http://www.zen150588.zen.co.uk/images/Obama.jpg

Am I missing something here? Well of course other than the Mac.

Did you happen to miss Mr. 44th, front and center?!

;)

Well in the picture it looks like he using a Mac Book & an OWC Mercury On-The-Go Pro™ Bus Powered Portable Solutions (http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/firewire/on-the-go) drives.

...and I'll bet he knows what's wrong with the phrase "used on the Google"

I do like the Pac-Man though.

I actually started to think this was Photoshopped. Since his head looked unusually large and out of proportion with his shoulders. But then I noticed the soldier's bracelet on his right wrist and his usual watch he always wears on the other. I wonder when this photo was taken.

This photo alone speaks volumes for me and describes exactly why I voted for him... from the Mac Book to the water bottle and his relaxed-rolled-up-sleeves appearance to the pointing. Even the fellow on the cell phone in the background looks like he could be a failed CEO pacing nervously, not noticing the American people looking at him while Mr. Pres. is demanding our attention. I kind of feel sorry for the position that Obama's in right now. He's going to fight an uphill battle against strong winds. How could you not be proud he's leading the U.S.?

Since his head looked unusually large and out of proportion with his shoulders.

I thought that was normal.

EDIT: I see what you mean, the contrast of his snow white shirt seems to throw it off.

The thread reminded me of this.
http://photos-d.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-snc1/v795/138/101/10387251081/n10387251081_1593323_6560.jpg
For those who don't know who the two in front are. They are Tom and Ray from Car Talk.

How could you not be proud he's leading the U.S.?
I wish he was our bloody leader! (UK)

http://www.zen150588.zen.co.uk/images/obama_desk.jpg

I wish he was our bloody leader! (UK)

We do too. . . .

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u264/DoctorX_photos/Obama-Nothing.gif

http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/6/14/messiahcomplex128579045762087937.jpg

--J.D.

Oddly enough, i think the 'cream of nothing' sentiment is perhaps a strength as well as a weakness, though I am a bucktoothed limey so what do I know about US politics? :)

I got the impression that after 8 years of Bush and all the division and hate that went with it, a message of hope, even a fairly shallow one, was important for the national psyche. Also it means foreigners don;t hate the US quite so much perhaps, my american friends who live over here in Europe have commented on that a lot since the election.

After the election result even the Republicans I saw on TV seemed genuinely moved by the sea change in US society that Obama seems to represent for now. If there is a downside, I guess its that he comes into his presidency in a time of such financial crisis. Obama with some cash to spend, and the ability to save political capital for actual change not propping up the financial sector could have done some good things I think (but I would certainly be a democrat if I was American, so that's probably a pinko liberal point of view).

I've heard a lot of Brits saying they wish they had an Obama as a leader too, though scarily enough I think Blair was our Obama, of a sort anyway. Young, dynamic, but no experience in power and in the end as much a media figure as a politician. We all loved Blair for a while here (most of us anyway) but the honeymoon wore off after 9/11 and our involvement in a bloody war began, taking with it many lives and more and more of our civil liberties.

Politics seems to be an extension of PR so much these days, it depresses us and drives the political apathy we all talk about over here in Blighty. It seems idealism in the centre/left is kinda dead, only the right produces viable candidates with strongly help views while the people purporting to represent my views get shallower every day.

A friend and I came up with the idea of the 'Beliefs' party - the only litmus test for inclusion is that you have to have strongly held views and beliefs but have to be prepared to enter into genuine discussion about them, and listen to people who disagree with you. We'd take people from the right and left, and we'd never get in power of course, but at least we might get the odd politician who I could actually get behind once in a while.

Oddly enough, i think the 'cream of nothing' sentiment is perhaps a strength as well as a weakness, though I am a bucktoothed limey so what do I know about US politics? :)

I have a few British friends on ANOTHER FORA, so we tend to tease one another. I remind one that, once again, the Scottish have conquered his country! :)


I got the impression that after 8 years of Bush and all the division and hate that went with it, . . .

Long Boring Political Pontification:

The "division and hate" directly resulted from the closeness of the political division in the country. After eighth years of Clinton which followed 12 years of Reagan Bush you had about as close of an election as you can. I contend that few on the Democrat/Liberal side gave Bush a chance and read through the glasses of "stolen election" everything he did. However, HAD Gore won the election, the Republican/Conservative side would have done the same exact thing to Gore.

The Democrats could not create a viable alternative in 2004--Kerry sank his election campaign faster than a man in a rowboat with a shotgun. So this inflammed the anger on the Democrat/Liberal side.

When elections are close, parties play to their "bases." Unfortunately, this means said bases think they are what the majority voted for. So the frankly religious conservative base of the Republicans--"PsychoCons" as I call them--pretended that the election then re-election of Bush meant a majority of Americans wanted their social agenda as opposed to simply realizing Bush had a better clue than Kerry with regards to foreign policy, particularly terrorism.

This, I think, alienated a lot of people. The Terry Schiavo case--people who hated Bush should take note that many conservatives preferred his brother Jed who makes George seems an apostate!--rather hammered home what the social agenda of the PsychoCons are.

Fine. Next comes the fact that the two principle candidates of 2008 behaved as if they deserved the nominations: Clinton and Guliani.

Hilary, perhaps unfairly, represented what people came to hate about her husband--ineffectual, mean-spirited, a crony willing to sell pardons . . . all of that. She lack all of Bill's charm. Rudy? He never got off the landing pad, and the "base" hated him because despite being devote Catholic he rather believes in science. Instead you had one veritable PsychoCon--Huckabee who thinks science is a matter of opinion--and a Wannabe PsychoCon--Romney--who tried to play the religious angle. Both looked like the worse of Bush without the practicality--in other words, unless you are a religious conservative, you had to ask why would you want more of what you disliked in Bush.

This all colored McCain. He had to play to that. Problems was by being "not a PsychoCon" he upset the base of the party that saw themselves losing control as the Moonbats and Lotus Eaters on the Democrat side felt with Clinton/Gore. Every time he "cozied" up to them he merely underscored or justified the stereotype that the Republicans are more concerned about your children becoming Atheists or--Heavens to Betsy--gay than what to do with, say, Iran . . . other than start Armageddon in time for Christmas.

But . . . McCain was winning. He tied Obama in polls and was on the upswing. Obama did not seem to have an actual plan for foreign or domestic policy other than to just declare "I'll do it better!" Obama was and is an empty shirt. He sucked the Chicago teet to get ahead. I am more than familiar with the church he had to join to get noticed locally. Him claiming not to agree with it suddenly after 20 years is about as believable as Sean Hannity claiming he does not believe "we are a Christian nation!" However, since Obama is 1) Young and 2) Empty--people could imagine whatever they wanted. He could be whatever you want him to be--like Pedro from Napoleon Dynamite. That may seem superficial, but never doubt the power of the ability to get a whole lot of people who disagree to think you agree with each group.

But . . . McCain made two critical errors--aside from, sadly, being old and Republican which carried the stereotype of "old" and, well, "Republican."

First, he wanted Joe Liebermann. This worked from a policy standpoint, but not politically. Two old men. "Get off my lawn!" it would appear. "Mutt and Jeff" "The Odd Couple" However, what sank Joe was he was a Democrat and *cough* *cough* Jewish. McCain is NOT a PsychoCon, and his nomination was shutting the door on their perceived influence. McCain was not interested in making abortion, gays, and probably Methodists illegal!

The base balked. In a close election, you need your base.

So he chose Palin. Now Palin was a great choice . . . until she proved a bad choice. Despite criticisms and satire, Sarah is not stupid--but she is a fool. She was lazy in that she felt she could go into hostile interviews unprepared. Fatality. Dead. Looking halting and clueless is worse than actually being both. Pretty soon, the people who seemed to be supporting her were? Any guesses? Anyone? You got it! Religious conservatives who touted her religious credentials such as belonging to a congregation that thinks science is a matter of opinion--with some members thinking the world is only 10,000 years old! They--particularly the mouth-pieces of Hannity-Coulter-and Rush--saw her as the "bastion" against the "secular-progressive" [Non-Fundamentalist Christian.--Ed.] who were threatening to wrest them from influence--not power--influence. She became the avatar for them for all of their causes. This was great . . . save they PsychoCons are a minority and the electorate has become sick of them!

Fine. But Americans really do not vote for VP--see Dan Quayle, Mondale, Biden. Biden who was so stupid he plagiarized Neil Kinnock! He might have survived--he was tying the polls even WITH Sarah wondering if Creationist Daily is a "respected newspaper!"

Second, the economy tanked. Game-Set-Match.

Now, Republicans will tell you it was the fault of the Democrat Congress and the likes of Barney Frank who force banks to make bad loans and force Bush--who warned about to Fannie Mae to . . . to . . . to . . . ZZZZZzzZZZzz.

An no one cares. When the economy is good, the party in power gets credit. When it is bad, it gets blamed. Justice? There is no justice! Frankly, they do not have that much control--what President wakes up and thinks "hey, I'm going to wreck the economy!" Okay, maybe Carter did, but most do not.

That made Obama inevitable. With inevitability comes the desire to hope. What I mean by that is because you know he is going to win, you hope he is not going to screw it up. That somehow he has a plan more than slogans.

However the alternative was the same thing: McCain really screwed up by suspending his campaign--in deference to the economy. He looked like an idiot running around in circles in Washington.

Game over.

Long Rant Over [He is lying. He is not done until he starts making references to the 2004 Red Sox.--Ed.]

So . . . a lot of people are projecting "hope" on Obama, because they have no alternative.


Also it means foreigners don;t hate the US quite so much perhaps, my american friends who live over here in Europe have commented on that a lot since the election.

Frankly, I do not care what Europeans think. This oddly enough does not piss off all of my European friends since they still harbor resentment over the hypocrisy of allowing genocide in their own continent for years, supporting homicidal dictators, yet pointing the finger at everyone else--and, really, have the Belgians apologized enough for being Belgian?

The problem was that foreign policy is often a bar. We are in a bar. A 250 lb--that is . . . is . . . a lot of stone for you lot--football/Rugby player walks in and every man tries to imagine how they can beat him in a fight. Pure pride. Utterly ridiculous. Juvenile.

Countries like France know they could not "win" a war with the United States. Fine. No one really wants such a war anyways . . . okay, I will admit to the attractiveness of invading France if only to end Euro-Disney and . . . well . . . Parisians. Bush basically said what a lot of Americans--and even Europeans think: "we will ultimately do what we consider is in our best interests."

Clinton did the same thing--just a hell of a lot more ineffectually.

I was in Europe during the invasion of Iraq and there was a constant hope for the "quagmire" that never came--literally the halting of forces by the Iraqis.

Never came.

Now, it is to Bush's detriment he could not sell his foreign policy better. However, let us face it--not finding the WMDs looked stupid. When I get into arguments with "Twoofers"--they and Young Earth Creationists seem to literally live in the same neighborhood!--the ones who believe Bush--who is too stupid to tie his shoes--orchestrated a massive conspiracy theory in 9/11 involving now Testa Pulse weapons!--I remind them that this same Bush willing to slaughter thousands in New York who were not all Yankees fans, then did not bother to BURY a few WMDs in an Iraqi desert!

So if you are European, you rather DO have to wonder if that guy in the bar is not crazy do you not? Maybe he will start a fight that will involve your table!

So, frankly, the hope for Europeans and others is that Obama is more "mellow," more controllable.


After the election result even the Republicans I saw on TV seemed genuinely moved by the sea change in US society that Obama seems to represent for now.

There is a racial aspect, but in a good way. This is a country that, in the life time of many, still made it illegal to be black. Whatever one thinks of racial relations now, less-than-fifty years ago, you could not sit in the front of the bus, go to that restaurant and, obviously, worse.

Which brings us to the Boston Red Sox [See?--Ed.]. There was no "curse" for the RS--for decades they had a racist ownership that persisted almost into this century.

A lot of baggage.

So, for better or worse, the election of a black President is simply a turning of the page. It would have been and will be if a woman is elected. There was always the assumption that, no matter what anyone promised, as a black person, you were still second class in America--you cannot become President. It may be "a symbol," it may be "all emotional," but it is important for a nation that literally nearly destroyed itself fighting on whether or not a portion of it should remain slaves--with the "no side" not really wanting that portion to live near them either. I cannot overemphasize the symbolic power of "the first Black President" in a nation that had blacks codified in law as second-class in most people's memory.


(but I would certainly be a democrat if I was American, so that's probably a pinko liberal point of view).

It might be, but to be frank if McCain was President and--here, you need to take a hit off this bong I got from Michael Phelps to follow this idea--if the Republicans took the House and Senate . . . no seriously . . . do you have any thing to eat?--they would be running around in circles as the Democrats are. They would be throwing money at THEIR pet projects, THEIR social agenda. It is all politics.


I've heard a lot of Brits saying they wish they had an Obama as a leader too, though scarily enough I think Blair was our Obama, of a sort anyway. Young, dynamic, but no experience in power and in the end as much a media figure as a politician.

Absolutely. We on this side saw him as your answer to Clinton. Young, lots of slogans, did not really do a whole hell of a lot. The difference is Clinton rode a great economy and his term ended as it started to crest. Blair hung around a bit longer. Probably saw himself as a moderating force to "that Texan." I really think Blair [CENSORED--Ed.] Brown the way Clinton [CENSORED--Ed.] Gore--left him with a mess. In Gore's case thing were slowing down and people were getting sick of the Clintons. Brown will probably be a "one term Prime Minister" . . . unless the Tories do their usual!

But, yes, as we say, the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence.


. . .but the honeymoon wore off after 9/11 and our involvement in a bloody war began, taking with it many lives and more and more of our civil liberties.

That is an argument for another thread. I have rehashed the Middle East so many times I look forward to a PC versus Mac debate. Heck, I would prefer to engage a Scientologist and ask him "what about those clams?" However, the "civil liberties" is intriguing since many wrang their hands HERE . . . only to not be able to point to any real lost liberties . . . but on YOUR END? I think, frankly, you guys were going in that direction BEFORE 9/11. But that is another topic.


Politics seems to be an extension of PR so much these days, it depresses us and drives the political apathy we all talk about over here in Blighty.

Here as well.


A friend and I came up with the idea of the 'Beliefs' party - the only litmus test for inclusion is that you have to have strongly held views and beliefs but have to be prepared to enter into genuine discussion about them, and listen to people who disagree with you.

Such thinking makes you the Second Group Executed After the Revolution.

Political types are not interested in having their minds changed by reasonable argument. Happens on both sides of "the Pond!" :)

However, remember it can always get worse: I also live near a commune of Ron Paul supporters! And THAT is an example of politics over reality which [No, you have pontificated enough!--Ed.]

--J.D.

Must admit this image made me laugh:

http://www.cagle.com/working/090213/lester.jpg

--J.D.

I have a few British friends on ANOTHER FORA, so we tend to tease one another. I remind one that, once again, the Scottish have conquered his country! :)

Long Boring Political Pontification: ........
That was a lot to get through! However, interesting all the same.

I don't care either what Europeans (of which I am one) think about the US. Neither do I care what US citizens think of Europeans. All I care is that people of both continents recognize the trough of sleaze which we all swim in together.

Not that every American and European citizen create sleaze, but I think we all too often turn a blind eye to it and make tut tut noises when we read about it.

Obama beleives in fighting corruption and greed and I wish him well. The real litmus test is whether he can get the right people on board his battleship to sort out Dubya's mess and bring some stability to the world.

Obama beleives in fighting corruption and greed and I wish him well.

His actions have demonstrated otherwise.

Apparently all of his appointees have "issues" with paying their taxes.


The real litmus test is whether he can get the right people on board his battleship to sort out Dubya's mess and bring some stability to the world.

Bush did not create a mess--the economy is largely independent of presidents--nor did he bring "instability"--if anything things are more stable from a "will this country invade that other country" standpoint. Similarly, I doubt Obama can make the world more or less unstable depending on circumstances. If he appeases the likes of Iran and North Korea that will decrease stability. If he guts the military like Clinton did, that will decrease stability.

--J.D.

His actions have demonstrated otherwise. Apparently all of his appointees have "issues" with paying their taxes.
All of them?


Bush did not create a mess.
No, he wasn't responsible for individual banking CEO's greed, but he further widened the gap between rich and poor in the US through his policies.


....nor did he bring "instability"--if anything things are more stable from a "will this country invade that other country" standpoint.
Bush and his cronies made one almighty mess of Iraq. I personally think invasion was inevitable (albeit it happened before all final options were exhausted), but there was no plan for Day Two. The arrogance and incompetence shown by Bush's war cabinet beggared belief.


Similarly, I doubt Obama can make the world more or less unstable depending on circumstances. If he appeases the likes of Iran and North Korea that will decrease stability.
Who says he will appease them?


If he guts the military like Clinton did, that will decrease stability.
The US needs a well-armed defence force. However, along with the loony gun lobby, it seems the military gets away with too much.

I don't take a reductionist view of Bush. He had his successes. He also had his failures. The question is whether his successes outweighed his failures or his failures outweighed his successes. I lean towards the latter.

All of them?

Rather more than "a few."



No, he wasn't responsible for individual banking CEO's greed, but he further widened the gap between rich and poor in the US through his policies.

How did he do that? What about the Democrats in charge of writing finance laws that created the problem?

In reality, there are quite a few places and people to point at, and few come off clean.


Bush and his cronies made one almighty mess of Iraq.

No they did not. You are merely tossing out a slogan like "cronies." Are the generals "cronies?"


. . . but there was no plan for Day Two.

There was, it just did not work fully. Rumsfeld wanted, like many, too much for a "clean" war where one can get in quickly and leave quickly. He then dug in his heals against suggestions otherwise.

However, critics--like Obama, incidentally--argued WITH Rumsfeld ironically that a "surge" of more troops and a great presence would make matters worse. They were all wrong.

So . . .


The arrogance and incompetence shown by Bush's war cabinet beggared belief.

you need to imagine the Democrats since they advocated the same failed strategy in a different direction. One significant part of this "war cabinet" eventually argued for the correct strategy. However, sometimes he correct strategy takes time to be recognized.

See why slogans are unhelpful?


Who says he will appease them?

Quite a few do. The question, as I noted, is will he.


The US needs a well-armed defence force. However, along with the loony gun lobby, it seems the military gets away with too much.

You do not know anything about the American military then: it is not all about "guns." It is about training, it is about compensation to retain competent members, it is about functional equipment and numbers, et cetera.


I don't take a reductionist view of Bush.

Really?


He had his successes. He also had his failures. The question is whether his successes outweighed his failures or his failures outweighed his successes. I lean towards the latter.

Such are not things you can put on scales.

It depends upon where you look and what you judge to be important and when.

If you judge anti-terrorism then he had a resounding success--such that his critics have to run about a bit trying to explain it away. The Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee became very quiet for a good reason when their counterparts tried to conjure up "failed policies."

If you judge domestic spending, then you have to wonder why he could not control members of his own party whether they were in charge or not.

If you judge foreign policy it depends on whether or not you care what the Great Unwashed of any country "thinks" about the United States--you indicated you do not. In that case, he succeeds--the US does what it says it does and is willing to go to war to enforce international law--ironic is it not? No one has invaded anyone else despite threats to do so . . . at least no one cool.

However, if you judge the ability to convince foreign government that the US knows what it is talking about when it states "intelligence shows"--even sympathetic governments--then you have to judge "FAIL"--the consequences of making a mistake everyone made but being the one responsible for it.

If you judge the support of education then he is a success . . . unless you prefer education to also include a decent foundation in the sciences rather than what the Great Unwashed in a particular constituency think should be taught.

Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera ad nauseum.

It is rarely cut and dried.

Clinton was a success in areas his supporters deem him a failure: welfare reform and ending the Yugoslavian genocides. He was a failure in what his supporters considered a success: foreign policy. He may have been "liked" . . . by the North Koreans and Iranians, and even he has nightmares about Rwanda--though what he could have materially done other than tell the UN to let its commanders do their jobs is anyone's guess.

Obama is being deemed a failure by some of his supporters because he is taking a more realistic view of his more unreasonable campaign promises whereas opponents are breathing a few sighs of relief. Bush's religious conservative supporters found him a failure for not pushing their agenda enough, ironically.

Et cetera, et cetera, ad nauseum.

The point is it rarely becomes a singular event, decision, that defines a President unless it is overwhelmingly obvious--Lincoln won the most important war the US ever fought--including the Revolutionary War. It covers up for a lot of other things. Nixon did some great things in foreign policy, particularly having the conviction to end the Vietnam War--a Democrat created war, incidentally--supported by Republicans in a way.

How many people remember that? Criminal abuse of power, obstruction of justice, et cetera tends to focus attention, particularly when it cripples a branch of government.

Presidents do get judged for sins of omission as well, even if it is merely appearances. Bush should have recognized that the Governor of Louisiana and the Mayor of New Orleans lacked clues and stepped in--or made sure his underlings took that charge. Whether it would have matters is irrelevant to appearances: Reagan and Clinton would not have made that mistake. Bush will be blamed for the economic down-turn because he did not warn enough about he various root problems--such as Fannie Mae and all of that. He mumbled something about it 2003 I believe. Does not matter: he did not warn. Whether he could of known is a different subject: it was his job to know. Quite a few Presidents are damned for the failure to act--many of them during the 1800s! It may be all "appearances" but appearances in some cases matter.

One can go on.

--J.D.

Your entire text seems a pretty damning account of American politics. You make some good points though.

BTW, American foreign policy only enforces international law when it suits it. Israel has flouted more UN resolutions than any other country, but the US (and Britain) turns a blind eye.

For the record I still think Rumsfeld was a feckin' idiot. ;)

DoctorX: That's a _lot_ of hogwash. How was Bush's antiterrorism a success? He didn't bring terrorist attacks from 1'000 attacks a year to zero. He took them from 0.001% to zero - and we don't know whether any of the measures taken after 9/11 actually helped. What we _do_ know is that warnings before 9/11 were ignored and that the reaction(s) to it was a tad strange or, let's say it: Wrong.

I don't wanna play down 9/11. It was a terrible thing to happen. But it was a crime of an organisation called Al Quaida, not an act of war by Afghanistan or Iraq.

Your entire text seems a pretty damning account of American politics. You make some good points though.

Call it as I see it: it is rarely a case of "all good" or "all bad." But as I love to tease my English friend, at least we are not run by the Scots. :)


BTW, American foreign policy only enforces international law when it suits it.

As it should . . . in a way . . . because international law can be an ass. Case in point:


Israel has flouted more UN resolutions than any other country, but the US (and Britain) turns a blind eye.

Yup. But she is a democracy. She has not threatened to wipe all of her neighbors off the map in progressively hyperbolic terms. She also does not send her children to blow up civilians or randomly shoot rockets at neighbors.

However, she also treats the population like chattel, practices land-grabbing with the philosophy of "if we live there they cannot get rid of us," and have practiced quite frank terrorism such as blowing up the homes of families of terrorists. However, in a choice between a democracy that can behave badly, and regimes such as Syria who do behave badly, the democracy will win. It is never a situation of "black and white," "good versus evil."


For the record I still think Rumsfeld was a feckin' idiot. ;)

Not much argument there. I would agree that an idiot is one who, like the crazy person, does the same thing over and over again expecting a different outcome. Rumsfeld should have learned from the situation rather than expecting the situation to conform to what he wants it to be.


DoctorX: That's a _lot_ of hogwash. How was Bush's antiterrorism a success?

How many have we had?

Oh, you admit the answer:


He didn't bring terrorist attacks from 1'000 attacks a year to zero.


He took them from 0.001% to zero. . . .

Wrong.


- and we don't know whether any of the measures taken after 9/11 actually helped.

We do. We know of plots that were discovered and halted by techniques and strategies instituted by his Administration. You are simply trying to rewrite history to fit your . . . what is that term you use? Oh yes, "hogwash." How quaint.


What we _do_ know is that warnings before 9/11 were ignored. . . .

By Clinton . . . then Bush. Your point? However, your sentence is fallacious; it assumes these "warnings" would have led to a different situation. That is "Monday Morning Quarterbacking."


I don't wanna play down 9/11.

Then do not write this:


It was a terrible thing to happen. But it was a crime of an organisation called Al Quaida, not an act of war by Afghanistan or Iraq.

Wrong on two fronts. First, Al Qaeda was sponsored and supported by the government of Afghanistan which Bush--and Clinton before him--tried to negotiate with--remember those statues? Granted, they were trying to deal with those who think the best way to deal with gender issues is to simply publicly shoot women in the back of their heads. They were given the opportunity to cough up Al Qaeda--they failed. Even Obama disagrees with you on that point.

Second, Iraq was not about 9/11 other than we no longer wait for the inevitable. He rather did what you suggested regarding Al Quaeda--he paid attention to the problem.

You implied method of looking at terrorism as something you can "sort out" or "arrest" is not only naïve, it fails. This was Clinton's approach after the first bombing of the Towers.

How well did it work?

--J.D.

How many attacks did you have on the towers in 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998? See: You _can_ see it as simple as you want, but just saying that Iraq was not about 9/11 now doesn't quite put Bush and consorts into a better light. Because that's one of the biggest mistakes they made. They changed their arguments to fit the war they wanted.

So to look at terrorism as something criminal is wrong in your opinion. Why? I'm not talking about "works" or "doesn't work". To me, quite clearly, all attempts have failed so far. There are reasons for that.

How many attacks did you have on the towers in 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998?

One prior to 9/11 was not enough? The failed millennium neither?

Curious. . . .

When did Al Qaeda come together? When did it have the force of a government behind it?


. . . .but just saying that Iraq was not about 9/11. . . .

Is a different topic; try to stay focused on one at a time.


. . . now doesn't quite put Bush and consorts into a better light.

I am really not concerned with your lack of illumination.


Because that's one of the biggest mistakes they made.

What mistake?


They changed their arguments to fit the war they wanted.

Only if you were not paying attention, particularly to the ten years prior.


So to look at terrorism as something criminal is wrong in your opinion.

Reality is not a matter of opinion.

How are those "arrests" going?


Why? I'm not talking about "works" or "doesn't work".

You should. Particularly if you are going to conjure up post hoc blame.


To me, quite clearly, all attempts have failed so far.

9/11 was a success for terrorists. FYI. . . .


There are reasons for that.

I am not sure you are aware of what they are, but I like surprises.

--J.D.

One quick example:


An Ohio truck driver who admitted six months ago that he plotted with senior operatives of Al Qaeda to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge was sentenced on Tuesday to 20 years in prison. Minutes before the sentencing, the driver, Iyman Faris, 34, tried to withdraw his earlier guilty plea, saying he had admitted a role in the plot only to fool the F.B.I. and secure a book deal for himself.

''I'm innocent,'' Mr. Faris said.

But Judge Leonie M. Brinkema of Federal District Court said she was not persuaded. The sentence was the maximum allowable under a plea agreement that Mr. Faris, a native of Pakistan who came to the United States in 1994 and became a citizen in 1999, signed with prosecutors last May.

Judge Brinkema said that when Mr. Faris agreed to plead guilty to terrorism charges in a secret proceeding, his answers to detailed questions about the Brooklyn Bridge plot and other incidents indicated that ''he thoroughly understood what he was doing.''

Prosecutors said in court pleadings that Mr. Faris traveled to Pakistan and Afghanistan in late 2000 and met with Osama bin Laden and other senior Qaeda leaders, including Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, widely regarded as a key planner of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Government officials said Mr. Mohammed told Mr. Faris that Al Queda was planning two more attacks in New York City and Washington, including the destruction of the Brooklyn Bridge.

New York Times (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9801E6DD1630F93AA15753C1A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all)

One of the more public ones.

--J.D.

Serious intelligence failures led to 9/11 (under Clinton and Bush) and the debacle over alleged Iraqi WMD (under Bush). Perhaps these almighty cock-ups tell us more about an ineffective American Federal Government as a whole than just individual Presidents.

However Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld (and Blair in Britain) seemed overly gung-ho about war with Iraq. Their inability to plan for the days, weeks and months after the initial invasion was failure on a truly colossal and unforgivable scale.

However, I am not sure I agree with your entire argument fryke. Afghanistan is different to Iraq. The Taleban are keen sponsors of terror (in the same way that the US were keen sponsors of fascist dictators in Central and South America).

The US may have played a considerable role in allowing the Taleban to flourish in the first place, but the mindless fanaticism of these ultra-Islamic gangsters has no place on this planet, anymore than Hitler's ideologies.

I don't think Afghanistan can be 'won'. However, it can be contained (albeit at great expense). The real issue there for me is to win the hearts and minds of the Afghans.

How about encouraging farmers to grown poppys to produce morphine not heroin? The big pharma companies won't like it, but it can be done.

Serious intelligence failures led to 9/11 (under Clinton and Bush) and the debacle over alleged Iraqi WMD (under Bush). Perhaps these almighty cock-ups tell us more about an ineffective American Federal Government as a whole than just individual Presidents.

I would agree, however it was a cock-up shared by the French, Russians, Germans, even Iraqi military. It is more of a problem of practicality. I recall critics wondering why the US did not "just take out" Hussein ala James Bond--send in an assassin. Well . . . the guy rather made sure his regime was set up to combat that sort of thing. It also had to do with the practicality of setting up reliable intelligence on the ground in a Stalinist state.


However Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld (and Blair in Britain) seemed overly gung-ho about war with Iraq. Their inability to plan for the days, weeks and months after the initial invasion was failure on a truly colossal scale.

"The buck stops here"--I tend to think Rumsfeld bought the "easy war" myth--and many in America did as well. I recall the Liberal Anti-Bush Media [Tm.--Ed.] wondering when the US would invade Syria or Iran as the "next!" The invasion was easy, far easier than many predicted. I rather suspected holding, pacifying, and transforming would have taken more, but that was not the opinion being given.

That being written Bush deserves blame for not recognizing sooner that the plan needed to be changed. He also needed to accept that Rumsfeld had become a toxic presence. Justified or not--I think it was justified--that impression hurt efforts.


The US may have played a considerable role in allowing the Taleban to flourish in the first place, . . .

Not . . . really. I blame Clinton [For everything.--Ed.] Hush! I blame him for ignoring the country. I can recall The Economist writing about the growing regime, what it was doing, et cetera, while it seemed no one in the US had paid attention; they just knew the "mujahadeen" took out the Ruskies so . . . it must be all good!

To be fair, though, what was Clinton and then Bush going to do prior to 9/11? Bomb them? Invade them? They tried negotiation, tried to "soften" them, but we all know how well that went.


I don't think Afghanistan can be 'won'.

Oh I think it can be won--it just takes time. People forget that it took a good 10 years to transform Germany and Japan into democracies--and I never credit the early 1920s as a "democracy" for Germany. However, both countries had to be nearly destroyed in the process. I am not suggesting the same thing for Afghanistan, but the commitment remains heavy. It is a matter of convincing people that the response to opinions you disagree with is NOT shooting the guy! As more than one person jokes whenever a new party takes control of the White House, "no one got hung!"


The real issue there for me there is to pay farmers to grown poppys to produce morphine not heroin. it can be done.

Yup.

But . . . OH NOES!!11!! http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/images/smilies/freakingout.gif . . . that means children . . . CHILDREN will use t3h drugs! They will become:

http://skepticalcommunity.com/phpbb2/uploads/incurablyinsane.jpg

incurably insane!!11! [!--Ed.]

You are completely correct with one of the main problems: poverty. What are they suppose to grow instead? Barley? The choice between $$$ and starving is not much of a choice. To win the "hearts and minds" requires giving the people something practical to live off of.

I do not know . . . maybe it is impractical to do that--use the poppy fields to ultimately produce morphine over the what will still be more lucrative heroine, but I have to wonder if there is a "knee-jerk" opposition to it.

--J.D.

I read an article a few years back talking about how buying their poppies would be the best thing to do for Afghanistan. The article said there are a very limited number of places allow to grow opium for morphine production, basically Turkey and India. Both apparently got the deals in the post war/cold war era as sweetners to stay on 'our' side. But now there is a global shortage of painkillers, mostly affecting the third world rather than most people on this forum, but one we could fix partly by buying Afghani opium. For some reason no one has taken up this idea though, despite the fact that I've heard it in the ether a lot the last few years.

Oh JD, on the issue of whether the US helped the Taleban, perhaps not under that name but I saw an ex- cia dep director interviewed on the BBC shortly after the invasion of Afghanistan basically admitting that the lack of human intelligence (humint as opposed to intel from satellites etc ) prior to the invasion was basically because all the guys the US supported against the Russians and used as intel assets were now in the Taleban. So maybe you can't blame Clinton for all of it :) Not that he is blameless. As Bill Hicks pointed out at the time, he was still screwing people over, he just smiled more when he did it than the Republicans that preceded him.

For some reason no one has taken up this idea though, despite the fact that I've heard it in the ether a lot the last few years.

This is pure speculation on my part because I have not researched it [Yet he will pontificate extensively upon it.--Ed.], but I would not be surprised if part of the problem with that on the US side is the knee-jerk political reaction against drugs. Believe me, I am not a "legalize all, Dude!" but the US still has a perverse attitude.


Oh JD, on the issue of whether the US helped the Taleban, perhaps not under that name but I saw an ex- cia dep director interviewed on the BBC shortly after the invasion of Afghanistan basically admitting that the lack of human intelligence (humint as opposed to intel from satellites etc ) prior to the invasion was basically because all the guys the US supported against the Russians and used as intel assets were now in the Taleban.

That or in the whatever it was called--"National Alliance?" that the predecessor to Karzi was the leader of. I love to remind 9/11 "Twoofers" that his assassination was timed to the 9/11 attacks. Anyways, I wish I could give credit to whomever stated it, but one of the problems with intelligence in the region is you DO have to rely on the people there rather than your own agents. It is not like you can send Bob Sixpack to Russian-Language school and send him to Moscow. As the guy explained, you almost have to tell prospective intelligence agents: "first, we have to knock all of your teeth out!" Add in the tribalism--everyone "knows" everyone else, gaining intelligence is very difficult.


So maybe you can't blame Clinton for all of it :)

Did we have SARS before Clinton?! Britany Spears? The evidences are clear!!!1


As Bill Hicks pointed out at the time, he was still screwing people over, he just smiled more when he did it than the Republicans that preceded him.

Would you WANT Newt Gingrich smiling at you? http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/images/smilies/yuck.gif

To tangent a bit, while I like to play the "I Blame Clinton" card against the Rabid Bush Haters [Time Shares Available.--Ed.], if you reversed rolls--had Clinton as a new President after a very close election . . . then had 9/11 . . . you would have PsychoCons claiming he faked it all! Politics is politics! I was "glad" to see the infamous "Clinton Death List"--a supposed list of all of the people he ordered executed over the years, a list that, for some reason, did not include Linda Tripp, Monica Lewinsky, or Hilary--resurface during Hilary's run . . . but this time SHE compiled it!!11!

Meanwhile, on ANOTHER FORUM [Boo. Hiss.--Ed.], I am pounding a "Paultard" who insists that, at any moment, they are going to haul off Obama because he is "not a Natural Born Citizen [Tm.--Ed.]."

It is all politics.

--J.D.

You mentioned Newt Gingrich. He was once asked who was the better President, Carter or Reagan. 'Reagan' he replied, 'because he knew what he didn't know, where as Carter didn't know what he didn't know'.

Maybe Gingrich was not exactly non-partisan, but its an interesting way of looking at leadership.

Carter really did not know foreign policy, still does not, and have never "known" that.

--J.D.

Did we have SARS before Clinton?! Britany Spears? The evidences are clear!!!1



Would you WANT Newt Gingrich smiling at you?

To the first, you raise an interesting point, though this makes Bush responsible for H5N1 Avian Flu and the abomination that is High School Musical.

To the second, thank you for putting that deeply disturbing image in my head!

To the first, you raise an interesting point, though this makes Bush responsible for H5N1 Avian Flu and the abomination that is High School Musical.

All LIBERAL LIES!!!11!!

Okay . . . I have to concede the High School Musical . . . that alone was impeachable. :)


To the second, thank you for putting that deeply disturbing image in my head!

That is . . . one of the nicest things anyone has ever written to me!

Likes one's parents, we really should never imagine our politicians engaged in . . . Cunjugal Impleasantries (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ivsb79-h90&feature=related).*

--J.D.

*Safe for Work, Home, and most Day Cares

... unless they're hot (http://de.sunshinedna.com/wp-images/Sun/sun6.jpg). (SFW)

When the wise points the moon, the fool looks at the finger... and the zetetician never loses the finger from its vision.

When the wise points the moon, the fool looks at the finger... and the zetetician never loses the finger from its vision.
If I point to the cat food tray to let Molly know her breakfast is ready she always stares intently at my finger. But then she has never been a bright cat.

Just so you can share my discomfort, imagine waking up and seeing this face, that of Mr GinGrinch:
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y208/the_ora/610x.jpg

I can think of worse.....

http://www.zen150588.zen.co.uk/images/thatcher.jpg

You know . . . I was going to bring up Maggie and Dennis--anyone familiar with the Spittin' Images--but I was afraid that might violate the TOS plus a few human rights conventions.

Now . . . Janet Reno. . . .

--J.D.

http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2009/2/27/128802378694829554.jpg

--J.D.

You know . . . I was going to bring up Maggie and Dennis--anyone familiar with the Spittin' Images--but I was afraid that might violate the TOS plus a few human rights conventions.

Now . . . Janet Reno. . . .

--J.D.

Even worse then the idea of these two having an affair? (Which they did, eeewwwwwwwww)

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y208/the_ora/imgJohnMajor1.jpg
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y208/the_ora/commissions2.jpg

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u264/DoctorX_photos/fd2c23df.jpg

--J.D.