Blogcritics Comments on President Bush Under Siege

Comment by David Flanagan on President Bush Under Siege

Tue, 23 Mar 2004 22:22:45 EST

David, see comment #40 and GIVE IT UP: you lost. The only issue I have with comment #40 is the fact that your opinion is at odds with just about every terrorist expert AND the initial findings of the 9/11 commission which has so far found that Clinton's tactic of treating terrorist attacks as a law enforcement issue did nothing to deter attacks and likely emboldened bin Laden to become more aggressive. See a post I put up today with a NY Times article on the initial findings of the 9/11 commission. Here is the link: http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/03/23/162038.php Thanks. David

Comment by Shark on President Bush Under Siege

Tue, 23 Mar 2004 16:12:52 EST

David, see comment #40 and GIVE IT UP: you lost. Thanks

Comment by Hal Pawluk on President Bush Under Siege

Tue, 23 Mar 2004 15:47:51 EST

Nah, saying he flip-flops on votes for various bills doesn't cut it. Congress fills bills with so many amendments that most bills are bad bills one way or another (often more). Then you get finger-pointing like "he voted against "such-and-such" when "such-and-such" was in one of the amendments, or may have been in the main part of a bill that was ruined by amendments. This is a non-starter. On the other hand, it once again makes me think that perhaps Democrats are, on average, much dumber than Republicans. I base that suspicion on what I've seen on the tube on the various talk shows (Crossfire, Capital Gang, Scarborough, Bluff the Press, Fake the Nation, various Fox offerings, etc.) as well as the way Presidential candidates have responded to Republican attacks. The Republicans almost always put the Dems "in the Trick Bag" and the Dems just seem to bumble around in the dark. Unfortunately, the Dems are our only hope for dumping the unelected neocons and their religious fundamentalist allies so: "Go Dems." (There isn't a strong enough and big enough group in the Republican party to do it. Yet?)

Comment by David Flanagan on President Bush Under Siege

Tue, 23 Mar 2004 15:42:52 EST

the rest of the nation hasn't even begun to pay attention yet. I would argue that the polls indicate otherwise, but I could be wrong on this. For sure, it is still early, but Kerry certainly seemed eager to talk about the polls while he was still ahead. I guess we'll see. Thanks for all your input. David

Comment by Mark Saleski on President Bush Under Siege

Tue, 23 Mar 2004 15:30:24 EST

hurting him intensely? it may be giving folks such as yourself fodder for more blog entries. the rest of the nation hasn't even begun to pay attention yet.

Comment by David Flanagan on President Bush Under Siege

Tue, 23 Mar 2004 15:21:41 EST

Mark, Its true that we should expect people to change their minds, and politicians especially so perhaps, but Kerry just too consistently flip flops on one issue after another. Its as President Bush said in one of his speeches, Kerry has been in Washington long enough to have taken both sides of just about every issue. For example, Kerry says that voting against the $87 billion dollars to fund our troops in Iraq and the rebuilding efforts there would be "foolish" and "irresponsible." Almost two months later, he votes against the funding. Then, just recently, he says, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." Huh!? Kerry opposes homosexual marriage, but also opposed legislation upholding traditional marriage. He votes for the "No Child Left Behind" act, then comes out later against it. Kerry thinks outsourcing is okay, then he vehemently opposes it, blaming Bush for this trend. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. I respect the fact that you are defending your candidate, but he is well known here in the Washington area for being one who like to work both sides of an argument. It works well as a tactic on the Senatorial level, but is already hurting him intensely on national campaign level. Thanks. David

Comment by Mark Saleski on President Bush Under Siege

Tue, 23 Mar 2004 14:54:44 EST

my point is that you go on and on about kerry flipflopping and then when bush does it it's considered a reasoned response to events.

Comment by David Flanagan on President Bush Under Siege

Tue, 23 Mar 2004 14:51:57 EST

it's called changing your mind If thats the case then can Kerry ever make up his mind about anything? I think you are better off arguing Kerry's ability to "nuance" the issues. David

Comment by Mark Saleski on President Bush Under Siege

Tue, 23 Mar 2004 14:11:22 EST

oh geezuz, this flip-flop crap is stupid. bush instituted the steel tarifs, it didn't work for him, so he lifted 'em. it's called changing your mind

Comment by David Flanagan on President Bush Under Siege

Tue, 23 Mar 2004 14:01:30 EST

I think Kerry's words speak for themselves. Though, ironically, in his January 30 speech to the Oklahoma firefighters, Kerry is quoted above as saying, "'It's a great big manhunt,' Kerry explained," but in a speech made at UCLA on February 27, Kerry is quoted on his own campaign site (johnkerry.com) as saying, "This war isn't just a manhunt." John "FF" Kerry in action again. David

Comment by Hal Pawluk on President Bush Under Siege

Tue, 23 Mar 2004 13:55:59 EST

The police cannot fight a war, the military can. The military is great for fighting countries, but it's only an ancillary tool for fighting terrorism. As Shark said, the 9/11 bombers lived in the US - are you advocating the carpet bombing of Florida? The appropriate deployment of forces is intelligence agencies and police to track terrorists down, then military force if required. In Florida, it wouldn't have been required; in Pakistan, it is; in Iraq, it's a deadly mistake.

Comment by Hal Pawluk on President Bush Under Siege

Tue, 23 Mar 2004 13:46:53 EST

David: "You can't solve the problems of the world, but you can try to keep the fire from growing into an inferno. " But neither should you say "Gosh, this fire in Afghanistan is too tough, let's go start our own in Iraq." That's what happened when Rumsefled said there weren't any good targets in Afghanistan, but plenty in Iraq. Ditto a few days later on the 15th of September, 2001:

[9/15/01] "Another risk they faced was getting bogged down in Afghanistan, the nemesis of the British in the 19th century and the Soviets in the 20th. Rice was wondering whether it might be the same for the United States in the 21st.

" Her fears were shared by others, which led to a different discussion: Should they think about launching military action elsewhere as an insurance policy in case things in Afghanistan went bad? ...

" Rice asked whether they could envision a successful campaign beyond Afghanistan, which put Iraq back on the table."

(From Boib Woodward's "Bush At War" pp. 82-83)

Comment by David Flanagan on President Bush Under Siege

Tue, 23 Mar 2004 13:39:10 EST

Army invasions don't do much good when you're trying to track down a crop duster filled with Anthrax. Shark, The new model for defeating terrorism is superior by far over Clinton's model, which is the model that Kerry has stated he would follow. As Bill Clinton pointed out in the very same article above, he was unable to arrest bin Laden in 1996 because, under the stricter rules they had to follow, they did not have enough evidence. But we know that by this time bin Laden had already engineered the first bombing of the World Trade Centers. You might not understand this, but making the global response to terrorism gives us more options than we would otherwise have, most of which you and I will never hear about. The police cannot fight a war, the military can. David

Comment by JR on President Bush Under Siege

Tue, 23 Mar 2004 13:34:11 EST

In a "War": Our government opposes another government. Each side's troops kill or capture the other side's troops until the two governments come to terms. Once that is accomplished, maybe some punishment is meted out to the leaders of the losing side; the soldiers who did the actual fighting are not held responsible for their government's policies and they get to go home. In "Law Enforcement": Individuals commit criminal acts. An attempt is made to track down and prosecute every individual involved. When that is accomplished, none of the criminals get to go home. I prefer treating the terrorists like criminals. I don't want some guy who set off a bomb in a train to eventually go free because he was "just following orders". Nor do I want terrorists to be given the distinction of being called "soldiers" or "warriors".

Comment by David Flanagan on President Bush Under Siege

Tue, 23 Mar 2004 13:32:44 EST

Freedom earned for yourself is far more valueable than that which is handed to you on a golden plate. I agree with you 100%. At the same time, standing by and watching mass murders is not always a good idea either. You can't solve the problems of the world, but you can try to keep the fire from growing into an inferno. Thanks. David

Comment by Hal Pawluk on President Bush Under Siege

Tue, 23 Mar 2004 12:00:44 EST

Shark, there aren't too many links to the term on Google and those are right wing sites, like the one Dave provided. One exception is MSNBC, but it's part of a 'Scarborough Country' session where we find Christine Iverson, Press Secretary of the Republican National Committee saying: "It is shocking to me that John Kerry can say that 9/11 is a law enforcement operation, that the war on terror is a law enforcement operation." Spin, spin, little spider.

Comment by Shark on President Bush Under Siege

Tue, 23 Mar 2004 00:28:16 EST

HAL: I'd like to see the quote where Kerry says that (not some twisted illogical-logic misrepresentation) before I'll accept it as anything more than neocon propaganda that you and far too many others seem to have swallowed hook, line and sinker. By the way, Hal, good call. Wait, I hear those crickets again... and they're coming from Dave's campground. chirp~chirp~chirp...

Comment by Shark on President Bush Under Siege

Tue, 23 Mar 2004 00:23:39 EST

Dave, you need to call the Marketing Boys at the Newt Gingrich Memorial NewSpeak Think Tank and tell them the 'law enforcement' thing is DOA with the public. [Kerry said] ...the Bush administration "doesn't understand the war on terror." Under a Kerry administration, he said, the fight against terrorism "will involve the military now and then," but it will be "primarily an intelligence-gathering, law enforcement operation." ---Which is what most 'experts' on terrorism recommend. In case the boys at the Think Tank haven't noticed, We're fighting a 'war' against an enemy THAT HAS NO STATE. 'kay? Army invasions don't do much good when you're trying to track down a crop duster filled with Anthrax. Send in the Marines? Ever heard of "Terrorist Cells" Dave? They live next door. 19 guys took flying lessons, lived in American apartments, drove Hondas, partied in Florida titty bars, and killed 3000 people in NY City using BOX CUTTERS and American Airlines tickets. A military action couldn't have stopped that. A handful of FBI spooks could/should have.

Comment by Hal Pawluk on President Bush Under Siege

Tue, 23 Mar 2004 00:03:52 EST

Thanks, Dave. The complete quote makes sense, where your selective, out-of-context clip does not:

the Bush administration "doesn't understand the war on terror." Under a Kerry administration, he said, the fight against terrorism "will involve the military now and then," but it will be "primarily an intelligence-gathering, law enforcement operation."

Comment by Ms. Tek on President Bush Under Siege

Mon, 22 Mar 2004 23:39:05 EST

And countless nations have been liberated with the help of other nations. For example, all of Europe and most of Africa from the Nazis. And there has always been a core resistance activily fighting in all those cases before other came into help. No one said that the US should not help, but the US should not do the job for them. Freedom earned for yourself is far more valueable than that which is handed to you on a golden plate.

Comment by David Flanagan on President Bush Under Siege

Mon, 22 Mar 2004 23:09:15 EST

I'd like to see the quote where Kerry says that As requested:

Sunday, Jan. 31, 2004 11:45 p.m. EST Kerry Pledges Return to Clinton Terrorism Policies Democratic presidential front-runner John F. Kerry pledged on Saturday that if he becomes president he'll treat terrorist acts against the U.S. as a law enforcement problem rather than as acts of war - the approach favored by President Clinton throughout the 1990s as Osama bin Laden repeatedly struck U.S. targets with impunity. Speaking before a group of Oklahoma City firefighters, Kerry complained that the Bush administration "doesn't understand the war on terror." Under a Kerry administration, he said, the fight against terrorism "will involve the military now and then," but it will be "primarily an intelligence-gathering, law enforcement operation." "It's a great big manhunt," Kerry explained. "[The Bush] administration has translated that legitimate threat into a completely wrongheaded kind of full-fledged military response." Since 9/11, U.S. terrorism experts have said that the Clinton administration's legalistic approach to fighting al-Qaeda not only proved ineffective - it actually emboldened bin Laden to the point where he thought he could launch an attack on U.S. soil without prompting a serious military response. Indeed, in a 2002 speech to New York business leaders, Mr. Clinton himself cited legal concerns as an excuse for his decision not to have bin Laden arrested five years before the 9/11 attacks. "At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America," said Clinton. "So I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America." http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/2/1/02522.shtml

Comment by David Flanagan on President Bush Under Siege

Mon, 22 Mar 2004 22:56:27 EST

The US fought for its own freedom from the UK. So have countless other counties. And countless nations have been liberated with the help of other nations. For example, all of Europe and most of Africa from the Nazis. Your point is? David

Comment by Hal Pawluk on President Bush Under Siege

Mon, 22 Mar 2004 17:37:42 EST

"Iraqi police and military forces are now targeted more often that US forces" Part of that may be because US forces are pulling in their horns, in a new occupation policy of staying in their bunkers more, doing fewer patrols, etc. It's starting to remind me of Afghanistan, where President Karzai is rarely seen in public, requires passing through three checkpoints to see him, and doesn't dare leave Kabul, and where the warlords are battling each other over the opium industry (source of 75% of the world's supply now).

Comment by Shark on President Bush Under Siege

Mon, 22 Mar 2004 17:36:12 EST

JR, on the "law enforcement" thing; I've noticed that too, it's the parrot brigade trotting out the season's new bulleted mantras. Talking points, y'know... Clinton, law enforcement.... zzzzzz.. Todays' key phrase from the White Hose Press lackey, Scott "Deer in a headlight", was "roll-back" Clinton wanted to 'roll-back' the terrorists... Bush wanted to eliminate them. The Eliminator... Donuts.... Donuts... Doh!

Comment by Hal Pawluk on President Bush Under Siege

Mon, 22 Mar 2004 17:28:57 EST

Do you even KNOW what it is your candidate is saying in his public speeches? He has said that he believes we should go back to treating terrorist attacks as "law enforcement" issues! Do you even KNOW what you're saying? I'd like to see the quote where Kerry says that (not some twisted illogical-logic misrepresentation) before I'll accept it as anything more than neocon propaganda that you and far too many others seem to have swallowed hook, line and sinker.