Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

While Lincoln could say about Grant "He Fights",
what was more accurate was "He wins against the odds".
Grant's reduction of Vicksburg is a classic still taught to
army cadets.

While Bush fights, he fights like the drunk that he is
in a bar he doesn't know, in a neighborhood he's never
been to, with people he doesn't understand.

Grant fought like a professional soldier,
Bush fight's like a drunk at a party.

Posted by anonymous at September 6, 2006 03:37 PM

Even given that what you say is true - a drunk fighting is still better than "giving peace (another) chance..."

Posted by David Summers at September 6, 2006 03:39 PM

Britain sides with the US because they have common interests in doing the right thing, not because of cash prizes. If that were the case they'd be no better than the French.

Posted by rjschwarz at September 6, 2006 03:50 PM

There are more choices then absolute non-violence
and drunken brawling. That the US needed to
bring Bin-Laden to justice is a given. Now wether
you think that's done best by sending the Army to Iraq,
well, God Bless You.

Me, I want Bin Laden in the Dock, i'd be using every special
forces/ranger/Delta/ unit in the US-Canada-NATO,
to hunt Bin Laden in Afghanistan, and inform the Taliban
that if they don't give maximum cooperation and assistance
well, that's why we have B-52's.

Now, just blindly swinging in a drunken rage? Hell,
lots of trained boxers, martial artists or gymnasts will
win that fight.

The worst part is Bush fights like a drunk, but he sends others
to do his fighting.

The Israeli's chased every PLO terrorist who killed the
Munich Athletes, it took years, but they killed them all.
Most of whom were in nuetral cities or arab cities.

There are lots of Saudi Al-Qaeda guys we needed to kill.
Too bad Bush prefers snogging the King of Arabia as opposed
to whacking him.

Posted by anonymous at September 6, 2006 04:34 PM

Why do I get the feeling that some people just like to be offended. If we offered and gave lots of goodies, the same posting would be about how we are treating the British as nothing more than clients to be bought off.

Me, I want Bin Laden in the Dock

That statement alone shows just how unserious this anonymous spouter of thread hijacking talking points really is. If it was serious, it would say it wants him dead, because "Bin Laden in the Dock" will quickly be turned into a circus by every Leftwing "Human Rights" group and America-hater worldwide.

Posted by Raoul Ortega at September 6, 2006 04:41 PM

> i'd be using every special forces/ranger/Delta/ unit in
> the US-Canada-NATO, to hunt Bin Laden in Afghanistan

You mean the country he's already left? I don't doubt it. That's why we need a President who's bright enough to know that terrorists (and terrorism) can travel acroess borders.

Posted by at September 6, 2006 05:20 PM

> America gets a European partner, world class intel, nuclear subs, men, whole regions pacified and many

Britain gets a North American partner, world class intel, a lot more nuclear subs, a lot more men -- this complaint makes sense only if you believe that American security is of value to Americans but British security is of no value to Britons.

On the economic front, we didn't talk Britain into participating in ISS. That ought to count for something. :-)

Posted by Edward Wright at September 6, 2006 09:39 PM

Raoul you may consider the concept of justice, law and
process irrelevant, but it would be a triumph of the
American Way to have Bin Laden brought before a Judge.

Of course, it's a moot point, The president doesn't
even think about Bin Laden, has shut down the
CIA unit chasing him and diverted efforts from the hunt.

Let's see Day 1825 of the Hunt for Bin Laden.

What has Bush done to find Bin Laden this year?

Posted by anonymous at September 6, 2006 10:22 PM

anon - Yeah, Bush could be doing more to catch OBL. He could, for example, be sending an expeditionary force to grab Waziristan by the feet, turn the place upside down and shake it until OBL falls out of whatever pants pocket he's currently occupying. I can just imagine how delighted you'd be if Bush was to do this. Put a sock in it.

Posted by Dick Eagleson at September 6, 2006 11:08 PM

I completely agree with anonymous here. I'd friggen love to see him dragged into a federal courthouse. I want to see him forced submit to proper American Justice. I can't think of a better fate for him, given his agenda.

Posted by PSS at September 6, 2006 11:34 PM

Anon: "The president doesn't even think about Bin Laden..."

Looks like anonymous has given away his true identity, since he knows what Bush is thinking he must be Kreskin!

Posted by Cecil Trotter at September 7, 2006 05:27 AM

Hmm....Moslem extremists hit the Embassies in Nairobi and Dar Es Salaam, hit the USS Cole in port (on the way to enforce the Iraqi sanctions), hits NY, VA and PA. Hit Madrid, Hit London, Hit Bali. And the rocket scientists want to send a gazillion special forces to Afghanistan to get the tall skinny guy who is or was, in charge. Guys, this is a world-wide conflict. It doesn't go away because you put OBL "in the Docket". Just how long do you want to search Tora Bora? If this tunnel vision had been in vogue during World War Two, it would have prevented the "Europe First" war strategy. We would have been happily working our way across the Pacific while the Germans were beating the crap out of Britian. Maybe we would have gotten around to the Germans in 1944. Maybe we would have met the Soviets on the Rhine. Or further west.

Posted by Craig at September 7, 2006 07:29 AM

Cecil

May I quote the Man you Adore:

truly am not that concerned about him’, said President George W Bush on 13 March 2002, after being asked the million-dollar question ‘where is bin Laden?’ once too often 5

5.Bin Laden doesn’t concern Bush?!, The New American, 8 April 2002

So Cecil, Are you Disputing Bush?

Posted by anonymous at September 7, 2006 08:31 AM

Maybe you need an English language comprehension course anon, as nothing you quote lends any credence to your claim that Bush "doesn't even think about Bin Laden".

Posted by Cecil Trotter at September 7, 2006 09:06 AM

Weekend before last, I went to a car rental company that had both vehicles and movies for rent for the backseat DVD players. I rented an SUV and a movie oozing with sex and violence. The company was the lessor of two evils.

Posted by Sam Dinkin at September 7, 2006 10:15 AM

cecil:

I found the full quote by the Man you Adore:

"So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him... We haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him."

—Bush, answering a question about Osama bin Laden at a March 13, 2002 news conference.

Cecil

Now if in March 2002, 6 months after Bin Laden directed
the murder of 3000 American Citizens, and here we are
4 years later, with Bin Laden still walking around free as a
bird, do you think he's really focused on him?

Cecil, Don't you think the Man who murdered 3,000 americans
should be the number one target for us?

Who is More important then the Killer of 3000 people
in one conspiracy?

Posted by anonymous at September 7, 2006 10:32 AM

Nobody has claimed that Bush is focused on him, anonymous moron. And few, other than leftie moonbats, think he should be. There are a lot bigger problems out there than Osama in his cave, if he's even alive.

Posted by Rand Simberg at September 7, 2006 10:38 AM

Anonymous seems to think that every US asset should be devoted to finding Bin Laden. Wowsers.

Posted by Andy Freeman at September 7, 2006 10:57 AM

Anonymous seems to think that every US asset should be devoted to finding Bin Laden.

The corollary to that mindset is pretty bad too: Once Bin Laden is killed or on trial, the GWOT will be over. That's pretty much the leftest game plan for Iraq: Put Saddam Hussein on trial and pull all troops out of Iraq.

Posted by Leland at September 7, 2006 11:25 AM

Anon: "Who is More important then the Killer of 3000 people in one conspiracy?"

Easy. The man planning the next attack.

And your quotes STILL don't prove your claim that Bush "doesn't even think about Bin Laden"

Posted by Cecil Trotter at September 7, 2006 11:54 AM

Rand

So lets get this straight? Bin Laden doesn't matter,
Justice for the 3000 who died on 9/11 doesn't matter?

Anon

Posted by anonymous at September 7, 2006 11:56 AM

So lets get this straight? Bin Laden doesn't matter, Justice for the 3000 who died on 9/11 doesn't matter?

Not that much, no, relative to preventing another 9/11. For all I know, bin Laden is already dead. I've seen no solid evidence otherwise.

Posted by Rand Simberg at September 7, 2006 12:01 PM

Justice for the 3000 who died on 9/11 doesn't matter?

Operation Enduring Freedom

Posted by Leland at September 7, 2006 02:13 PM

Edward Wright wrote: Britain gets a North American partner, world class intel, a lot more nuclear subs, a lot more men

That was my thought as well.

Posted by Leland at September 7, 2006 02:29 PM

Anonymous:

Consider the following historical analogy.

The man who organized the strike on Pearl Harbor, who planned it, was Isoroku Yamamoto. The focus of the US military in the wake of Pearl Harbor was not on "getting" Yamamoto.

When the opportunity presented itself, we dispatched a small force to try and assassinate him (and succeeded). But killing Yamamoto did not result in the end of the war with the Japanese.

Similarly, the Brits tried to kill or capture Rommel, and failed. They didn't expend their full energy (it was a small commando raid) trying to nail Rommel. And doing so, even successfully, would not have made much difference in the course of the war.

Isn't it interesting, though, that, per your "logic," the Allies didn't drop a paratroop division or two on Berlin, in the hopes of capturing the top Nazi leadership? Proof that FDR and Churchill didn't care to end the war? Or recognition that doing so wasn't going to end the war?

Posted by Lurking observer at September 7, 2006 02:59 PM

"... inform the Taliban that if they don't give maximum cooperation and assistance well, that's why we have B-52's."

Yes! That's the spirit! Bomb the Taliban's capital city! Bomb their manufacturing plants! Bomb their radio transmitters! Bomb their tanks! Mow down their massed troops like sheaves of wheat!

Posted by at September 7, 2006 03:06 PM

If Bush is as incompetent as Anon believes and catching Bin Laden is as important as Anon asserts, why does Anon want Bush personally involved in chasing Bin Laden? Wouldn't it be better to have someone competent in charge of such an important task?

Bush is horrible, but the alternatives, as demonstrated by Anon, are much worse.

"We're not Bush" isn't actually a compelling argument.

Posted by Andy Freeman at September 7, 2006 03:50 PM

Just for the tally books gentlemen, what should have been done for the last 5 years to bat these twits into oblivion? I keep hearing what's wrong, but what would have been the right action? I'm not defending GWB, but I don't see much difference in anon's Democrat talking points of "Bush Sucks" and the argument against his talking points.

Posted by Skippy at September 7, 2006 04:16 PM

Gee Anonymous Coward, for a drunken brawler, Bush is the George Foreman of drunken brawlers.

Even that darling of the left, NPR, agrees he is is one tough cookie! 80-85% is damn good drunken brawling.

"...80 - 85% of their membership were killed or captured, and the remainder are "scattered, demoralized and repudiated".

According to Al Quida's new followers, Bin Laden made a huge miscalculation with 9/11, leading jihadists into "a battle they couldn't win".

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5770651
"

Posted by Mike Pukett at September 7, 2006 07:57 PM

Skippy asks what should have been done for the last 5 years?

1) You don't let the Bin Ladin's get away scot free, you round up
as many as you can as material witnesses, while you hunt for
Osama Bin Laden.

2) You have to stary hunting the Al-Qaeda guys, that's lots of
Intel, lots of black work, lots of Hunter-Killer teams.
Give the Israeli's credit, that's what they did after Munich.

3) You have to listen to your Intel people, and, form interdisciplinary teams. The FBI wasn't sharing data with CIA
and neither were sharing data with State or INS. Frankly,
the Clinton's nailed it right on the Millenium plot and
Bush wasn't listening on 9/11.

4) You don't invade Iraq.

5) You have to get together with the Europeans, asian's
and russians and have to start monitoring and crushing
extremist organizations.

6) You have to fix our energy policy. All that oil we get
from Saudi Arabia has been funding wahabi'st madrassa's
around the world.

7) You have to encourage growth, stability and development
in the middle east.

Posted by anonymous at September 7, 2006 09:19 PM

> 4) You don't invade Iraq.

Don't attack terrorist bases and they won't attack us? Is that the way the left "fights"?

> 5) You have to get together with the Europeans, asian's
and russians and have to
> start monitoring and crushing extremist organizations.

And how would you make the Europeans do that? In invade France?

Or do you live in a fantasy world where Europe wants to monitor and crush extremist organizations but can't do so because of America's evil ways?

Posted by at September 7, 2006 10:23 PM

anon,
let me pull you apart. It's like wet tissue.

...material witnesses...

And how do we get them to talk? Torture is off limits now, remember.

...lots of Intel, lots of black work, lots of Hunter-Killer teams.

We didn't initially have assets to do the inside intel and black work. The Democrats gutted this ability when they said we couldn't pay for and use known criminals or people with questionable backgrounds to be infiltrators or to gather intel. I guess the Boy Scouts were all booked up, so went blind.

The FBI wasn't sharing data with CIA and neither were sharing data with State or INS. Frankly, the Clinton's nailed it right on the Millenium plot and Bush wasn't listening on 9/11.

Are you effing kidding us anon? Clinton's White House was the one who BLOCKED intel sharing!! Do you live in a cave, you're bound to know better than this.

I don't even know where to start on your next 4 items.

You don't invade Iraq.

We can't give credit to Israel if it's no longer there. We couldn't ignore it's main destroyer. Arafat was bad guy, he manipulated his people to get rich. But Saddam was the guy paying the homocide bombers to do their dirty work.

You have to get together with the Europeans, asian's and russians and have to start monitoring and crushing extremist organizations.

Isn't this some of what the NSA phone logs and wiretapping were attempting to do? Or is it JUST off limits to do this domestically? Whose rights do we ignore overseas to do this? Which extremists do we go after, the Islamic extremists, or the post-Soviet extremists who want their old Soviet Union back? And how do we FORCE any European nation to help?

You have to fix our energy policy. All that oil we get from Saudi Arabia has been funding wahabi'st madrassa's around the world.

Fix it how? This isn't an answer to a problem, it's talking points. Opening ANWR would partially help, but he Democrats won't allow that.
(I actually had someone tell me that GWB was anti-PENGUIN because he wants to drill the refuge. I love informed people)

You have to encourage growth, stability and development in the middle east.

Develop WHAT? Stabilize whom and how? It's sand and rocks covering oil, how do you develop that? Why can't the oil rich countries develop themselves? They seem to have enough money for the Sheiks, Princes, Kings and their families to live pretty damn good. We are the customers of those countries in the oil business. Why do we owe them any development? They have plenty of our money, it's just used wrongly. By your own words, they support, wahabi'st madrassa's around the world.

Are you proposing that the U.S. government move companies to the Middle East to make jobs? Who's willing to go WILLINGLY, IBM? Microsoft, GM? I've got it, Ben and Jerry's! I'm sure the down trodden, anti-Israeli Muslims of the Middle East want to work for Jerry GREENFIELD and Ben COHEN? And who loses their job HERE to make it all happen THERE? Again, this is talking points, it's not HOW, it's this might work, and GWB isn't doing anything right.

anon, just admit it, you hate GWB, he stole the election, he's Halliburton's Lap dog, Cheney is the real brains, yadda yadda yadda.

None of what your saying is new to me, but it's all words, not actionable tasks. Or it's tasks the Dumbocrats have blocked, stonewalled, stymied, and told lies about.

Posted by Steve at September 8, 2006 08:24 AM

Steve

How do the Police get people to talk? We don't
have torture chambers in the police precincts either.

Intel Sharing is an executive decision. Clinton managed
it during the millenium plot, Bush didn'ton 9/11

Israel's problems, are Israel's problems. When I was in the
army I swore an oath to defend the US, the constitution
and the people of the US.
If Iraq is a problem for Israel, let the Israeli army
invade baghdad

Posted by anonymous at September 8, 2006 08:56 AM

Britain gets a North American partner, world class intel, a lot more nuclear subs, a lot more men

Only, the problem is we don't really. We don't have independant use of the nuclear warheads, we don't get the intel generally without a fight. I've known people who've worked on joint Anglo-US sub projects and the information flow tends to be strictly one way.

We're a junior partner, you like it that way, don't kid us that we're important.

Posted by Daveon at September 8, 2006 10:45 AM

> I've known people who've worked on joint Anglo-US sub projects and the information flow tends to be strictly one way.

You mean Britain invented the Trident missile and we got it from you?

I don't think so.

> We're a junior partner, you like it that way, don't kid us that we're important

So, you want to be the senior parner? What's stopping you? All you have to do is build aircraft carriers, fighter wings, and army divisions to match ours.

You want to spend a fraction of what the US does on defense but still be the senior partner? We have an expression. "Poor babies."

Posted by Edward Wright at September 8, 2006 11:09 AM

You have to fix our energy policy. All that oil we get from Saudi Arabia has been funding wahabi'st madrassa's around the world.

Personally, I like fusion bombs to boil the Mediterranean, dam the straits of Gibraltar and have the biggest hydro project in the world. That or kinetic fusion with a rail gun. Or invest in the odd fusion project like Boron.

The War on Terror and Islamofascism is mostly an altuistic venture. The main beficiaries are the freed Iraqis (mostly Shia) who now live in a democracy. Over 1% of Americans die every year--about 3-4 million people. Terrorism is not a leading cause of death. In 2001, terrorism in America killed about as many people as category E66 "Obesity" and thousands of people fewer each year since. Half as many as F10 "Mental and behavioral disorders due to use of alcohol (F10)". Seems like our dependence on foreign alcohol and chocolate is causing death. Jerry's kids with MS warrant one weekend a year and they die 3,000/year.

So now that it's been 5 years, terrorism has still only killed 3,000 in the US and we are down to 600/year over the past 5 years. Like Thrombosis (I74) which suggests letting people get out of their seats on airplanes. Terrorism kills about as many as "Exposure to excessive natural cold (X31)". How about a war on stranglers (X91) which kills 690 per year.

Terrorism is novel and annoying though.

Posted by Sam Dinkin at September 8, 2006 11:26 AM

Intel Sharing is an executive decision. Clinton managed
it during the millenium plot, Bush didn'ton 9/11

You have no idea about what foiled the millenium plot or you wouldn't keep mentioning this. A US custom's agent discovered the would be terrorist. That might suggest great intel work between FBI, CIA, and INS, except she wasn't privey to the whatever magical intel Clinton had.

Posted by Leland at September 8, 2006 12:17 PM

Leland
A US Customs agent discovered ahmed rassam one of the Millenium
Plot bombers and passed the info up, More information
was coordinated, and his three algerian partners were
arrested.

In July 2001, INS arrested Zacharias Mouassai, and when
the data was passed to FBI, they failed to discuss this.
It helps that the Presidential Daily Briefing entitled
"Bin Laden Determined to strike inside United States"
was deliver while Bush was on vacation.

Posted by anonymous at September 8, 2006 02:35 PM

Steve

Do you believe the US has an obligation to defend israel?

Posted by anonymous at September 8, 2006 03:03 PM

Coward wrote A US Customs agent discovered ahmed rassam one of the Millenium
Plot bombers and passed the info up

Once again, the information went up, not down. Clinton and his administration was not responsible for stopping the millenium bombing, and almost every authority on the subject agrees that it was a bit of luck along with excellent skills of the US Custom's agent.

For instance, lets look at the 9/11 Commission Report:
It appears that the heightened sense of alert at the national level played no role in Ressam’s detention. [p. 179]

As one of [CTC Richard] Clarke’s staff noted, only a ‘chance discovery’ by U.S. Customs had prevented a possible attack. [p. 182]

Coward also wrote: More information
was coordinated, and his three algerian partners were arrested.
First, the millenium plot included several targets, Ressam's LAX target was only one. Prior to his arrest, Jordanian officials stopped 4 attacks in their county. The information about the plot was not used to stop Ressam. After Ressam's arrest, it wasn't intel that prevented the attack on the USS Sullivans.

Finally, your logic is so flawed. You give credit in stopping the millenium bomb plot as President Clinton sharing intel, when in fact, his intel only arrested more accomplishments after plot was foiled. It took 5 more months before President Clinton declared Al Qaeda was behind the millenium bomb plot. You then blame Bush's lack of sharing intel for 9/11. However, if you use the same logic, then Bush actually shared tons of intel and came to the conclusion Al Qaeda was behind 9/11 much faster and then proceeded to arrest far more than 3 other suspects. In addition, if sharing intel is the best way to fight the GWOT, then President Bush and PM Blair are doing a great job considering events just a month ago.

Posted by Leland at September 9, 2006 06:54 AM

Leland

Bush was vacationing while the 9/11 plot unfolded.

Bush is lazy and incurious.

A bad combination

Posted by anonymous at September 9, 2006 04:55 PM

Right... I didn't think you could provide a rational explanation for your argument.

Posted by Leland at September 9, 2006 05:04 PM

Leland

In the months leading up to 9/11 the CIA had the names
of known Al-Qaeda agents, but never sent these names to
State and INS to put on the watch list. Instead they were
issued visas and admitted to the US by Bush.

That's called intelligence sharing.

Unfortunately Bush has valued secrecy far more then openness
and missed a real opportunity to roll up the 9-11 plot.

Posted by anonymous at September 10, 2006 01:05 PM

Yes, the Gorelick wall was still in place on 9/11. The same wall that prevented the CIA from sharing information with the FBI or INS that foiled the Millenium Bomb plot. I'll agree President Bush was slow to clean up the mess left by President Clinton.

Posted by Leland at September 11, 2006 06:38 AM

The FBI had developed bizarre interpretations
of what FISA meant, how FISA was to be processed
and wether intelligence material and
criminal material were sharable.
However, Clinton had the right ability
to motivate senior officials in the
government to share and create impromptu
task forces to work the Millemium plot.

Richard Clarke writes about how this
worked under Clinton. Bush didn't care
enough to care about terrorism, and it bit all
of us on 9-11.

Bush was very focused on Missile Defense,
Tax Cuts and religious policy, there was
a systematic down grading of terrorism
and it showed up in the months prior to 9-11.

The decision to take action after the Cole
Bombing was deferred, No decisions were
made to develope an Al-qaeda strategy
for 9 months, Bush never listened to
any of the hand off briefings on Al-Qaeda.

Posted by anonymous at September 12, 2006 09:32 AM

However, Clinton had the right ability
to motivate senior officials in the
government to share and create impromptu
task forces to work the Millemium plot.

But once again, Clinton didn't do anything to stop the Millenium plot. An INS agent, who had no previous information about the plot or suspects, foiled the attempt in the US. The attempt in Jordan was foiled by Jordanian authorities, who received no intelligence from the US. The attempted attack against the USS Sullivan was foiled by a leaky boat.

I don't know if Richard Clarke can claim success at anything. As the counter-terrorism czar under two administrations, Al Qaeda managed to pull off attacks against US assets world wide. Contrary to popular belief, no President actually gathers intelligence or executes plans based on intelligence. They authorize others to do this. Richard Clarke had this authority, and he failed miserably at his job. I'll simply note General Tommy Franks opinion of Richard Clarke: "I never received a single operational recommendation, or a single page of actionable intelligence, from Richard Clarke". I'll also say this again: "I'll agree President Bush was slow to clean up the mess left by President Clinton."

Posted by Leland at September 13, 2006 06:19 AM

Leland

the 9-11 commission faults the bush administration for
management. They specifically show how Ashcroft and
Freeh did not share information with CIA on 9-11
that Reno and Sessions did on the millenium plot.

It's in the later chapters. Chapter 12.

Blame Clarke all you want, he's the only guy who apologized
for the failures of 9-11. Bush, Rice, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft
just pointed fingers at Clinton. A really immature move.

Clarke acted like a stand up guy, Bush, oh yeah, he
hid in a hole in the ground while the nation was
under attack.

Posted by anonymous at September 13, 2006 10:52 AM

Yep, let's just get that Bin Laden guy and go home. The main difference between the left and right on Iraq is the left sees the GWOT as a legal/police action and the right sees it as the military action it is. I am still trying to understand how it is that liberals smugly say how Bush doesn't have a sophisticated view of this issue. I think that it is the liberals who lack a real clear understanding of the enemy we face. And for all of Bush's "incompetence" he sure has a lot of successes to show for himself IE, the economy and the lack of attacks on the US since 9-11. These of course, are given no credit by liberals or the MSM, but there is really no way around the fact that our country is doing pretty damn well and that is no accident.

Posted by at September 13, 2006 11:37 AM

Post a comment