Bush isn’t spending any energy to ask Jackson not to go–unless you count it “energy” when some undersecretary of State passes a memo to the White House Chief of Staff saying, “Jesse’s at it again, can you ask the prez to say it’s a bad idea?”
Of course the State Department will issue a 4-line press release stating that Jackson should stay home and not “jeopardize” the situation. That gives the government total deniability for anything that happens later. They have done the same on each other occasion. That is hardly the same thing as “paying attention” to him. (Heck, they can probably just call up the last “don’t go” warning off the computer and post it.)
I am not saying that Jackson going to Afghanistan is a good idea. I am saying that the Jackson-haters on this message board are spending more energy frothing at the mouth than the government is spending issuing a press release–and the hatred is way out of proportion to the damage that night occur.
tomndeb, Jesse Jackson says he is interested in “negotiating.” To my mind, negotiating involves some give and take on both sides. If Jesse Jackson isn’t a representative of the United States Government, what can he offer the Taliban? I suspect there is a chance the Taliban will simply give him the hostages in order to show the world that they are reasonable while our government is not.
Or they’ll mail JJ’s head back in a box, and ship the rest of him back UPS or something.
As an admitted adulterer, the Taliban might well decide to sentence him to death. As a Christian minister, they might accuse him of prostelytizing which, I think, is also punishable by death. And he doesn’t have a “fist of beard” so that’s punishable by prison…
I mentioned this to someone yesterday and they guy said “Yeah, but Jackson’s not a Afghani citizen” So? When have these guys respected anyone else?
You know, I don’t like Jackson, recognising him as a showboater and media player, but the ridiculous vitriol his detractors throw at him really don’t help their case. For example, let’s look at December’s silliness:
To quote from the linked CNN article
Please explain what’s wrong with that goal. Or how it could possible be conceived as abetting the terrorists?
But even better than that, is this splendidly rabid and illogical rant.
So, just to be clear, if we don’t bomb people now, innocent lives may be lost. December, you’re an idiot.
He didn’t give two shits about those prisoners (remember, they are charged with proselytizing, a huge no-no in Afghanistan, they are not hostages) before now, so why all of a sudden is he throwing himself into this?
WTF is up with holding a press conference to announce this so-called “invitation”? “Here I come to save the day”? Even if everything else is true, that right there clinches his media whore status.
I think it speaks volumes about Jackson’s credibility (or lack thereof) that when it comes down to a he said/they said scenario with the Taliban, more people believe the fuckin’ Taliban than believe Jackson.
I don’t like Jackson either, but I don’t think he’s going to do us any harm by talking with the Taliban. It’s even possible that he’ll get something accomplished, such as the release of some of our prisoners.
However, regarding his assumed goals, our issues with Afghanistan are no longer merely about bin Laden. Bush has officially, publicly, condemned the Taliban and made several demands of them, including a demand to allow the US access to their country to ensure no more “terrorist training camps” are operating.
Jackson might be able to secure the release of some prisoners, but by and large I don’t see how he could help the US accomplish other goals, such as having Afghanistan turn over all the leaders of Al-Qaeda. As such, I fail to see where he gets the idea that his visit, even if it results in turning bin Laden over to the UN, will prevent military action, and thus having “more innocent people killed.”
If the issue is truly “the detainment of eight Christians in Afghanistan”, this begs the question of why he’s chosen to get involved now, instead of 6 weeks ago, as Amulet said. Otherwise, it begs the question of what he’s really trying to accomplish, in light of Bush’ publicly stated demands and goals.
/QUOTE]By failing to take out Saddam Hussein after the Gulf War, Bush 41 allowed terrorism to fester. Many Iraqis have been murdered by Saddam. It’s conceivable that the WTC attack might not have happened if the US had shown the balls to overthrow Saddam. Bush’s decision to stop the war was probably affected by CNN’s Peter Arnett, who was in Bagdad talking to the Iraqis. His broadcasts may well have encouraged softer policy choices.
Bush 43 isn’t necessarily set in his policy. In fact, I;m getting a little nervous that the specific policy hasn’t been announced. Maybe they haven’t madeup their minds.
I find it quite plausible that Jackson could help bin Laden or the Taliban mount a public relations campaign, which would affect policy. (After all , a PR campaign affected Vietnam policy.) There are plenty of people in America and other western nations who favor a less belligerant approach. Some of them might participate in demonstrations, advertisements, etc.
By failing to take out Saddam Hussein after the Gulf War, Bush 41 kept Saudi Arabia from renouncing its participation in Desert storm and demanding that the U.N. and U.S. immediately evacuate all Saudi land–thus leaving the Saudis in a position to be our allies in the current cause, as well. Or were you suggesting that we occupy Saudi Arabia–who stated that they would not support an invasion of Iraq or a U.N. overthrow of Hussein–as well as Iraq in order to impose our will on the world? There is no appearance that Arnett’s reports had much effect on actual military policy. It was after Arnett had reported the destruction of the air raid shelter that we initiated the campaign that ended with the carnage on the Kuwait-to-Iraq highway, which we carried out quite efficiently despite the fact that those forces were already retreating and that all other combat had ended.
As to
It is exactly the sort of “rush in and do something” mentality that has gotten us into most of the serious military problems we have had in the last 30 years, from the “Embassy rescue” debacle to the bombing of the Sudanese pharmaceutical factory–that we still can’t prove was making weapons while most of the world believes we blew up an aspirin plant.
I am quite happy that the current administration announced as early as September 11 that this would be a long, slow battle and that they have not run out and killed some bystanders just to show we are mad.
Nobody has to like Jackson and a disagreement with him going to Afghanistan is fine, but this hyperbolic, “abetting the terrorists” overreaction is beyond logic or reason.
tomndebb, evwn though we disagree, I’m sure you’re intelligent and sincere in your POV. Please note that I expressed concern over lack of an announcement, not lack of action.
There are some very important decisions to make, such as:
Do we need to overthrown the Taliban?
Do we need to overthrow Saddam Hussein?
Is it enough to arrest Bin Laden and a few of his close advisors?
Does the war on terrorism reqwuire a permanent effort?
Do we need a military approach or a law enforcement approach?
I don’t know the answers to these questions. I’ve seen arguments in favor of each side. But, they will matter.
The US will take some degree of action and time will tell how effective it turns out to be. E.g., if we don’t overthrow Saddam and he develops a nuclear arsenal that threatens the US, I will rate our action as “ineffective.”
We both agree that bombing the Sudanese aspirin factory was ineffective. It’s my guess that a more effective action at that time might have deterred the WTC attack, but of course, I can’t prove that.
From today’s CNN article on the mess, it appears he’s just going in to try to get the “hostages”* released. Fine. Have fun. It’s not like he didn’t know about their situation for months before Sept 11th. I’m sure, given his track record, that the only reason he’s doing this now is because he can get his name mentioned a lot in the media, and keep his PR level high.
Another thing about JJ that irritates me, doesn’t he realise that he’s just being used by the terrorists as a political ploy? They know they can call him in, pose a bit, buff his ego, and get rid of hostages they can’t kill for making a bad situation worse. They get the chance to make themselves look good, the American Gov’t bad, and JJ’s ego and popularity stay high for the next Dictator/Terrorist who needs his help in this area.
*[sub]They aren’t hostages in my eyes. They’re idiots who didn’t obey laws designed to keep them safe. Let them die for their beliefs.[/sub]
I figure the missionaries who are so desperate to die for their faith ought to be given the opportunity (although, that will enrage at least as many people as are offended by Jackson pulling their butts out of their if he is successful–with every bit as much negative affect on foreign policy).
One technical point of Jackson’s timing, however.
This is the third party of European/American missionaries who have been caught in the same deal. Up until September 10, they were expected to go through the same show trial as their predecessors. The Afghan law calls for death for Islamic Afghanis caught preaching Christianity, but only 30 days jail and deportation for Christian foreigners. Each of the previous groups were sentenced to “time served” (while waiting for trial) and escorted to the planes to carry then out.
When the WTC attack occurred, the trial of this group took a different turn, with rumblings from the Taliban that they needed to consider “other” evidence, they held up the trails with unexplained delays. That group does very much look as though it is now being held hostage. Jackson had no need to insert himself into a “routine” trial that was going to end in a simple expulsion ten days ago. Now that the trial and the missionaries are both being “held hostage,” he has a cause that he can try to exploit.
He did not, however, create the situation. Folks bashing him for “not going sooner” are simply displaying their ignorance of the situation.
You can still hate him.
You can still point out that he is grandstanding.
It would be nice, however, if you got your facts straight.
Question: What is the most dangerous place in the world to be?
Answer: Between Jesse Jackson and a television camera.
My understanding (no cites) is that Coretta Scott King hates JJ for just that reason. He is primarily interested in getting himself airtime.
The New York Post generally makes me cringe. But one of their columns on the Jesse issue was linked in a newsletter I get, and it had several highly amusing comments. Among them:
I’ve got no use for the good Reverend whatsoever. But in his defense, while his ego is certainly a factor when he does this sort of thing, I do believe he means well.
I’m still having problems reconciling “Jesse Jackson” and “means well”. I can recall clearly the case here in MS, where he probably still believes that poor kids was murdered despite two independet autopsies and a review by the Forensics people are Walter Reed. Surely he meant well to come here and keep whining that the kid had been “murdered by a white posse” despite one bit of evidence?
You see the problem here. Clearly, his past misdeeds have colored some people’s views of him. Pardon me if I fail to bow and scrape at his Lordship’s feet.
I am a reader, not a poster and I should stick to reading.
Yesterday the news filled me with a kind of impotent rage. There was the arrogant, grandstanding, lying Reverend coming to the rescue again, but this time he had been caught in a lie from the git-go. The taliban "asked" him only in his own world. I posted. I was wrong. I would like to apoligize to the members, to the moderators and to Garfield226.
This was not intended as a forum for thoughtful and intetelligent exchange. I thought everyone knew that the guy was a first class prick. Everyone can see that he champions the good causes of religion, race relations and patriotism solely to further his own fame and fortune. Admittedly he has been both skillful and lucky in the past but there is zero sincerity there, it is obvious.
Of course, only my opinion (and Ari Fleisher's), but I STILL wish the guy would shut up.
Who the hell are Bush41 and Bush43?