_BiB_ Posted October 20, 2004 Posted October 20, 2004 Why stop there? It's Carter's fault, for letting the Shah fall and kick-starting the whole Islamic fundamentalist movement to begin with. Or whoever was the British PM in 1949, for following through on that BS Palestine pullout plan that resulted in 60 years of Middle Eastern warfare. stevestojan, let's just blame it on Charles Martel for winning Poitiers and kicking off thirteen centuries of Western-Islamic conflict. The fact is, as you say, that "we" let this happen. The failure was systemic, not individual. In most cases such as that (Pearl Harbor, for example), it's a systemic failure. The only benefit to playing the presidential blame game is that it's easier to discuss than the real issues. But even so...I'll never accept anyone passing off Clarke as an "expert". He was Clinton's boy...until Clinton got sick of putting up with him. He was maintained by Bush as part of the transition team...but has an axe to grind against them because they wouldn't kiss his "expert" ass and wanted to shuffle him around to junior positions instead (i.e. "constructive dismissal"). And if his book convinced me of anything, it's that he's not nearly as smart or knowledgable as he thinks he is...there were passages in there that had me wondering if he was drunk or high when he wrote them, they were so nonsensical. 76673[/snapback] And life is kinda like that in the beltway. If you want to, you can get maybe more than your 15 minutes. You just have to have the lack of scruples and the lack of concious to look at yourself in the mirror. I personally have zero respect for anyone who parlays their trusted position into bucks. Plenty of people know as much or more. If the flow had gone to Gore, you would have gotten a similar book with different enemies. Of course, who cares about my opinion or respect. Fortunately, in spite of what many of you think. I have had the excellent fortune to be able to work with some brilliant, and capable people that are clearly voting for Senator Kerry for other reasons. We have had animated conversations, but the fact is DC is Democrat. Almost a different world here. Some of them are actually pretty cute, too, (I'll try to find a way to sneak in some gratuitous T/A shots, for Keggypoo and Thailog)
DC Tom Posted October 20, 2004 Posted October 20, 2004 It was Gabriel in a cave but you're close. I'll give you half credit for trying. 76716[/snapback] That's what I said, what the !@#$ are you talking about?
alg Posted October 20, 2004 Posted October 20, 2004 Did someone delete my post here? If so I would like to know why. I thought it was within the bounds of good tast, but would like to know the particulars so I may avoid them in the future. Of course, at this juncture I think it was uncalled for.
DC Tom Posted October 20, 2004 Posted October 20, 2004 Did someone delete my post here? If so I would like to know why. I thought it was within the bounds of good tast, but would like to know the particulars so I may avoid them in the future. Of course, at this juncture I think it was uncalled for. 77247[/snapback] http://205.134.161.85/forums/index.php?sho...indpost&p=74688
nobody Posted October 20, 2004 Posted October 20, 2004 As I've said...this administration's marketing sucks. I believe their reasoning for going to war, under the established anti-terrorism policy, were sound. (I don't entirely agree with the policy, mind you...but if you accept the policy, the invasion of Iraq makes perfect sense.) The problem is that they never could present it to the American people in any sort of coherent form. Still can't, I think. Had the administration, after Bush's "you risk irrelevency" speech to the UN (which I think was the finest moment of his presidency), stuck with the "what good are resolutions without teeth, is the international community going to continue to let a rogue nation thumb its nose at them?" theme rather than jumping all over the map searching for a marketable justification, they'd have been much better off. 76693[/snapback] Might actually have gotten a few more countries to join in the coalition also.
Alaska Darin Posted October 20, 2004 Posted October 20, 2004 Might actually have gotten a few more countries to join in the coalition also. 77535[/snapback] Doubt it, since the opposition of the most vocal of countries has little to do with ideology and much to do with money.
DC Tom Posted October 20, 2004 Posted October 20, 2004 Might actually have gotten a few more countries to join in the coalition also. 77535[/snapback] He actually seemed to be well on his way to doing that, too, after his UN speech...then he completely screwed up his message again. I still shudder thinking back to when one administration official said "This is a matter for the UN, they need to deal with it" and another said "This is a national security matter, the UN's irrelevent" on the same friggin' day!!!! I had the opportunity to talk at length with a very senior administration official about that shortly thereafter. I told him: "Look, I don't particularly care what reason the administration picks at this point...just pick one, so I can figure out if I agree or disagree with it!" His response was (direct quote): "Yeah, tell me about it." Like I said...marketing...
Recommended Posts