Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Rand, I admire your skills as a writer, but I don't think it's appropriate to compare our current situation to World War II.

Posted by James at March 5, 2004 10:44 AM

Well, you're entitled to your opinion, but I think that it's perfectly appropriate to do so. We are at war with a new gang of fascists who would conquer and kill us if they could. Too many don't seem to understand that.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 5, 2004 10:59 AM

Rand,

Spot on commentary, and decent writing as well.

The events on or around 9/11 are the biggest thing to happen during the Bush presidency. How could they not have utilized it in their campaign? Has Kerry avoided mentioning it or did I miss a meeting?

Posted by Brian at March 5, 2004 11:04 AM

Kerry has avoided mentioning it. He's letting his supporters handle it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 5, 2004 11:06 AM

Kerry has avoided mentioning it. He's too busy pontificating about the Vietnam War, which (apparently) has no associated sacred memories.

Posted by Dave K. Smith at March 5, 2004 11:47 AM

You write of the 1944 election as if the re-election of a sickly old man, who in the three months of his forth term would condemn Eastern Europe to slavery and then die, was objectively a good thing.

I'm still trying to work out what exactly Bush might have to brag about with respect to 9/11. Even the tone of the Bush commercials seems to be more excuse than call to arms.

Also:
We are at war with a new gang of fascists who would conquer and kill us if they could.

That is the difference. The Original Axis could have conquered us - and was a hell of a lot more capable of killing.

Posted by Duncan Young at March 5, 2004 12:48 PM

Rand, you may think that this depiction of FDR perferdy in exploiting Pearl Harbor for political purposes is satire. I am told, though, that there was a campaign button depicting FDR's smiling visage with the caption: I remember Pearl Harbor.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at March 5, 2004 01:31 PM

Follow the link, Mark.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 5, 2004 02:02 PM

Great commentary, Rand - spot on, as usual.

Actually, our situation is worse than WWII. At least there we knew where the enemy was, and could say he was the enemy and fight to kill him. Now the enemy is scattered in many places, and we have far too many of our citizens denying there's an enemy, denying us the right to name the enemy, even when that enemy says they intend to kill us all, and claiming it's not nice to kill our enemy. It's different from WWII, all right. Much different.

Posted by Barbara Skolaut at March 5, 2004 02:09 PM

I don't in fact think that the reelection of Roosevelt was necessarily a good thing, though it's not clear how Dewey would have been any better. While a more vigorous president might have cut a better deal with Stalin, I don't think that the country in general was in a mood to continue the war eastward, particularly given how many Stalinists were in the State Department at the time.

I'm still trying to work out what exactly Bush might have to brag about with respect to 9/11.

His response to it.

The fact that two and a half years later, we are in fact winning the war.

Posted by at March 5, 2004 02:22 PM

Duncan Young said
"That is the difference. The Original Axis could have conquered us - and was a hell of a lot more capable of killing."

If you mean that in a literal sense, the Axis powers of WWII were not capable of conquering the United States. Neither Germany nor Japan were capable of projecting the force needed across a wide ocean. The only Power in that war that could was .. the United States.

But you're wrong about the current Axis of Evil not having malicous intent. Don't kid yourself - the Moslem world has been fighting what used to be known as 'Christendom' since the Middle Ages.

For a variety of reasons that part of the world is in a state of culture shock, and one of the reasons is that they still remember when Islam was an accendent power in the world, turned back from the heart of Europe only by a series of historical accidents.

They have long memories. They remember. And they hate us for it.

Posted by Brian at March 5, 2004 02:33 PM

> We are at war with a new gang of fascists who would conquer and kill us if they could.

9/11 notwithstanding, this is a paranoid delusion. There is no realistic possibility of the U.S. being "conquered" by anyone no matter how passionate may be their desire to do so.

It is ironic, but the most serious extant threat to our way of life, to freedom and democracy, comes from the White House, which has repeatedly shown utter contempt for the will of the people and individual freedom. (To cite but one example from a very, very long list: John Ashcroft has tried to overturn a popular initiative in Oregon permitting doctor assisted suicide. This initiative was passed by the people of Oregon not once but twice, and with overwhelming margins: 60% to 40%.)

It is astonishing and distressing that someone who is constantly harping on the bankruptcy of the nation's space policy because it values (or purports to value) safety above all else fails to see that exactly the same mindset is at work in the "war on terror", and with exactly comparable negative results. We will never get into space as long as we fear its dangers. And we'll never beat the terrorists as long as we're afraid that they might "conquer and kill us" if we don't give up our civil rights.

Posted by Ron Garret at March 5, 2004 02:48 PM

Their ability to conquer us may be nil, but their ability to kill us may be within their reach, and it will become ever more so as technology becomes smaller and more lethal.

I'm willing to risk an astronaut's life, if he's willing to risk it himself. I'm not willing to risk a city of innocents who didn't sign up to be murdered by religious fanatics.

And while I'm no fan of Ashcroft (and in many ways, Mr. Bush either), to compare either of them to Al Qaeda and their fellow travelers is odious. Our civil rights have been deteriorating since long before September 11, and while I'm not very happy with the domestic anti-terrorism measures, I've heard nothing credible from the Democrats in terms of how they would do better.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 5, 2004 03:04 PM

James: My parents lived through WWII, my father and uncle fought in it. My mother has told me many times the profound shock and incredible anger she felt when she heard Pearl Harbor had been bombed. It still affects her. I could understand it intellectually, but I never had a clue how it must have felt until 9/11. That is the first time I had a hint. I?ve never BEEN to New York, but it hit me hard. It probably hit me harder BECAUSE I knew more about Pearl Harbor and WWII. There are many differences in the events, but they have a similar emotional effect.

There?s quite a bit I don?t agree with in the current Bush policy, but I absolutely would expect 9/11 to play a major part in the campaign. The funny thing to me is WHAT the complaint seems to be about. I first saw this in an article titled something like ?COMPLAINT ABOUT 9/11 BUSH AD.? It took most of the article before I realized the complaint was that the ad showed the buildings. I honestly can?t comprehend it ? after all, I have literally seen that image hundreds of times.

Oh. Despite my misgivings, I still believe Bush did far, far better than Gore would have on this.

Posted by VR at March 5, 2004 03:34 PM

VR, you're right that they have had similar effects on the mood of the nation. Also, they have changed foreign policy. However, we are not in a World War right now - the current conflict is far different. My main point was that I don't think that it is fair to draw straight lines between the WW II and the current conflict. The types of actors are different, the scope is different, the goals are different. I made no comment on whether the Bush ads were valid (still not sure), although I too expected them to be aired.

Posted by James at March 5, 2004 03:47 PM

With all due respect to the various poster's ethical dilemmas re. whether a sitting president can actually run on his record, I thought part of the object of satire was to draw the NOT so straight line.

Posted by krakatoa at March 5, 2004 05:20 PM

"The Original Axis could have conquered us - and was a hell of a lot more capable of killing."

Not in 1934 they couldn't have.

My next question is when the hell did they grant a copyright on 9/11?

Posted by MonkeyPants at March 5, 2004 05:26 PM

This comment utterly stumped me.

So many people go on national TV to complain that their right to speak has been squelched. How insane is that?

(To cite but one example from a very, very long list: John Ashcroft has tried to overturn a popular initiative in Oregon permitting doctor assisted suicide. This initiative was passed by the people of Oregon not once but twice, and with overwhelming margins: 60% to 40%.)

Ok, we must be living in a fascist state because the government won't sanction our own deaths. Hmm.... Trying to make the connection there... straining... failed.

Anyway, Remember the Alamo!!! Oooo... No. Don't. Wouldn't want to offend any relatives.

Posted by George Turner at March 5, 2004 05:33 PM

VERY clever... bravo.

Posted by Al Franken at March 5, 2004 07:23 PM

"I'm still trying to work out what exactly Bush might have to brag about with respect to 9/11."

His response to it.

How about the administration's response to the Hart-Rudman report of February 2001?
How about the administration's response to the August 6 2001 memo - where the words "hijackings" and "Al-Queda" almost certainly came up?
How about the president taking the longest holiday in presidential history over the summer of 2001, occasionally "wrestling" with the stem cell issue in order to lie to the nation on August 9, 2001?
How about Rumsfeld threatening a presidential veto over Congress's request for increased anti-terrorist spending at the (slight) expense of ABM projects?

Lets give Bush a pass for the day itself.

But refusing to grant more than a scant hour to the Kean commission - to get to the bottom of the worst attack on US soil in more than a century? Contrast the respect given the CAIB with that given the Kean Commission.
The failure to find the culprits behind the actual use of WMD on the United States in October 2001?
And what about the failure at Tora Bora?
The epic self deception on WMD and the post war environment in the months leading up to Operation Iraqi Freedom?
The refusal (not once, not twice but three times) to take out the terrorist operation of the monster Zarqawi in the months leading up to the war - a decision that has cost hundreds of lives?
The Valerie Plame affair (it sure wasn't the liberal media that just subpoenaed Air Force One's phone records)?

North Korea still has nukes. Pakistan still has nukes - and is a heartbeat away from Islamic Armageddon. Iran is descending deeper into theocracy. Afghanistan now produces more heroin than before 9/11. VDHs claims notwithstanding the Taliban have not been eliminated. Indonesia remains a time bomb. The Interim Iraqi Constitution has failed to pass. Dictators who boil people enjoy American support. The United States has added a trillion dollars to its public debt to East Asia.

Saddam had no nukes - but that is irrelevant, he was a vicious dictator! Gaddafi is a vicious dictator - but that is irrelevant, because now he has no nukes (-ish)! Time for hugs and cuddles!

I think Saletan has it right - "vision" isn't everything. There is a case to be made that implementation is.

It was a terrible day.

Bin Laden just needs to be killed.

But someone else needs to be held accountable.

Posted by Duncan Young at March 5, 2004 07:52 PM

Rand, excellent satire.

Duncan: The first WTC bombing was in 1993. What about the administration which had almost 7 years to prevent a recurrence but only reported the possible dangers?

Posted by Jim C. at March 5, 2004 08:33 PM

Duncan Young
"Saddam had no nukes - but that is irrelevant, he was a vicious dictator!"

Saddam may _not_ have had nukes, or other NBC weapons, but he sure played the game as if he had them. Enough so that everyone (UN, US, allies and non-allies in Europe) was convinced per GW II he had them the only question was intent.

Posted by Brian at March 5, 2004 09:37 PM

The trolls seem to be gone. *sigh*

Libya has has, as a result of Saddam's fate, turned over more than any Western intelligence agency foresaw. A deap simple design to execute, down to adhesives and bolt torque, floating around in the Mideast. Damn...

Posted by George Turner at March 6, 2004 02:00 AM

Oh I am so OFFENDED!!!11

Youy can't compare the two...I mean Bush is liek Hilter, Bush stole the election, he's a racist, and a sexiest, and a homomophobic!!

Since hes been in ofice, I lost my job at Enron, its Bushs fautl!

Bush is bad and your a poopiehead!

Posted by Nadir in 20004 at March 6, 2004 03:47 AM

5 years ago my sister died from breat cancer. 4 months later my mother-in-law died from breast cancer. Every time I see a commercial about breast cancer, or hear that a fund raiser is happening, or I see a cancer ribbon on someones lapel or blouse I am hit again by the loss of these fine women. Everyone has some similar experience in their lives, that is the nature of loss and greiving. However, I am not clamoring for these things to be stopped, because I know they are a necessary part of the war on cancer. I do hurt when I see them, but I also see the good coming from the support of cancer research and support of the cancer patients.

The idea that its somehow wrong for the President to REMIND the forgetful American culture that we are at war with extremists who killed 3000+ of our citizens is ridiculous! The top stories of the last 6 weeks have been Janet Jackson's boob, and Martha Stewart's greed. Unfortunately too many people need to be reminded that 9/11 happened.

John Kerry keeps telling us Mr, Bush is not doing enough for us post 9/11. That doesn't make people miss their loved ones? Saying 9/11 and not showing a picture is less hurtful than showing the buildings and saying 9/11. How so?

The families and friends who were lost at the WTC are no more missed than the sons and daughters who are being killed almost daily in Iraq and Afganistan. Or on the highways, or in fires.

They are no more special than the civilians who were killed in the first WTC attack. Or civilians who died at Pearl Harbor, or in Singapore, or in Europe during WWII.

They are no more dear to the people left behind than ANY ONE ELSE WHO HAS DIED!!! Then, now, or in the future.

We miss them, all. Anything that keeps that little bit of hurt burning hot in our hearts, also keeps our eyes on the problem and keeps us looking for the solutions to solve the problems. Regardless of whether we need to cure a disease or stop extremests from killing our citizens.

Run Mr. Bush's ads, run the American Cancer Society ads, I for one DO NOT want to forget.

Posted by Steve at March 6, 2004 04:21 AM

Couple of Things,

People who support the AXIS/Al Queda analogy are right. Germany or Japan were incapable of immediately threatening the U.S., and probably would have been unable to do so for decades. Of course, that assumes neither developed Nuclear weapons. Particularly for the Germans, this was most likely given time and breathing room.
The threat lay in these two fascist, aggressive, evil regimes ammassing more power through their conquests. Had Hitler and Tojo held their aquisitions, both would, in a matter of a few years, been a direct and dire threat to the U.S. Had we ignored the threat, as most of the world did with Hitler before the storm broke, we would left ourselves with two powerful and vicious enemies and no viable allies. The whole idea is to NOT allow yourself to get in that position.
The danger from Al Queda, and from militant Islam, is two fold. With WMD, they CAN be a dire threat to us now (nukes, Ebola anyone?). In the long term, if Militant Islam were to spread and solidify its present in a majority of the Islamic countries, we are in for a SERIOUS fight, even assuming WMD's do not enter the mix.

The Ashcroft is eroding our rights comment is hilarious. For years liberals have been using the courts to circumvent the people's will on affirmative action reform, gay marriage, religious displays, etc., but NOW, now they are upset over the tactic. Please....

Posted by Captain Wrath at March 6, 2004 06:37 AM

Jim C.:
Let me remind you of the terrorist catastrophe of New Years Eve, 1999.

Whoops - didnt happen.

Besides, Clinton isn't on the ballot. And up until 9/11 Bush's anti-terrorism policy was, if anything, less aggressive.

We know that a comprehensive plan of engagement in Afghanistan was offered to the Bush Administration during the transition. However, the Clinton Administration respected the Bush Administration's right to set its own priorities - probably recalling the Somalia debacle.

I actually have no problem with 9/11 imagery being used in this campaign. I'm just curious as to why Bush is the candidate reminding America of the worst security failure in American history.

Brian: If one thing is certain, the intelligence setup in the Bush White House was incapable of discovering Saddam's lack of WMD. The overall pattern of this adminstration is to hold certain truths self-evident, even in the face of , um, the evidence.

Was there a case for war? Yes - 20 million people in a box with a monster. Instead Bush gambled with the politics of paranoia, and lost - damaged the credibilty of the United States.

It's the story of the boy who was bit by a snake, and chose to cry wolf.
And then, maybe, got eaten by a tiger.

Posted by Duncan Young at March 6, 2004 08:31 AM

The Administration is certainly free to use Sept.11 in its election 2004 ads. However, it should do so in a way that does not disturb mourning relatives of the WTC/Pentagon victims. Why not simply rely on symbols such as American flags, the Arlington cemetary etc. instead?

By the way Rand -- why don't you create a separate non-space related blog for threads such as this one? You are MUCH better when discussing the one subject that you are an expert on -- namely commercial human spaceflight.

MARCU$

Posted by Marcus Lindroos at March 6, 2004 01:03 PM

> Their ability to conquer us may be nil, but
> their ability to kill us may be within their
> reach, and it will become ever more so as
> technology becomes smaller and more lethal.

Since even the pro-war crowd basically agrees we generally don't know who "they" are, it seems logical that the War on Terror be mostly fought in the same manner as the war against organized crime. In other words, beefed-up protection of likely domestic targets plus international cooperation to monitor & arrest suspected terrorists while keeping (e.g.) Russian nuclear material away from the bad guys. Except Afghanistan, there is little need for traditional military involvement. Iraq increasingly seems like a monumental blunder: an extremely costly detour that had no connection whatsoever with the war against Al Qaeda.

Regarding the campaign commercials, Joshua Micah Marshall is correct when saying their basic message can be summed up as "it's not my fault!" The President is basically blaming problems inherited from Clinton and the terrorists for everything that's gone wrong. The strategy seems to be to woo war supporters and social conservatives at all costs, rather than to focus on persuading centrist voters like Clinton was doing in 1996. This could be a mistake. Sept.11 is becoming less relevant to most voters for every month that goes by. Iraq is beset by enormous problems which largely are beyond the control of Americans. And the domestic policy of pandering to social conservatives at all costs looks very much like George H.W. Bush's desperate outreach during the 1992 GOP convention in Houston...

According to conventional wisdom, Poppy's biggest fault was he did not appeal to his core supporters. But the real reason why he lost was mainstream voters no longer thought he understood their concerns, e.g. the economy and jobs. Sounds eerily familiar doesn't it?

MARCU$

Posted by Marcus Lindroos at March 6, 2004 01:04 PM

You are MUCH better when discussing the one subject that you are an expert on -- namely commercial human spaceflight.

Thank you for your opinion, Marcus. It's duly noted, and it's also duly noted that it's an opinion, not a fact. Few others have offered such complaints, so I think I'll continue to post whatever I like, on whatever subject, at my blog.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 6, 2004 04:10 PM

A MISSILE HIT THE PENTAGON COVERUP BUSH LIED PEOPLE DIED PEOPLE NOT PROFITS MISERABLE FAILURE COWBOY SMIRKING CHIMP GLOBAL WARMING HALLIBURTON CHENEY KYOTO OIL COMPANIES JEWS PREEMPTIVE WAR NO WMD BUSH WAS SELECTED!

]]] head implodes [[[

helpful link

Posted by Jay Manifold at March 6, 2004 06:47 PM

A party that ran an ad of a chain dragging behind a pickup has zero standing to lecture others about bad tast. They took the Oscar and retired it in that catagopry.

Posted by Walter Wallis at March 6, 2004 07:44 PM

A party that allowed 3000 people to be slaughtered in the middle of America's greatest city has zero standing to lecture others about national security. They took the Oscar and vaporized it in that category.

; P

Posted by Duncan Young at March 6, 2004 10:08 PM

OK, Duncan (and Marcus). Sorry I've been ignoring this, but I've been busy moving the site.

Please explain to me what it was that Albert Gore, Jr. would have done to prevent 911? Not what he could have done (which Bush could have also), but what, under the circumstances extant at the time, it would be reasonable to think that he would have done.

How would Dubya taking a shorter vacation in August have prevented what happened?

Again, I'm asking for something realistic, given the incompetence of the FBI and CIA at the time, which was an ongoing situation for the past several years, if not decades (and probably continues to this day as a result of bureaucratic inertia).

And again, why should we expect that Algore would have done something different in that regard, particularly given that the CIA and FBI directors were from his administration?

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 6, 2004 10:24 PM

Rand,
First of all congrats on the smooth site transfer.

Okay, the Butterfly (ballot) effect:
______________________________________________
Lets presume that Vice President Gore wins Florida by 15, 000 votes. Close in terms of popular vote, but a fair margin in the collage. The networks brag about the precision of their exit polls, tested by such a tight race; Bush stands down the lawyers he has prepared as it become clear he will not win the popular vote as predicted.

In late November, a CIA plan to provide material support to Afghanistan's Northern Alliance arrives on the Oval Office desk (the same plan that would return to the Oval Office desk on September 9, 2001 in our timeline - which would provide a template for Operation Enduring Freedom). It is passed directly to the Gore transition team - who say they will consider it. Richard Clarke briefs the incoming NSC and the SoS nominee, Richard Holbrook, on the Al-Queda threat. They acknowledge the problem, but dont want to touch Central Asia with a ten foot pole. The Balkans must be settled first.

On a wet Tuesday, January 23, 2001, Al Gore is inaugurated. A key theme is that strengthening a stretched military. Tougher laws against hate crimes, and a patients bill of rights and moderate tax cuts are also sounded out. People snooze.

On January 24, people discover what Bill Clinton did late on January 22. All hell breaks loose and the papers are filled with lurid stories of the Marc Rich pardon.

President Gore is overshadowed.

An humiliated, enraged Republican Congress begins screaming for tax cuts. Even with a one vote margin in the Senate (afforded by the new Republican senator from Connecticut), it starts causing mischief for the new administration, and Jesse Helms refuses to allow Holbrook's name to go to the full Senate. The GOP calls for fairness - given the close presidential vote, surely the Cabinet should be balanced. State (or Defence) should go to a loyal Republican! (especially Defence - as the pork barrel opportunities are meager at Foggy Bottom).

Gore is overshadowed.

February the Hart-Rudman report comes out. It recommends a new Department of Homeland Security, and announces that terror is the new, more potent threat to the United States. Gore reads the report and is intrigued (I suggest that this would be one key difference between Bush and Gore - Gore actually read the products of bureaucracy. He thrilled to the tedium of over-processed policy points. Bush is acknowledged as an "abstract of the executive summary" kind of guy even by his fans).
Anti-terrorism is kinda fashionable, as MIRV politics were in the eighties. Possibly a "cheap to confront" foreign threat.

In Mid-March the Taliban detonate ancient Buddhist statues. Gore sees an opportunity not to be overshadowed any more, and a way to force the hand of Helms on the Holbrook nomination. The Taliban are very strongly condemned and limited covert Special Forces go in. The media focus brings to light the Taliban plan to mark Hindus. The Vice-President is appalled and begins pressing for more intense action. NOW begins raising the issue of womens rights. The new Defense Secretary, a former southwestern Senator, begins pressing for an example of "Rogue State Rollback".

The opportunity for cheap greatness (and that fact that his entire legislative program has stalled) prompt Gore to start employing air power. Two months later, President Massoud declares victory. While many of the Al-Queda leaders have escaped into Afghanistan (triggering a quiet, unofficial but very brutal border war between the two Indus countries) large amounts of documents fall into CIA hands. Plans for suicide attacks in multiple styles are discovered, although some are clearly bad transcriptions of Tom Clancy novels.

The GOP begins attempts to impeach Gore over this undeclared war. The motion fails to make it out of committee.

In late April, President Gore announces plans for a Office of Strategic Anti-Terrorism, to coordinate intelligence under the DoD - to be funded in large part, by cancelation of the terrestrial components of ABM. Ted Stevens (R-AK) reverses that plan, but not before initial reluctant contacts are make between the CIA and FBI over the best strategy.

On September 11, 2001, while Gore and team are trying to put together his third attempt at a tax plan, the morning briefing brings news that Al-Queda operatives (who had gone to ground for a period of time) will attempt hijackings within the United States. Al Gore as vice-president, had assembled a report on airline security, whose recommendation had been soundly rejected by Republican lawmakers on the advice of aviation lobbyists.

Gore sees an opportunity for revenge, and pushes for stricter airport security. The GOP bitterly complains and threatens a "flyers bill of rights"; but a simultaneous leak of CIA files to the Washington Times forces passage in of immediate, stricter rules in late October.

On the morning of December 13, 2001, Mohammed Atta arrives at Newark International Airport. An alert attendant catches his expired Florida driver's license, and asks him to step aside.

Seven minutes later, Newark closes for the day.

At 8:10 A. M. NORAD establishes that Delta Flight 108 out of Philadelphia has turned off its transponder. F-16's are scrambled. They identify the lone plane making a beeline for Washington DC.

Gore, being hustled out of the White House, recalls the Payne Stewart case, the LearJet with the dead golfer that strayed across the Great Plains.

The procedures are known.

He sweats (as he does).

He is not reelected to a second term.

______________________________________

Or not. This is a one of an infinite number of counterfactuals, and fundamentally untestable. The Butterfly effect as it were. Gore did have strengths and experiences I have eluded to - that Bush did not in the leadup to the attacks - that might have caught something. The Bush administration is incredibility uncritical of itsself, while Gore was no stranger to self-doubt-something that can be a strength in a leader, if it does not paralyze her or him.

And both Gore and Clinton are giving unlimited testimony to the Kean Commission.
Bush is not.

In the end, it does not matter if someone else might of failed or not. The choice ahead is not about 12/13/00 or even 9/11/01, but 1/20/05. And it is the decisions of George W. Bush (not of some parallel, non-bearded Albert Gore, Jr or happy McCain or a very surprised Bill Bradley) that are the evidence in the matter.

The record of President Gore is inadmissible evidence.

Posted by Duncan Young at March 7, 2004 01:14 AM

Duncan, I have just one question for you:

How IS the view from the Martian L2? Because you sure aren't looking at the same planet I'm living on.

You definitely need to get out more. Like, maybe, France? I'll even help pay for the ticket (one-way, of course).

Posted by Dave G at March 7, 2004 01:00 PM

Duncan is looking at the planet where American Presidents are inaugurated on January 23rd, not January 20th. Consider all discrepancies explained.

Posted by Jay Manifold at March 7, 2004 06:12 PM

> I'm not willing to risk a city of innocents who didn't sign up to be murdered by religious fanatics.

Then you deserve to live in the Orwellian nightmare that people with your mindset are busily creating. Me, I want to be free, and if being free means risking being killed by religious fanatics I say bring it on. I would much rather die at the hands of terrorists than to have the likes of John Ashcroft deciding who is and is not a religious fanatic. Oh, the irony! I think my head is going to explode.

> I've heard nothing credible from the Democrats in terms of how they would do better.

What does that have to do with anything? I suppose you would have supported Hitler because no one else had a credible plan to deal with the fallout of the Treaty of Versailles.

> For years liberals have been using the courts to circumvent the people's will on affirmative action reform, gay marriage, religious displays, etc.

So when conservatives do it that suddenly makes it right?

Hypocrites, both of you!

Posted by at March 7, 2004 10:08 PM

An "Orwellian nightmare." Right.

Bush is Hitler, Ashcroft is Hitler.

How convincing.

[Yawn]

And you conflate my views with another (unlike me, conservative) poster's to condemn us both.

And you post anonymously. What a brave creature, speaking truth to power, in Ashcroft's Amerikkka.

Isn't free speech wonderful?

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 7, 2004 10:20 PM

>John Ashcroft has tried to overturn a popular >initiative in Oregon permitting doctor assisted >suicide

This is nihilism. The context was that the above arguable and regional oriented political statement against Bush's Justice Minister negates the benefits of Bush's fighting the war on terror. Oh really? This is what we are up against with leftists. And I say this as a liberal. Liberals, who are centrists, need to teach the leftists a lesson this year by voting for Bush like the Reagan Democrats would have.

Posted by Jim Peterson at March 8, 2004 12:53 AM

Duncan writes:

>Let me remind you of the terrorist catastrophe >of New Years Eve, 1999.
>Whoops - didnt happen.

In 1999, Pakistan's nuclear weapons hadn't yet been built in large enough quantities to sustain the war Al Qaeda wanted to start when they were ready. There was much preparation needed for Jihad. They thought they were ready in September 2001 (possibly after already placing a nuke in Manhattan to follow up on the WTC attacks) but, in any event, Colin Powell told Musharref on September 27, 2001 that all of Pakistan would be nuked if Al Qaeda ever succeeded in exploding a nuke in the USA. This kind of threat is most likely what turned Pakistan 180 degrees to our side (hopefully) and reversed Al Qaeda's best laid plans for the war.

Such a threat to Pakistan would not be made by a liberal, especially a leftist like Al Gore (whom I voted for because I was a typical American urban metrosexual dolt until 9-11 woke me up). History shows this: LBJ won the election of 1964 by taking nukes OFF THE TABLE regarding Vietnam. His 1964 election win therefore GUARANTEED a North Vietnamese attack on South Vietnam in early 1965 (Costing the lives of 58,000 Americans which can be compared to 580 American lives in Iraq). Also, Harry Truman fought the Korean War to the tune of 50,000 American dead when all he really had to have done was threaten China with a nuking if they didn't stop fighting. Eisenhower did just this when he was elected in 1952 and the Korean War stopped immediately.

Clinton/Gore should never have allowed Pakistan to get nuclear weapons. Period.

>Besides, Clinton isn't on the ballot. And up >until 9/11 Bush's anti-terrorism policy was, if >anything, less aggressive.

Yes. But Kerry is on the ballot. And Kerry is scary. You should read how Kerry condescendingly refers to the pro-war men who served under him in Vietnam in the book "Tour of Duty." Kerry is a leftist in the worst sense. He would have kept even Aristide in power. He can be counted on to reverse American interests around the world in a sick attempt to "make people like us" (who, by the way, already like us again because we now control the oil again). Kerry doesn't understand that foreign peoples admire those who control the resources. That is why the French admired Saddam before the war and they really are more pro-American now.

Germany, by the way, is now over 65% in favor of a conservative government allied with Bush. The Schroeder government had won only 50% of the vote in 2002 when his anti-Bush campaign succeeded.

>However, the Clinton Administration respected >the Bush Administration's right to set its own >priorities - probably recalling the Somalia >debacle.

It was a debacle of the leftist Clinton's own making (no armor, no follow-up)! Just as the Vietnam War was a debacle of the Democrats own making (no heavy bombing in LBJ's period, no desire to take the ground war to the enemy, no threat of nukes in which a military staging point might have been taken out as an example of our unwilligness to fight a stupid conventional war). It is circular logic for leftists to create military debacles and then let their intellectual supporters rattle on about how use of military power "tends" to result in debacles.

>I actually have no problem with 9/11 imagery >being used in this campaign. I'm just curious as >to why Bush is the candidate reminding America >of the worst security failure in American >history.

I think he knew something would happen. But so what? A liberal people like America needed a Pearl Harbor to wake them up just like the Israelites and Judeans needed to be horrifyingly laid low dozens of times in the Old Testament so they would stop being so nihilistic and liberal. Interestingly, FDR needed Pearl Harbor to happen so the conservatives would stop griping about the need to be isolationists. At least the conservatives in WW2 rose to the occasion and became the best fighters and the heaviest supporters of the USA remaining a superpower from that day forward. You cannot say that Democrats have risen to the occasion of the 9-11 war. That is why I am no longer a Democrat as of a year ago.

Basically, the liberals taught conservatives a lesson with Pearl Harbor...and the conservatives (the Republicans) were good enough to admit that they were wrong and PERMANENTLY change their isolationism as a result. That is the difference between now and WW2. In this war, the liberals simply REFUSE to admit that their anti-war, pacifist concepts were wrong leading up to 9-11.

For instance: If Clinton had brought democracy to Iraq in the 90s (as Bush Senior would have done in his second term), the Sunnis would have been forced as they are now to ally with the USA so the Shiites wouldn't get American support to eventually capture Mecca. Bush Senior never would have given Al Qaeda much time to form and gel. He would have put them back in his camp by making the Shiites in Iraq the worst nightmare for Wahhabism (as George Bush Junior has successfully done).

>If one thing is certain, the intelligence >setup in the Bush White House was incapable of >discovering Saddam's lack of WMD.

Nothing at all is certain about that. Debka.com says that Saddam's nuke program was the Libyan nuke program and the chemical WMDs are in Syria. There are good reasons why Bush wouldn't publicize this (although I wish he would because it would absolutely crush the leftists' main argument for convincing the British and American populations to hate themselves).

>The overall pattern of this adminstration is to >hold certain truths self-evident, even in the >face of , um, the evidence.

What evidence? You cannot prove a negative. Leftists are setting themselves up for humiliation here, because a positive can be proven (and maybe as an October surprise). Remember how Dean was defeated by his "We are no safer" remark after Saddam was captured? Kerry seems much more defeatable in this respect.

>Was there a case for war? Yes - 20 million >people in a box with a monster.

This is cool! A leftist with a heart! He cannot be all that bad. But doesn't he realize that other leftists, like John Kerry, wouldn't have had the balls to save those people from the monster? Vote for Bush in November Duncan.

>Instead Bush gambled with the politics of >paranoia, and lost - damaged the credibilty of >the United States.

Not really. I travel to Europe every two months and I can say that this WMD nonsense is mainly just a topic in leftist American media outlets (which include most outlets). Of course, the foreign (largely leftist) media feeds off the American leftist media...but they kind of sense that their populations don't really want to get "in your face" to Americans about a war that lasted 3 weeks which took place a year ago and liberated 25 million people and made America the country to be nice to because of its control of the world's oil.

Posted by Jim Peterson at March 8, 2004 01:30 AM

>Then you deserve to live in the Orwellian >nightmare that people with your mindset are >busily creating. Me, I want to be free, and if >being free means risking being killed by >religious fanatics I say bring it on. I would >much rather die at the hands of terrorists than >to have the likes of John Ashcroft deciding who >is and is not a religious fanatic. Oh, the >irony! I think my head is going to explode.

This is scary and should go on pro-Bush reelection ads as an example of what Kerry supporters can be like.

First of all, Orwell hated leftists and died of stress, very unhappy about the way the anti-war crowd used his writings during the Vietnam War..which he supported!!!! Repeat after me: ORWELL SUPPORTED THE VIETNAM WAR!! Yes. It is true. Live with it. Learn from it.

And if you are trying to erase what I just said from your leftist mind...go look it up on the Internet. Just type Orwell and Vietnam into Google. Just do it....what? you don't want to do it? Ahh. Of course. You are a leftist. Leftists don't care about facts. Leftists won't ever look anything up.

So you will continue to use the word "Orwellian" as if it is some kind of great catchword in the leftist anthology...thereby insulting the writer whose life work was spent developing concepts to fight leftism. Typical leftist trick: use the enemy's words against him (in a simplistic fashion for listeners who never read and, therefore, will believe whatever spin you put on something).

Meanwhile, you would rather die at the hands of terrorists than have John Ashcroft continue in his job? Don't you realize that John Ashcroft probably will continue? Maybe you want to go to the Middle East and do some of our more dangerous intelligence work (in order to have happen what you would rather happen)? Are you hoping that Ashcroft (whom I am praying for despite being anti-"Christian right") will die in surgery this week?

And if you would rather die in a sneak nuke attack in a big city...do you think the rest of America, even those of us too smart to live downtown in major targets, need the hassle that you would rather have than the Patriot Act?

Basically, when the Patriot Act comes up for a new vote, those who vote against it will be campaigned against on it.

Nobody has been inconvenienced by the Patriot Act who was later found innocent. There has never been an instance where that socalled "infamous" library provision has been implemented.

Posted by Jim Peterson at March 8, 2004 01:47 AM

I'm still having a hard time with the guy who said he'd rather die in a terrorist nuke attack than live with the humiliation of having a conservative president. That is going too far!

Even if Kerry got elected, I wouldn't want to die at the hands of terrorists.

I noticed a smidge of anti-religious fervor in his writing. What kind of religious guilt laden childhood might have made a person so religiously anti-religious?

I have learned that leftists are religious and Christian right conservatives are religious. The latter are often impossible to be friends with individually and on a long term basis because they let religion get in the way of friendship...and the former are impossible to put into political power because they are cowards and have few morals. We need centrists like Schwarzenegger for President. Meanwhile, I will take my lumps with George Bush until Iran, Syria and North Korea are free countries.

Posted by Jim Peterson at March 8, 2004 01:55 AM

If Orwell supported the Vietnam War, then he was even more of a prophet than most people think. ;)

Posted by Jay Manifold at March 8, 2004 07:27 AM

Colin Powell told Musharref on September 27, 2001 that all of Pakistan would be nuked if Al Qaeda ever succeeded in exploding a nuke in the USA.
Interesting - cite?
He would have kept even Aristide in power.
Evidence that the mob replacing him are any better?

Somalia:
It was a debacle of the leftist Clinton's own making (no armor, no follow-up)!
It turned into a full fleged war when the US called a peace conference and the military (under Powell) shot it up. . It can be argued that a full scale followup would have resulted in the slaughter of tens, if not hundreds of thousands of civilian Somalis (based on the kill ratio from Operation Gothic Serpent). Given the initial point of the exercise was to save lives from starvation, going on would have been counterproductive. The best reason to pull out wasn't the American causalities, it was the Somali ones.

Kerry doesn't understand that foreign peoples admire those who control the resources.
Shouldn't the Iraqi people be allowed control of their oil? A fair question, I think.

I think he knew something would happen. But so what?
Somebody's in tinfoil hat territory. If that really happen, the entire Bush adminstration should be impeached and thrown behind bars. Even if you buy the idea of 9/11's demonstration value, it doesn't let the people on the watch off the hook.

If Clinton had brought democracy to Iraq in the 90s (as Bush Senior would have done in his second term),
Oh boy. With who's army? And who's bases?

Vote for Bush in November Duncan.
I wont be voting for anyone this November unless Helen Clark calls another snap election.

Jay: Good catch - I though inauguration was a floater. I wouldn't be suprised if there were other factual errors in there - I don't know if Delta operated out of Philly in 2001. As I said - I didn't think the exercise was too relevent, but I am a sucker for a late night, caffeine-fueled counterfactual.

The final(-ish) word on whether 9/11 was avoidable will be here on July 26. Early indications are it was.

Posted by Duncan Young at March 8, 2004 08:58 AM

"I wouldn't be suprised if there were other factual errors in there."
-Duncan Young

I wouldn't be surprised if that were one of the few factual statements you've made.

Posted by CANCER at March 8, 2004 11:59 AM

> And you post anonymously

Sorry, that was me (Ron Garret, in case this happens again). My browser's autofill suddenly stopped working and I didn't notice. Mea culpa.

> And you conflate my views with another poster

Sorry about that too. I'm on the road on a modem line and I was trying to kill two birds with one stone. (My connection just died even as I type this. $#@&^$!!!)

> Bush is Hitler, Ashcroft is Hitler.

Wrong. Read what I wrote, and stop knocking down straw men. It's beneath you.

> Isn't free speech wonderful?

I think so. But anyone who supports the Republicans (who are busily raising the fines for broadcasting obscenity by an order of magnitude even as I write this) must not value it very highly.

And now to respond to Jim Peterson:

> This is nihilism.

No it isn't. You need to avail yourself of a dictionary.

> negates the benefits of Bush's fighting the war on terror

That's not what I said. I said that this demonstrates their contempt for democracy.

> what Kerry supporters can be like.

I don't recall saying that I support John Kerry.

> ORWELL SUPPORTED THE VIETNAM WAR!!

Yes. So?

> Nobody has been inconvenienced by the Patriot Act who was later found innocent.

That's because to be found innocent you first have to stand trial.

By the way, Jim, I'm not a leftist.

Posted by Ron Garret at March 8, 2004 10:50 PM

ROTFLMAO:

Repeat after me: ORWELL SUPPORTED THE VIETNAM WAR!! Yes. It is true. Live with it. Learn from it.

Turns out Orwell died in 1950.

So, Jim, what was that you were saying about looking things up and caring about facts?

Posted by Ron Garret at March 8, 2004 11:01 PM

Damn, this HTML formatting randomness is annoying.

> And if you are trying to erase what I just said from your leftist mind...

That was also a quote from Jim Peterson even though it didn't get formatted that way.

And now I really am done for tonight.

Posted by Ron Garret at March 8, 2004 11:04 PM

Does David Broder read the Musings?

Posted by Duncan Young at March 11, 2004 03:35 PM

Good input

I have produced No Blood for Oil, a cheezy rock anthem directed at the current coup

...what ever happened to kinder and gentler...

Posted by at February 13, 2006 03:05 PM

Good input

I have produced No Blood for Oil, a cheezy rock anthem directed at the current coup

...what ever happened to kinder and gentler...

Posted by at February 13, 2006 03:05 PM

Post a comment