The War on Al Qaeda

Oh, FFS. One link to a high-traffic blog, Daniel Larison, gets my comment eaten. Aren’t you people going to upgrade to the Commodore 128 over there at Time one of these days?
-
Anyway, my point was, there is no GOP constituency for expertise or moderation these days. This is not your father’s GOP; it’s Sarah Palin’s, Michael Steele’s, and Pete Hoekstra’s. Plus, the outside party always likes to act more hawkish than the incumbents. So even if there were a GOP Sanity Caucus, the incentives for careerists would be very similar.

I wonder how much of a public rift is going to develop between Bush and Cheney when the two publish their memoirs (I assume that Cheney’s will (a) be more rifty and (b) sell more copies than Bush’s).

Yes, but Bush’s book will have cool pop-up pictures and colorforms where you can dress the commander in chief as a fighter pilot, Segway rider, or brush clearer.

Cheneyism or Palinism?

“although the bottom line appears to be that they’re more similar than different.”

So all of the screeching, stuttering, bile-filled name calling the dumbest President ever was right or is the Community Organizer now overtaking Bush as the dumbest President ever?

JK: Once again you write to defile Republicans but leave journalism to other folks.

Here’s the interesting part, while I will reserve my absolute judgment until I finished reading the piece, I will be looking at it with an eye toward determining whether or not Obama’s policies resemble Bush or whether the changes in the Bush policies coincide with the policy prescriptions being authored by the Obama campaign. Obviously, I am biased toward the belief that after dealing with a failing second term, Bush patterned himself more closely to Obama than the other way around.

“…it seems clear that the mid-ranking Bush intelligence officials whom Baker has talked to–people who’ll be looking for jobs in the next Republican Administration–think that Cheneyism is the party’s future.”
.
You mean the people who have been wrong about everything? Why should anyone give a flying fig what they think? Oh, that’s right, they’re still an integral part of yours and Baker’s bi-partisan world, aren’t they?

Yes I am sure. Bush secretly carried a picture of the Messiah around in his wallet.

Bush’s mantra everyday “how can I be more like Obama?”

Seriously Dee seek help

Obama contends that that view warps the situation out of proportion and plays into terrorists’ hands by elevating their stature and allowing them — even without attacking again — to alter the nature of American society

I know it just one sentence out of a long article but it needs to be repeated. Do we not suspect for a moment that one of the things that motivates terrorists is an inflated sense of their own importantce?

Good point:

It’s really staggering what this says about the ethical caliber of the people we’re talking about. These are the toughest issues out there. Obama is, they think, doing the right thing. But some of them don’t want to say he’s doing the right thing because that might make Dick Cheney mad and they’re timid, gutless careerists? And others don’t want to say he’s doing the right thing because their feelings are hurt that a Democrat said bad things about his grossly unpopular Republican predecessor? For this they’re going to undermine support for policies that they themselves believe are keeping the country safe?
.
– BarbinMD

Yes and ignoring them as a strategy works so well. Terrorist bombed the WTC once and then flew planes into it.

Maybe a stern letter should follow. That will show them Obama means business.

There’s no need for a letter, Obama is a Democrat. Only Republicans ignore past attackers and gathering threats (even when they know about them), then create even more threats by invading the wrong countries and torturing the wrong people.

There’s little doubt in my mind that Bush moderated his policies closer to what Obama’s were, mainly because there was serious talk of war crimes trials and serious Constitutional violations by his administration.

Why do reporters go to the same people that got us into this mess for opinions? This Sunday the echo chamber on the news shows were the same villagers that have been bloviating for years. I no longer watch the shows because I know what the questions and answers will be before they are stated.
From the hosts, to guests and round table, it is all so predictable.
There are many experts on many subjects to be found.
How can the pundits be experts on every subject:
Economy, Religion, Foreign Policy, Politics, Health Care, and the most complicated of issues. Their knowledge is superficial and from their political perspective. When I want to hear about climate change, I want to hear from experts, not George Will.
Why go to a partisan and expect anything but talking points? Why record those talking points?
Joe, tell your friends in the media, find some new sources you can actually quote or STFU.

Yes and ignoring them as a strategy works so well….

Of course the only ignorance being demonstrated is your own. No one’s ignoring the terrorists. But they happen to be rather thinly spread throughout the Mideast. Indiscriminant bombing, torture, and starting wars in unrelated Countries are rather counterproductive compared to our more recent approach.

Well said.

I have also given up watching the Sunday shows as well as most MSNBC programs.
.
Professor Jay Rosen has an interesting suggestion for improving the shows.
.
http://jayrosen.posterous.com/my-simple-fix-for-the-messed-up-sunday-shows#notes

Thanks for this presentation of the liberal critique of the media. That is that it does a bad job reporting and analyzing the news.
-
Pundits are less accountable than the most tenured academic from the most unreasonable union at the most liberal university. Of all the pundits from the Post, Times, Time, Newsweek, Meet the Press, Face the Nation, etc., how many opposed the invasion of Iraq? How many called the housing bubble? How many noted that the tax policies from 2001 onward were completely unaffordable? Off the top of my head, the answer is one, Paul Krugman.
-
This applies to reporters, too. What negative consequences has someone like Michael Gordon suffered from his eager stenography with Judy Miller? None. “The media did a really bad job of covering the run-up to the war,” as Karen Tumulty put it, and there have been no lessons learned, and no consequences for anyone responsible.
-
In the interests of fairness, here is a fair and balanced presentation of the conservative critique of the media: http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2006/07/03/tomo/index1.html

Ivy_B:
.
Prof Rosen tweeted that Howie Kurtz has endorsed his simple fix for the Sunday Bobblehead failures!
.
BTW, here’s a link to the BobbleSpeak translations, so you can continue to occupy your Sunday mornings with productive behavior, and yet still know exactly what went on during those exasperatingly bad shows: link to the ever-helpful BobbleSpeak Translations .

Stuart, in an update in the Rosen link I provided he notes the Kurtz comments and also to the column Jason Linkins wrote.
.
I usually read Linkins snarky summaries of the Bobbleheads. Will check out BobbleSpeak as well.

The New Year has not made the left any smarter. Yes Obama is not ignoring them he is following the left’s religion of environmentalism- he is recycling terrorists. To keep his lame campaign promises he is returning known terrorists back to Yemen where they can try again, in order to close Gitmo. When they try again he will no doubt put them on double secret probation.

Maybe the next bomber will cause enough fuss that Obama will interrupt his golf game.

Hey Paul why do you think the terrorists are spread thinly throughout the world? Could it be that the “Indiscriminant bombing, torture, and starting wars ” has thinned them out. Policies the “savior” is following.

[...] Joe Klein at Swampland at Time: The piece is detailed, and excellent, in describing the similarities and differences between the Bush and Obama counter-terrorism strategies–although the bottom line appears to be that they’re more similar than different. Indeed, Baker spoke to a half-dozen Bush Administration officials who thought so, but were reluctant to say it publicly because they didn’t want to get into trouble with the “Cheney circle.” [...]

“Why do reporters go to the same people that got us into this mess for opinions?”
.
Some reasons off the top of my head are:
.
Propaganda is easier than reporting. With propaganda there is no need for a news program to hire any reporters who are actual subject matter experts to ask questions of the so-called guest experts. They can just use the made up news star they created out of who cloth to ask questions from that star’s limited approach to a given subject.
.
Real reporting and real fact based opinions cost time and money. Real subject matter experts (and a reporter or opinion wirter can be a subject matter expert) are very poor soundbite speakers. They will almost always waste valuable air time attempting to explain to a reporter who knows nothing about a given subject that an answer is almost never as simple as they think it is or want it to be.
.

I swear it never ceases to amaze me how easily the right dons its cloak of ignorance as if it is some sort of badge its earned with pride. Sorry freebie but the only detainees sent back to Yemen in order to return to their former lives as terrorists were sent by the Bush administration, over the objections of members of their own administration I might add, because they knew these individuals had not been thoroughly vetted and the proposed Saudi art therapy program was a joke. Now they want to take their very real blunder and pretend that the error belongs to this administration. What chutzpah! In contrast, I have more faith in the current administration, whose deliberative style has been demonstrated consistently, when they say they have carefully chosen those who will be sent back and on the occasions that they have already done so it has worked out well. See that’s what happens when you don’t skip studying and you actually do your homework. You get accustomed to doing your due diligence. The problem with you guys on the right, is that you’re too willing to coast on the reputations built by other people. You rely on crib notes instead of reading the book or you hope you get by on your good looks and popularity bought for you by daddy.

Dee:

Well Dee the right may don thier coat of ignorance but the left have ignorance as its skin.

There are guys on the right and then there are guys beyond that. freepo makes Dick Cheney look like a bleeding heart peasenik. Truly scary. As scary at least as the terrorists.

“There are guys on the right and then there are guys beyond that. freepo makes Dick Cheney look like a bleeding heart peasenik. Truly scary. As scary at least as the terrorists.”

Ah no time at all for the faux intellectual left to go to name calling. When you are mentally exhausted and morally bankrupt you do have few options. I am sure homophobe and racist won’t be far behind.

Check the calendar girls, November is coming up and the nation has had it after less than 1 year of your “enlightened” thinking.

Even Paul Krugman can be wrong because I believe he said that the banks were going to collapse because Obama had not made the stimulus big enough, I haven’t heard him back track on that either. So regardless of where the pundits are on the political spectrum, the commonality they share is the propensity not to acknowledge the failures. It’s a problem with punditry period that no one is held accountable for the predictions or prescriptions they dispense of national TV that helps to shape public opinion and more often than not distorts reality. They can be wrong 90% of the time as long as they sound knowledgeable and know the right people in the Georgetown cocktail party circles. And actually that would be okay if the media didn’t allow these people to be the sole arbiters of the narrative. But allowing these souls to set the news agenda and ignoring anything that may develop but is a departure from or is contrary to this so-called conventional wisdom is destructive.

“Paul Krugman can be wrong because I believe he said that the banks were going to collapse because Obama had not made the stimulus big enough, I haven’t heard him back track on that either.”
.
A friend of mine likes to say: those who attempt to predict the future with a crystal ball often wind up eating broken glass. Krugman is seldom wrong because he doesn’t make such predictions.

And so perhaps the biggest change Obama has made is what one former adviser calls the “mood music” — choice of language, outreach to Muslims, rhetorical fidelity to the rule of law and a shift in tone from the all-or-nothing days of the Bush administration.
.
Language, interrogation techniques, treatment of prisoners, “black sites”, information sharing, etc. are all important- and we can debate the merit. However, none of these are crucial to the neoconservative movement.
.
In Rebuilding America’s Defenses, the PNAC set out to (link):
.
ESTABLISH FOUR CORE MISSIONS for the U.S. military:
.
• defend the American homeland;
• fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;
• perform the “constabulary” duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions;
• transform U.S. forces to exploit the “revolution in military affairs”
.
Per #1, I’ll only note that homeland security is a separate goal. #4 refers to spending on high-tech military equipment, no need to discuss here.
.
Per #2, we have wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Predator Drones in Pakistan, covert ops and missile attacks in Yemen and Somalia. Add in sanctions against Iran and the weapons, funds and political cover we afford Israel in order to strangle Palestine and were fighting in 5-7 “theaters” right now.
.
Consider #3 wrt Afghanistan. The mission is to deny AQ safe-haven, protect the Afghani people, and stabilize the region (incl nuclear Pakistan). But are 300K US troops/contractors , a 400K troop Afghan Army, $4B worth of Afg infrastructure, and a $3/4B embassy in Pak necessary to these goals? The RAND Corporation recommends that we “minimize the use of military force”, and that the most effective way to counter terrorism is with “a light U.S. military footprint or none at all.” (link)
.
Our troops and infrastructure provide the ability to “perform the ‘constabulary’ duties associated with shaping the security environment” in an oil-rich region vital to planned pipelines. Obama is continuing the mission started by Deputy President Cheney; he has made no significant changes to the plan.

We need to take Al Q seriously. The usual RW contempt and fear filled rejoinders are so musch bs. Our CIA officers in eastern Afghanistan were taken in by an AQ double agent and died as a result.. What should that tell us? That we have spent too much time making macho statements and given little credence to the ability of AQ to infiltrate us!

The people we are up against are capable. Recognise that and calibrate our response accordingly. Don’t waste time with the brave armchairs warriors on the Republican side. They did not get it right in Iraq and Afghanistan. They talk the talk….nothing else.

The right attacks Obama for following the same policies as Bush. It doesn’t make much sense does it, nor does it speak well of the authenticity of the right’s concern or their ability to remain consistent in argument. At least when the rule-of-law, idealists attack Obama, it is not for policies they ever supported in the past. It is also intriguing that those who broke the law, and used the constitution as toilet paper, are described as having modified their approach. Those of us who are actually subject to the law, ought to use the “village” defense if we ever run afoul of it. “Yes we violated the law, your honor, but we have refined our approach.”

Joe, if you read your comments, you will find that in this posting you will find people on the right and left that think you and the other pundits and those interviewed are not held to any quality evaluation. In this age of Google, readers and viewers can quickly check accuracy. What we find are incompetence, rushing to publish or speaking without affirmation, distain for anyone outside of the echo chamber.
But most unforgiveable: You are untrustworthy, egotists and BORING.

Ivy, I think Rosen’s idea for accountability of politicians is great. I would like to add host and pundits to this check on accuracy. I’m not sure the press could handle this scrutingy but it would be interesting.

If the homohater and racist shoe fits, wear it. And yes, I am guessing that they do fit along with all of the other phony right wing hot button issues. Immigration? Bible heathens? On and on. Too many, all shallow, all unAmerican. Get a real life.

Derek- IMO, the criticisms are a diversion from how little FP has actually changed. They criticize, Obama defends, the story-teller’s narrative becomes “opposition”. And everyone is jockeying for the next election.

Rubbish, Mr. Klein.

The War on Terror is a fraud.

“Cheneyism” is fascism.

And 12/25–like 9/11–was an inside job.

http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2009/12/28/let-the-right-one-in/

http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2009/04/11/the-rest-is-silence/

pintortwo maybe the Cheney/Limbaugh/Bech/Backman/Palin wing of the party think Bush is a radical left wing extremist, who hates America, and is trying to destroy it, by passing on his left wing, terrorist loving plot to Obama.

Freepina, do you remember about time horizons? Bush came up with that word only when Obama’s campaign for timelines for troop withdrawl from Iraq started gaining traction. Ego did not let him concede the point, and hence the subtle realignment of policy with change in terminology. McCain and Bush started considering Af-Pak as a focal point for war on terror only when Obama’s views on this issue started gaining traction, Same is the case with “diplomacy first, war is the last resort” principle. Towards the end of his second term. Bush came to senses and started considering diplomatic engagements. Even the conservative pundits like Krauthammer agreed on that, though with spin- Obama is following the same policies that Bush adopted in his second term. As a matter of fact, Bush started realizing the soundness of Obama policies that he convincingly rolled out during his campaign.

This may be ot but it is relevant. I see that several backwater extremist countries now being required to submit passengers to extra physical screening. Nigeria is one and they have protested. Fact is, the xmas crazy came here from Amsterdam, which is not on the extra screening list. We don’t know where he put on the dirty underwear, but let’s implement a policy to show we are doing something, even if it makes no sense. Most will swallow the lie that it will protect us from terrorism.
.
The failure of the xmas bomb incident was primarily a data processing error. The physical screening was secondary. Reminds me of the shoe bomber policy wherein no cigarette lighters were allowed, but matches were. Yet the shoe bomber used matches to try to ignite his devise.
.
Yes, our security and intelligence systems are at work to protect you. That is probably too unkind and callous a statement, I admit, but really. Let’s examine things that matter.

“And if you’re a member of the elite, your friends, your family, your colleagues-everyone you really care about, is a member of the elite or attached to it as a valued and very well paid retainer. For you, for everyone you care about, the system has worked. Perhaps, intellectually, you know it hasn’t worked for ordinary people, but you aren’t one of them, you aren’t friends with them, and however much you care in theory about them, it’s a bloodless intellectual empathy, not one born of shared experience, sacrifice and the bonds of friendship or love.”
.
Ian Welsh

formerlyjames (and currently brain dead)

And the mentally exhausted and morally bankrupt left continues to march on

Now here we can definitely agree, before I quit smoking I used to have ditch my lighter every time I flew, but the arriving airport would never let you have the lighters being left by their departing smokers because they had contracts with salvagers who paid for all of the contraband we were force to leave behind. So not only didn’t it keep us safer, they made money off us as well — God how that used to piss me off.

twentyfirstcen…

So Bush was really imitating Obama. And Obama was criticizing Bush for being Obama while the left voted for Obama for being Bush who was really Obama.

And you folks on the left call Palin stupid!

Hey Derek- (from the article)
.
“A half-dozen former senior Bush officials involved in counterterrorism told me before the Christmas Day incident that for the most part, they were comfortable with Obama’s policies, although they were reluctant to say so on the record. Some worried they would draw the ire of Cheney’s circle if they did, while others calculated that calling attention to the similarities to Bush would only make it harder for Obama to stay the course.”

Juan Cole Saturday:
“Unreported in most Western press accounts was that Friday also saw a coordinated series of peace marches in 53 cities of Pakistan by civil society organization protesting both Taliban bombings, especially the attack on Shiites in Karachi on Monday, and the American drone strikes.”
http://www.juancole.com/2010/01/death-toll-climbs-to-93-in-lakki-marwat.html
.
Juan Cole Monday:
“You probably won’t see it in most US news outlets, but on Monday morning in Kabul and Jalalabad, hundreds of university students demonstrated against US strikes this weekend that allegedly killed a number of civilians.”
http://www.juancole.com/2010/01/serial-catastrophes-in-afghanistan.html
.
Read Monday’s post…

…are you paying TIME to advertise your blog here?

…dee, I didn’t know you were an ex-smoker (glad I never started, whew). I never understood why lighters were allowed back on planes. People still can’t smoke on planes, (especially) not even in the john, so why are they on the plane? To light bombs? (but I digress)

Actually deconstructiva, when smokers land the first thing they want to do is light up and without fire of some kind its a neat trick. Besides, it would be smarter not to confiscate the lighters. If you want to find out who is most likely to light-up their undies, just check carry-ons for lighters or matches not accompanied by anything to smoke that strikes me as grounds for suspicion. And if we hadn’t already made a fuss about it I doubt that it would occur to the terrorist to buy cigarettes they don’t smoke.

http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2009/04/11/the-rest-is-silence/

Bush moderated his foreign policy and pushed Cheney slightly to the side in his second term. -JK
.
(As Cheney would say)
.
So?
.
The changes initiated by Bush and continued by Obama are cosmetic. We’re already entrenched in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. The mil budget continues to grow. Language? Gitmo? -doesn’t matter. And torture can only achieve two things: inflicting pain and soliciting false confessions- neocons already got all the “right answers” to justify the invasions they wanted.
.
AQ has no operational capacity in Afghanistan. Spy satellites, CIA agents and a near-by special ops unit or two can deny safe-haven, humanitarian groups can help the Afghani people, diplomats and financial aid will help stabilize the region.
.
When Obama said that he would “finish the job” in Afghanistan, who’s job do you think it was?

re “The mil budget continues to grow”:
.
U.S. defense spending in coming years must rise roughly 6 percent on average from the record sum sought by President Barack Obama this year just to meet current plans, Congress’s budget office said Wednesday.
.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=9128370