What if I match Beanies with a Cecilian?
R-A-G-G-M-O-P-P Ragmop!
If anybody knows what I am talking about I will be really amazed.
“Ragmop” was a popular song from the 1940’s:
R,
I say R-A,
R-A-G,
R-A-G-G.
Ragg…
R-A-G-G-M-O-P-P raggmopp!
Doodeedoop daaaah de ah dah!
Beany and Cecil was an old cartoon about a sea monster.
Do you understand the difference between offense and defense? Remind me not to go to any football games with you.
Hee hee, this should be some sort of Straight Dope motto. A Cecilian could outwit a Sicilian any day. 
It’s easier to figure out world events when one can start with the certain knowledge that Bush did wrong. The only question is which mistakes he made.
Of course, that leaves the problem of explaining why things that he “messed up” actually worked. That problem can be dealt with by denial or changing the subject.
Which ones would those be? (Please support your assertions with objective evidence that preestablished criteria for “success” have been met.)
Implying what? That we should take a page from your book and assume that everything that Bush 2.0 has done was right? Look folks, I hate to be the one to break this to you, but the emperor has no clothes.
The biggest mistake was maybe that he thought that everybody would jump up and shout “Yay, a petty little war for no reason, splendid idea!”
By Dec: “Of course, that leaves the problem of explaining why things that he “messed up” actually worked. That problem can be dealt with by denial or changing the subject.”
Is this the end justifies the means argument?
Things that “worked”:
- Over-hipe threat of SH to world community and American public.
- Oust 3rd world dictator
- Use shock and awe to destroy Iraq’s infrastructure
- Finance reconstruction with Iraqi oil sales and make freinds and supporters rich
Oh yea… and give the French ammo for a lot of “I told ya soes”
Max Cleland, eh? I wonder if that triple-amputee veteran is still smarting over being accused of cowardice and treason by a reputed avid jogger who beat Vietnam service with a bad knee?
“Axe grinding” jokes ahoy!
A shit lot of people did.
Off the top of my head[ul][]Al Qaeda and Taliban out of power in Afghanistan[]Glimmerings of a democratic government in Afghanistan with more rights for women[]Baath Party out of power in Iraq[]Most Ba’ath leaders dead or captured, including Saddam’s charming sons[]The entire south and north of Iraq is pacified and in fairly good economic shape.[]Slow but steady progress in the central, problematic portion of Iraq[]Gradual improvement in the US economy, according to economic indicators (although unemployment has not improved)[]No successful al Qaeda terrorist attack on the United States since 9/11Most of the civilized world is united with us in fighting al Qaeda, with successes in many countries[/ul]
What do those things have to do with 1) the mismanagement of intel that could have maybe prevented 9/11, and 2) using a war, IMO the most extreme option, to remove SH; and justifying it by using scare language supported by invalidated intel.
[ul][li]"Al Qaeda and Taliban out of power in Afghanistan" Al Q appear to be operating fairly effectively in [our ally] Pakistan right now. And OBL is still at large.[]"Glimmerings of a democratic government in Afghanistan with more rights for women"* “Glimmerings”? Outside of Kabul, there’s more than glimmerings of feudalism. And cite, please, for “glimmerings of democracy” as an expressed goal prior to our military activities in Afghanistan?[]"Baath Party out of power in Iraq"* Ba’athists out of power. Check.[]"Most Ba’ath leaders dead or captured, including Saddam’s charming sons"* Same as previous point; stop padding.[]"The entire south and north of Iraq is pacified and in fairly good economic shape."* Define “fairly good economic shape”, please, and cite for this?[]"Slow but steady progress in the central, problematic portion of Iraq"* Progress toward what, exactly? Unresponsive to my request for “things that worked.”[]"Gradual improvement in the US economy, according to economic indicators (although unemployment has not improved)"* Obviously not all economic indicators, then. Which of Bush’s rather dramatic tax and spending cuts are you claiming have “worked” to cause this possible gradual improvement?[]"No successful al Qaeda terrorist attack on the United States since 9/11"* I haven’t had a single cold this year. That rabbit’s foot I wear must be “working”, eh?[]"Most of the civilized world is united with us in fighting al Qaeda, with successes in many countries"* So Bush’s unilateralism hasn’t driven other countries to reverse their opposition to terrorist organizations, and you think this is evidence that something Bush is doing is “working” to prevent that reversal? Could you please name that something?[/ul][/li]That’s one thing that hasn’t happened yet (an Al Q attack), and one that has happened and can be definitely credited to Bush (“regime change”). So, perhaps it’s reasonable to criticize the cost of that one particular success, now that evidence for the necessity of regime change has been (finally) called into question by some of those gullible enough to have believed it the first time.
I’ll just point out that there has been only one known attack by al Qaeda within the United States.
Al Qaeda attacks against American allies and American interests appears to be continuing and ongoing.
For example, someone fired off some rockets at U.S. airbases in Afghanistan last night, one of “scores” of attacks just this year.
And don’t forget that just two months ago seven Americans died in an apparent al Qaeda attack against several housing compounds in Riyadh.
It would be very dangerous to allow oneself to believe that these guys are dead and gone.
To add to xenophon’s list, last I heard American forces in Afghanistan are now working with the Taliban to try and maintain order in the country.
Why is the word “vague” in this sentence? Let me pick those two vagues out of there: (first one) The evidence about September 11th never should have been vague in the first place. It seems to me that there were MAJOR fuckups in the intelligence process here. This is one of the great intelligence failures in history, and it HAS to be investigated and throughly plumbed so it never happens again. That’d be true no matter who was in power.
Are you saying Republicans wouldn’t have jumped all over Clinton if he’d still been in office when this happened? Bull. I’ve seen plenty of blame cast his way as is. And I’m not saying this was all Dubya’s fault.
The second “vague” is there only because the case for war involved so much manipulation and twisted of evidence, if not plain old dishonesty. An honest case for the war would, at the very least, not have supported the rush into fighting that the Pentagon wanted, because most of the evidence they used was either inconclusive (like the photos Powell used and the chemical weapons suits) or refuted by other evidence (like the meeting with the Al Qaeda operative), if not just fake (the Nigerian uranium bit).
Mohammed Atta was a known terrorist. The FBI had to know who at least some of these people were (I’m not sure about ALL of them) and that they were connected to Al Qaeda. Atta was seen in some of the airports in question, and booked ‘test’ flights under his own name in the months prior to the attacks. The FBI knew that men with possible connections to terrorism were enrolling in flight schools under shifty circumstances, and the idea of attacking American soil with hijacked jets was apparently not unfamiliar to intelligence agencies.
There SHOULD have been more than enough data out there to get at least a rough idea of what was going on and put a stop to it. For one thing, bureaucratic hangups and stupidity and the FBI and CIA prevented a clearer picture from coming together.
George Tenet isn’t a Republican, he’s the head of the CIA. Lots of people are at fault here, although personally I’d say it had as much to do with circumstances as with mistakes by individuals. And that sort of stuff needs to be figured out. Some people may lose their jobs, I don’t know. If partisanship gets in the way because some Republicans are claiming this is a liberal plot instead of an investigation, we may end up paying a high price for it.
That’s not vague, it’s crap.
First of all, in my liberal book, you don’t attack a country and kill people based on inconclusive evidence and rumors that were often contradicted. There was inconclusive evidence, and there was at times more definite evidence refuting the stuff you’re talking about. The IAEA said, for example, that the aluminum rods were definitely not for nuclear weapons, but Bush and co. continued to cite them as evidence for months because it suited them. That strikes me as dishonest.
I was hearing for months before the war that the Niger uranium story was bullshit. And who the hell am I? Nobody, at least in terms of US leadership. If I was hearing it, I’d like to know why the administration didn’t make a more thorough accounting to find out the same instead of trying to find one sucker - Tenet or his deputy - to pin it on now. Especially when we know that the CIA actually encouraged them NOT to use this particular piece of evidence because they didn’t trust its veracity. (See anything in the New York Times in the last several days, and indeed a lot of stuff before that.)
Thank you.
As I’ve said earlier, because it was a massive failure and more than 2,700 people died because of it. Things went wrong, and we need to be sure those things don’t happen again. I don’t care who the President is and I don’t care how much I might like or dislike him and his pals. This has to be investigated until we know what went wrong.
I don’t see why these two things are even related.
You’re speciously connecting Iraq to Al Qaeda, for one. There remains no good solid proof that Iraq had/has “terror weapons,” nor any that it had the intent to use them aggressively if it did. The Bush administration insisted that the war against Iraq was for American security because Saddam Hussein 1) had these weapons, and 2) was capable of using them against America, or 2a) supplying them to Al Qaeda, who WOULD do so. #1 and #2 remain unproven and have very little support at this stage (and if you ask ME, a war should be proven justified BEFORE it happens, not months afterward). And 2a is false, which is why it was more often vaguely implied than stated.
So we have a war unconnected to terrorism against a country not proven to be a threat to the United States. You’re wondering why that was insufficient to some?
Also, bringing intelligence together to thwart an attack against America - which, had it been done properly, would have saved lives - is different from taking inconclusive evidence and using it to justify a war.