Contradictoriness
For some useful perspective on the recent comments here at Perfidy, Rosemary, the Queen of all Evil gives us this:
The liberal complaints about Iraq and 9/11 are contradictory. You have made it impossible to please you.
Why do we have the 9/11 Commission? The purpose was to figure out what went wrong and fix it, so we NEVER have a 9/11 again. That isn't what it is now, is it? It is now a Witch Hunt. Blame someone (Bush) besides Al Qaeda and burn them at the stake. What did they know and when did they know it??? Blah, blah, blah...
We already hear mumblings from people that want to know why we didn't prevent it. It is a circle of insanity. If the Bush Administration had, by some miracle, been able to prevent 9/11 how would anyone know it? Let's say they had vague info that some time in September, Al Qaeda, would do exactly what they did. What should the Bush Administration have done? Act pre-emptively to stop the attack, right? If they were successful what would the screams and complaints be?
...We all know that they hate us. I don't give a rat's ass why they hate us. They hate us and they want us dead. We have two choices:
1) Respond after we get hit and suffer casualities and fatalities. Of course, then we are back to hearing "What did they know and when did they know it?"
2) We go in kick ass and start taking hyphenated names. I'm all about self-defense. If I saw some punk on the street that said, "I'm gonna kill you", you can bet your ass that I won't wait for him to start. I'm prepared to fight and kill, if necessary, to save myself. That is what our country is doing. It's just a grander scale.
I'm sorry guys, but you can't have it both ways. You can't demand that we prevent the tragedy of 9/11, and then demand that we not act pre-emptively against the bad guys when we think there might be a threat.
That isn't possible. How can you stop people from killing you if you wait until they kill you?
We either kick the ass of the terrorists and terrorist friendly nations or we wait until they attack us. If we wait until they "do something to us" you cannot go back and complain that the government didn't stop it. Actually, you can do that and that is exactly what the Left has been doing.
on
| § 8
§ 8 Comments
[ You're too late, comments are closed ]
In which Rosemary evidences,
In which Rosemary evidences, with distressing obviousness, how spooky it is that just _anybody_ can vote in this country. Unless you're a black man in Florida with a name less than five letters and a birthday less then two days separate from someone who might have been a felon in Texas, where they hang'em high.
I don't hear any of the whiny Republicans proposing an _alternative_ to the "politically motivated commission", whose members were chosen by Bush.
But setting that aside, there is massive disagreement on exactly where the threat comes from. Bush believes (or believed -- we don't know because he's gone into deep hiding over the last week) that Iraq is a primary source of terrorism. Every other nation, every professional intelligence person who's come forward, disagrees.
But they're all wrong, right?
Maybe the commission really is going to release a report that will go into the SYSTEMIC problems that inhibited prevention of 9/11. In fact, given the staff reports emitted so far, it is very fair to say that is exactly where they are going.
Nice one, Ross. Instead of
Nice one, Ross. Instead of actually arguing any real points, you cleverly call me an idiot and move on.
How very liberal of you...
We don't need an alternative to the 9/11 commission. We need them to do what they are supposed to do. Someone needs to tell Dick Ben-Veniste that Watergate is OVER. He's not a prosecuter on this one, he's an investigator. He should be asking questions, not spending his precious little time bloviating.
Ross, we do keep you from
Ross, we do keep you from voting, and you're white.
Hi Rosemary. You caught me
Hi Rosemary. You caught me at the end of a long day; sorry for gettin' personal. I take it back!
When I first heard Ben-Veniste's questioning of Rice, I thought he was pretty rude, and I wasn't impressed. Reading the transcripts later and a bit of analysis, I understand why he said what he said. The panel had only two hours or so to get as much testimony as they could under oath. Rice was doing a fair amount of speech-making, and spent a lot of time making political statements that didn't have much to do with the commission's questions. Normally I'd say hey, say whatever you want, Condi. The problem was the tight schedule under oath. Condi is no fool -- the more time she could spend simply extending political commentary in safe areas, the less time she'd have to spend answering less comfortable questions.
So there is my non-gettin' personal answer.
I am still amazed that anybody reads anything I write. ;)
Do you think the GOP members of the commission have done a good job so far?
Okay, fair enough. Now to
Okay, fair enough. Now to answer your question.
Honestly, I don't think any of them are doing a "good" job.
The Dems are posturing/attacking and the Repubs are tossing out softballs/ass kissing to even it up. And vice-versa depending on who is being questioned. Nobody seems to be looking for any real answers. They are just trying to get their opinions on record.
The whole point of having Rice tesify was to get her to answer questions. They (commssioners) spent most of their time editorializing. I watched it and I was really disgusted with all of it.
I don't think she is a fool either. That is why she wasn't going to let Ben-Veniste get away with his prosecutorial trickery.
Wow, you really beat the hell
Wow, you really beat the hell out of Liberal Strawmen with that post.
The 9/11 Commission is bipartisan, picked by Bush, has reviewed millions of pages and countless hours of private testimony in its mission to identify what we did wrong and why -- but something critical of President Bush comes out and so the 9/11 Commission must be part of the Vast Liberal Conspiracy.
And please get over the "we have two choices" meme. Life's a little more complicated than that. If you're so concerned about getting the people who want to kill us, show me where you said "let's not invade Iraq until after we destroy Al Qaeda, because it's Al Qaeda that's full of terrorists who want to kill us"
One further note about Ben
One further note about Ben-Veniste: He appears to be something of an equal opportunity asshole. I heard him beat the crap out of Louis Freeh this morning, which was pretty entertaining, actually. (Freeh was FBI head during Clinton's administration, and for the first seven months of Bush's).
Liberal Strawman? Is that
Liberal Strawman? Is that what that was? I just thought your positions were nuanced.
Oberon said, "And please get over the "we have two choices" meme. Life's a little more complicated than that."
I didn't know it was a meme. I don't think it's more complicated than that. Not at all. They want us dead, so we either kill them first or we oblige them and die.
Oberon said, "If you're so concerned about getting the people who want to kill us, show me where you said "let's not invade Iraq until after we destroy Al Qaeda, because it's Al Qaeda that's full of terrorists who want to kill us"
I would NEVER have said that because THAT is stupid. Al Qaeda isn't the only group of terrorists that wants us dead. They (Islamofacists) all do. Al Qaeda just got lucky.
You do remember that the first World Trade Center (93) bombing was bought and paid for by Saddam Hussein, don't you?