On September 27, 2004 we found out why we keep getting vague warnings about terror alerts; haven't found Osama Bin Laden; and why Iraq is not a democratic paradise. It seems that the CIA was guessing. Its true. President Bush said so.
President Bush said that a National Intelligence Estimate compiled by the CIA was only a guess. The NIE said that at best there would be tenuous stability in Iraq and at worst a civil war. President Bush didn't like this so he tried to downplay the significance of the NIE. However, he talked up the NIE that said that Iraq could have weapons of mass destruction.
Wednesday, September 29, 2004
Saturday, September 25, 2004
Elaine Lee
Elaine Lee . . .hmm . . . I know you are racking your brain, googling the name, and trying to place it. Stop trying; you can't. Elaine Lee gave me my morning chuckle (at least I hope I was supposed to laugh, otherwise we should cry). She wrote a letter to the editor criticizing another letter writer. As part of her critique she stated that Clinton didn't act after the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, the embassy bombings in 1998 and the attack on the USS Cole in 2000.
Uh, wrong. In fact the investigation of the first WTC bombing actually went pretty well and should be a framework for terror investigations. It was lead by the head of the FBI's counterterrorism task force out of New York. His name was John O'Neill. He died in the second attack on the WTC. He had left the FBI the week before to head the security for the WTC complex. His an interesting story about how the FBI became dysfunctional. However, I would like instead to concentrate on his investigation on the first bombing.
After the first bombing the FBI got a break. They located the axle of the truck used as the bomb, traced it back to the rental place and nabbed the guy who rented it when he went back to get his deposit (he claimed the truck was stolen).
Well, at the end of the day the FBI was able to arrest the people involved in the plot and put them in jail. People were tracked to the Philipines (Ramsi Yousef who was trying to blow up US airliners simultaneously over the Pacific), Pakistan and beyond.
So everyone involved in the first WTC bombing was indicted, captured, and put in jail. The investigation also gave the FBI insight into how the terror cells were organized and financed.
So, Ms. Lee, President Clinton hunted down and captured the terrorists responsible, prosecuted them and put them in jail where they remain today. Has President Bush found any of those responsible for the 9/11 attacks?
After the 1998 bombing of our embassies in Africa, President Clinton ordered attacks on Osama Bin Laden and a chemical factory associated with Al Qaeda. He was criticized at the time for trying to get attention away from his personal and political problems. Seems that
wasn't the case.
In 2000 the Cole investigation started immediately after the attack in October. In fact the head of counterterrorism, Richard Clarke, came up with a comprehensive strategy to take on Al Qaeda that was ready just as President Clinton was preparing to leave office. Newly elected
President Bush decided to ignore Clarke and Al Qaeda, until about 9:15 am on September 11, 2001--after planes had crashed into both towers at the World Trade Center and he finished reading "My Pet Goat" to the 2nd graders in Tampa.
Ms. Lee, get the facts, don't be stupid.
--I also have some concern about editorial page editors who don't check the accuracy of the facts asserted in letters to the editor. Strong opinions are one thing, but when the facts are wrong that is a problem and doesn't add to the diversity of views the letters to the editor are supposed to provide.
Uh, wrong. In fact the investigation of the first WTC bombing actually went pretty well and should be a framework for terror investigations. It was lead by the head of the FBI's counterterrorism task force out of New York. His name was John O'Neill. He died in the second attack on the WTC. He had left the FBI the week before to head the security for the WTC complex. His an interesting story about how the FBI became dysfunctional. However, I would like instead to concentrate on his investigation on the first bombing.
After the first bombing the FBI got a break. They located the axle of the truck used as the bomb, traced it back to the rental place and nabbed the guy who rented it when he went back to get his deposit (he claimed the truck was stolen).
Well, at the end of the day the FBI was able to arrest the people involved in the plot and put them in jail. People were tracked to the Philipines (Ramsi Yousef who was trying to blow up US airliners simultaneously over the Pacific), Pakistan and beyond.
So everyone involved in the first WTC bombing was indicted, captured, and put in jail. The investigation also gave the FBI insight into how the terror cells were organized and financed.
So, Ms. Lee, President Clinton hunted down and captured the terrorists responsible, prosecuted them and put them in jail where they remain today. Has President Bush found any of those responsible for the 9/11 attacks?
After the 1998 bombing of our embassies in Africa, President Clinton ordered attacks on Osama Bin Laden and a chemical factory associated with Al Qaeda. He was criticized at the time for trying to get attention away from his personal and political problems. Seems that
wasn't the case.
In 2000 the Cole investigation started immediately after the attack in October. In fact the head of counterterrorism, Richard Clarke, came up with a comprehensive strategy to take on Al Qaeda that was ready just as President Clinton was preparing to leave office. Newly elected
President Bush decided to ignore Clarke and Al Qaeda, until about 9:15 am on September 11, 2001--after planes had crashed into both towers at the World Trade Center and he finished reading "My Pet Goat" to the 2nd graders in Tampa.
Ms. Lee, get the facts, don't be stupid.
--I also have some concern about editorial page editors who don't check the accuracy of the facts asserted in letters to the editor. Strong opinions are one thing, but when the facts are wrong that is a problem and doesn't add to the diversity of views the letters to the editor are supposed to provide.
Thursday, September 16, 2004
No Go
The buzz word of the week is "No Go Zone". A No Go Zone is a place in Iraq where regular Iraqi's and US troops don't go to because these areas are in the control of the "dead enders" and "Saddamists" or in actuality, Iraqi insurgents. There are actually whole cities that are "No Go Zones".
But, you know, 130,000 troops is sufficient to conquer Saddam and bring democracy to Iraq. As President Bush said today elections in Iraq are "scheduled" for January. Not "will be held" in January, but they are scheduled. Meanwhile, we don't have enough troops to even control the whole country. Because of the emphasis on a small force and complete disregard for the Powell Doctrine (overwhelming force), we are caught short in Iraq. We conquered Saddam fast enough, but couldn't provide any security in the aftermath. So now we have "No Go Zones." But as the Republicans have told us, 50 million people in Iraq and Afghanistan are living in freedom. Freedom to fear for their lives in a whole new way.
But, you know, 130,000 troops is sufficient to conquer Saddam and bring democracy to Iraq. As President Bush said today elections in Iraq are "scheduled" for January. Not "will be held" in January, but they are scheduled. Meanwhile, we don't have enough troops to even control the whole country. Because of the emphasis on a small force and complete disregard for the Powell Doctrine (overwhelming force), we are caught short in Iraq. We conquered Saddam fast enough, but couldn't provide any security in the aftermath. So now we have "No Go Zones." But as the Republicans have told us, 50 million people in Iraq and Afghanistan are living in freedom. Freedom to fear for their lives in a whole new way.
Saturday, September 11, 2004
Conservatives and the War on Terror
As it is September 11, it is time to look back and evaluate where we are in the war on terror and see what can be done to make America and its allies safer (yes the US still has allies though they are not in a very friendly mood at the moment).
It is undeniable that when Bush 43 came into office in January 2001, terrorism was not a high priority. The economy loomed large and Bush was intent on using tax cuts to stimulate the economy. There was a threat from the proliferation of nuclear weapons (especially North Korea and Pakistan) and Bush resurrected the Strategic Defense initiative to build an anti-missile defense system to protect the US from these rogue nations.
This seemed very reasonable. He was implementing the plan that he ran on. Bush said that the US should have a more humble foreign policy, avoid getting too involved in world matters not directly affecting us, and not engage in nation building. These things, for the most part, reflected the public mood of the nation.
However, among those in the know, there was an urgency that was being ignored. In October 2000, the USS Cole was attacked by suicide bombers in Yemen. Seventeen sailors were killed. It was suspected that this was the work of Al Qaeda, the group also responsible for the bombing of two US embassies in Africa in 1998. The loss of American life was small, though the loss of local life was significant.
The Clinton administration's response to the 1998 bombings was to bomb terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and a chemical factory in Sudan. This response was criticized by the Republicans on two fronts: First, why use a $1 million missile to hit a $10 tent? Second, the Clinton administration used dubious intelligence to hit the chemical factory and only served to further alienate the rest of the world. The factory, Republicans claimed, only made aspirin. Clinton countered it was funded by Al Qaeda and sold product to Iraq. There was also rumbling that this was a "Wag the Dog" move--Clinton was creating a military threat to turn attention from the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
There had been no response to the Cole bombing as of the time Clinton left office. Clinton was being very careful to make sure they knew who did it, though it was obvious to most of the national security staff that it was Al Qaeda. Without evidence Clinton was not prepared to move and commit the incoming president to a course of action. Likewise at the same time, he had his Counter-Terrorism Czar Richard Clarke, devise a plan to go after Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. That plan was delivered to Clinton on December 20, 2000. Again implementation was withheld as Clinton did not want to commit Bush to a course of action, and the plans were far reaching.
So, as Bush took office his concerns were the economy, rogue nations with nuclear weapons, entangling treaties (Kyoto Treaty on Global Warming, the International Criminal Court), and of course his first official act: cutting off US funding to non-governmental organizations that gave abortion counseling.
At this time only two groups were concerned about what was going on in Afghanistan: career national security staff (Richard Clark, Rand Beers, George Tenet), and women's magazines. Whoa, women's magazines? Yes, women's magazines. They were focusing on Afghanistan because the Taliban were severely limiting women's rights. Fundamentalist Islam took over. Women could not go out alone, could not go to school, could not have jobs, and were being subject to "female circumcision." You heard more about the Taliban on Oprah and in Glamour than on CNN or from the White House (except some praise for the Taliban for reducing the production of poppies--can't forget the "war on drugs").
During the summer of 2001, the CIA and FBI were going nuts looking for two suspected Al Qaeda members who had gotten into the country. The "chatter" being picked up among known terrorists was becoming intense. While Clarke and Tenant were at "battle stations" there still hadn't been a principals meeting on the issue of terrorism; that is a meeting between cabinet level officials. In fact, Clark as terrorism Czar had been "demoted" to a deputies position. Under Clinton the terrorism Czar had access to the principals and the President.
On September 11, 2001 Richard Clarke was not supposed to be anywhere further than 5 minutes from the White House. President Bush was in Tampa meeting with elementary school children. When the Clarke got the call that a plane had hit the World Trade Center, he rushed back to the White House knowing that the US had been attacked by Al Qaeda. When Andy Card told President Bush the same thing, he continued to read the intriguing story of My Pet Goat. Various reasons have been given: it could have been an accident, no one imagined that terrorists would use airplanes in this manner, it wasn't clear it was a crisis until the second plane hit. President Bush would have known right away it was Al Qaeda if he had bothered to read his Presidential Daily Briefs (including the one in August titled "Al Qaeda determined to Strike US" which included the belief that they would try to hijack aircraft).
Whether or not vigilance by the President would have prevented the 9/11 attacks is unknown. However, what is known is his response. As we sit here 3 years after the attacks the question is "Are we safer today then we were on September 10, 2001?"
Unfortunately, the answer is "probably not". Turns out we knew who the 9/11 hijackers were, were able to trace their movements in this country, had prevented others from entering this country, and came within a search warrant of blowing open he plot. Problem was, the structure of the intelligence community, its disjointed and political nature, prevented the people in the know from "connecting the dots." So, how do we respond to this attack on the US and how do we prevent it in the future?
Now, I have some food for thought: Conservative Values:
1. Fiscal Responsibility (no deficits)
2. A "humble" foreign policy
3. Less Government More Freedom
George Bush's record
1. Largest deficit ever
2. Reckless, arrogant foreign policy
3. More government, less freedom
The point of this exercise is not to bash Republicans but to show that today's Republicans are not conservatives. They have abandoned conservative values. The largest problem is their focus on larger government, more overbearing government that restricts American liberties. This is completely unacceptable. And this has made us less safe.
I will not dwell on the deficits, but there is one important fact: The US didn't survive the September 11th attacks because it has the best armed forces in the world (though we do). It survived because we have the strongest economy in the world. This is the same reason we won World War II. We are able to keep producing under the worst of circumstances. Did 9/11 hurt the economy? Yes. But it didn't devastate it; it didn't stop Americans from doing what they do. In fact, President Bush realized this when he said Americans should go out and spend because a vital economy is vital to national security. So why then has Bush abandoned fiscal conservatism, strangely enough as espoused by President Clinton? He let budgets get out of control. It isn't just the Iraq war and the "Clinton Recession" that did it. It was ill advised tax cuts and poor fiscal policy. So, Bush is not a fiscal conservative.
A more humble foreign policy. Well, Republicans argue, we can't be humble in the face of the terrorist threat. Unfortunately, they misinterpret humble. Humble doesn't mean meek. It means respectful. We must respect our allies. There wasn't a single ally that objected to our going after the Taliban in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, the Afghan campaign was bungled. Instead of freeing the whole country from the Taliban and imposing the rule of law we secured Taliban strongholds of Kabul and Kandahar. Instead of having thousands of US troops eliminating the last remnants of the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Tora Bora, we relied on Afghans who really didn't "have a dog in this fight." Thus, Mullah Omar and Osama Bin Laden escaped into a lawless region of Pakistan to be protected by their sympathetic tribesman.
To further the war on terror, Bush decided to go against Iraq. Again, his fundamental misunderstanding of the perpetrators of terrorism hindered his ability to act. On the day of the attacks he asked Clarke what part Iraq had in this. "No part" Clarke responded. The president wanted it looked into anyway. Thus began the Iraqi misadventure. Again, we could have world support for the Iraq war if it had been handled properly politically and militarily. Prior to the war Secretary of State Colin Powell went to the UN to make the case for war. This was his chance to blind side the world with the evidence just as Adlai Stevenson had done during the Cuban missile crisis. The Russians denied there were missiles and we showed the pictures. Unfortunately, this time we had no pictures and it turns our they had no missiles. I was a supporter of the war until that point. However, the Bush administration pushed forward with the war without any support (except Britain). Not humble. Not even bold. Just arrogant.
Less Government. More Freedom. So how do we fight the terrorists here at home. I have an idea. Let's give up liberty for security. But how do we square that with our Conservative tenet of less government, more freedom. We don't have to. We are not conservatives, we are new Republicans. We change the Constitution for our own short term political gain, so what's the big deal to give up some rights? Well, there's no point.
9/11 didn't happen because of the imaginary wall between terrorist and criminal investigations at the Department of Justice. Or because the FBI couldn't look at what books people were buying or checking out of the library. In fact, we knew who the terrorists were as soon as we looked at the passenger manifests. We had pictures of them entering the airports; records of them entering the country and reports of them attending Al Qaeda meetings. So what went wrong.
1. The FBI didn't process a report by a special agent in Phoenix that wanted to look into Middle Eastern men taking flying lessons.
2. The FBI wouldn't ask for a search warrant for a Middle Eastern man arrested after he wanted to take flying lessons, but not learn how to land or takeoff (Zacharious Moussaoui).
3. The CIA, the FBI and Customs couldn't seem to coordinate their terror watch lists.
4. Information about those attending the Al Qaeda meeting in Indonesia wasn't passed on to the FBI and Customs.
5. An FBI informant in San Diego didn't realize he had two of the terrorists living in his house.
So, which of the above would the USA Patriot Act have helped. None. It has helped nail some strip club owners in Las Vegas.
So where are we on September 11, 2004. We are short 1,005 soldiers killed in Iraq and have created a new group of terrorist leaders. New York is on Orange Alert. Dick Cheney has come out of his undisclosed location to let us know a vote for John Kerry is a signal to terrorists to attack with impugnity. Osama and Mullah Omar are still around. Al Qaeda is stronger than ever. The Arab Street is against us. Terrorism is rampant in Iraq and Russia. North Korea has nuclear weapons (yet we are moving 12,000 out of 34,000 troops off of the Korean peninsula). Iran is working on getting nuclear weapons. Iran is funding terrorists in Lebanon, West Bank, and Gaza, as well as letting Al Qaeda traverse its frontier without question.
The good news: Libya has given up its weapons of mass destruction program after two years of negotiations with the British and has paid billions for the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Scotland; though there is a question about whether the bombing was actually the work of Iran.
Have you noticed a theme? (hint: IRAN).
President Bush is not a conservative nor has done anything to fight the war against Al Qaeda. On this September 11, that seems pretty stupid.
It is undeniable that when Bush 43 came into office in January 2001, terrorism was not a high priority. The economy loomed large and Bush was intent on using tax cuts to stimulate the economy. There was a threat from the proliferation of nuclear weapons (especially North Korea and Pakistan) and Bush resurrected the Strategic Defense initiative to build an anti-missile defense system to protect the US from these rogue nations.
This seemed very reasonable. He was implementing the plan that he ran on. Bush said that the US should have a more humble foreign policy, avoid getting too involved in world matters not directly affecting us, and not engage in nation building. These things, for the most part, reflected the public mood of the nation.
However, among those in the know, there was an urgency that was being ignored. In October 2000, the USS Cole was attacked by suicide bombers in Yemen. Seventeen sailors were killed. It was suspected that this was the work of Al Qaeda, the group also responsible for the bombing of two US embassies in Africa in 1998. The loss of American life was small, though the loss of local life was significant.
The Clinton administration's response to the 1998 bombings was to bomb terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and a chemical factory in Sudan. This response was criticized by the Republicans on two fronts: First, why use a $1 million missile to hit a $10 tent? Second, the Clinton administration used dubious intelligence to hit the chemical factory and only served to further alienate the rest of the world. The factory, Republicans claimed, only made aspirin. Clinton countered it was funded by Al Qaeda and sold product to Iraq. There was also rumbling that this was a "Wag the Dog" move--Clinton was creating a military threat to turn attention from the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
There had been no response to the Cole bombing as of the time Clinton left office. Clinton was being very careful to make sure they knew who did it, though it was obvious to most of the national security staff that it was Al Qaeda. Without evidence Clinton was not prepared to move and commit the incoming president to a course of action. Likewise at the same time, he had his Counter-Terrorism Czar Richard Clarke, devise a plan to go after Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. That plan was delivered to Clinton on December 20, 2000. Again implementation was withheld as Clinton did not want to commit Bush to a course of action, and the plans were far reaching.
So, as Bush took office his concerns were the economy, rogue nations with nuclear weapons, entangling treaties (Kyoto Treaty on Global Warming, the International Criminal Court), and of course his first official act: cutting off US funding to non-governmental organizations that gave abortion counseling.
At this time only two groups were concerned about what was going on in Afghanistan: career national security staff (Richard Clark, Rand Beers, George Tenet), and women's magazines. Whoa, women's magazines? Yes, women's magazines. They were focusing on Afghanistan because the Taliban were severely limiting women's rights. Fundamentalist Islam took over. Women could not go out alone, could not go to school, could not have jobs, and were being subject to "female circumcision." You heard more about the Taliban on Oprah and in Glamour than on CNN or from the White House (except some praise for the Taliban for reducing the production of poppies--can't forget the "war on drugs").
During the summer of 2001, the CIA and FBI were going nuts looking for two suspected Al Qaeda members who had gotten into the country. The "chatter" being picked up among known terrorists was becoming intense. While Clarke and Tenant were at "battle stations" there still hadn't been a principals meeting on the issue of terrorism; that is a meeting between cabinet level officials. In fact, Clark as terrorism Czar had been "demoted" to a deputies position. Under Clinton the terrorism Czar had access to the principals and the President.
On September 11, 2001 Richard Clarke was not supposed to be anywhere further than 5 minutes from the White House. President Bush was in Tampa meeting with elementary school children. When the Clarke got the call that a plane had hit the World Trade Center, he rushed back to the White House knowing that the US had been attacked by Al Qaeda. When Andy Card told President Bush the same thing, he continued to read the intriguing story of My Pet Goat. Various reasons have been given: it could have been an accident, no one imagined that terrorists would use airplanes in this manner, it wasn't clear it was a crisis until the second plane hit. President Bush would have known right away it was Al Qaeda if he had bothered to read his Presidential Daily Briefs (including the one in August titled "Al Qaeda determined to Strike US" which included the belief that they would try to hijack aircraft).
Whether or not vigilance by the President would have prevented the 9/11 attacks is unknown. However, what is known is his response. As we sit here 3 years after the attacks the question is "Are we safer today then we were on September 10, 2001?"
Unfortunately, the answer is "probably not". Turns out we knew who the 9/11 hijackers were, were able to trace their movements in this country, had prevented others from entering this country, and came within a search warrant of blowing open he plot. Problem was, the structure of the intelligence community, its disjointed and political nature, prevented the people in the know from "connecting the dots." So, how do we respond to this attack on the US and how do we prevent it in the future?
Now, I have some food for thought: Conservative Values:
1. Fiscal Responsibility (no deficits)
2. A "humble" foreign policy
3. Less Government More Freedom
George Bush's record
1. Largest deficit ever
2. Reckless, arrogant foreign policy
3. More government, less freedom
The point of this exercise is not to bash Republicans but to show that today's Republicans are not conservatives. They have abandoned conservative values. The largest problem is their focus on larger government, more overbearing government that restricts American liberties. This is completely unacceptable. And this has made us less safe.
I will not dwell on the deficits, but there is one important fact: The US didn't survive the September 11th attacks because it has the best armed forces in the world (though we do). It survived because we have the strongest economy in the world. This is the same reason we won World War II. We are able to keep producing under the worst of circumstances. Did 9/11 hurt the economy? Yes. But it didn't devastate it; it didn't stop Americans from doing what they do. In fact, President Bush realized this when he said Americans should go out and spend because a vital economy is vital to national security. So why then has Bush abandoned fiscal conservatism, strangely enough as espoused by President Clinton? He let budgets get out of control. It isn't just the Iraq war and the "Clinton Recession" that did it. It was ill advised tax cuts and poor fiscal policy. So, Bush is not a fiscal conservative.
A more humble foreign policy. Well, Republicans argue, we can't be humble in the face of the terrorist threat. Unfortunately, they misinterpret humble. Humble doesn't mean meek. It means respectful. We must respect our allies. There wasn't a single ally that objected to our going after the Taliban in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, the Afghan campaign was bungled. Instead of freeing the whole country from the Taliban and imposing the rule of law we secured Taliban strongholds of Kabul and Kandahar. Instead of having thousands of US troops eliminating the last remnants of the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Tora Bora, we relied on Afghans who really didn't "have a dog in this fight." Thus, Mullah Omar and Osama Bin Laden escaped into a lawless region of Pakistan to be protected by their sympathetic tribesman.
To further the war on terror, Bush decided to go against Iraq. Again, his fundamental misunderstanding of the perpetrators of terrorism hindered his ability to act. On the day of the attacks he asked Clarke what part Iraq had in this. "No part" Clarke responded. The president wanted it looked into anyway. Thus began the Iraqi misadventure. Again, we could have world support for the Iraq war if it had been handled properly politically and militarily. Prior to the war Secretary of State Colin Powell went to the UN to make the case for war. This was his chance to blind side the world with the evidence just as Adlai Stevenson had done during the Cuban missile crisis. The Russians denied there were missiles and we showed the pictures. Unfortunately, this time we had no pictures and it turns our they had no missiles. I was a supporter of the war until that point. However, the Bush administration pushed forward with the war without any support (except Britain). Not humble. Not even bold. Just arrogant.
Less Government. More Freedom. So how do we fight the terrorists here at home. I have an idea. Let's give up liberty for security. But how do we square that with our Conservative tenet of less government, more freedom. We don't have to. We are not conservatives, we are new Republicans. We change the Constitution for our own short term political gain, so what's the big deal to give up some rights? Well, there's no point.
9/11 didn't happen because of the imaginary wall between terrorist and criminal investigations at the Department of Justice. Or because the FBI couldn't look at what books people were buying or checking out of the library. In fact, we knew who the terrorists were as soon as we looked at the passenger manifests. We had pictures of them entering the airports; records of them entering the country and reports of them attending Al Qaeda meetings. So what went wrong.
1. The FBI didn't process a report by a special agent in Phoenix that wanted to look into Middle Eastern men taking flying lessons.
2. The FBI wouldn't ask for a search warrant for a Middle Eastern man arrested after he wanted to take flying lessons, but not learn how to land or takeoff (Zacharious Moussaoui).
3. The CIA, the FBI and Customs couldn't seem to coordinate their terror watch lists.
4. Information about those attending the Al Qaeda meeting in Indonesia wasn't passed on to the FBI and Customs.
5. An FBI informant in San Diego didn't realize he had two of the terrorists living in his house.
So, which of the above would the USA Patriot Act have helped. None. It has helped nail some strip club owners in Las Vegas.
So where are we on September 11, 2004. We are short 1,005 soldiers killed in Iraq and have created a new group of terrorist leaders. New York is on Orange Alert. Dick Cheney has come out of his undisclosed location to let us know a vote for John Kerry is a signal to terrorists to attack with impugnity. Osama and Mullah Omar are still around. Al Qaeda is stronger than ever. The Arab Street is against us. Terrorism is rampant in Iraq and Russia. North Korea has nuclear weapons (yet we are moving 12,000 out of 34,000 troops off of the Korean peninsula). Iran is working on getting nuclear weapons. Iran is funding terrorists in Lebanon, West Bank, and Gaza, as well as letting Al Qaeda traverse its frontier without question.
The good news: Libya has given up its weapons of mass destruction program after two years of negotiations with the British and has paid billions for the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Scotland; though there is a question about whether the bombing was actually the work of Iran.
Have you noticed a theme? (hint: IRAN).
President Bush is not a conservative nor has done anything to fight the war against Al Qaeda. On this September 11, that seems pretty stupid.
Log Cabin Republicans--Not so stupid
In a previous post I said that Log Cabin Republicans (gay Republicans) may be stupid. Turns out that they are not that stupid. They have decided not to endorse George W. Bush for president. In fact they are not endorsing anyone. They came to their senses and realized the current administration did not represent them in the most fundamental way.
Tuesday, September 07, 2004
Zell Miller
After his wonderful speech at the Republican National Convention in NY one wouldn't think there would be much to say and really there isn't. Desperation is self evident. Instead of going into all the stupid things Miller said I will provide two links that express things quite well:
Zell Miller's Attack on Kerry: A Little Out Of Date
Carter Calls Miller's GOP Speech DisloyalJC (not Watts) would not vote for Obama
In a stunning announcement Alan Keyes, Republican candidate for the US Senate from Illinois announced that Jesus wouldn't vote for Barack Obama.
I was right. Keyes is really stupid.
I was right. Keyes is really stupid.
Sunday, September 05, 2004
Alan Keyes/Illinois Republicans
This is a tough one. Not that both don't belong. The question is which is worse? Who is the stupidest? Alan Keyes for running for the Senate from Illinois and making some of the stupidest comments ever? Or Illinois Republicans for accepting Alan Keyes as a candidate?
Let's start with the most stupid move first: Alan Keyes called gays and lesbians "selfish hedonists." He then went on to call VP Dick Cheney's daughter a sinner (she is a lesbian). Even Cheney himself has a small modicum of compassion in that he doesn't support a Constitutional amendment to ban marriage between gays. Keyes obviously is more conservative than thou.
The second most stupid is also by Keyes. When Hillary Clinton decided to run the Senate from NY he criticized her for running from a state in which she did not live. He in fact said that he wouldn't do such a thing. Keyes though is doing the same thing. Keyes is from Maryland. But he has a good reason: Barack Obama is such a threat to freedom and democracy he must be challenged, and of course Keyes is the only one to do it because Illinois ran out of qualified Republican candidates (former Republican candidate Jack Ryan (great name) had to drop out because of allegations in his years old divorce proceedings that he pressured his TV star wife, Jeri Ryan (Star Trek Voyager's 7 of 9) to engage in public sex at sex clubs--a great story in itself).
This leads us to our third stupid move: Illinois Republicans accepting Keyes as their candidate. Do they think they will draw black votes away from Obama (who is also black--his father is from Kenya, but then again his mother is white and from Kansas)? If they draw black votes away from Obama would Republicans vote for Keyes? Would anyone vote for Keyes (see above)? I know they floated Mike Ditka--good name recognition--but he's not someone with actual political chops. JC Watts would have been better. He's not from Illinois either so he is probably qualified.
OK, a quick review: Democrats are running a well educated African American whose father was an immigrant, who has been a state senator, and who is extremely popular. Republicans were running a well educated millionaire from a prominent family who left a high paying career to teach in a bad area, but was taken down by allegations of acting inconsistent with the public family values espoused by the party faithful. So, Republicans bring in a sideshow from Maryland that decides to call VP Cheney's daughter (who is working on her father's re-election) a sinner, slurs gays and recycles arguments used by white bigots to try and prevent inter-racial marriages.
I think it is close, but I think the stupidest is probably Keyes. He is just making a fool of himself. However, as I go through this I am reminded that the Republicans are trying to get out the vote by pressing their opposition to gay marriage. So, maybe the Log Cabin Republicans (Gay Republicans) are really the stupid ones. So much stupidity so little time.
Let's start with the most stupid move first: Alan Keyes called gays and lesbians "selfish hedonists." He then went on to call VP Dick Cheney's daughter a sinner (she is a lesbian). Even Cheney himself has a small modicum of compassion in that he doesn't support a Constitutional amendment to ban marriage between gays. Keyes obviously is more conservative than thou.
The second most stupid is also by Keyes. When Hillary Clinton decided to run the Senate from NY he criticized her for running from a state in which she did not live. He in fact said that he wouldn't do such a thing. Keyes though is doing the same thing. Keyes is from Maryland. But he has a good reason: Barack Obama is such a threat to freedom and democracy he must be challenged, and of course Keyes is the only one to do it because Illinois ran out of qualified Republican candidates (former Republican candidate Jack Ryan (great name) had to drop out because of allegations in his years old divorce proceedings that he pressured his TV star wife, Jeri Ryan (Star Trek Voyager's 7 of 9) to engage in public sex at sex clubs--a great story in itself).
This leads us to our third stupid move: Illinois Republicans accepting Keyes as their candidate. Do they think they will draw black votes away from Obama (who is also black--his father is from Kenya, but then again his mother is white and from Kansas)? If they draw black votes away from Obama would Republicans vote for Keyes? Would anyone vote for Keyes (see above)? I know they floated Mike Ditka--good name recognition--but he's not someone with actual political chops. JC Watts would have been better. He's not from Illinois either so he is probably qualified.
OK, a quick review: Democrats are running a well educated African American whose father was an immigrant, who has been a state senator, and who is extremely popular. Republicans were running a well educated millionaire from a prominent family who left a high paying career to teach in a bad area, but was taken down by allegations of acting inconsistent with the public family values espoused by the party faithful. So, Republicans bring in a sideshow from Maryland that decides to call VP Cheney's daughter (who is working on her father's re-election) a sinner, slurs gays and recycles arguments used by white bigots to try and prevent inter-racial marriages.
I think it is close, but I think the stupidest is probably Keyes. He is just making a fool of himself. However, as I go through this I am reminded that the Republicans are trying to get out the vote by pressing their opposition to gay marriage. So, maybe the Log Cabin Republicans (Gay Republicans) are really the stupid ones. So much stupidity so little time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)