What The Addicted-To-Adrenaline Right-Wingers Miss

[Mr. Shaman]

"In responding to the attempted bombing of an airliner on Christmas Day, Sen. Dianne Feinstein voiced the feelings of many when she said that to prevent such situations, "I'd rather overreact than underreact." This appears to be the consensus view in Washington, but it is quite wrong. The purpose of terrorism is to provoke an overreaction. Its real aim is not to kill the hundreds of people directly targeted but to sow fear in the rest of the population. Terrorism is an unusual military tactic in that it depends on the response of the onlookers. If we are not terrorized, then the attack didn't work. Alas, this one worked very well.

The attempted bombing says more about al-Qaeda's weakened state than its strength. In the eight years before Sept. 11, al-Qaeda was able to launch large-scale terrorist attacks on several continents.

On Christmas an al-Qaeda affiliate launched an operation using one person, with no special target, and a failed technique tried eight years ago by "shoe bomber" Richard Reid. The plot seems to have been an opportunity that the group seized rather than the result of a well-considered strategic plan. A Nigerian fanatic with (what appeared to be) a clean background volunteered for service; he was wired up with a makeshift explosive and put on a plane. His mission failed entirely, killing not a single person. The suicide bomber was not even able to commit suicide. But al-Qaeda succeeded in its real aim, which was to throw the American system into turmoil. That's why the terror group proudly boasted about the success of its mission.

As for the calls to treat the would-be bomber as an enemy combatant, torture him and toss him into Guantanamo, God knows he deserves it. But keep in mind that the crucial intelligence we received was from the boy's father. If that father had believed that the United States was a rogue superpower that would torture and abuse his child without any sense of decency, would he have turned him in? To keep this country safe, we need many more fathers, uncles, friends and colleagues to have enough trust in America that they, too, would turn in the terrorist next door."

(i.e. Keep such potential-allies away-from Annie "Bones" Coulter.....)​

 

[BigRob]

From your article:

The attempted bombing says more about al-Qaeda's weakened state than its strength. In the eight years before Sept. 11, al-Qaeda was able to launch large-scale terrorist attacks on several continents.

Pray tell us why Al-Qaeda's state has been so weakened after 9/11?

Additionally, I see that you confirm this was a terrorist attack on US... on Obama's watch none the less. You understand the partisanship such an admission will result in?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

From your article:

Pray tell us why Al-Qaeda's state has been so weakened after 9/11?

Well, I'd assume...what Zakaria was saying ("In the eight years before Sept. 11, al-Qaeda was able to launch large-scale terrorist attacks on several continents."), was that their capabilities have been diminished...but, he did do a poor job of defining that.

If you're suggesting the Bush Admin was unaware of such pre-9/11 activities, that wasn't the case.​

"The terrorism briefing was delivered by Richard Clarke, a career bureaucrat who had served in the first Bush Administration and risen during the Clinton years to become the White House's point man on terrorism. As chair of the interagency Counter-Terrorism Security Group (CSG), Clarke was known as a bit of an obsessive—just the sort of person you want in a job of that kind. Since the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen on Oct. 12, 2000—an attack that left 17 Americans dead—he had been working on an aggressive plan to take the fight to al-Qaeda. The result was a strategy paper that he had presented to Berger and the other national security "principals" on Dec. 20. But Berger and the principals decided to shelve the plan and let the next Administration take it up. With less than a month left in office, they did not think it appropriate to launch a major initiative against Osama bin Laden. "We would be handing [the Bush Administration] a war when they took office on Jan. 20," says a former senior Clinton aide. "That wasn't going to happen." Now it was up to Rice's team to consider what Clarke had put together."

I'd suggest...dropping-a-War into the next-Admin's lap is poor-form.​

Additionally, I see that you confirm this was a terrorist attack on US...on Obama's watch none the less. You understand the partisanship such an admission will result in?

As I said...Zakaria confirmed it was a terrorist-attack, and...I'd assume such an admission would (merely) result in more (badly-required) adrenaline, for the terminally-bored. Granted, it's bad-form to feed others' addictions, but....those (addicted) will have to take responsibility for their own bad-choices; whether those bad-choices are for amusement-purposes, or otherwise.​

 

[BigRob]

Well, I'd assume...what Zakaria was saying ("In the eight years before Sept. 11, al-Qaeda was able to launch large-scale terrorist attacks on several continents."), was that their capabilities have been diminished...but, he did do a poor job of defining that.​

Would you (personally) give any credit for this diminishing capability to the fact that we have "gone after them" so to speak?

If you're suggesting the Bush Admin was unaware of such pre-9/11 activities, that wasn't the case.

I would not suggest that, and hopefully no one else would either, especially since we had been attacked by them prior to 9/11.

I'd suggest...dropping-a-War into the next-Admin's lap is poor-form.​

Dropping a war on their laps? President Obama expanded Afghanistan, and timetables for withdrawal were set up in Iraq while Bush remained in office...

As I said...Zakaria confirmed it was a terrorist-attack, and...I'd assume such an admission would (merely) result in more (badly-required) adrenaline, for the terminally-bored. Granted, it's bad-form to feed others' addictions, but....those (addicted) will have to take responsibility for their own bad-choices; whether those bad-choices are for amusement-purposes, or otherwise.​

If it is a terrorist attack are we supposed to simply ignore it and say "don't be afraid, otherwise they win?" No, we have to take action.​

 

[pocketfullofshells]

From your article:



Pray tell us why Al-Qaeda's state has been so weakened after 9/11?

Additionally, I see that you confirm this was a terrorist attack on US... on Obama's watch none the less. You understand the partisanship such an admission will result in?

yes, I think we understand many right wing nuts will cry about it...but its a clear fact, it was aimed as a attack on US Soil ( well once the plane hit the ground it would be) and yes Obama was in chage...

that Said, Sept 11 and the Shoe bomber...under Bush...so they should most likey shut it if they want to cast blame...also the politicys in effect that failed....had been in place since before Obama took office...at best he could have or should have revamped them...but he did not put them in place

 

[BigRob]

yes, I think we understand many right wing nuts will cry about it...but its a clear fact, it was aimed as a attack on US Soil ( well once the plane hit the ground it would be) and yes Obama was in chage...

Glad that you agree.

that Said, Sept 11 and the Shoe bomber...under Bush...so they should most likey shut it if they want to cast blame...also the politicys in effect that failed....had been in place since before Obama took office...at best he could have or should have revamped them...but he did not put them in place

Spare me. I can just as easily say the policies before September 11th were in place before Bush took office. So therefore it must be Clinton's fault right?

However, that has not stopped many of the Left who often point out that 9/11 happened on Bush's watch.

Here is my question for you...at what point is anything Obama's responsibility? It seems that under your scenario, the President assumes no responsibility for much of anything.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Glad that you agree.



Spare me. I can just as easily say the policies before September 11th were in place before Bush took office. So therefore it must be Clinton's fault right?

However, that has not stopped many of the Left who often point out that 9/11 happened on Bush's watch.

Here is my question for you...at what point is anything Obama's responsibility? It seems that under your scenario, the President assumes no responsibility for much of anything.

And I think its perfectly fair to give CLinton some blame, and I have...that said, Bush had not done a thing about terrorism since taking office, he seemed to view it as a low priority...Clinton, while not perfect, viewed is the biggest security threat and told Bush this....the plans for Afganistan, where actuly just based on plans already done under Clinton and tweeked after Sept 11...Clinton stated he did not put them into effect because he did not feel she should start it, then hand over the problem to Bush...

 

[BigRob]

And I think its perfectly fair to give CLinton some blame, and I have...that said, Bush had not done a thing about terrorism since taking office, he seemed to view it as a low priority...Clinton, while not perfect, viewed is the biggest security threat and told Bush this....the plans for Afganistan, where actuly just based on plans already done under Clinton and tweeked after Sept 11...Clinton stated he did not put them into effect because he did not feel she should start it, then hand over the problem to Bush...

Clinton's 1998 National Security Strategy stated:

Our policy to counter international terrorists rests on the following principles: (1) make no concessions to terrorists; (2) bring all pressure to bear on all state sponsors of terrorism; (3) fully exploit all available legal mechanisms to punish international terrorists; and (4) help other governments improve their capabilities to combat terrorism. Following these principles, we seek to uncover and eliminate foreign terrorists and their support networks in our country; eliminate terrorist sanctuaries; and counter state-supported terrorism and subversion of moderate regimes through a comprehensive program of diplomatic, law enforcement, economic, military and intelligence activities.

All sounds great, however he hardly followed through on many of his own recommendations in my opinion.

Additionally, Terrorism was listed as threat in this document, however it was not listed first, and certainly was not stated as the "biggest threat."

As for Afghanistan, all that sounds like to me is that President Clinton put politics before national security. If there is a threat, and you deem it as "the biggest threat", then take action, don't sit there and debate the political outcomes of inaction.

That said, we can agree that the blame goes around. However, to my question, at what point is President Obama responsible for anything?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Would you (personally) give any credit for this diminishing capability to the fact that we have "gone after them" so to speak?

Sure!!

The crime is that we failed to maintain-our-momentum.

Dropping a war on their laps? President Obama expanded Afghanistan, and timetables for withdrawal were set up in Iraq while Bush remained in office...

You thought it was appropriate for George Sr. to launch-a-War (of choice), when he had less-than 30 days (left), in-Office????​

If it is a terrorist attack are we supposed to simply ignore it and say "don't be afraid, otherwise they win?" No, we have to take action.

I've got no problems with measured-responses....rather-than making every effort to whip the general-citizenry into a frenzy; whether terrorists...communists...or, monsters.

 

[BigRob]

Sure!!

The crime is that we failed to maintain-our-momentum​

I would argue we have maintained our momentum quite well. Killing Bin Laden would be nice, however dismantling his network of terror should have, and seemingly was, a higher priority.

You thought it was appropriate for George Sr. to launch-a-War (of choice), when he had less-than 30 days (left), in-Office????​

I do not have a problem with Bush 1 doing what he did. I almost always will oppose any intervention based on some notion of "humanitarianism", which Somalia arguably was.

I know you will make the oil case, but Somalia was heavily sanctioned by the UN, and we hardly got much oil out of the deal.

I've got no problems with measured-responses....rather-than making every effort to whip the general-citizenry into a frenzy; whether terrorists...communists...or, monsters.
​

What do you view as a "measured" response? Firing a few cruise missiles and calling it a day?​

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

And I think its perfectly fair to give CLinton some blame....

....And, someone would have to be pretty-damned-dumb...and, ill-informed to do so....

​

"As the new Administration took office, Rice kept Clarke in his job as counterterrorism czar. In early February, he repeated to Vice President Dick Cheney the briefing he had given to Rice and Hadley. There are differing opinions on how seriously the Bush team took Clarke's warnings. Some members of the outgoing Administration got the sense that the Bush team thought the Clintonites had become obsessed with terrorism. "It was clear," says one, "that this was not the same priority to them that it was to us."

For other observers, however, the real point was not that the new Administration dismissed the terrorist theat. On the contrary, Rice, Hadley and Cheney, says an official, "all got that it was important." The question is, How high a priority did terrorism get? Clarke says that dealing with al-Qaeda "was in the top tier of issues reviewed by the Bush Administration." But other topics got far more attention. The whole Bush national-security team was obsessed with setting up a national system of missile defense.

Some counterterrorism officials think there is another reason for the Bush Administration's dilatory response. Clarke's paper, says an official, "was a Clinton proposal." Keeping Clarke around was one thing; buying into the analysis of an Administration that the Bush team considered feckless and naive was quite another. So Rice instructed Clarke to initiate a new "policy review process" on the terrorism threat. Clarke dived into yet another round of meetings. And his proposals were nibbled nearly to death."

BUSHCO gets a pass, 'cause o' their EGO, huh?

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I would argue we have maintained our momentum quite well.

Yeah....allowing bin Laden to escape made soooooooooooo much sense.​

I do not have a problem with Bush 1 doing what he did. I almost always will oppose any intervention based on some notion of "humanitarianism", which Somalia arguably was.

I know you will make the oil case, but Somalia was heavily sanctioned by the UN, and we hardly got much oil out of the deal.

....None-of-which are arguments, for War.

Why do you bother?​

 

[BigRob]

Yeah....allowing bin Laden to escape made soooooooooooo much sense.

....None-of-which are arguments, for War.

Why do you bother?​

Obviously you have no interest in reading my posts in their entirety.

I said obviously we would like to catch Bin Laden, but that is not the be all end all of the mission in my opinion.

Added to that... I said I have no problem with Bush 1 handing off a war to Clinton, I then followed it up by saying I pretty much always oppose doing anything in the name of "humanitarianism"... Since that is what Somalia was, one can logically deduce that I was not a fan of the mission.​

 

[chestnut]

Obviously you have no interest in reading my posts in their entirety.

I said obviously we would like to catch Bin Laden, but that is not the be all end all of the mission in my opinion.

Added to that... I said I have no problem with Bush 1 handing off a war to Clinton, I then followed it up by saying I pretty much always oppose doing anything in the name of "humanitarianism"... Since that is what Somalia was, one can logically deduce that I was not a fan of the mission.

Didn't Clinton have opportunities to kill or capture Bin Laden?

Exceprt: 2004 MSNBC Story
NBC News has obtained, exclusively, extraordinary secret video, shot by the U.S. government. It illustrates an enormous opportunity the Clinton administration had to kill or capture bin Laden. Critics call it a missed opportunity.

 

[BigRob]

Didn't Clinton have opportunities to kill or capture Bin Laden?

Exceprt: 2004 MSNBC Story
NBC News has obtained, exclusively, extraordinary secret video, shot by the U.S. government. It illustrates an enormous opportunity the Clinton administration had to kill or capture bin Laden. Critics call it a missed opportunity.

Yes, the Sudan tried to hand him over, but (If I recall correctly) we had no real evidence to make a case against him at the time, and refused to take him.