| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Home Front: Politix | |
| Sept. 11, Lies and 'Mistakes' | |
| 2004-03-26 | |
| By Charles Krauthammer It is only March, but the 2004 Chutzpah of the Year Award can be safely given out. It goes to Richard Clarke, now making himself famous by blaming the Bush administration for Sept. 11 -- after Clarke had spent eight years in charge of counterterrorism for a Clinton administration that did nothing.
| |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #21 What you're basically arguing is that while it was fine to fight the Soviets in a covert war, once they were defeated, who gives a shit about the local population. Or you decide the war just ain't worth it and you abandon the local population (Saigon, anyone?) |
| Posted by: Pappy 2004-03-26 11:18:35 PM |
| #20 If a French Postmodernist philosopher steps off the rim of the Grand Canyon, it is an undeniable truth that gravity will pull him down and he will come to an untimely and most unasthetic end on the rocks below, no matter how furiously he deconstructs the "Western gravity narrative" during his plunge. Can I help push him??? |
| Posted by: no fan of post-modern mental mush 2004-03-26 4:50:41 PM |
| #19 LOL, indeed...! We didn't fight the Soviets in Afghanistan in a "covert war" or an overt one. The Russians moved in because Jimmy Carter showed how weak he was when the Iranian mullahs took our embassy people hostage. And human rights abuses was certainly one of the reasons President Bush gave for liberating Iraq; that's why it was called Operation Iraqi Freedom! Clinton backed the wrong side in the Kosovo war--the Islamist side (now affiliated with Al Queda). What's to say he wouldn't have backed the Taliban as the legitimate "power" in a country that had been torn apart by "tribal warfare?" And lies aren't truth--either believe your fallacy or stop calling Bush a "liar" for telling the truth the consistently and then making up what he supposedly said! |
| Posted by: Jen 2004-03-26 10:34:47 AM |
| #18 get a mirror Igs. Your just dripping with superiority. Doesn't it constantly amaze you that you, and you alone, were born with all the answers? So much easier to think everyone else is stupid than it is to reevaluate your own position. It's always that way with the true believers though. Afraid they will get kicked out of their little belief club if they stray from the black and white. I think you are a belief chicken. bwaakk bwaakk bwaaak. |
| Posted by: B 2004-03-26 10:30:50 AM |
| #17 Jen...lol, very amusing why should you? the cold war was an interesting situation basically it came down to two powers expanding their speheres of influence across the globe, in some places it worked for one, in others it didn't. The US has always advocated democracy, freedom etc in response to the Soviet expansion. What you're basically arguing is that while it was fine to fight the Soviets in a covert war, once they were defeated, who gives a shit about the local population. Human rights abuses isn't this what has been argued about Iraq (after the rather fruitless search for WMDs came to nothing?) The analogy of backing the Taliban because Clinton backed the Albanians, is rather moronic. I never denied that Clinton fucked up. Also, truth has always been relative, the logic doesn't fall on it's face, it's just probably too abstract for you to comprehend. At least you could have come up with an argument on this, Mike has done so, and I must admit, his was a good response, yours was banal. B, never said Bush lied, never said I marched on the streets. |
| Posted by: Igs 2004-03-26 10:21:43 AM |
#16 While there's little doubt now that AlQ should have been hit in the 90s and that there has been a failure of the Clinton Administration in this regard. On the other hand, it's easy enough to argue that the rise of the Taliban (and their subsequent offer of hospitality to AlQ) was as a result of the tribal warfare which engulfed Afghanistan following the Soviet defeat and the disengagemnt of the US administration from the region (under Bush senior). Clinton's view was short sighted, so was Bush's. This is bullshit--you know that, don't you? The US wasn't going to go into Afghanistan "following the Soviet defeat."--Why should we? To fill a vacuum of power somewhere in the world because there's "tribal warfare?" I don't think so. And what would have been our rationale for going in with troops even as we were rightfully "disengaged..from the region" after 1998? Human rights abuses? OBL's fatwa/declaration of war on America? Even the silver-tongued Clinton would have had a time doing that, especially after selling everyone on Kosovo. In fact, if Clinton had backed the same side as he did in Kosovo, we would have gone in on the side of the Taliban against the Northern Alliance! Nope, Billy Jeff had anywhere from 3-12 chances to get OBL before he was kicked out of Sudan. He didn't take them: Hello Taliban, hello 9/11. |
| Posted by: Jen 2004-03-26 9:46:11 AM |
| #15 If you don't want to deal with the WaPo's registration requirement, be aware that Charles ("the Hammer") Krauthammer's column is also published at the registration-free Jewish World Review (the 'Net's best general collection of Op-Eds, IMNTBHO). (No doubt, Boris and friends will see this as yet more evidence of the Vast Zionist Conspiracy whose tentacles reach into the very corridors of power at Rantburg City Hall.) Igs: all truth is relative? If a French Postmodernist philosopher steps off the rim of the Grand Canyon, it is an undeniable truth that gravity will pull him down and he will come to an untimely and most unasthetic end on the rocks below, no matter how furiously he deconstructs the "Western gravity narrative" during his plunge. |
| Posted by: Mike 2004-03-26 9:31:17 AM |
| #14 check out instapundit, Richard Clarke was trhe one who authorized the plane load of saudi's just after 911 including Bin Laden's family. |
| Posted by: capt joe 2004-03-26 9:27:27 AM |
| #13 Does anyone think "our government failed us" ? There's plenty of blame to go around but you can't plan for something you can't even conceive of. |
| Posted by: Uncle War 2004-03-26 9:26:25 AM |
| #12 Democrats trying to get traction in the election campaign on this who-knew-what-and- when thing reminds me of this song by Ricky Skaggs: Honey, won't you open that door. It's your old sweet daddy. Doncha love me no more? It's cold outside. Let me sleep on the floor. Honey, won't you open that door. |
| Posted by: badanov 2004-03-26 9:15:24 AM |
| #11 Igs, Truth and lies have never been relative. If yours is a proposition of a supposed logic, it fails on its face... unless you're Bill Clinton or he is your hero. |
| Posted by: Jen 2004-03-26 9:09:38 AM |
| #10 oooohhhhh...you are so profound IGS. Deep! What is the meaning of the workd "is", anyway?? So..why does the left bother to say that Bush "lied"? It's all relative - is it not? So why bother marching in the streets? |
| Posted by: B 2004-03-26 9:03:50 AM |
| #9 B, a lie is a relative thing, just like truth Only to those who would rather embrace a comforting lie than face an uncomfortable truth. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2004-03-26 9:02:49 AM |
| #8 B, a lie is a relative thing, just like truth |
| Posted by: Igs 2004-03-26 8:58:41 AM |
| #7 I always go on about how there is no such thing as negative publicity. And this is no exception. Clarke is making millions by putting forth a lie that forces Bush to publically defend itself. It guarantees publicity and makes book sales soar. However, I have to wonder why Hillary is willing to sit back and allow this to occur. Although true believers like IGS will suck this up and willing drink from the lie, the bottom line is that this sheds a very public light on the fact that the Clinton administration failed to act. Clarke gains financially (at the expense of his soul) Kerry will benefit from the true believers like IGS wanting to believe and not having to face reality before the next election. But... Kerry could fry babies live on TV, and Igs would excuse it....so how much does this really help Kerry? Bush will gain in the long run, as the truth vindicates him, though the biased media coverage will cost him in the short run.....as most people don't pay attention. But in the long run, Hillary loses all around. There is nothing in here for her, but the exposure of the Clinton failure to capture/kill bin Laden. If I were the Clintons, I'd be trying to put a lid on this as fast as possible. |
| Posted by: B 2004-03-26 7:43:56 AM |
| #6 Sorry, my link went wobbly. Here is the transcript. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2004-03-26 4:08:10 AM |
| #5 IGS, here is a transcript from a background brief that Clarke gave to reporters from August 2002. I will post the article for you to read if you are more interested in primary source material. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2004-03-26 4:06:27 AM |
| #4 IGS, Clarke's story doesn't account for why funds earmarked for an effort to exterminate AQ were included in the Bush budget proposal prior to 9-11. That's a pretty tight Timeline if you consider the folowing: 1. The Florida controversy scuttled the normal process of information turnover from one administration to the other. 2. The Senate confirmation hearings to approve the cabinet and assitant secretaries. 3. Staffers would have required background checks and some type of Interim Security clearance before having access to AQ files. 4. The outgoing administration had enacted a record number of last-minute Executive Orders that muddied the domestic waters. Finally, look at the timeline after the attack until the Taliban regime fell. Did that plan look like it was hacked together by an Administration that had never heard of Herat? |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2004-03-26 3:51:31 AM |
| #3 And hindsight is always 20/20. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2004-03-26 3:14:28 AM |
| #2 Well, yes, a number of interesting points, troble is, he's more than likely to preaching to the converted. It should be noted however that he's not exactly devoid of bias. While there's little doubt now that AlQ should have been hit in the 90s and that there has been a failure of the Clinton Administration in this regard. On the other hand, it's easy enough to argue that the rise of the Taliban (and their subsequent offer of hospitality to AlQ) was as a result of the tribal warfare which engulfed Afghanistan following the Soviet defeat and the disengagemnt of the US administration from the region (under Bush senior). Clinton's view was short sighted, so was Bush's. |
| Posted by: Igs 2004-03-26 1:53:09 AM |
| #1 Reg Req'd - unless playing with toys like Proxomitron. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-03-26 1:28:20 AM |