Ranting to /dev/null

when did Osama bin Laden ever say he wants Kerry to win?

I don’t see how Bush would fit in under Herbert’s good administrator’s definition. It wasn’t like Bush immediately invaded Iraq. Most pro-war folks complain about the many failed UN resolutions. Years went by- millions of heartbeats- before Bush did anything.

I have to disagree that sticking with decisions makes one a good leader. Not all decisions are good decisions, and a good leader will realize mistakes and work to minimize any problems his decisions may have caused. I see stubbornness that’s unnecessary with Bush. One of the greatest weaknesses in people is lacking the ability to admit mistakes. There’s a difference between being resolute and being dangerously stubborn.

You’re grossly exaggerating Kerry’s stance about the “global test”. Diplomacy is necessary when running a country, and if allies are not consulted and worked with to make a major decision, then it leaves us vulnerable in the long run. I don’t see how that makes one a bad administrator.

I hope the bin Laden comment was a joke.

Take care,
Rex

The bin Laden comment was overstated, but not really intended as a joke. I mean, have you watched the video or read the transcripts? I mean, sure, he never actually used the words "I endorse Kerry", but he's parroting DNC talking points with a healthy dose of Michael Moore. Are you even paying attention?

The point of the Herbert quote was not that good administrators shoot from the hip. A decision to start a war takes time, even if you're doing it right. The character who made the statement I quoted described himself as "humanity's first truly long term planner" and thought in terms of centuries to millennia most of the time.

I'll take stubborn and wrong over irresolute and right. But more to the point, I don't trust Kerry even a little bit, and his supporters scare me to death.

Diplomacy is necessary. Diplomacy was used. Our allies were consulted and they support us. Britain, Australia, Eastern Europe, Italy, these are our allies. France, Russia, Germany, and China are not our allies. Russia and China never have been, and France and Germany are so flush with Iraqi Oil-for-Food money that they're literally the Coalition of the Bribed. Kowtowing to them would have left us drastically more vulnerable in the long run than ignoring their protests.

Am I even paying attention?

Sure I am. I read the transcript. I read where he criticized Bush for taking too long to respond to the towers going down. I don’t think Bush was right to wait so long to respond to the attack. That’s not spin from DNC, Michael Moore, or anyone else. That’s fact.

He also said, “Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or al Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands. Any nation that does not attack us will not be attacked.”

Criticizing Bush is hardly endorsing Kerry. I’ll return your abrasive question back to you – are you even paying attention?

If you’d like a stubborn and wrong leader, then I can understand why you want Bush as your continuing leader. I don’t trust Bush at all. He purposely deceives the people he leads, and those that blindly follow him scare me. I can understand how you feel, although for the life of me can’t understand why you trust Bush so much.

Diplomacy was cut off prematurely. There was no real threat in Iraq, and if the same state was going on today that was going on prior to invasion, America would be no weaker than it is today. In fact, America is weaker today than it was before invasion. I haven’t seen any evidence supporting otherwise.

Come on, now: bin Laden has obviously watched Farenheit 9/11 and is quoting from it. The goat reference is 100% Moore.

Criticized for taking too long to respond to the towers going down? Let's check a timeline, shall we?

The first plane hit at 8:46AM. The President heard about it shortly thereafter. He was told of the second strike at 9:03AM. At 9:25AM, less than an hour after the first strike, the FAA gave the order to ground all airline traffic. This means that Bush gave that order sometime before that.

You call this a long time? You really do? No one in the US was sure we had even been attacked until the second plane hit. This wasn't even an issue until Moore's excerable piece of horse hockey hit theaters. The time elapsed between the second strike - the first time we had any indication that a terrorist attack was in progress - and the shutdown order was less than 22 minutes. That's pretty damn fast if you ask me. Your definition of "fact" needs a fact-check.

"Diplomacy was cut off prematurely." I'm wondering exactly what criteria you're using to determine what "maturely" would have been in this case. When we convinced France, Russia, and China to play along? It would never, ever have happened. Saddam was their ally and trading partner. When we attacked, everyone who was going to support us already had. To me, when you reach that point, diplomacy has served its purpose.

Why is America "weaker" than we were before? Because France and Germany don't like us? They haven't for a decade. They've been trying to build the EU into a rival for America and have increasingly feisty for years. Because Islamists hate us? Nothing new there either: they've hated us for 1400 years, why should they stop now? And if there was no real threat in Iraq, how could we possibly be weaker than we were? You've lost me completely on that one.

And this "purposely deceives" bit is just slander from the mouth of Moore as far as I can tell. Which almost automatically makes it false. But you're welcome to try and make that case.

I don't trust Bush very much, to be honest. Read my archives. I've expressed no small amount of antipathy for the current administration. I don't have to defend this point here, because I've made it adequately elsewhere. You can read if you want. But I don't trust Kerry at all.

For more specifics on the bin Laden threat, read this.

He may have watched Michael Moore’s movie. So what? Do you deny Bush sat and did nothing for several minutes after he was told about the incidents?

When I mentioned weaker, I was talking about the surge of US hate across the globe. Extremists have hated the US in the past, but we’ve bolstered their numbers. There are more terrorists now than there was prior to the invasion. If we are fighting a real war on terrorism, we’re certainly losing it. The purpose is to remove terrorists, not give people reasons to join them.

If you think Michael Moore came up with the notion that Bush deceived America, then you’re very naïve. I don’t have to make a case against Bush. You yourself don’t trust the man. I’m sure you have your own answers.

Sat and did nothing? You just can't be pleased, can you? It takes a measurable amount of time to respond to something like that. I'm not talking about the time it takes to consult with advisors, I'm talking about the finite and measurable amount of time it takes to actually get the information, accurately process it, and respond accordingly. Twenty-odd minutes is not much time at all. In 1963 a President of the United States was assassinated. It took 10 minutes before the press knew anything about it, and his death was not announced until 33 minutes after the medical pronouncement, a full hour after the shots were fired. It was another hour before LBJ was sworn in. No one is accusing anyone of "sitting and doing nothing" for several minutes after the assassination. These things take time.

Besides, you'd be just as pissed if he'd responded faster, saying that he acted without thinking. You wouldn't be satisfied no matter what he does.

What was he supposed to do? A plane crashes into the World Trade Center. Tragedy has struck. Do you expect the President to make an immediate, all-points bulletin every time a plane crashes? No. It's not a national security issue. If he did that, he'd be making announcements every week. Until the second plane hit, all we've got is a tragic accident. So then the second plane hits. The President is told of this while spending some time with grade-school age kids. Within twenty minutes he had grounded all air traffic. Five minutes later he's addressing the nation. There just isn't any humanly possible way for that to happen any faster than it did. The President's team wasn't expecting to have to cover a national address that morning. It wasn't on the agenda. It takes a measurable amount of time to assemble a press conference, and half an hour is not a particularly long time. It may not take many seconds to queue up a video camera, but it does take some number of seconds. Same goes for walking from wherever he happened to be at the time of the attacks to the site where the conference was held. You don't just put down the kids book, turn around, and give a press conference from Ms. Applegate's classroom. I vehemently deny your assertion that the President acted irresponsibly on the morning of September 11.

Surge of US hate? No such thing. It's been there for half a century. The only reason it wasn't clearly expressed is because the rest of the world feared the USSR more than they hated us. The USSR fell in the early 90s, and for ten years, there wasn't any real conflict about which to divide. But that doesn't mean that our erstwhile allies - especially France and Germany - were steadily working against us and our interests, blindly envious of our position in the world and longing for their past glory. The 9/11 attacks and a sea change in America's foreign policy simply exposed the hand they've been playing for years. There is no "surge" in US hate, only a surge in its expression.

As far as there being more terrorists now than before: I think you're wrong. But as that's an empirical question that neither of us have the data to resolve, it's not helpful either way. Last time I checked, no one was checking the "terrorist" box in the non-existent census forms in various Arab countries.

About the "Bush deceived America" meme. No, it wasn't Moore per se, I know that much. He's done more to propagate that meme than anyone else has, that's for sure. And let's not talk about deception, shall we? Bush is, in fact, capable of telling a lie, because he believes the things he says are true for longer than the two seconds it takes to say them. Kerry, on the other hand, is epistemologically unable to lie, because he can believe anything for the duration of any given statement and then believe its opposite two seconds later. To lie you have to say things you know aren't true. Kerry can't do this, because he doesn't believe that anything is true.

And doesn't the fact that Osama bin Laden is parroting the same lefty talking points that you are bother you at all? Does the fact that you and he have something in common jump out to you as a problem? Because it should.

I was talking about Bush sitting and continuing to follow along in the children’s book he was reading. He wasn’t consulting with anyone after he heard about the attacks. A real leader would have immediately left the classroom and found out what was going on so he could act. Instead, Bush sat there for several minutes.

You say it wasn’t humanly possible for it to happen any faster? He sat there doing nothing for several minutes! Was he chained to the classroom chair?

Your France/Germany conspiracy theories are good ones. I was referring to the surge of actual terrorists. Reports show that terrorism is higher than previous years, according to Powell. Wouldn’t that go down if we were winning?

Does it bother me that I am speaking on some of the points bin Laden was trying to make? No. The truth is the truth regardless of who tells it. I don’t care for bin Laden. He’s a terrible man. However, that doesn’t mean he can’t be right about certain things. Everyone is bound to share some views with tyrants about certain things. That doesn’t make me evil.

Michael Moore, bin Laden, John Kerry, George Bush – I don’t believe everything any of them say. However, it would be a mistake to take a stance on something just because they have the opposite. I heard Osama bin Laden likes women. That doesn’t mean I’m changing my sexual preference.

I still say that the time elapsed between the first indications that it was an attack vs. an accident and the grounding of airline traffic is as short as humanly possible. When you're the POTUS, you don't panic. You do things deliberately. You're saying that an extra thirty seconds is a huge deal that implies irresponsibility? Whatever, man. Whatever. Get me some of that good shit you're smoking.

The developing Oil-for-Food scandal is a conspiracy theory? Now who's behind the times? Let's check our facts again, shall we? Here's an Economist article from April. Here's a WaPo article from last month. Here's a NewsMax wire from earlier in October. Wikipedia has a fairly extensive discussion of the same, with some good external links. This isn't a conspiracy theory. This is a developing scandal that is continuing to shake UN credibility. It's got GAO and Department of Defense investigators, as well as UN investigators working on it. Conspiracy, my ass.

You didn't seem to be referring to a surge in "actual terrorists" the first time around, but I'll leave that be. Yes, there have been more attacks reported than there were before. That probably has something to do with the fact that we now have a major military occupation underway. And you're right: Americans soldiers would probably not be getting blown up at Baghdad checkpoints if they weren't in Iraq. This strikes me as blindingly obvious, but not particularly helpful to either of us. Besides, more terror attacks does not necessarily equal more terrorists. Just a greater percentage of terrorists who launch attacks from mosques in Iraq as opposed to planning new ways of flying planes into buildings. This, in my view, is a positive development. Gives them something else to think about.

I'm not beating on you for agreeing with bin Laden on just anything. I mean, sure everyone's got a commonality with unpleasant people at some point. Stalin was an atheist and bin Laden is a theist, so there's pretty much everyone there. No, the similarities are lot closer than that. This isn't some random, tangental connection. This is a one-to-one talking-points regurgitation. Bin Laden has threatened those states that vote red. I mean, come on, this doesn't mean anything to you?

There was silence in the Krelmin following Beslan. Putin said nothing to the people for three full days.