daily dose of irony

courtesy of talkingpointsmemo.com

Now in a front page piece in Thursday's Washington Post we learn that on September 11th, 2001 Condi Rice was scheduled to deliver a major foreign policy address on missile defense as the centerpiece of a new strategy to combat "the threats and problems of today and the day after, not the world of yesterday."

Then reality intruded.

As the Post explains, the speech contained little real discussion of terrorism. The only mentions were swipes at the Clinton administration's supposed over-emphasis on transnational terrorism at the expense of more important priorities like missile defense.

Ouch. That might explain why Rice wasn't looking forward to testify at first..

Take care all.

Everyone was ignorant back then. No one saw it coming. People pretended that the threat didn't exist, and it did, and we paid.

well, the thing was not everyone was unaware of the threat. there were those in the government who saw the potential threat and they were ignored. I also think that if anyone should know about such things, it should be the US intelligence community. Why else are they there?

The people who did see the threat decided it was negligible. That was an obvious mistake. However, that was then and this is now. You can learn from it, but you can't get anything done by focusing on the past.

True enough, but try telling that to politicians. They seem to only focus on the past, on what their record was for their time in office, and how they were better than the person before them. Just once, I'd like to hear about ideas that will actually help us progress, not reflect on mistakes.

Take care all.

I hear that. Most politicians tend to talk about how bad the current administration is, but do little to propose an alternate and better way of doing things.

There has been nothing but progress since 9/11. Lots of security measures, even a war or two. You can't accuse Bush of not charging forward since 9/11, even if you disagree with the direction he's going. If anything I'd think you'd be complaining of too much progress.

Most politicians tend to talk about how bad the current administration is, but do little to propose an alternate and better way of doing things. --DocFrance

This is why I've refused from the beginning to vote for a Democrat just because "he's not Bush", and I wonder why so many people are willing to do so.

Case in point Iraq. Yes, we otherthrew Saddam, and set up a "Constitution", but now what? We haven't actually been embraced with open arms either. Do we just leave them? We need fresh ideas, ideas that can actually lead to progress.

It'll probably never happen, but we need a President here in America who doesn't have any obligation to save face, who can just be frank and honest, not worry about whether or not his supporters will loan out money for his next campaign.

Take care all.

EDIT:

"This is why I've refused from the beginning to vote for a Democrat just because "he's not Bush", and I wonder why so many people are willing to do so."

Definitely Dr. I'll vote for someone based on what they stand for, not just because they aren't someone else. The only circumstance that would fly for me is if it were Hitler or anyone, but otherwise, I'll vote on issues, not people.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr Unne
This is why I've refused from the beginning to vote for a Democrat just because "he's not Bush", and I wonder why so many people are willing to do so.

---

Didn't you know? Hating Bush is what's in right now. You don't need a reason, everybody who's anybody is doing it. C'mon, don't be a square *outlines a square*

I don't hate Bush, I hate the lies more than anything else, and that they seem to not understand what it means to take responsibility. Bush is just a person, but what his Administration is beginning to stand for, is scaring me.

Take care all.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by The Captain
I don't hate Bush, I hate the lies more than anything else, and that they seem to not understand what it means to take responsibility. Bush is just a person, but what his Administration is beginning to stand for, is scaring me.

---

Good. Goes to show that you can think by yourself.

And a president that doesn't worry about saving face, or campaign contributions, only what's good for the people? There's not a man or woman alive who could do that. We'd be better off with a computer program in charge if that was what we were looking for.

Again, it's a double-edged sword. Presidents get 4 years terms in America to avoid any form of dictatorship, but at the same time, the 1st and last years of a presidency are devoted to establishing your image during the 1st, and then attempting to get another four years during your 4th when frankly, I think a record should speak for itself.

Take care all.

People hate Bush for various very good reasons. I don't think we need to take this thread that way, though. It would be nice if a Democrat would step up with a real alternative plan and not simply run as the opposite of what we have. Still, the opposite of what we have now would be a big improvement, most likely. I'll take what I can get.

The issue with all this is that the Bush Administration won't come out and admit they were wrong in their focus. I don't see how it would hurt them, besides their pride, coming out and saying "we screwed up in our focus. we didn't realize how the world had changed, but now we do and we are working face the new world head on." Instead they are still focussing on "state-based" threats that may or may not exist. They're pursuing basically the same defense policy they had before 9/11.

problem: rogue transnational terrorist group Al Qaeda are a major threat to the US

their solution: eliminate the Taliban, eliminate Saddam Hussein, make threats towards North Korea.

Definitely agree to that Eest. I was very surprised when Richard Clarke apologized to the 9/11 families during his time on stand. Even if it was used to get publicity, which I don't think it was, it was a breath of fresh air.

Take care all.

Could you really say that 9/11 would have been avoided if we hadn't been focusing on missile defense? Assymetric warfare is very hard for a large, organized military to defend against.

i don't know if 9/11 could have been avoided, but maybe. We could have recognized the need for heightened security. there was concern of a potential attack in the intelligence community during the summer of 2001 but the government decided not to do anything. I don't think the focus on missile defense is bad in itself. It's the focus on missile defense to the exclusion of terrorist threats.

I was as surpirsed as anyone by 9/11 but I knew there was a man named Osama bin Laden who was a potential terrorist threat to the US before 9/11 and that something like that could happen to us any day, although maybe not on such a scale. If I knew this, I sure hope the government knew this. I find the fact that 9/11 cuaght our government completely by surprise very scary. It's hard to have faith in an administration that let something like that happen under their noses. I don't know if an Al Gore White House would have fared any better, but I don't see how they could have done any worse. To me, Bush saying he is strong on national defense is a joke. That's like Nicholas II saying he was popular with the peasants.

A big screwup happens on your watch, you have to take some responsibility for it.

Once again, I must agree with Dr. Strangelove. Even if you weren't entirely to blame, you must assume SOME responsibility.

Take care all.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr Unne
Everyone was ignorant back then. No one saw it coming. People pretended that the threat didn't exist, and it did, and we paid.

---

Weird, as I recall Clinton was taking decisive action against Al Qaeda back in the mid-to-late 1990s. After the embassy bombings in 1997, where 200 people were murdered, there were cruise missile strikes on terrorist bases in and around Afghanistan. The threat was there and it was known, just out of the public eye because it wasn't actually visible in America back then.

The counter-attack went on for a while; only problem was 'cause terrorists like that are so mobile and spread-out. They couldn't really get them all, only a few training camps in the desert and a factory in Afghanistan - intelligence said it was a chem-weapons plant, the Taleban tried to claim it made pharmaceuticals.

A well known principle in American history, we don't care until you hit us. It took something as terrible as 9/11 to actually realize the danger. The threat has always existed, it didn't just appear out of thin air.

Take care all.

With the exception of a few world wars and post-9/11, America has always been very isolated from the rest of the world.

The American people have often been very isolated; however, the country's government has often done its best to contribute to world events and affairs, be they diplomatic or military. Trade, wars, peacekeeping, diplomacy... the US has often played a leading role, in proportion to its strength. It's just that the citizens of the US haven't often had any need to care much.

Too late though, do we often get involved. I just watched a heart-breaking piece on PBS about the genocide in Africa that occured in the early 90's, and America, as well as every other government in the world it seemed, reacted very slowly, and only came when it was obvious that nearly a million people had been killed. I believe Bush had the pre-emptive strike in Iraq, partially to end that speculation that America was always getting involved too late, but now, in what appears to be a Catch-22, it appears he rushed in under, false pretenses, and is now in a no-win situation. Such a sticky situation, the world is.

Take care all.