I love the smell of irony in the afternoon…
John S.
As an avid reader, how did you feel watching the runup to the Iraq War unfold on its pages as told by Judith Miller?
Sojourner
Since I was totally against the Iraq war, I was thoroughly pissed. And still am.
John D.
Um.
He was in the news multiple times during the 80s and 90s, first for the Afghanistan fighting, then later for offering to defend Saudi Arabia during Gulf War I. He issued a fatwa in 1998 instructing his followers to kill Americans. He was linked to the 1998 embassy bombings, had his assets frozen, was the target of cruise missiles in 1998 as well, and was indicted by a grand jury and had a $25 million reward posted for capture.
If you hadn’t heard his name prior to 9/11, you weren’t paying attention. The cruise missile attack was particularly splashed *everywhere* as impeachment fodder.
scs
I knew all about the bombings and Afghanistan, and I knew there were Muslim terrorists but I just never paid attention to the name Bin Laden. I heard more about Ramzi Yousef. I pictured it more like a group movement than a movement under one main guy. But I guess like Bush, I didn’t pay attention.
Sam Hutcheson
At the risk of sounding insane, I would like to suggest that 1) yes, the Clintion admin knew bin Laden was a serious threat, and 2) they dealt with the threat as reasonably and seriously as they could and should. It is easy to come back around _after_ the fact and say “we should have had Marines on the ground in Kabul immediately after the Cole” or “we should have carpet bombed the region the political consequences be damned” or whatever, but acting with what we knew at the time (the threat was mainly to targets located in the middle east) there really isn’t much of an argument to launch a full-blown military campaign. Add to that the domestic witch-hunt (yes, Republicans, you get a large share of the blame for the Clinton admin being distracted during his second term — you reap what you sow) and Clinton’s response(s) seem to me to be pretty damned reasonable.
It’s easy to know what “should have been done” after the fact. It’s more difficult to know beforehand. Second guessing isn’t going to add anything.
Bombadil
Well said, Sam.
fwiffo
I think replaying the original 2001 coverage verbatim is a lot better than the various “dramatized docudrama dramataries” being peddled about. It really conveys the sense of confusion and bewilderment that was everywhere.
I had just lost my job about a week before, so I was home reading my e-mail. I saw some weird off-topic messages posted to a mailing list I was subscribed to about a plane crashing into the Empire State Building. Then a correction – the WTC. Then two planes. I thought “no, that’s not something that happens, why would it be hit by two planes? They must have heard two reports about the same plane.” I was a tad dumbstruck when I turned on the TV and saw that it wasn’t a single little Cessna or something hitting one of the towers, but two jetliners.
I remember thinking to myself “How are they gonna fix that? How do you even put out a massive multi-floor fire in one of the world’s tallest buildings? Will they just tear down the top 30 floors and rebuild them?” Moments later, the commentator (I think it may have been Wolf Blitzer) kept right on talking uninterrupted as the first tower collapsed. I guess he, and whoever had his earpiece, were not looking at the right monitors.
Some friends and I got together in the afternoon and decided to go to a go-kart track. They were closing early right as we arrived.
John S.
An alternate history that is just, well, just go read the thing if you haven’t already.
These are all the things that could have happened – no, that should have happened. I dare anyone but the staunchest Bush supporter to read that article and tell me why any of those things would have been outside the realm of possibility or why the alternative to the alternative history is actually better.
And scs:
You just blew my mind.
capelza
scs can not be real…
I fell asleep the night before and woke up to MTV (don’t ask) playing what I thought was a music video that included the towers falling. It was before school here (my stepson was downstairs watching TV). It took a few minutes to realise that something really bad had actually happened and I bolted downstairs and turned the channel to CNN. I remember vividly telling my son that this was VERY BIG and VERY AWFUL (he didn’t really grasp it’s significance even at 16) and that we would be carpet boombing some small Islamic country very soon. Within a few more minutes the name OBL came up and I said to the boy…”and it will be Afghanistan”.
Andrew
And you’ll note that Alter has just been fired from his MSNBC blog.
As silly as alternative histories usually are, this country could have gone down such a good path after 9/11, but we didn’t. Democrats are to blame for losing elections. Republicans are almost completely to blame for everything else. When the history is written, they will be remembered as sycophantic, authoritarian, torture loving warmongers.
Yeah, gay people getting married is a big threat. And Osama is still out there. You evil, evil fucks.
Mr Furious
That alternate history is pretty good. What jumps out at me is how likely President Gore would have followed a similar tack…
Par R
Sojourner says:
And I suspect we all know what it was thinking; I’m somewhat surprised that Sojourner refrained from being more explicit in stating it’s views. Usually Sojourner doesn’t mind being shown to be a complete asshole.
Pb
The Other Steve,
Unless, you know, you actually look at what Bush said in, for example, the 2000 debates, and then look at what he actually did in office. I’m starting to wonder if they’ve lied their way into *everything* they’ve ever done.
And incidentally Cheney has wanted to invade Iraq since at least 1990, or before. Bush wanted to too, to be the President his father wasn’t–and I think he’s accomplished that somehow, because history will remember George W. Bush and the second Iraq war. His name will go down in infamy.
The Other Steve
Poor baby. Do you want me to ask your mommy if she can get you a pacifier?
The Other Steve
Well, as we all know, Bush had her taken out because she knew too much.
The Other Steve
Actually that’s a fair point. Most of what Bush said in 2000(and even 2004) was to make himself appear more reasonable, and was pretty much all lies.
But it was the Iraq bullshit that they seriously believed in. That’s what I was thinking of. You’d think after getting in there and looking at the intelligence they would realize they were wrong.
Maybe they just didn’t give a shit?
Dug Jay
How can they ban an interesting fellow like ppGaz and yet keep a living troll and complete worthless jerk like The Other Steve?
mrmobi
Thanks, John S. That’s an eye-opening piece by Alter.
For myself, this year I’m avoiding the broadcast coverage. Last year, I watched a documentary made in 2002 featuring interviews with Guiliani and others in New York, and video and still footage shot by ordinary people. It was beautifully done and devastating. I don’t need to see it again.
I was on my way into downtown Chicago when the first tower fell, and listening to a Public Radio feed of CNN. I’ll never look at our skyline the same way again. One thing that I felt that day and in the days afterward, was a sense of being among my countrymen. I wasn’t just driving my car into the city, I was with other Americans who were also experiencing this unspeakable horror and feeling an urge for justice, or revenge, or both.
What is especially sad about the Alter piece is that all of the things he describes were more than possible. We had sympathy from the rest of the world that we may never have again. Do you remember how many countries offered help, both in re-building and in tracking down the culprits? We had an opportunity to build a coalition that could have really made a difference, probably more robust than the coalition that formed after Saddam invaded Kuwait.
Unfortunately for all of us, the commander-in-chief wasn’t up to the kind of diplomacy his father was capable of. I’m not sure why GWB chose the path that he did, but my suspicion is that he really is a seriously unqualified person, incapable of creative thinking, and un-schooled in the utilization of government for anything other than enriching those who keep him in power. How sad for all of us.
Pb
The Other Steve,
Yes, it’s clear now that, once given the opportunity at least, they weren’t going to let anything get in the way of that.
No–instead they thought the intelligence was what needed fixing.
The scariest scenario for me is, maybe they’ve done what they set out to do. Republican domination, treasury looting, war profiteering, and destruction of civil liberties accomplished, thanks for the assist, terrorists!
John S.
Jonathan Alter and Eric Alterman are not the same person.
Alter penned the alternate history (no pun intended). Alterman got fired from penning Altercation (pun intended).
mrmobi
This place seems kind of vanilla ice cream without ppGaz. The world, and this blog, needs people who can think and aren’t afraid to piss people off.
Pb
Yeah, that Alter piece is amazing. Remember, after 9/11, Bush had at least an 85% approval rating–in some polls 90%–the highest approval ratings ever. It was his to lose, and in his rush to war with Iraq it dropped down to 55%. Then, once the war started, some Americans still gave him a second chance, and rallied around the President. His approval ratings jumped overnight, to 68%, over 70% in some polls. But as the war dragged on into 2004, long after the infamous Mission Accomplished speech, his approval ratings fell below 50%, and then below 40% in 2006. He has divided and lost the country, the only majority he retains is within his own party–and most of the rest of us, if we were fooled once, won’t be fooled again.
scs
Okay, here’s the real alternate history.
Donald Rumsfeld sent reinforces to the remote mountain area in Tora Bora to get Bin Laden. By the time the reinforces got their trucks up to the mountainous terrain, Bin LAden had already slipped over the border to Pakistan.
Bush didn’t go to invade Iraq. Instead, the santions weakened even further as China and Russia started selling it more weapons while at the same time more and more Iraqi children starved oil for palaces corruption. Osama Bin Laden continued to issue video tapes how Muslims should fight Americans and thousands of Muslims across the globe are enraged because Osama rails againsts the starving Muslim children in Iraq because of US sanctions and the presence of US troops in Muslim Holy grounds of Saudi Arabia. Bush cannot let the scantions go or move the troops to guard against the constant threat of Iraq regaining some strength, so the limbo continues and the Muslim world soaks in resentment.
Bush raises taxes after 9/11 and interest rates are not lowered. The ecomomy goes into a recession and has trouble coming out of it with no stimulus.
Iraq gains more status and power as gas prices rise and they make more money. Saddam starts passing off money and weapons to various terrorist groups in the region to pay them off and keep them happy and to cause trouble for the US. Iraq and Iran agree to work out an agreement to keep out of each other’s business so that they can mutally work against the US.
The mass graves in Iraq continued to be filled with women and children who dare speak up for their freedom.
Great World huh?
Pb
Mr Furious,
It reminds me of this skit, except more plausible.
Mike in SLO
There is no need for your post. Referring to other posters as “it” because you don’t like them is mean-spirited and childish and doesn’t add anything useful to the debate. If you have a point to state, state it. Otherwise STFU.
Andrew
In my alternate history, they are.
Good catch, thanks.
Remfin
I’d like to remind people…Osama Bin Laden actually DENIED being involved in the attacks for a good 2-3 days, including a (I believe European) camera crew that was finishing their secret hand-around path to an interview with him that day that asked him the question when they heard about it. I don’t think the 2002 video even confirmed it, I think that was just him cheering it on…it wasn’t until the 2004 election video he actually admitted involvement. So people who are doubting things don’t seem that crazy to me, considering how he always wanted to claim credit before
Oh, and Son of the Beach mentioned OBL even if it was just a throwaway joke. I don’t know exactly who wrote that joke but AFAIK Stern was heavily involved with that show, so he already had a good idea who OBL was is my guess
Andrew
scs says:
Actually, that doesn’t sound too bad.
We would have a fully intact military, 3000 more Americans would be alive, 20000 wouldn’t be horribly injured, and we wouldn’t have an extra half trillion dollar war debt. Our diplomatic clout and moral legitimacy would be significantly stronger. Far more Iraqis would be alive, even with Saddam continuing to kill his political opposition, then have in our war.
Wow, scs’s worst case scenario alternate history is significantly better than reality.
chopper
i remember the first show i went to after 9/11 was to go see modest mouse at the black cat in DC. they had a big projection screen behind them and the first song they did was ‘neverending math equation’ and the footage was grainy black and white stock of buildings collapsing played backwards and forewards.
i actually thought it was cool, and figured it was rad that they didn’t care about any negative fallout, they weren’t going to change their tour act.
The Other Steve
Interesting alternative history considering taxcuts have no effect on stimulating the economy.
JoeTx
scs, in some type of republican fantasy land world maybe. But not a very realist one anywhere else.
JoeTx
This is what ABC should have broadcast!
9/11: Press for Truth
Pb
scs,
Hey, no fair cribbing from the Bush 41 Presidency! :)
Well, apart from the Osama-Struthers angle, that’s not so different at all, at least.
Interest rates were lowered starting just after Bush took office, total Greenspan hackery. He had it pegged at 9.5% for 8 months there, and it *still* hasn’t gotten that high again. By Sep 1, 2001, they were at 6.5%, lower than they had been since April of 1994. By mid 2003, interest rates were at 4%–they hadn’t been at 4% since 9/11/1958!
I heard a lot of talk about those mass graves in the past, but the numbers cited are generally–if anything–less than the number of people you’d expect to find in mass graves after the Iran-Iraq war and the Gulf War.
JoeTx
opps link didn’t come through…
9/11: Press for Truth
John S.
scs, please leave the writing of alternate histories to the professionals. Your version doesn’t really pan out, since there isn’t much of a connection betwixt your fantasy scenarios.
Although Andrew does have a point. Your ‘worst’ case scenario still sounds better than reality.
Edmund Dantes
So did Family Guy. They even edited out the reference when they first released the show on DVDs. It was in the Road to Rhode Island Episode. They finally put it back in later. It was partially done because I believe Seth (the creator) was actually supposed to be on one of the flights that crashed into the WTC.
Stewie is going to the airport. The security guard takes his backpack (which is full of a grenade, a M-16, and assorted other weapons). Stewie knows this is going to show up on the X-ray screen. He quickly goes into a song and dance routine. The guards are distracted and so they don’t see all the weapons in Stewie’s bag.
“aww how cute” — Guard.
Stewie then gets his bag handed to him.
“Better hope Osama Bin Laden doesn’t know show tunes” as Stewie walks away.
A guy walks through the Metal detector in the background. Turban, Beard, green desert garb. He starts singing show tunes.
VidaLoca
On this point, you can take a look at the actual history and how Rumsfeld’s approach to fighting a war actually worked out at a point when we believed we had Osama captured.
Fixed that for you.
scs
There is not much fantasy to these situations. The issues about the sanctions and Bin Laden was reality and happening before 9/11. Gas prices rising are a reality due to the gowing need for it. Saddam was passing off money to terrorist groups in Palestine already. You maybe all have a case of Leftie Alzheimers.
The only arguably fantasy part is Iran and Iraq working together. It is not too far fetched since Iran is trying to make allies of anyone who is against the US.
And everyone knows tax cuts have a short term stimulus effect, especially tax cuts for the rich, because it shifts money from DC bureaucratic worker salaries to the stock markets and banks.
John S.
Not the situations, but how you string them together is entirely ludicrous. You just leap from one conservative ‘nightmare’ to the next. I’m glad others have taken the effort to pick it apart because it was so poorly written that I didn’t even feel inclined to do so myself.
Like I said, leave the writing to the professionals. And if you do have a specific critique of Mr. Alter’s well-written alternate history, you’d be better off addressing that than cooking up some half-assed counter-history.
scs
And here’s another one. Bush was very concerned about the legal ramifications of all his actions ( as shown with Clinton Admin in the movie last night). As a result, Khalid Sheik Mohammed and other big fish were not treated with water-boarding but instead treated with hotel-like conditions and a Muslim lawyer. There was no key information given up by Khalid and others as their lawyers refused to answer any questions. Other big fish and terror cells in the US and London went undiscovered.
Bush was scared off by his lawyers and a sense of looking good to the Europeans from using data mining to look for patterns in phone calls from terror spots around the world. Because of the lax detection in the US, the terrorists moved their bombing plots from London and MAdrid to the US. Terrorists and cells were never discovered and managed to slip fiancning and people into the US, preparing yet undiscovered terrorist attacks.
scs
John S, stick to computer generated spoofing and leave blogging to live people.
Kirk Spencer
SCS said:
Sometimes, and no. Tax cuts can (but do not always) have a short term stimulus effect. But “especially” belongs to putting the money where it works – where it contributes to velocity. That’s in the pockets of consumers, not investors and savers.
chopper
well, that’s a false choice. so it’s either a four-star hotel or torture, eh?
i’ll note that we really put the screws to KSM, physically speaking. and he gave us all of jack sh1t, information wise. so your fantasy doesn’t play out at all.
The Other Steve
Why stop there?
If you’re building a fantasy, why not have him staying in the penthouse at the Bellagio?
Larry
Not so much an avid reader here, but a regular one.
My gut feeling was that Miller was mistaking access for investigation.
The Other Steve
What bureaucrats have been laid off?
If none have, how can you claim any money was shifted?
The only people who still believe this are those without any understanding of how to balance their own checkbook.
Pb
Nice work using one fantasy scenario to justify another fantasy scenario!
Pb
The Judy Miller story is interesting; at the least, it clearly illustrates how having more than one source for a story is not enough when your source also happens to be your other source’s source, and then your other source uses you as a source, and so on and so forth, bootstrapping the propaganda…
Pb
None.
The money has been time-shifted–spend now, pay later. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon, and for the rest of your life.
RSA
I thought that an alternate history was suppose to be about the opposite of what really happens? Or maybe I’ve missed news about the big fish and terror cells that have been discovered.
Andrew
Pb, you and Brad Delong have a good point:
It’s not a tax cut if spending is paid for with debt. It is simply tax deferral.
Bombadil
While some may find it in poor taste, given the timing, I think this is a good sign that life still goes on, and humor can get us through.
Larry
I think the goal is tax burden redistribution.
Replacing progressive with regressive taxation.
Sojourner
Ah yes. A great example of deep thinking on the part of the far right.
Richard 23
So then why isn’t the 911 charge on bin Laden’s most wanted poster put out by the FBI. It’s easy to take credit, it’s easy to admit to something. It makes Osama look powerful to have been responsible for 911. Since it’s so obvious and we all know he was behind it, where is the evidence? Where is the charge?
p.lukasiak
1.) I was surprised how early in the day this was brought up- just a few hours after the attack. I didn’t remember that happening so early. It does reinforce the concept that thi country was unprepared to deal with terrorism, if we knew he was a threat prior to the attack but did nothing or littleto nothing anyway.
which is as good an example of how unseriously Republicans/Conservatives took (and still take) the very real threat of terrorism.
bin Laden’s training camps had been bombed in 1998. Clinton did a whole speech about it. Yet John thinks its “surprising” that television anchors would identify bin Laden as the chief suspect? (And then compounds the sin with this bit of baseless speculation…)
I’d heard of bin Laden before 9-11. And I’ve read most of the conspiracy theories — I’ve not seen any that base their “bin Laden was the fall guy” on the speed with which broadcasters identified bin Laden as a likely perpetrator…
RSA
Concerning the FBI’s most wanted list and bin Laden, the WP explains, sort of.
Pb
I really didn’t follow politics until 2002 or so, so I didn’t know about bin Laden. However, if I don’t know about something, and it later becomes important to me, I have this nasty habit of actually researching it. :)
caroline
John Cole,
I agree with you. I find the whole spectacle depressing. It has made me focus on the failures of the past 5 years. Where’s Osama? Well, apparently he has been setting up training camps in Pakistan.
John S.
LOL
Aw, don’t lash out at me kiddo. It isn’t my fault your writing skills are sub-par.
Dug Jay
Use of the word, “it,” was employed given the ambiguity about the sex of the writer with the name of “Sojourner.”
And by the way, STFU, AH.
aaron
Alternate universe was interesting. I’ve seen a lot of fantasy scenarios where Gore won in 2000, and inaugurates the Thousand Years of Peace (culminating in Christ returning and saying, “Well, guess I’m not needed here. Hasta la vista!”)
This is the first fantasy I’ve seen where Bush wins but is actually atomically mutated into Al Gore.
JoeTx
any serious investigation would turn up the money trails and links to the CIA and Pakistani ISI, and who knows who else. Kind of like the “dead-end” investigation of the WTC hard drives that contained data on last minute multi-million dollar financial transactions that occurred while the planes were crashing into the towers, Convar was employed to find out who was behind the transactions, then Convar was bought out by Kroll, and poof, no more evidence… end of story….
9/11 Timeline by Paul Thompson is an eye opening resource!
Richard 23
Dug Jay, are you Par R’s sock puppet or are you his ParRot?
Ryan S.
I think he’s Dougj
Dug Jay
Off topic, I understand that ppGaz and Darrell have resolved their political and other differences and are now cohabiting a small house between Scottsdale and downtown Phoenix. I’m sure we all wish them well and look forward to their return to Balloon Juice.
Bill Arnold
When the second tower was hit (live on TV) my first thought was “yup, terrorist attack” and second thought was “probably Al Qaeda or affiliate – signature style of N > 1 synchronized attacks”. Third thought was “how big is N?”
A lot of people had the same thoughts. The evidence came later, much later.
BlogReeder
That An Alternative 9/11 History was pretty humorous. Thanks for the link.
There are many things I can say but one particularly jumped out:
That part about being popular across the globe is funny. I thought of an analogy to expose the silliness of this notion. Imagine a small town where most people are poor and there’s this really rich guy in town. Right there most liberals will hate him even after I describe him as humble. IMO, being unpopular goes with being singularly powerful. The US will always be mostly hated throughout the world unless we shed most of our wealth and influence. In the alternate history he even says:
Those unpopular wealthy people.
Tsulagi
There was one thing the little docudrama reminded me of. Ramzi Yousef, who wanted to bring down the towers, was identified, tracked, and captured just short of two years after his bombing. Gee, and accomplished without a Patriot Act, without blanket NSA wiretapping, without mail and email interception, without massive data mining, etc. How was that possible?
Contrast that to today’s administration who was given an absolute blank check to go after the perps with a united country behind it. Five years later they tell you they “think” bin Laden is somewhere in Pakistan. But they’re not really sure. They also “think” they’ll be able to get bin Laden sometime during our lifetimes. But they’re not really sure.
So to sum up, after attacked, one admin focused on finding the needle in a haystack. The other admin focused and is consumed with growing the haystack into a mountain range and to hell with the needle.
This is the party to give a vote to for national security? I’ll say it again, only the lobotomized would do so.
Anderson
So then why isn’t the 911 charge on bin Laden’s most wanted poster put out by the FBI.
Here’s the unpleasant theory that occurred to me this a.m.:
Do you have to be indicted to be on a Wanted poster?
Osama’s been indicted for the embassy bombings. Not for 9/11.
Now … has he not been indicted because there’s no admissible evidence against him? I.e., non-torture evidence that would stand up before a grand jury?
Mind you, I’m NOT saying he didn’t do it. Of course he did. What I’m wondering is, have we ruined our evidentiary sources by holding them illegally, torturing them, etc.?
JWeidner
I would imagine that the popular thinking within the administration is that if we charge ObL, we would then have to try him. And I think it could be stipulated that no one really wants to see a trial. Most would be satisfied if we just woke up one morning to news he had been killed in a firefight.
Barring that, this administration in particular isn’t going to put ObL on trial. If he is actually captured, you can be sure that the dankest cell in an Eastern European ally country is reserved for him. Perhaps at some future date, he’d be killed while trying to escape.
The Other Steve
If we indict him, then we can’t torture him.
It’s that whole Constitution thing see… it says we have to treat criminals humanely.
So if Bin Laden isn’t a criminal, then we can torture him.
It’s really simple, actually.
BlogReeder
So if Bin Laden isn’t a criminal, then we can torture him.
I also thought that the reason we haven’t caught him is because if he were caught, we’d really be pressured to stop the WOT.
Tsulagi
Oh, one other thing the docudrama reminded me of; maybe they can touch on it a little in part 2 tonight. Yes, as this admin has often said, 9/11 was a wakeup call.
On that day, we found we had a spineless retard for a president as he spent the entire day running after his initial deer-in-the-headlights massive brain fart. However, no doubt after countless calls to daddy and mommy for reassurance, he did indeed buck up to return to the WH. He couldn’t stay away too long from the place he uses as his personal farting chamber. He’s a brave Republican warrior like that.
Then in the years to come after 9/11 we learned more about the 43rd president of the U.S. In addition to being gutless, he’s a pathological liar. Add that he and his entire admin are incompetent to an extent the word doesn’t fully describe the measure. Corrupt? Well, who can really blame a guy for wanting to open up the Treasury as a private buffet for his buddies if he has the keys? He’s a good ol boy. Plus many more swell traits that apparently endear the base to the Republican leadership.
So bin Laden, hear this! Fuck you, we got far more important things to do! We’re on the hunt for those gay culture-of-death flag burners. Stay the course.
aaron
It was possible because first, somebody ratted him out, and second, they caught him in Islamabad, just before he was ready to move out to the northwest tribal wildlands of Pakistan. If he’d managed that, he’d probably still be there.
Anderson
And I think it could be stipulated that no one really wants to see a trial.
*I* would. But then, I’m a lawyer.
I would love to demonstrate our criminal-justice system to the world. Preferably with more competent prosecutors than we saw in the Moussaoui farce, but still.
kate mcardle
As a long time lurker here I have to express my sadness that ppgaz is banned form the sight.. No matter his ravings.. he was always a funny sharp voice on this site an one of the reasons I return regularly.
So Sad.
srv
No, here’s an alternative reality.
Saddam invades Kuwait. The Saudis, instead of turning down Bin Ladens offer to have the Mujahadeen take on Saddam, accept it. The Saudi’s pay for the arms, and we equip them just like we did in Afghanistan. No US troops deployed. In the mean time, we, the Brits, French and Germans supply the Kurds (also paid for by the Saudis) to put pressure on Saddam from the north. Only US SOF on the ground invovled. We suppress Saddams airpower and establish no-fly zones over the Kurdistan and Basra.
The Mujahadeen go in and fight a protracted war over Kuwait and southern Iraq. In the end, the Mujahadeen and Shia paramilitaries subdue Saddams forces in the south. 1000s of Mujahadeen are dead in the deserts of Iraq. Kuwait freed. Kurdistan and Basra become de facto independent states. UN occupies Kuwait and southern Iraq for awhile. No sanctions in the north or south saves millions.
The Sunni are now surrounded by well armed Kurds and Shia, no access to oil revenues. Saddam lasts about 6 months before being toppled by a more well behaved Baathist. The western nations divide up the oil contracts, Iraq becomes three states.
No US troops in the region, no bases, and strongly Kurdish and Shia paramilitaries and Baathists aren’t going to roll over for Osama if he has any grander schemes. If he does become a problem, it’s (again) a Saudi problem.
Tsulagi
Wow, turning a devout Muslim who doesn’t believe in Yousef’s/al Qaeda’s vision of Islam into an informant then using him to capture a terrorist who has attacked the U.S. What were they thinking?! Instead, their plan of action should have been to immediately, and secretly, transfer hundreds of millions of dollars to develop a NSA wiretap program and spend years listening to Aunt Millies for clues.
Then to show their utter incompetence, once they have intel on Yousef’s location, they capture him? What?! Jesus, don’t they know they should have instead let him go (Tora Bora) to the Pakistan hinterlands? Then advocate (lie) for a full-out invasion of an entire country (pick a country, any will do) to eradicate the original evildoer and his band? As Ann Coulter said, “Thank God the adults (fresh off the short bus) are now in charge.”
Jess
I had to ask my students today what the date was–after an awkward pause they told me, and it didn’t even register until later. I wondered for a moment if I should feel a twinge of guilt, but I’m not the sort to enshrine these sorts of things. I think that’s a quick way to stop thinking rationally–as we clearly did during the period following 9/11. I think that’s the period we should be scrutinizing–not just the period leading up to it.
And by the way, SCS, you do know that the ABC 9/11 movie is a drama, not a documentary, right? It’s not a tool for educating yourself about 9/11–it’s for entertainment purposes only, and of the most morbid sort.
slickdpdx
TOS is right about why OBL is not on the list, even if his emphasis (torture) is a little one-sided. Treating an avowed foreign enemy as one of the FBI’s “most wanted” along with the bankrobbers and such was and would be preposterous.
KC
For myself, I can’t stand all the 911 conspiracy claptrap. I watched one conspiracy video and the thing was so shoddy, so full of strawmen, that it’s hard for me to believe people, including the friend who loaned it to me, would buy it.
slickdpdx
srv’s alternate history, while it sounds good, reminds me of this guy.
Sojourner
Educated people use “he or she,” “s/he,” or some variation of these. But then that might be too much to ask of a foaming-mouthed rightie.
John S.
I agree.
I also think proclaiming that an avowed foreign enemy is ‘wanted dead or alive’ (like on one of those old west posters!) only to later declare that you are ‘not that concerned about him’ (after he gets away) is the only thing that would be even more preposterous.
Actually, maybe thinking that the guy who did the above is the only person capable of being serious about the ‘war on terror’ and keeping America safe is even more preposterous, but I digress.
slickdpdx
Your digression is unfair since I haven’t said that, but I’ll take your agreement.
srv
How about “Americas Most Wanted” then? At least somebody might go looking for him then.
John S.
Not in the slightest. After all, a digression is to meander away from the main topic, and that is precisely what I did. Therefore, all digressions are ‘fair’, though I’m not really sure the term even really applies.
The fact that you got defensive about a statement I made IN ADDITTION to agreeing with you (readers with good comprehension would struggle to find where I accused you of saying anything) I think is very curious. Perhaps even illuminating.
CaseyL
Well, yes and no.
The FBI routinely works with law enforcement agencies around the world to track down wanted individuals. Also, law enforcement has repeatedly succeeded where military action failed – in, for example, nailing the perps of the Madrid and London bombings. US law enforcement, working with its counterparts in Jordan, prevented the Millenium Plot here in the US, but also in Jordan.
Now, that does assume that local law enforcement is able and willing to help. This was apparently not the case in Afghanistan – except for the offer to turn OBL over to a third party. This was an offer dismissed at the time as not in good faith, but in view of how we’ve found out Bush lied even about going after OBL, I’m not even sure that’s still true. Maybe the Taliban did mean it, and the Bush Admin dismissed the offer because OBL alive and free was too politically useful to them.
See, that’s the thing about mocking the use of law enforcement techniques to catch terrorists. The valid arguments against it are undermined by the fact that the Bush Admin lied about everything else, because that begs the question of whether law enforcement techniques would have worked to nab OBL if the Bush Admin really wanted to nab OBL.
SeesThroughIt
Man, tell me about it. Conspiracy theorists are like Bushies: they need to shut the fuck up, go away, and let the grown-ups handle things.
slickdpdx
FBI helping is good, of course. But its not ultimately a domestic law enforcement or counterintelligence matterr. Hence the Gorelick confusion aka the Wall.
Maybe I inferred more than John S. intended, Maybe.
Andrew
Osama certainly is on the list. The issue is that he’s not on the list for 9/11, but only for the embassy bombings.
JoeTx
Boy that would be great except the neo-cons would be left out with no foreign bases sitting over all that oil…
JoeTx
The greatest of strawmen are propped up by the Bush Administration with all their, “some say we can’t win” and “some people forget the lessions of 9/11” Spare me!
There are ALOT of theories about what happened on 9/11. The government has put forward THEIR theory about what happened, but that doesn’t make it a fact. In fact, when you research all the publically available information, it doesn’t hold up very well…
I challenge you to watch THIS one and not come up with other conclusions about what happened…
Sine.Qua.Non
SRC: I’m beginning to get the strong impression that you actually admire that piece of crap movie “Path Laid With Bad Intentions.” Seriously: Do you actually believe any of the BS in there? I’m sorry but, once you make crap up and fictionalize events, it’s just that – fiction.
CaseyL
He’s only on the list for those because those are the only actions for which a grand jury conducted an investigation and handed down charges.
No grand jury has been convened to hear evidence of OBL’s criminal culpability in the 9/11 attacks; therefore no GJ has handed down an indictment; therefore, such charges aren’t on the FBI roster.
scs
That 9/11 movie was pretty good, from start to finish. I have seen all the 9/11 movies so far, that’s 3 and this, so four, and they have all been good, each adding a different piece to the puzzle of the story.
I think the partisan controversy over it was definitely overblown. Most of the movie had little to do with the “we should have done this or that” finger pointing, and instead just told a story. It told the story of the plotters in the Phillipines and Pakistan and the CIA attempts to keep up with it. It took you to Mahmaod of the Northern Alliance. It told of the legimate conflict the Clinton admin had over criminal law and international relations. And the last part of the movie, showing the day of 9/11 was good, even though it moved at a fast pace, it still captured the total chaos of the day.
All in all, very well done. And I am glad they edited some scenes out that were controversial and wished they had edited a few more of the remaining controversial scenes, as that was again only a small part and distracted from the rest of the movie. Sad that it seems so many people believed the hype and self censored themselves from watching this movies as it examined very important issues we all need to think about.
Tim F.
Seriously? I should keep a tally of these rightwing own goals.
scs
Huh? Oh soccer maybe?
scs
By the way, at the time I guess I was leftwing, since I was a Clinton supporter. Sorry, I just didn’t know the name. I believe at the time I kept up with the news less than I do now. I knew there were embassy bombings in Africa and such, but that was about it. I didn’t know that was connected in any way to the first WTC bombings. Sorry we can’t all come out of the womb as erudite as you Tim!
Tim F.
Look up Escobar, FIFA WOrld Cup 1994.
srv
SRC was our love child, but that was back when SCS was less ideologically confused.
scs
Ahh yes. Good times. Good times.
CaseyL
scs is, like other Righties, a tabula rasa; a singularity of perfect ignorance.
scs never heard of OBL before 9/11, even though he and his mujaheed were US clients during the USSR-Afghanistan war. scs never heard of OBL before 9/11, even though he was charged with the embassy bombings in 1998.
Probably scs and other Righties never heard of terrorism before 9/11, either. That’s why they react so satisfactorally to Bush Admin exhortations that terrorism is a worse threat than anything we’ve ever faced before. They don’t know that Europe suffered repeated terrorist attacks throughout the 1980’s without having a collective nervous breakdown, or declaring war on nations which had nothing to do with the attacks, or turning their own countries into police states.
scs is the wave of the future, folks: a person without history, without knowledge, without insight; ready to be filled with whatever propaganda of the day her leaders decide it’s convenient for her to have; and ready, at a moment’s notice, to erase-and-forget any silly facts or truths that might contradict what her leaders want her to believe.
A model citizen of Bushist America.
scs
Please. I bet if you had polled people in from 1998-2001 about UBL, probably very few, maybe 1% had any idea who he was. Heck half the people polled today barely know basic things like who the Vice President is. I also kept up with the news less back then because for one, I didn’t have the internet and I watched less TV back then. I bought the NYT once in a while maybe back then, but stuck mostly to my local paper, and trust me, UBL was not mentioned often back then. Again, I am in good company, because even Clinton admitted he didn’t have a good idea that UBL was a terrorist superstar in 1998, and he was the president. As you can see, I was not the President in 1998, so whether I knew who UBL was or not, wasn’t really a matter of life and death for anyone.
scs
So let’s see DJ, so CaseyL is your hard ass troll. You know, he’s not bad. Always good to shake things up once in a while.
srv
Well, I seem to remember alot of Dems who thought Saddam was a threat to us in the 90’s, but I guess that wasn’t propoganda…
Most Republicans and Democrats are morons. It’s our way of life, and the Churchill of our times says we “must put aside our differences and work together” to protect Amoronica.
Richard 23
That’s interesting and makes sense. It’s only been five years after all. When is the current administration planning to convene a grand jury? Seems like an important enough crime to charge him with if the evidence exists. Per Condi and Powell they have the goods. Why not do something with them?
Clarence Michaels
How ironic that BushCo’s media team has so successfully segued-in “9/11 – American Holocaust” at a time when the Pentagon is making plans for a two-front war in Iran, and Republicans are circling the wagons behind “security” (not “defense”, that’s clearly joke; not “reconstruction” jokes, read Billmon today; not “economy” jokes, just read Morgan Stanley) in Neo’s runup to November and far, far beyond.
The Middle East is alive to politics. They understand every pin drop. ASEAN is alive to economics. They understand every hundreth point exchange. Americans are dead to everything except their Docu-Drama Movie and Faux-Reality TV of the Week. It’s absolutely horrifying to live in USA these days.
Zifnab
While they’re at it, why not try the 450-odd prisoners in Gitmo, or the unknown number of other prisoners living abroad in secret prisons? Whether or not OBL has enough evidence against him to be convicted, this administration has never been overly interested in following the rule of law to begin with. Why start now?
DougJ
I thought some of you might enjoy this link.
p.lukasiak
That 9/11 movie was pretty good, from start to finish. I have seen all the 9/11 movies so far, that’s 3 and this, so four, and they have all been good, each adding a different piece to the puzzle of the story.
demonstrating how dangerous a piece of propaganda like “Path to 9-11” actually.
Having read the 9-11 Commission Report, I can say that there is only the most tenuous relationship between the report and the “facts” as presented in Path to 9-11. SCS is your classic “low information” voter who can’t discriminate between truth and fiction, or between facts and spin. He, and millions of other Americans, have “learned” things over the last two nights that are as real as Saddam’s WMDs.
BlogReeder
p.lukasiak, have you seen Path to 9/11? Just curious. I haven’t, haven’t got the time. :(
Jess
Oh great. Now I have to scrub my screen with bleach. Thanks Doug.
HH
Of course it was at least two days before the government named al Qaeda/Osama as the culprits (which of course didn’t stop the likes of Oliver Willis from spreading a false “quote” of Bush saying he would not rest til he captured Osama on September 12 — too bad Mikey Moore’s September 12 words were the real thing).
HH
So lemme get this straight – the Clinton admin. were the smart guys who knew all about Osama but it was really Bush’s job to get rid of him. We CAN be taught!
Pb
CaseyL,
Future, or present?
Richard 23
Well it certainly isn’t Clinton’s job now, five years after the attacks, now is it? If you don’t have that straight, there’s not much I can do to help you.
The Asshole Formerly Known as GOP4Me
Ex-Presidents still have to do what they can to protect America.
Frankly, I’m a bit disappointed Clinton hasn’t ingratiated himself into Pashtun-Waziri culture by now, learning the local languages and traditions and sniffing out clues on Al Qaeda. He might even make us some friends in the region as a side benefit. Then, if he found out where Osama was staying, he could take him out with a sniper rifle. Even if Osama’s guards caught him afterward and killed him, he’d still die a true American hero.
Could we have a Clinton memorial even if Clinton died taking out Osama, though? I mean, he still got impeached, and he still whacked Vince Foster and whatnot.
Bombadil
Well, there are more Republican ex-presidents around than Democrats. Why doesn’t Ford get off his ass and go after bin Laden?
The Other Steve
To which the obvious response is…
HUH!?
Lay off the meth, dude.
The Asshole Formerly Known as GOP4Me
Different portfolio. Just because you’re an ex-President doesn’t mean you can go off half-cocked and be a renegade; otherwise, Jimmy Carter might’ve tried to whack Ayatollah Khomeini instead of resting up stateside and building houses, waiting for just… the… right… moment…
Ford was the ex-President assigned to bring our remaining POWs home from Vietnam. Remember Rambo II? That was actually a fictionalized portrayal of a covert op Ford personally performed back in 1979. He’s entitled to sit on his laurels at this point.
The Other Steve
You do raise a good point.
Look at all these people that Bill Clinton personally killed.
Clearly the man must be one of the premier assassins in this nation. Why hasn’t he infiltrated himself into wazistan and taken out Bin Laden personally?
I mean from everything we know based on the Clinton Body Count websites, the man is capable of mind control. He’s more than capable of using his powerful mind control force to cause bin Laden to want to kill himself.
The Asshole Formerly Known as GOP4Me
If only he didn’t hate America, think of the good he could perform with his powers.
The Asshole Formerly Known as GOP4Me
Here’s where Clinton’s problems started.
Now we know what happened. He gained superpowers, but lost his soul. A sad, docu-dramatized version of what would happen if there really was a Spiderman or similar super “hero”.
Bombadil
I had no idea! Well, of course, then, he’s done his part!
schwankmoe
A purely emotional being. Without history.
I was watching Ted Koppel’s special on the Discovery Channel a few days back and a member of the Bush administration was on talking about the line between security and safety. It was a roundtable discussion with a number of people talking about policy and raising questions, and this man flatly stated that many of these people just didn’t understand how the administration has to do the job. Koppel quickly pointed out that two of the people who had just recently spoke voicing concern over the administration’s overstepping of constitutional boundaries were both former members of the administration- an ‘aw, shnap’ moment if you will. I waited intently for the man’s response, and it is exactly what I expected it to be: “Well, remember there are 3000 people who died on 9/11 who can’t be a part of this discussion”, etc etc. This classic appeal to emotion has been honed like a blade by the Bush administration, and it’s always the fallback when the going gets tough. And it got me thinking.
There is a large disconnect b/w people in America today. We blame it on ‘right’ vs ‘left’, but that is in fact not the way it falls, but rather between logic and irrational emotion.
Many of us on the left of the political spectrum in America today are trying to look at incidents such as 9/11 from a step back without the cloud of emotion that regularly accompanies such an event. I fully expect history books in 50 years, for example, to describe the event in similar historically cold, clinical language as say the Boston Massacre. The reason we do so is because we cannot properly formulate a political foreign policy on an irrational emotional state of mind.
I say it isn’t a ‘left/right’ thing because there are plenty of logical and fact-based analyses coming out of right-wing commentators, most of which those of us in the ‘reality-based’ left have a more-than-grudging respect for. Notably, we disagree on politics in general, but in a polite way because that’s what adults do. And there are those on the far left who let their emotions rule their politics just as much as those on the right of which I’m taking issue. Of course the rightists are apparently the ones in charge of this country as it stands currently, and thus those are with whom I take issue.
We in the ‘reality-based community’ try to look at policy/history and it’s short- and long-term effects in a logical light. But no matter what we try to do, the emotional right decries it.
We point out that OBL and his henchmen are intelligent men with a plan who should not be underestimated, who perform actions for a reason and we’re shouted down with simplistic pablum like ‘no, they hate us for our freedoms’.
We point out that the US has a long history of mucking about in the mid east, causing no end of hatred to be pointed back towards us, and we’re shouted down with accusations of ‘blaming America’. Merely for trying to look at the incident and the perpetrators in a historical light, rather than based on blind rage and only what happens in the here and now.
Now, you’ll see many of us some to the conclusion that the current administration knows what it’s doing and merely uses the emotional veneer to protect itself from criticism. I agree, noting that Bush and his cabinet have had a political hard-on for invading Iraq for some time before 9/11, and also noting the impatience with which we left Afghanistan and with which we dealt with UN inspections leading up to the invasion of Iraq. This makes sense as any administration in actuality should know exactly what it’s doing and has weighed what it thinks the effects of policy will be based on what they consider the logic and facts on the ground. I also note the general distaste this administration has for science, which in my opinion shows another set of examples of obfuscating the issue with emotional rhetoric knowing full well that the scientific (logical) facts taken at face value describe a different policy altogether.
What this administration has done more so than any in recent history is puff up the emotional cloud around their decisions in order to obfuscate the rest of us and choke us on irrational rhetoric. People like scs fall right into line as irrational foot-soldiers, hocking up emotion-laden talking points and committing numerous logical fallacies in the name of defending the honor of the team they picked based on an emotional response to trauma.
An administration which knows how to cultivate anger and influence the non-rational plays these types of people like a fiddle and turns them on other citizens. This is the kernel of the debate on sites such as this and the reason we turn these debates into shouting matches.
The Asshole Formerly Known as GOP4Me
Yep. Ford’s done his bit- for America, and for Hollywood.
Still waiting for Clinton to do anything of consequence besides killing people, though. You’d think that just by the laws of statistics he’d have killed a terrorist or two by now, but not that we know of. Unless Ron Brown was secretly a terrorist, of course. And as everyone knows, Clinton had him killed for knowing too much. (Which means everyone knows too much, so watch your asses! Clinton‘s coming to feel your pain, motherfuckers!)
John S.
Funny, that’s exactly how I’ve always thought of her. I can practically see the vacuous look on her face as she whips up her vapid little posts, and whenever called on the sheer stupidity of them mewls, “Huh? I don’t get it. You’re a mean lefty spoof!”
Anderson
I’d never heard of OBL either, and I was reading the NYT regularly. Some damn bunch of terrorists blew up some embassies and a ship of ours, was all I knew. Hell, it’s a wonder I didn’t have a job in the Bush administration.
Pb
Hey Bill, time to dust off the old ninja costume!
The Asshole Formerly Known as GOP4Me
If only Congress hadn’t held him back in the mid-90s, he’d have torn Osama apart with his bare hands!
I think that foul temptress Monica Lewinski was actually an Al Qaeda agent. Osama is far craftier than we give him credit for.
Pb
What kind of a name is ‘Lewinski’ anyhow… has Osama infiltrated MOSSAD?!
Pb
The War On Stingrays has begun–we didn’t start this war, the stingrays took this war to our shores and attacked our people! We will hunt down the stingrays responsible, and those who harbor them, dead or alive!
The Asshole Formerly Known as GOP4Me
The Israelis have turned against us too, then.
America is truly surrounded.
If Clinton can’t save us, the nukes just might have to.
The Asshole Formerly Known as GOP4Me
As usual, Clinton got overeager and distracted.
Punchy
I always hated those old Corvettes…
The Other Steve
Oh dear, and I thought his singing showtunes already made him unstoppable.
The Other Steve
Is Bill Clinton responsible for this to!?
He should have done more to prevent Steve Irwins death!
The Other Steve
Worse.
It’s Polish!
NEVER FORGET POLAND!
DougJ
If Clinton has put half the effort into taking out Osama that he did into taking out Vince Foster, 911 never would have happened.
Pb
Poland: Never Forget.
The Asshole Formerly Known as GOP4Me
Those showtunes gained him this power over women. He has used this power to hypnotize seductresses like Monica Lewinski and Condoleeza Rice, forcing them to serve his bidding in his nefarious quest to conquer America for the Mullah Mohammed Omar.
These men must be stopped, or Osama will have sex with your wife.
The Asshole Formerly Known as GOP4Me
Good point.
If Clinton had spent half as much time and effort driving the stingray to extinction as he spent getting his rocks off in the Oval Office, Steve Irwin would be alive today.
Refute THAT, moonbats!
The Asshole Formerly Known as GOP4Me
Zbigniew Brzezinski was also Polish. He’s responsible for beginning the CIA arms supplies to Afghanistan that caused the rise of Al Qaeda in the first place.
All the pieces of this puzzle are beginning to come together…
The Asshole Formerly Known as GOP4Me
At least he didn’t whack Foster with a stingray hitman, like he did with Steve Irwin. (Then, of course, he killed that stingray and 9 of his business associates to cover up the crime. Clinton was a sub-par President when it came to enacting national health care, but he’s a wily, crazed maniac expert when it comes to contracting assassinations and then assassinating the assassins to cover up his tracks. Who knows how many people has had killed? Someday, the number of his victims may exceed even that of Saddam. Or Stalin.)
Punchy
When I hear “Stingrays attacked”, I picture some greasy Italian mobster from Jersey going up-on-blocks to some rusted out Corvettes in a dirty parking lot in North Trenton…
Zifnab
As I recall, the stingray attack on Steve Irwin occured on President Bush’s watch. Clearly you’ve overlooked the critical Presidential Daily Briefing entitled “Stingrays committed to striking Hollywood Zoologists”. Why did Jack Hanna have anti-stinger missles mounted on his boat on the evening of September the 3rd while the rest of the country was left to its own peril?
Andrew
Wait a second. Wait a god damned second. All we hear about is how Foster committed “suicide” by shooting himself in the mouth. Who is to say that “he” didn’t use a sting ray to do so? Why does everyone assume it was a gun?
Given the mounting evidence for Clinton’s preference for using sting ray barbs to assassinate leading zoological figures, I don’t think that we can rule anything out. Maybe Clinton “forgot” to lockup the stingray cabinet one night and Hillary wandered by on her way to a lesbian orgy/heathcare debate. Et Voilà! Vince Foster is dead.
Faux News
DougJ, you have been spending quality time with the Kool Aid drinkers on RedState.com again haven’t you?
:-)
The Other Steve
This is a good point. I mean sure there was a gun found at the scene, but who is to say that the gun was actually used to kill Vince Foster!?
As Representative Dan Burton (R-Indiana) proved beyond a shadow of a doubt by shooting a watermelon with a gun in his backyard, it was impossible for a gun to have killed Foster.
But was any investigation done to determine if it was a Stingray?
I don’t think so. Clearly we have a giant conspiracy here, that starts right at the top. Clinton and his Stingray hitmen.
DougJ
As I recall, the stingray attack on Steve Irwin occured on President Bush’s watch.
Clinton has eight years to deal with that stingray. Bush had only 6. You tell me who’s more at fault here.
And sure there was a memo “Stingray determined to attack Crocodile Hunter.” But it didn’t say how the stingray was planning to attack or even which Crocodile Hunter it was planning to attack. There was no actionable intelligence.
John D.
Any adult who did not know who Bin Laden was at the end of 1998 was simply not paying attention. You would lose that bet, *badly*.
August 1998 had many, many, many articles from the AP discussing the cruise missile strikes that failed to kill Bin Laden. (One link only due to retarded anti-spam measures. Guys, 1996 called, they want their algorithms back.) Gallup and other organizations polled lots of Americans about these strikes, mentioning Bin Laden by name. Time magazine had many articles about him. “Wag the Dog” was thrown about most media outlets, as they accused Clinton of bombing Bin Laden to distract people from the Lewinsky scandal.
I still maintain that if you did not “have any idea who he was”, you were actively avoiding all newspapers, broadcast news, politics, NPR, water cooler gossip, talk radio, family and friends. It was simply that pervasive — since the Lewinsky scandal was that pervasive.
Pb
Well that would explain it–I avoided all that BS too. Back then, I did hear something about a dress, and *possibly* about an asprin factory, but that’s about it. Then again, I was in college–I was too busy doing work, and avoiding work.
The Asshole Formerly Known as GOP4Me
The Mafia perfected the stingray assassin tactic back in the ’20s.
Why do you think they called it “sleeping with the fishes”?
That’s a good point. Why didn’t the Vince Foster murder investigation focus more on Hillary Clinton’s fish tank? Why have the contents of that tank never been disclosed? What is the liberal media trying to hide, here?
America wants the truth, and it won’t take “Huh? What are you jabbering about, you moron?” for an answer this time.
The Asshole Formerly Known as GOP4Me
That sounds pretty compelling. You could refute a lot of these so-called “firearm-related homicides” with evidence like that.
Why do the moonbats continue to persecute the NRA on gun control? Everyone with their facts straight knows that the real culprit in 98% of these “gun” deaths is really homicidal stingray.
Exactly. Hopefully, 5 years from now, ABC’s hit film “Paths to Getting Shivved Through the Heart By a Rabid Stingray” will lay the onus for Steve Irwin’s tragic death at the feet of the President to whom it belongs.
Anyway, it’s common knowledge that Bush has done everything humanly possible to exterminate stingrays. He just faces an uphill battle after 8 years of stingray repopulation under Billary.
In retrospect, maybe Paul Hogan didn’t need 4 Secret Service agents and covert CIA protective surveillance. But hey, hindsight is always 20/20.
Gregg
I’ve seen quite a few comments and have to add my own. Some mentioned that the first time Bin Laden was mentioned was almost 2 hours after the planes hit.
Some also mentioned hearing it on Stern’s show. Well, the first time it was mentioned on Stern’s show was within the first 20 minutes. One of the first things, before the 2nd plane hit, that was said… “we’re at war, they brought it here” and soon after that Osama was mentioned.
Frankly, I think the gov’t knew, I am sure Stern was not the only adept one out there, as well. Most broadcasters tried, in my humbled opinion, to play down that angle until they got the go-ahead from their ‘higher-ups’.
Okay, that was my two cents….
scs
Hey give me a break. I was hanging out with a younger crowd back then, and honestly we had better things to do then sit around and talk about an embassy bombing in Africa. I was also busier at that time in my life and did not have time or inclination to go buy a NYT every day, or scour my boring local paper for the info on who bombed the embassy in Africa. I didn’t even have access to much TV news back then as I don’t believe I had any cable news channel at the time. Like Clinton, I was probably more interested in the whole impeachment issue at the time anyway and if I read the news, I probably concentrated on that.
Hey unlike TimF, I’m not embarrassed to admit that I don’t know something when I don’t. I’m not afraid of the truth. What’s embarassing is when you pretend to know something and you don’t. Now that’s something to be ashamed of.
Nowadays in addition to more news access, I also have a more boring life, probably like most of you all (or you wouldn’t be here) and I have more time to follow all the fascinating ins and outs of the news.
HH
“Well it certainly isn’t Clinton’s job now, five years after the attacks, now is it? If you don’t have that straight, there’s not much I can do to help you.”
This is a little thing called “misdirection,” just so you have an example for future reference.
And it’s “Microsoft” not “Vince Foster.”