(2006-09-25) — A newly-leaked top-secret National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) from April 2006 reveals that America’s 16 spy agencies have finally discovered that terrorists are created by attempts to defeat terrorists.
The report concludes that recent global terrorism by Islamic fanatics was “spawned by the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq, rather than by evil, wealthy men bent on ruling the world with their hateful, pseudo-religious ideology.”
More than a dozen members of the intelligence community were interviewed for this story, but each insisted on anonymity because, as one senior CIA official said, “folks in the intel business are supposed to keep their mouths shut about classified reports, and we’d like to continue getting our fat government paychecks for essentially playing a guessing game and writing memos.”
The April NIE is a sequel to the pre-war intelligence estimate that documented Saddam Hussein’s stockpiles of chemical weapons and his clandestine nuclear program, so it is considered highly credible by those who oppose the Bush administration’s current Iraq policy.
“Bush operates on the flawed assumption that you can defeat terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere by killing them,” said one unnamed expert familiar with the report, “but, in fact, we’ve learned that killing them actually creates them. It’s like that broomstick scene from The Sorcerer’s Apprentice‘. You chop one in half and then you’ve got two crazy animated broomsticks.”
The source said that CIA decryption analysts are now convinced that “the solution to stopping global terrorism lies in finding the ’secret word’ to break the spell and to turn these anti-Western, anti-Semitic, blood-thirsty religious fanatics into our partners in peace.”
The intelligence sources contacted for this story all refused to comment on the genesis of the terrorists who repeatedly attacked civilian and military targets in the decades leading up to the second Iraq war.
“That’s not relevant to the current debate,” said one analyst. “It’s important that we not become distracted by historical perspective.”
84 responses so far ↓
1 MargeinMI // Sep 24, 2006 at 8:36 am
“In light of this, I think we should just surrender in Iraq.”
-Dodger
2 MargeinMI // Sep 24, 2006 at 8:38 am
Of course, history starts anew each day. Duh.
3 MargeinMI // Sep 24, 2006 at 8:40 am
I see it more like the Hydra in Disney’s Hercules. Unfortunately, he had to be swallowed to behead the beast properly.
Hello? Anyone there? Is this thing on? [taptaptap]
test…..test….
4 R.A.M. // Sep 24, 2006 at 9:20 am
Scott, If this theory is true, maybe that is why we don’t try harder to get rid of the UN?
Because it might create even MORE of the criminals there?
5 lemmingherder // Sep 24, 2006 at 9:26 am
You can’t fight a war on an idea. We can’t win this one, and America is losing credibility and the moral high ground by acting as we do.
http://dontbealemming.com/2006/09/24/is-america-the-worlds-bully.aspx
Posted by the Lemming Herder at Don’t
Be A Lemming!
6 R.A.M. // Sep 24, 2006 at 9:32 am
I liked the part about, global terrorism being caused by the war in Iraq.
I hope the people in New Orleans don’t read this, and then think some of their recent troubles are the fault of this administration giving $2000.00 to poor people that might misspend it on drugs, fancy shoes, and prostitutes, instead of food for their kids?
After all, isn’t it the Government’s responsibility to KNOW that an influx of money that one hasn’t worked for might be misspent?
Easy come, easy go—-doesn’t the Government KNOW that?———-
Well, I guess, I just described everyone who emanated, (And STILL subscribes to), from Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society”!
7 R.A.M. // Sep 24, 2006 at 9:35 am
Just place the, —-(And STILL subscribes to)—-, any place you wantin the sentence.
It is apparent, I don’t know where it goes!
8 onlineanalyst // Sep 24, 2006 at 9:40 am
I would suggest that the “secret word” might be shalom (peace) or l’chaim (to life!), but the Islamojihadists are not buying into any “Zionist” terminology. Pope Benedict learned that “reason” won’t work as a magic word either with overly sensitized Muslims who are cross with the cross.
I see at LGF that the “Arab street” is leaving its carbon footprint writ largely by burning combination flags, stitched together symbols of the US, Great Britain, and Israel. You’d think that the inflamed mobs would be appalled to learn that their “quilting bees” originated from Yankee thrift.
9 Ms RightWing, Ink // Sep 24, 2006 at 10:03 am
Just like weeds in my garden, quack grass to be certain, pull up the root but if you leave a little you got more.
You gotta spray Round Up on the terrorist
Marge
Quit tapping on the screen. You are scarring my cat
10 Maggie // Sep 24, 2006 at 10:28 am
Good Morning all
Ms Righty….re#9…..LMHO
(poor Marge :>)
11 The Glittering Eye » Blog Archive » Decisions // Sep 24, 2006 at 10:31 am
[...] I don’t have a great deal to say about the recent National Intelligence Estimate that James Joyner hasn’t already said. Scott Ott, too, has it about it right: “Intel Report: Fighting Terrorists Creates Terrorists”. [...]
12 Daniel DiRito // Sep 24, 2006 at 10:32 am
The problem, as I view it, is that virtually all the actions of this President in the region are fomenting instability and hostility that may soon reach a point of no return. Even worse, the efforts of this administration are failing to create a wedge between extremist leaders and their populations. On the contrary, the language used by this administration, coupled with the perception that the U.S. is engaged in unwarranted and ideological aggression, has served to push otherwise moderate populations into alignment with radical governments and extremist organizations.
As I attempt to grasp the magnitude of allowing this President unfettered authority between now and the end of his second term, I can’t help but wonder what it would take to dissuade a man with his level of certainty and conviction from undertaking the actions that will facilitate the ideations he seems convinced have been presented to him through a mix of fate and faith.
History may well record this chapter as a period of unparalleled extremism. Worse yet, the United States may well be viewed as the primary force in facilitating that eventuality. George Bush, when asked about his legacy, seems content to respond that while he can’t predict the future he believes his actions will prove to be pivotal. He may well be correct but, in this instance, I would suggest he recall the expression, “Be careful what you wish for”.
Read more here:
http://www.thoughttheater.com
13 JamesonLewis3rd // Sep 24, 2006 at 10:53 am
“The New York Times says” this and “The New York Times reports” that and “cited in The New York Times”-not much upon which to form an opinion, if you ask me, yet every paper on Earth and every broadcasting mouth is repeating the NYT’s assessment of the leaked NIE (who, for some reason, are not printing the actual report-wonder why?).
14 JamesonLewis3rd // Sep 24, 2006 at 11:01 am
RE: #12~~
In the days before we went into Iraq to topple Saddam Hussien, I said I didn’t care if WMD were found.
Why?
Because, like today, I firmly believed we and the rest of the world would be far, far worse off than we are now if we just sat around twiddling our thumbs.
God Bless President Bush
God Bless America
God Bless You
15 JamesonLewis3rd // Sep 24, 2006 at 11:06 am
FLASH~~
A secret report, that no one has seen, reveals an EU conspiracy to cheat the USA out of the Ryder Cup.
An unnamed informant, who had not read the report, confided, “Yes, it’s true.”
16 GnuCarSmell // Sep 24, 2006 at 11:18 am
For those who won’t be able to watch the Chris Wallace/Bill Clinton interview tonight:
“I want you to listen to me. I’m going to say this again: I did not have sexual relations with that man, Mr. Bin-Laden.”
17 RedPepper // Sep 24, 2006 at 11:30 am
The Clinton interview is “must-see” TV! Public figures, and especially the Clintons, rarely let the mask slip so badly. I think that ABC Docu-drama unhinged him worse than we knew.
18 JamesonLewis3rd // Sep 24, 2006 at 11:33 am
The promos for the Clinton interview demonstrate that finger-pointing (not personal responsibility) is still Clinton’s modus operandi.
The final paragraph of an NRO article entitled “Bill Clinton’s Excuses” (which should also be the title of the Chris Wallace interview):
“But the bottom line is that Bill Clinton, the commander-in-chief, could not find the will to order the military into action against al Qaeda, and Bill Clinton, the head of the executive branch, could not find the will to order the CIA and FBI to act. No matter what the former president says on Fox, or anywhere else, that is his legacy in the war on terror.”
19 GnuCarSmell // Sep 24, 2006 at 11:54 am
I think of Clinton’s index finger as the needle on a polygraph: When it starts bouncing around, it’s saying ‘Whopper Alert!’
20 Shelly // Sep 24, 2006 at 12:10 pm
RE: 19, what a great insight! I too saw the interview and would recommend that all watch it. It’s got to be on the web somewhere. Clinton throws a temper tantrum, lies over and over (surprise!), insults Chris Wallace’s professionalism repeatedly, and comes off as an angry, little man. He also redefines math. He had 8 years to go after al Quaeda. Bush had eight months prior to 9/11, which Clinton calls “three times as long.”
21 conserve-a-tip // Sep 24, 2006 at 12:16 pm
#19 GnuCarSmell! I said the very same thing this morning. I told the hubby that the finger toward the screen was “Deja Vu.”
#12 I am enjoying watching you guys pile on to a “secret” document and saying, “Ah Ha!!” in your, “Live for the moment” routine. I have a question. And what did Carter do to incite the taking of hostages for 444 days? And what did America do to incite all of the hijackings that were our way of life back then? And what did America do to cause the myriad of car bombs across the middle east over the past 20 years?
Unfortunately, you guys haven’t figured out that unless you have tied up an alcoholic and poured the booze down his throat, you haven’t done anything to cause him to drink and unless America has forced these thugs at gunpoint to carry out their dirty work, America has not made them into terrorists.
And to the rest, do you not find this report a big, “DUH?” Let’s see, we go into Iraq and Afghanistan, help to foment a secular democratic government and don’t allow fundamentalist Islam to be the ruler of the day and these nutjobs who want a Caliphate in the Middle East and Europe are mad and want to wreak havoc? Yeh. I’d say that’s a big “Duh”!
22 Thomas Crown // Sep 24, 2006 at 1:24 pm
Wallace is a weak inquisitor with a third-rate speaking voice, irritable eyes, a convuluted mouth and high school poise.
He’s not cut out to deal with big time competition, much less of making a kill, even on hunting grounds as historically uneven as Fox.
The Day of the Jackal? Hardly.
23 Scott Ott // Sep 24, 2006 at 1:27 pm
Intel Report: Fighting Terrorists Creates Terrorists
by Scott
Ott
(2006-09-25) — A newly-leaked top-secret National Intelligence
Estimate (NIE) from April 2006 reveals that America’s 16 spy agencies have
finally discovered that terrorists are created by attempts to defeat terrorists.
The repor…
24 conserve-a-tip // Sep 24, 2006 at 1:44 pm
Thomas Crown, evidently he was enough of an inquisitor and journalist to get Clinton’s to show his true colors. If given enough rope, they’ll hang themselves! Clinton did the pyschology no-no of “YOU did this, and YOU did that, and YOU came under false pretenses, and YOU don’t do anything right, YOU have this little smirk, YOU think you’re so smart,” instead of calmly addressing the question, staying on topic without accusations. He came off as a spoiled kid who got caught with his dad’s cigarettes…only this is a lot more serious.
Clinton’s legacy is going down the tubes, as time has a tendency to glean the truth in history. In 10 years, his legacy will be even further down the crapper. For a narcissistic, addictive person like Clinton, that’ll just send him over the edge.
25 Old War Dogs // Sep 24, 2006 at 1:50 pm
Bill’s Bites — 2006.09.24
The webmaster’s blog-within-a-blog. Continuously updated, newest items at the top. Please click here to learn more about The Phoenix Project, then click here to see a selection of Old War Dogs merchandise. All sales proceeds go to support The Phoenix
26 The Bullwinkle Blog » Blog Archive » Last Laughs (The Blame Game Edition) // Sep 24, 2006 at 2:18 pm
[...] House of Eratosthenes on Groupthink. The Concervative Cat has Bill Clinton On The Warpath. Scrappleface reports Fighting Terrorists Creates Terrorists. Blame Bush urges You Go, Hugo! Point Five notes that Dems Furious At Hugo Chavez Over Remarks. Jim Treacher writes Secret CIA interrogation techniques revealed! But Blue Crab Boulevard argues that he has The Real Secret Interrogation Techniques. [...]
27 bunker_man // Sep 24, 2006 at 2:18 pm
This chicken and the egg were laying in bed. The chicken reached over and lit a cigarette and the egg said “now we know the answer to that age old question”.
Same question keeps poping up.
28 GnuCarSmell // Sep 24, 2006 at 2:34 pm
Wallace might get a Pulitzer for this interview. He seems to be the only journalist that got Clinton to peel off his mask. This is the most revealing Clinton interview yet.
By the way, Clinton sure looks evil when he gets mad. Do I smell sulfur?
29 Ms RightWing, Ink // Sep 24, 2006 at 2:39 pm
Did i miss the Clinton interview. sigh, I went out to a colorful fall festival with food, music and frivolity instead. Guess that will teach me not to have fun
30 rightlinx.com » Blog Archive » Laugh Links (The Blame Game Edition) // Sep 24, 2006 at 3:08 pm
[...] House of Eratosthenes on Groupthink. The Conservative Cat has Bill Clinton On The Warpath. Scrappleface reports Fighting Terrorists Creates Terrorists. Blame Bush urges You Go, Hugo! Point Five notes that Dems Furious At Hugo Chavez Over Remarks. Jim Treacher writes Secret CIA interrogation techniques revealed! But Blue Crab Boulevard argues that he has The Real Secret Interrogation Techniques. [...]
31 JamesonLewis3rd // Sep 24, 2006 at 3:18 pm
Egad.
Check this out.
32 Thomas Crown // Sep 24, 2006 at 4:30 pm
Republicans gather, platitudes fly, logic is betrayed, greed hovers, enlistments for the fight in Iraq go unfulfilled, loyalty to a dimwit is steadfast.
Somebody tell the cameraman to roll.
Jejune is busting out all over.
33 Shelly // Sep 24, 2006 at 4:55 pm
Mrs. RW, it will be on FoxNews tonight at 6:00 p.m. (at least that’s the time in my zone.) You can probably still catch it. Be warned: Knowing Clinton’s heart health history you’ll be worried about the guy.
34 Godfrey // Sep 24, 2006 at 5:13 pm
Leftists blather, solicitude stalls, danger is ignored, fanaticism hovers, promises of national security go unfulfilled, loyalty to a demagogue is steadfast.
Somebody tell the sleeper cells to roll.
They’re about to win.
35 Ms RightWing, Ink // Sep 24, 2006 at 5:18 pm
Oh dear, that is only 45 minutes from now. I better make popcorn, throw a log on the fire and get out a box of Kleenexâ„¢
36 Ms RightWing, Ink // Sep 24, 2006 at 5:19 pm
Oh, that is re:33 so you don’t think I was talking to myself
37 Darthmeister // Sep 24, 2006 at 6:19 pm
So, do we now assume fighting poverty creates more poverty?
How about fighting drunken driving creates more drunken driving?
Ahhhh, maybe it’s Islamic fundamentalism creates more terrorists!
Jesus said it is what comes out of the heart of a man that defiles him, not what goes into a man. Anyone who gets radicalized when criminal or terrorist nutbags get their due is merely revealing the hate already in their heart.
Just like liberals and Muslims to engage in more of their ridiculous the-devil-made-me-do-it rhetoric of self-justification.
38 JamesonLewis3rd // Sep 24, 2006 at 6:44 pm
RE: #18~~
When I posted that link to that article and quote, I hadn’t seen the aforementioned interview. I’ve seen it now.
The man underlined his pathology as a paranoid liar. He’s in deep denial and will never acknowledge his personal responsibility for anything (unless it makes him look good-if that were possible). He acts like we don’t know what happened and, more importantly, what didn’t happen. He blames others for his own weakness in the face of terror. Plus, he give me the creeps.
39 Darthmeister // Sep 24, 2006 at 6:50 pm
Daniel DiRito,
The problem I see is pointy-headed Bush-haters and America-blamers who can’t ever see their way to blaming the real perps - the Islamofascists. It was no mystery why tinplated commie thugs like Hugo Chavez and closet Islamofascist kooks like Iranian President Ahmadaboutjihad can engage in their rhetorical circuses at the UN and get applause when its merely a follow-on to three years of often seditious liberals who have been doing nothing but spewing their partisan and hateful venom toward our President and this country. You know, monkey see, monkey do.
What you self-aggrandizing deniers on the left have been fully invested in is appeasing a political ideology cleverly disguised as a religion. You utopians have gone far beyond what the likes of Neville Chamberlain did with respect to another murderous political ideology, Nazism.
You sit behind your keyboards or prance before the general public on the safety of American sidewalks regurgitating the do-nothing sophistry of anti-war impotence while jihadists come out of their closet having seen the cowardice that people like you display - and then you have the gall to call it patriotism.
Our enemeis see their opportunity to take on decadent and often impotent infidels such as yourself, being forever encouraged by your practice of denigrating the very traditions and political institutions which have protected western civilization from the depradations of evil people such as they. They see in you their salvation since they obviously receive no encouragement in witnessing tens of thousands of their murderous comrades in hate being slaughtered on the frontiers of freedom by American, Coalition and NATO soldiers. Rather even latent jihadists are invigorated by the aspect that people like you are committed to bringing down the very fortress walls which has kept them at bay in the hellholes that they, the jihadists, have already made. They see America and Europe as fertile new grounds to ply their sharia and turn useful idiots such as yourself into their dhimmies.
There will be no hole deep enough where you can hide if the armies of the free world aren’t able to drain the swamps of jihadism in our generation. And if tomorrow America becomes the battlefield for these jihadists as a result of the left’s seditious cowardice today, there will not be a hole deep enough to hide people like you from your just reward in attempting to appease those who have already demonstrated their implacable hatred of our culture and our way of life. Why does your hatred burn more brightly toward your own countrymen than against jihadists?
You naivete is believing you can get militiant Muslim fundamentalists to like you when the thing they would like most is you dead. Climb down from your ivory tower, take off your tinfoil hat, quit swilling your kool-aid and start dealing with the real world where there are people born and raised in a political ideology that can’t stand the stench of your decadent liberalism. Three years of the anti-war left’s cowardice have emboldened the enemy at the gate. Dare you admit that truth to yourself?
40 random // Sep 24, 2006 at 6:56 pm
Making babies makes more babies.
Oh wait that one might be right.
41 mig // Sep 24, 2006 at 7:03 pm
http://www.thepoliticalpitbull.com/2006/09/video_clinton_bugs_on_wallace.php
Video: Clinton Bugs on Wallace (Full Clip) - smirking conservative hit job
42 mig // Sep 24, 2006 at 7:12 pm
Does Clinton get royalties for Richard Clarkes book? I have never heard a book plugged more!
43 Godfrey // Sep 24, 2006 at 7:15 pm
Hank: I actually do buy the idea that our attacks have bred more terrorists. It seems obvious to me that attacking any Muslim country will allow the extremists to radicalize young men who might otherwise have ignored them.
My response to this is…so what? As of September 11th, 2001 I don’t see that we had much of a choice. Our options were to answer the attacks with either a token reprisal or firm resolve. We learned throughout Clinton’s tenure that strategic withdrawal and half-hearted military responses don’t work against these guys. The only remaining option was to hit them and hit them really, really hard. To fight intelligently and give them absolutely no quarter.
We did that in Afghanistan…and we should have done that in Iraq.
44 RedPepper // Sep 24, 2006 at 7:38 pm
Did somebody mention Neville Chamberlin? Put me in mind of this quote:
“If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.â€
- Winston Churchill
45 RedPepper // Sep 24, 2006 at 7:43 pm
And for a bonus:
“May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won’t.”
- General George Patton Jr.
46 JamesonLewis3rd // Sep 24, 2006 at 8:02 pm
Officer Obie: Kid, I’m going to put you in the cell, I want your wallet and your belt.
Arlo Guthrie: Obie, I can understand you wanting my wallet so I don’t have any money to spend in the cell, but what do you want my belt for?
Officer Obie: Kid, we don’t want any hangings.
Arlo Guthrie: Obie, did you think I was going to hang myself for littering?
47 syslob // Sep 24, 2006 at 8:27 pm
I think we might need to emply members of Monty Python to find this secret word.
48 Godfrey // Sep 24, 2006 at 8:43 pm
mig: thx for that link. The sound sync was way off but as usual a few beers fixed that problem. Some comments:
1. Clinton was not nearly as angry and out of control as has been generally hyped. He is known for his temper anyway…quick to anger, quick to forgive. I’m not sure that last is a good presidential quality. But he was never sputtering or out of control.
2. Clinton acquited himself pretty well intellectually. He brought up some good points…the most obvious being that everyone’s perspective changed forever after 9/11. He also claimed that Republicans demanded a pullout the day after the Mogidishu fiasco…but I looked up some old articles and the only Republican I could find demanding a pullout was McCain. Lugar supported Clinton.
3. The Left and the Right are both claiming victory on this interview. In my view Clinton “won” this contest…partially because he answered the points in his usual articulate, lucid manner but also because he controlled the interview after the initial question was asked.
That’s not to say the I agree with his points, but I’ve always thought blaming Clinton for 9/11 was a bit far-fetched. As Hank says above, the blame for that atrocity should lie squarely on the shoulders of the fanatics who commited it.
Anything else is just politics.
49 JamesonLewis3rd // Sep 24, 2006 at 8:48 pm
Fang [terrified]: The…Comfy Chair?
50 conserve-a-tip // Sep 24, 2006 at 8:56 pm
Godfrey, I agree totally with you on the blame game. I agree that the real bad guys in this whole mess are getting a pass and that neither Clinton nor Bush are responsible for 9-11. But as to Clinton’s assertions about what the Republicans demanded and his victim attitude toward the “neo-cons”, I think that one must look at past behavior and tendencies to see that Clinton does not tell the truth, truly sees himself as a victim always, and has absolutely no grasp of history. The following article is quite inciteful. I don’t know how to do a link (if anyone would like to fill me in, hint, hint) so, here is the address:
http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/12677
51 Godfrey // Sep 24, 2006 at 9:18 pm
conserve-a-tip:
He’s definitely a defensive guy. Given his history, of course, that’s not exactly an illogical position!
It seems like he came in to this interview (his first ever one-on-one with Fox) pretty wound up with expectations of being hammered, which probably explains his overreaction.
Sort of like a guilty husband flying off the handle when his wife smells perfume on his clothes? Perhaps…
Or maybe he had just over-prepared for the worst.
Of course we all know that he’s a liar, but so are all politicians or they’d be flippin’ burgers for a living.
P.S. Regarding linking, you can read up on html tags here. It’s hard to discuss tags through an input form because Scott’s site has most of them disabled (i.e. it strips them out and makes explanations unintelligible). There’s a table halfway down the page with all the basic html tags you’ll need to go boldy where pretty much everyone but you has gone before.
52 Ms RightWing, Ink // Sep 24, 2006 at 9:23 pm
I was waiting for Monica Lewinski to come out and do the (uh-uh) for the audience. Sigh, another let down.
53 JamesonLewis3rd // Sep 24, 2006 at 9:31 pm
Funny how people see things differently.
I saw Clinton, when asked a simple question, reply with a 20-minute-long, finger-wagging, hysterical and paranoid tirade.
Methinks he doth protest too much. All that conspiracy stuff is just so much amateur hocus-pocus that any sane person would brush off with a flick-he doesn’t realize how pathetically juvenile he sounds as he continues to make excuses for his ineptitude.
I don’t blame him for 9/11-neither did Wallace. Neither did that ABC docudrama which seems to have caused him to become (and remain) unhinged.
He’s a big, fat liar and it drives him nuts that that will be his precious “legacy” for all of history. I just wish he’d go away-he’s an embarrassment-an unpleasant reminder.
54 conserve-a-tip // Sep 24, 2006 at 9:53 pm
Godfrey: “Where pretty much everybody but you has gone before”??? Can we say, ouch? You see, God gave me the ability to paint and to draw, to create and write, to cook and sew, to plant, harvest and process - He even gave me the ability to butcher - but when He was creating me and asked if I wanted Tech genes, I thought He said, “Tick genes” and thought that He was absolutely crazy. Of course I said, “no”. You can understand that can’t you?
The hubby works for a major computer company and he got all of the Tick genes.
55 TouchyFeely // Sep 24, 2006 at 10:10 pm
Hey Godfrey, did you watch The Path to 9/11??? Did you hear about the book “Dereliction of Duty” by Clinton’s football carrier who said that Clinton avoided Sandy Berger’s calls? Why wouldn’t Richard Clarke criticize him more? Maybe he’s like all these other bureaucrats who are just looking to their next job in the next administration.
Clinton and his band of excuse-making, ass-covering, philosophizing lawyers were to blame for 9-11. How about the government’s inability to get in Moussaui’s computer (spelling)? Wasn’t it one of Clinton’s evil, champagne-drinking minions who made it illegal for the CIA to talk to the FBI? Who tried to drain the life-blood out of the CIA?
I didn’t see the interview, but I suspect that his agressiveness was to keep Wallace from getting too in-depth in his questions. He was an embarrassment to America. Good riddance to the guy. They should pass a law forbidding any lawyer to hold the top office.
56 Godfrey // Sep 24, 2006 at 11:16 pm
c-a-t: you sound multi-skilled. I wouldn’t worry too much about tags…they tend to be overUSED anyway.
If I could draw or paint I’d never fire this computer up.
Touchy: …did you watch The Path to 9/11?
No, I didn’t. It didn’t really appeal to me once I found out it was a semi-fictional dramatization. There’s enough distortion on the topic as it is. I may watch it some day.
Look, I’m not saying Clinton was my favorite president. But I think it’s simplistic to say that he was “evil” or to act like he was sneaking around in a ninja mask trying to dismantle our national security apparatus. And it’s certainly a stretch to say he was responsible for 9/11.
I think many of the mistakes he made were also made by his predecessors and perhaps more importantly by the congressmen who served during his tenure (remember that Congress was Republican-controlled for most of his presidency). Terrorism was way down on everyone’s list of priorities before 9/11. I know I didn’t give it nearly as much thought as I have in the last five years.
In hindsight it’s tempting to pick out a few of Clinton’s failings and blame him for everything because he represents the political opposition but I don’t think that’s a defensible position. Clinton was just a charismatic man with weak character who managed to be elected president. He’s not the first.
I don’t hate the guy…even if I’m not exactly sad to be rid of him.
57 conserve-a-tip // Sep 25, 2006 at 12:32 am
Godfrey, I agree with your assessment on Clinton. he was a charasmatic man with weak character.
I think that from his interview I came away with an additional observation..he is a controlling; almost abusive; kind of man as well. If you watch the interview, he tried to dominate Wallace’s space. He crossed that psychological “safe space” area and leaned into Wallace’s face, punching the papers right on Wallace’s lap. He leaned forward and sneered and used the “you this” and “you that” technique that is meant to domineer. I know. I was once the recipient of that kind of behavior from my alcoholic ex. I was quite impressed that Wallace didn’t respond in kind and that he finally just let Clinton rant. I learned in Al Anon that you just pretend that you are in a bubble and let the words bounce off. It sends the other party into a tailspin. I think that it did Clinton. I heard him whine about how put upon he is and he certainly did not look presidential. It was rather astounding.
In history, it seems that there have been two kinds of presidents, those who focused on the job at hand and really didn’t care about their legacy (FDR to some extent, Truman, Eisenhower, Ford, Reagan) and those who sought the limelight and only cared how they would be looked upon by history (Teddy Roosevelt, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton).
Unfortunately, some of the latter have been in place when the former were desperately needed to deal with the times. And then, sometimes the latter were lucky enough to be in office when they really couldn’t do much damage. I really feel like that was Clinton’s fortune. Even though he didn’t do much with Bin Laden and didn’t prepare us for what was coming, because the legislature held him at bay, he just played at being president, had fun and we just breathed a sigh of relief when he was gone. Now, he is just a sad little man, desperate to have people pay attention to him and still make him the center of attention. He is imploding because nobody is really interested anymore. You have to feel sorry for him. Carter is in the same boat.
BTW-Did you catch what Clinton said in the interview? He made the strangest statement: “And no one thought we could do it otherwise, because we could not get the CIA and the FBI to certify that Al Qaida was responsible while I was president. And so, I left office. And yet, I get asked about this all the time. They had three times as much time to deal with it, and nobody ever asks them about it. I think that’s strange.”
“So I left office”??? That sounds like he thinks that he left office, not because he was term limited, but because he wasn’t getting cooperation. It was just weird. After hearing him say back in 2000 that he would like to see them take away the two term limit for presidents, I just kind of felt like he really looked on himself as a king of sorts. And then his statement that in that 8 months between Bush’s taking office and 9-11 was three times longer then he had? I am really wondering if he was on something.
58 Godfrey // Sep 25, 2006 at 2:55 am
conserve-a-tip: he is a controlling; almost abusive; kind of man as well…
You may be right. If so, he’s like an ex-friend of mine, who was controlling in a manipulative way; he’d try to charm you first. If that failed, watch out.
It sends the other party into a tailspin. I think that it did Clinton…
Again, you may be right…but if so it was the controlled tailspin of a practiced statesman. He never seemed out of control to me.
In history, it seems that there have been two kinds of presidents…
Here I disagree with you. I think that at least in modern times there has been only one kind of president. I say this after having observed a political system that will allow only one sort of man to actually be elected…a demagogue. A man who is willing to lie (like Clinton) if only by omission (like Bush) and who ultimately is willing to sacrifice the principles that got him elected for the sake of a few more years in power, no doubt convincing himself that the good he can do with the power outweighs the abandonment of said principles.
Perhaps the fact that Clinton had no real principles in the first place makes him one of our most honest presidents to date.(!)
I say most of this tongue-in-cheek, of course. I actually do like Bush…but I am under no illusions that the man we see before the cameras is really the man who sits in the oval office; that would be naive. It’s all a carefully crafted persona, whether the man in power likes it that way or not. I guess the reason I like Bush is that his public persona seems closer to reality than have many of his predecessors’. And I cannot argue with his having a certain amount of focus, although he seems to be losing it of late.
Even though he didn’t do much…because the legislature held him at bay…
Well, as a libertarian I perhaps uniquely suited to appreciate the other side of the coin as well. Clinton held the legislature at bay too… Gridlock is good.
And then his statement that in that 8 months between Bush’s taking office and 9-11 was three times longer then he had?
Here is what he was talking about:
In the fall of 2000, in Afghanistan, unmanned, unarmed spy planes called Predators flew over known al-Qaida training camps…also, that fall, the Predator captured even more extraordinary pictures — a tall figure in flowing white robes. Many intelligence analysts believed then and now it is bin Laden. (MSNBC.com)
This was shortly before Clinton left office…about three months. According to his claims during the interview, during those few months he tried to get the intelligence agencies to “certify” that Al Qaida had been responsible for the bombing of the USS Cole a few months earlier (i.e. take the heat if it turned out not to be the case).
They were not prepared to certify al-Qaida’s involvement at the time, nor was Clinton’s military prepared for a moment’s-notice operation in Afghanistan. Clinton’s term subsequently expired and he left office having missed his chance at Bin Laden, an oversight the monumental horror of which only became apparent the following September. I’m guessing he hears the screams of 9/11 victims every night since then. Bush probably does too.
I don’t think I’d want to be president.
59 R.A.M. // Sep 25, 2006 at 3:48 am
Godfrey said: “I’m guessing he hears the screams of 9/11 victims every night since then. Bush probably does too.”
I agree with most of what you said above,—except for this statement. If Clinton cared that he may be even partially responsible for 9/11, I believ he would be united with Bush in the war on terror.
Seems to me he is all about doing the same things as before 9/11, anything that keeps him in the limelight, and whining that all the “rightwingers” and “neocons” keep pointing the finger at him, all the while during the interview, he keeps pointing the finger at Bush!
I have already heard, (just since this tirade of Clinton’s), by his idolizer’s that he was right to blow up because he has been attacked so much recently.
If that is true, Bush should be given a pass to explode for days on end, for the things he has been accused of and called!
EVERYONE who saw this interview, (and would be honest), would have to say Clinton definately over reacted, BUT, ALL the “lefties” are already spinning like crazy. Wallace asked a question, that is ALL.
Just happened that King Bill, had NOT approved that question, and if Clinton were still in office, his tax returns would be getting a good going over right now.
AOL’s lead story is: (Clinton) “He fires back at TV anchor!”
WOW! That sounds like Wallace “dissed him” like Colbert did to GWB.
The libs didn’t mind that though, did they?
60 Darthmeister // Sep 25, 2006 at 5:59 am
Godfrey,
Given what we do know of radical Islam and how they inculcate hate for infidels and Jews in their madrassas and other schools, these people are “radicalized” in their youth. I know we westerners have a hard time with that concept because we would consider it a form of child abuse to inculcate such hatred in young children, but it happens in the Muslim world on a daily basis and is far more mainstream than you or most people are willing to admit. My goodness, even the Koran describes Jews as “apes and pigs” and the Muslim world has produced children’s cartoons and shows which teach the same thing!
No, we are dealing with a dysfunctional political ideology masquerading as a religion and even so-called “moderate” Muslims seem to be waiting to see if their jihadist brethren are able to rout the infidels in the opening salvos of the west’s war on jihadism. And if we want to see World War IV happen, all the west and America has to do is continue engaging in their category error with respect to the militant nature of Islam. I don’t say this lightly, but having read the Koran myself I can understand how easily it has become the cookbook of jihadism.
61 Darthmeister // Sep 25, 2006 at 6:25 am
Using liberal logic, merely selling alcohol makes people alcoholics. If a murderer is put to death, do we excuse the actions of his/her family if they decide to take revenge on the judge and jury? This is what liberals are asking us to believe, when bringing justice to terrorists we are “radicalizing them”.
When evil people are killed in a just cause, this somehow “radicalizes” good people? No, these Muslims were long radicalized before American began fighting this war on jihadism. Some of the most despicable Americans have been those who followed General Nathan Bedford Forrest’s racist post-Civil War movement, the KKK. It was a literal blood feud with them. In the early days, when courts found KKK members guilty of the most heinous crimes, the judge and jury members were often targets of pay-back retribution by the KKK. This is how much hatred had blinded and possessed these people. It’s little different here.
If there is no hatred in a person and someone they know is killed for bearing the sword of murder, it’s not going to “radicalize” that person. What the real problem is is Islam teaches Muslims they are essentially infallible when it comes divining evil people from good people - if an infidel kills a Muslim that’s always bad and if a Muslim kills an infidel that is good irrespective of the issue of real justice and due process. Muslims have a very real problem with self-righteousness and I’m very surprised liberals haven’t called them out on it given how they’ve railed against Christians for being self-righteous neanderthals.
Come on folks, how seriously can you take a “religion” which has created a broad spectrum of followers who can’t see the absolute absurdity of railing against comments about their religion being violent by threatening to kill those engaging in such comments? You know, “I’ll kill you if you don’t agree that Islam is a ‘religion of peace’.” There’s something seriously sick about that and where has the “moderate” Muslim been in denouncing and mocking this supposed twisting of Islam? Even here the “moderate” Muslim world has remained essentially mute! Now what does that communicate?
I know of no self-respecting Jew or Christian that is stupid enough to engage in such outright logical non-sequitors. Of course Jews and Christians don’t teach that their faith can be spread at the point of a sword, either.
So why do we tolerate it from Muslims? That a significant number of Muslim minds work this way effectively demonstrates there is something terribly wrong with fundamental Islam and not just in the way it’s being taught or blindly received.
62 Darthmeister // Sep 25, 2006 at 6:25 am
…pushin’ on through.
63 Atilla_the_Hun // Sep 25, 2006 at 8:10 am
Can’t we all jus get along? After all if we give the jihadis all they want won’t we have peace (of the grave)?
64 Darthmeister // Sep 25, 2006 at 8:20 am
Insult Islamic brownshirts, it’s our civic duty.
65 Ms RightWing, Ink // Sep 25, 2006 at 8:49 am
May I be the first to say good morning. Ladies and gentlemen of the reading audience, if you never believed Clinton was a 3000 pound bully gorilla, the proof is finally in. Could you imagine working for this guy. If you have a different opinion he either over powered you by yelling-or he took you outside where the lynch men would shoot you.
That is all I have to say (sounds of clapping dust off hands)
66 Darthmeister // Sep 25, 2006 at 9:21 am
PETA Upset at SIX FLAGS Roach Contest…
That’s it, save the cockroaches and ABORT THE BABIES!
CLINTON TO FOXNEWS ANCHOR: ‘YOU HAVE THAT SMIRK ON YOUR FACE’…
A President acting badly. Liberals can dish it out but they can’t take it.
PAPER: SPY AGENCIES SAY IRAQ WAR WORSENS TERRORISM THREAT…
PAPER: SPY AGENCIES SAY WORLD WAR II WORSENS NAZI AND JAP THREAT…
Mexican leader knocks U.S. crime rates…
Can’t understand why U.S. crime rates rise when Mexican criminals are sent to America.
OIL BELOW $60…
Liberal Media: World in crisis, inflation on the horizon, we must surrender in Iraq because of cheaper oil.
67 Maggie // Sep 25, 2006 at 9:25 am
Scott…..re#24
Congratulations!
First Rush Limbaugh and now Townhall .com.
You really got it going on…but we Scrapplers already knew that.
68 Darthmeister // Sep 25, 2006 at 9:50 am
Twelvth Imam To Be Next Secretary-General of UN
AP - New York
Liberals sigh with relief and Muslims rejoice as the promise of peace in our time starts to take root.
“Multi-culturalism will guide the planets and love will steer the stars,” gushed Cindy Sheehan when she first heard the news.
The Twelvth Imam promised a Nobel Peace prize to Kofi Annan and his work in undermining Jewish Zionism and bringing peace to the Middle East now that it’s a radioactive hole in the ground.
With the backing of Turkish and Iranian nuclear weapons, the Secretary-General is asking that all western nations peacefully divest themselves of their nuclear weapons or they may find themselves on the receiving ends of the “the United Nations missiles of peace.” This action has the full support of the UN Security Council nations of Libya, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Turkey, Iran, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, North Korea, China, Russia and France.
69 boberinagain // Sep 25, 2006 at 10:00 am
Hank, neither side can claim any sort of religion in this one. Neither has demonstrated to anyone how peaceful they are and neither is about to start.
But you knew that.
How’s tricks gang?
70 JamesonLewis3rd // Sep 25, 2006 at 10:09 am
I like the way Pelosi, Reid, et al are forming conclusions based on the conclusions of a treasonous reporter for a treasonous newspaper with stolen (and incomplete) information that no one has seen.
More on lies, tirades, tantrums, finger-wags, bulging veins and meltdowns here, here and here-now, even his own kind think he’s a bumbling laughingstock and an embarrassment…..
LOL-too funny-poster boy goes ballistic-AH-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha…..
Whee…..
71 conserve-a-tip // Sep 25, 2006 at 10:15 am
Good morning you lovely people. Isn’t it a glorious morning? Cool, crisp, sunny…I love it.
Scott, you hit a homerun with this one!
Darthmeister, re:# 61: At the risk of sounding too theological, I have a theory on the direction that Islam has taken. Islam is one of the most “works” oriented religions in the world. The entire religion is based on rules and regulations set out by Mohammed, supposedly instructed by God. The ONLY way that favor with God and entrance to Heaven can be achieved is by man’s efforts. There are actually some Christian or pseudo-Christian denominations and other religions like Hindu and Buddhism, that are similarly legalistic, but not to the extent that Islam is.
For the human, who intrinsically knows that he can never be good enough for God, no matter what his religion tells him (hence the sacrifice of Christ and His covering of our sins), there is usually one of three responses to this striving to work a way into Heaven. I was a member of one of the VERY legalistic Christian denominations and I saw this so much, especially in the young adults:
1. Resigned obedience that harbors no joy and no passion, just the accepting of what is and doing the best to conform.
2. Anger at the inability to achieve that “good enough” state and an eventual turning away from the concept totally, actually going the other direction with the attitude of “why try?” I have seen so many teenagers and young adults get into the “wild side of life” just because the other attempt was too hard. When the focus is on human achievement rather than God’s grace, it just offers too heavy a burden.
3. Total commitment to accepting control over one’s own salvation to the point that the control then extends to everybody else. In other words, “If I can save myself, then I must make sure that everybody else is either saved or destroyed, according to my dictates.” In pseudo-Christianity this translates into bombed abortion clinics, firey crosses and lynchings, shunning, some congregational confrontations and expulsions and finally a fiery death in Waco or 900 sacrifices to Kool-aid in South America.
The Jihadists are of the third type. They are so convinced that their salvation and their hope of heaven is so dependent on their works and their control that Satan has gleefully offered his assistance to ideas too awful to consider. And so we have people buried to their necks in sand and stoned to death for adultery or soldiers dragged alive through the streets and then burned for show. The rest of the religion just stands by and watches because they aren’t really sure that perhaps these zealots aren’t better then they because they are so zealous.
When man snatches the control of his life out of God’s hands, all Hell breaks loose…literally. JMHO.
72 red satellites // Sep 25, 2006 at 10:22 am
Good morning Scrapplers!
A fine fine day here in LA…..with the recent Clinton meltdown…..hmmm…must be global warming!
73 GnuCarSmell // Sep 25, 2006 at 10:43 am
Clinton’s impersonation of an over-inflated Whoopee-Cushionâ„¢ was spot on.
The Boy President seemingly harbors an irrational fear and loathing of FoxNews, so a lot of pent-up resentment and dangerous gasses were ready to explode over the silliest pretext. Wallace’s ‘Did you do enough?’ question was actually quite tame for a properly inflated Whoopee-Cushionâ„¢.
74 Darthmeister // Sep 25, 2006 at 11:32 am
Gee, bober, it seems to me that the Islamofascist have been citing Allah, Islam (their religion), and the Koran as the very foundation of their present war on infidels. So how can you say that “neither side can claim any sort of religion” on this one. The evildoers do so every chance they get!
America (and the rest of the free world that hasn’t knuckled under to Muslim taqiyya and rhetorical intimidation) have only cited lady liberty, man’s natural yearning for freedom, the national security concerns of various free nations, and the principles of just cause.
I don’t remember Bush or any other member of his administration citing chapter and verse of the Bible and invoking the wrath of Jehovah to vanquish the Muslim barbarian hordes … have you? In that I do agree with you, we don’t have a “religion horse” in this race.
Quit engaging in false moral equivalences … if I understand your post correctly. BTW, what exactly did you mean?
75 Iraq « Tai-Chi Policy // Sep 25, 2006 at 12:03 pm
[...] Scrappleface, meanwhile, provides a summary of the intel report all the Dems are touting. [...]
76 Darthmeister // Sep 25, 2006 at 1:02 pm
This analysis is spot on:
Spy Agencies: Stop Fighting Back
Imagine a report from 1944: “This just in: the invasion of Normandy has led to increased Nazi activity in Europe.” Leaving aside the question of whether or not the attempt to democratize Iraq is the best way to defeat the jihad, the idea that resisting the jihadists is inadvisable because it causes them to fight back is beyond asinine.
If the report had argued that Iraq has weakened the U.S. position because we are effectively abetting an Iranian-backed Shi’ite takeover of the country, and thus aiding rather than weakening the global jihad, that would be a defensible, indeed a cogent, position. But instead, the report just seems to be noting that Iraq has become the latest pretext for jihad recruitment, and buys into the false assumption that if we just address the pretext, the jihad will end. It won’t, however. It will just find another pretext, because ultimately the jihad is not being waged because of Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Abu Ghraib, or Israel, or any other commonly-retailed pretext. It is being waged to extend Sharia over the world, in accord with imperatives spelled out in the Qur’an and other core Islamic sources.
77 Darthmeister // Sep 25, 2006 at 2:00 pm
Never apologize for using the term Islamic Fascism.
78 Mensa Barbie Welcomes You // Sep 25, 2006 at 2:42 pm
Iraqi Justice (or) Safety for the Left
Here we go again…Using ’surface data’ (absent conscience) to determine if Enduring Freedom has made Americans more fearful or threatened…
79 onlineanalyst // Sep 25, 2006 at 3:43 pm
This just in:
Drawing Mohammed Cartoons Creates Terrorists!
Western Art, Entertainment, Music, Clothing Styles Create Terrorists!
Pontiff’s University Lecture Creates Terrorists!
Coaltion Efforts to Repair, Rebuild Iraq Infrastructure Creates Terrorists!
Eating Pork Products Creates Terrorists!
80 R.A.M. // Sep 26, 2006 at 4:30 pm
OLA: You forgot one,
Calling Freedom Fighters/Insurgents, Terrorists Creates Terrorists!
81 Darthmeister // Sep 26, 2006 at 9:29 pm
It is the jihadist ideology that attracts recruits. Grievances are just rhetoric. If the bin Ladens of the jihadist movement did not have Iraq, or the Palestinians, or Lebanon, or Pope Benedict, or Jews, or cartoons, or flushed Korans, or Dutch movies, or the Crusades, they’d figure out something else to beat the drums over. Or they’d simply make something up — there being lots of license to improvise when one purports to be executing Allah’s will.
It is bad enough when the Muslim charlatans opportunistically use American policies they don’t like for militant propaganda purposes. It is reprehensible when American anti-war leftists and politicians do it.
Jihadists hate us because they hate us, not because of Iraq or Abu Ghraib or Gitmo. And they’ve hated America going on at least three or four decades simply because we’ve befriended the nation of Israel. If it wasn’t hate it would be the absolute disdain for America which motivated these Muslim murderers, a disdain nurtured by the utter incompetence of President Jimmy Carter handling of the Iranian hostage situation back in 1979-80.
82 J. Cougar Melancholy // Sep 27, 2006 at 10:00 am
Well, it looks like it’s come to this point in the thread. Instead of soliciting recipies, I’d like to ask anyone who’s ever been to Prague suggestions of where to eat, drink, dance, etc. My wife and I are going next week whilst the twins are being taken care of by grandma and auntie back in Brooklyn. Other than apologizing for America’s actions, we’re not sure what we’ll be doing.
83 Darthmeister // Sep 27, 2006 at 10:38 am
JCM,
May you and yours have a safe trip. Prague sounds so interesting. I personally wouldn’t have a clue about eating, drinking, and being merry in Prague, but my in-laws have been there and said its a very interesting place to visit … but you wouldn’t want to live there.
BTW, if the Czechs were really offended by the actions of America fighting the war on jihadism, they wouldn’t be grubbing for American cash if they had any principles.
You might check this site out as to your travel itinerary in Prague.
84 Pros and Cons » Clever postings du jour - a smorgasbord of what interests me, or, if you prefer, a movable feast for the little grey cells. // Sep 29, 2006 at 10:40 am
[...] Arguing by inversion can be quite clever, and The Jawa Report does a great job of same. So if you get from a to B by path C, what happens if you apply the same reasoning to events X? In this case that technique is used to rebut those who think that fighting evil creates more of it (ignoring for a moment that our presence in Afghanistan and Iraq has created allied Iraqi and Afghan forces, as well as gotten perennial fence-sitters like the Saudi National Guard and Jordanian forces into the fight). Scott Ott does it well too. [...]
You must log in to post a comment.