Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Um, no. Mack. Sorry. Bush is a fuck up even without 9/11. Point of fact, he'd be perceived as a much larger fuck up if he didn't have the horribly misnamed piece of propaganda shit you keep drooling on about to cover his sorry ass.

Here's a highly abbreviated list:


Fiscal Management: America is broke. No wait, we're worse than broke. In less than five years these borrow and spend-thrifts have nearly doubled our national debt, to a stunning $8.2 trillion. These are not your father's Republicans who treated public dollars as though they were an endangered species. These Republicans waste money in ways and in quantities that make those old tax and spend liberals of yore look like tight-fisted Scots.

This administration is so incompetent that you can just throw a dart at the front page of your morning paper and whatever story of importance it hits will prove my point.

Katrina relief: Eleven thousand spanking new mobile homes sinking into the Arkansas mud. Seems no one in the administration knew there were federal and state laws prohibiting trailers in flood zones. Oops. That little mistake cost you $850 million -- and counting.

Medicare Drug Program: This $50 billion white elephant debuted by trampling many of those it was supposed to save. The mess forced states to step in and try to save its own citizens from being killed by the administration's poorly planned and executed attempt to privatize huge hunks of the federal health safety net.

Afghanistan: Good managers know that in order to pocket the gains of a project, you have to finish it. This administration started out fine in Afghanistan. They had the Taliban and al Queda on the run and Osama bin Laden trapped in a box canyon. Then they were distracted by a nearby shiney object -- Iraq. We are now $75 billion out of pocket in Afghanistan and its sitting president still rules only within the confines of the nation's capital. Tribal warlords, the growing remnants of the Taliban and al Qaeda call the shots in the rest of the county.

Iraq: This ill-begotten war was supposed to only cost us $65 billion. It has now cost us over $300 billion and continues to suck $6 billion a month out of our children's futures. Meanwhile the three warring tribes Bush "liberated" are using our money and soldiers' lives to partition the country. The Shiites and Kurds are carving out the prime cuts while treating the once-dominant Sunnis the same way the Israelis treat the Palestinians, forcing them onto Iraq's version of Death Valley. Meanwhile Iran is increasingly calling the shots in the Shiite region as mullahs loyal to Iran take charge. (More)

Iran: The administration not only jinxed its Afghanistan operations by attacking Iraq, but also provided Iran both the rationale for and time to move toward nuclear weapons. The Bush administration's neocons' threats to attack Syria next only provided more support for religious conservatives within Iran who argued U.S. intentions in the Middle East were clear, and that only the deterrent that comes with nuclear weapons could protect them.

North Korea: Ditto. Also add to all the above the example North Korea set for Iran. Clearly once a country possesses nukes, the U.S. drops the veiled threats and wants to talk.

Social Programs: It's easier to get affordable -- even free -- American-style medical care, paid for with American dollars, if you are injured in Iraq, Afghanistan or are victims of a Pakistani earthquake, than if you live and pay taxes in the good old U.S.A. Nearly 50 million Americans can't afford medical insurance. Nevertheless the administration has proposed a budget that will cut $40 billion from domestic social programs, including health care for the working poor. The administration is quick to say that those services will be replaced by its "faith-based" programs. Not so fast...

"Despite the Bush administration's rhetorical support for religious charities, the amount of direct federal grants to faith-based organizations declined from 2002 to 2004, according to a major new study released yesterday....The study released yesterday "is confirmation of the suspicion I've had all along, that what the faith-based initiative is really all about is de-funding social programs and dumping responsibility for the poor on the charitable sector," said Kay Guinane, director of the nonprofit advocacy program at OMB Watch.."

The Military: Overused and over-deployed.

Former Defense Secretary William Perry and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright warned in a 15-page report that the Army and Marine Corps cannot sustain the current operational tempo without "doing real damage to their forces." ... Speaking at a news conference to release the study, Albright said she is "very troubled" the military will not be able to meet demands abroad. Perry warned that the strain, "if not relieved, can have highly corrosive and long-term effects on the military.

With military budgets gutted by the spiraling costs of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the administration has requested funding for fewer National Guard troops in fiscal 2007 -- 17,000 fewer. Which boggles the sane mind since, if it weren't for reserve/National Guard, the administration would not have had enough troops to rotate forces in and out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Nearly 40 percent of the troops sent to those two countries were from the reserve and National Guard.

The Environment: Here's a little pop quiz: What happens if all the coral in the world's oceans dies? Answer: Coral is the first rung on the food-chain ladder; so when it goes, everything else in the ocean dies. And if the oceans die, we die.

The coral in the world's oceans are dying (called "bleaching") at an alarming and accelerating rate. Global warming is the culprit. Nevertheless, this administration continues as the world's leading global warming denier. Why? Because they seem to feel it's more cost effective to be dead than to force reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. How stupid is that? And time is running out.

Trade: We are approaching a $1 trillion annual trade deficit, most of it with Asia, $220 billion with just China -- just last year.

Energy: Record high energy prices. Record energy company profits. Dick Cheney's energy task force meetings remain secret. Need I say more?

Consumers: Americans finally did it last year -- they achieved a negative savings rate. (Folks in China save 10 percent, for contrast.) If the government can spend more than it makes and just say "charge it" when it runs out, so can we. The average American now owes $9,000 to credit card companies. Imagine that.

Human Rights: America now runs secret prisons and a secret judicial system that would give Kafka fits. And the U.S. has joined the list of nations that tortures prisioners of war. (Shut up George! We have pictures!)

But all you want to talk about is 9/11, you're silly and hideously misnamed GWOT. Here's a newsbrief: the 'global war on terror' is a pathetic joke, hyped and believed in by folks--particularly politicians-- who find it useful for various reasons. Generally speaking, morons gravitate to it like flies to shit because it covers their utter incompetence in other areas -- like dealing with hurricane disasters, say, or global warming.  In many ways, the profound 'transformation' that supposedly overtook American policy after 9/11 is like a religious epiphany in which any thought of practical realities of actually, you know, governing, is subjugated to the demands of commemorating that most searing initial experience. Some mystics believe in that kind of stuff, which is fine. But it's no way to run a country. You're apparently a part of that 33% of this country that still think it is.

by delicatemonster (delicatemons@delicatemonster.com) on Wed Jun 20th, 2007 at 10:55:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
This is unquestionably the most incoherent comment I have read yet. First of all this post is about 9/11 or do you need to read things more than seven times.

Second, show me where I supported the concept of a Global War on Terror? It was a wrongly labeled war from the outset.

Third what does anything you just posted have to do with the subject?

And finally, I would like to know if you believe we are or are not at war. Anyone who does not believe we are at war with radical Muslim groups who use terror as their primary tactic is either ignorant of events or choosing to play retail politics with people's lives.

by Private on Wed Jun 20th, 2007 at 11:10:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Um no. My comment is specifically directed to this sentence which you wrote on this thread:


If Clinton did his job then all your rants over Bush this and that would be moot.

Is it the big words in my reply, or the really big sentences that you  find incoherent?

by delicatemonster (delicatemons@delicatemonster.com) on Wed Jun 20th, 2007 at 11:16:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The post has to do with 9/11 and not Katrina or the other issues you brought up. The point is basic. The day Bush took the oath of office, had Clinton done the most fundamental job of President (commander-in-chief) there would no longer be any need for a bin Laden unit in the CIA. And we are not talking about one lucky shot. We are talking about at least 8 certain chances of capture or kill. The issue is what would each of the current (or projected) list of Presidential candidates have done in the same situation? There will be one issue that will be paramount on people's minds in 2008 in the U.S. and before any discussion begins what will the candidate do to make sure there are no more 9/11's.
by Private on Wed Jun 20th, 2007 at 11:33:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
And you're missing other people's basic point -- that Bush, not Clinton, was at fault.  You are basically opining that Clinton did not break the law and assassinate someone.  It's been pointed out to you on this thread that people here don't support the notion that a president should break the law.  It's also been stated repeatedly that the Bush administration did not take terrorism seriously, something you keep denying in order to stay on your "blame Clinton" storyline.

Pre-9/11, the Bush administration was focused on funneling money to their cronies via "missle defense," a.k.a Star Wars, the largely discredited Reagan-era money-sink.  I'll provide another link, in addition to the previous ones you've ignored.

Top Focus Before 9/11 Wasn't on Terrorism

On Sept. 11, 2001, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice was scheduled to outline a Bush administration policy that would address "the threats and problems of today and the day after, not the world of yesterday" -- but the focus was largely on missile defense, not terrorism from Islamic radicals.

(...)The speech was postponed in the chaos of the day, part of which Rice spent in a bunker. It mentioned terrorism, but did so in the context used in other Bush administration speeches in early 2001: as one of the dangers from rogue nations, such as Iraq, that might use weapons of terror, rather than from the cells of extremists now considered the main security threat to the United States.

The text also implicitly challenged the Clinton administration's policy, saying it did not do enough about the real threat -- long-range missiles.

(...)The text of Rice's Sept. 11 speech, which was never delivered, broadly reflects Bush administration foreign policy pronouncements during the eight months leading to the attacks, according to a review of speeches, news conferences and media appearances.



Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes
by Izzy (izzy at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jun 20th, 2007 at 11:57:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That's what you think the issue is. And I'm sorry, but you're just sadly deluded. The polls bear out that the main issue of concern for the US is getting the hell out of Iraq. Health care comes in next, then Illegal immigration. Finally, we get to 'terrorism'. Sorry you don't get that yet, keep watching the polls, especially that question "what's the most important issue to you?"

NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Neil Newhouse (R). June 8-11, 2007. N=1,008 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1.

"Let me list some issues that have been proposed for the federal government to address. Please tell me which one of these items you think should be the top priority for the federal government. [See below.]" If more than one: "Well, if you had to choose just one, which do you think should be the top priority?"

 The war in Iraq 34  
 Health care 15  
 Illegal immigration 12  
 Terrorism 12  
 Job creation and economic growth 8  
 Energy and the cost of gas 6  
 The environment and global warming 6  
 Reducing the federal budget deficit 4  
 All equally (vol.) 3

Here's another in case that first was too complicated:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CBS News/New York Times Poll. May 18-23, 2007. N=1,125 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"What do you think is the most important problem facing this country today?" Open-ended

 War in Iraq
 31  
 Economy/Jobs
 8  
 Gas/Heating oil crisis
 7  
 Immigration
 7  
 Health care
 5  
 Terrorism (general)
 3  
 President Bush
 3  
 Environment
 3  
 Moral values/Family values
 3  
 Poverty/Homelessness
 3  
 Foreign policy
 3  
 Other
 19  
 Unsure

Here's another:

Gallup Poll. April 23-26, 2007. N=1,007 adults nationwide, drawn from Gallup's household panel, which was originally recruited through random selection methods. MoE ± 4.

"In your view, what one or two issues should be the top priorities for the President and Congress to deal with at this time?" Open-ended. Multiple responses accepted.

 Situation in Iraq/War 66    
 Poor health care/Cost of health care 20    
 Economy in general 14    
 Immigration/Illegal aliens 14    
 Fuel/Oil prices/Energy crisis 7    
 Environment/Pollution 5    
 National security 4    
 Education/Poor education/Access to educ. 4    
 Terrorism 4    
 Federal deficit/Federal debt 3    
 Social Security 3    
 Other 22    
 Unsure 1    

Furthermore, I think the Bush's obvious failure to prepare for another terrorist attack is driving whatever concerns remain about terrorism. The problem, in short, isn't what's happened. That's done. That was fucked up while Bush was president. What you really should be worried about is how much MORE dangerous Bush's actions have actually made the world--from 9/11 onward. And how much MORE vulnerable the rest of the world is as a result of the disastrous occupation of Iraq (where we've created the world's first continously non-stop disintegrating nation state devoted almost entirely to intercine warfare and terrorists training)  and the screwed up adventure in Afghanistan (where I hear the poppy crop is most excellent this year).

by delicatemonster (delicatemons@delicatemonster.com) on Thu Jun 21st, 2007 at 12:39:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I want to make this next answer succinct and simple:

We are an Illegal Occupying Military Presence In  Iraq. So, follow me now, we are not 'at war'. We are in an occupation. I don't know what you call Afghanistan, but it smells more like an failing occupation as well, day by day it seems more and more that way.

Click on the links if you want sourced and detailed information and arguments to back that sentiment up.

Okay, here goes sentence number two: We helped to create the 'radical muslim groups' you're worried about. You might have picked that up in the links I've offered to you twice so far or at least a half dozen comments on this thread. But just in case your mouse finger couldn't manage a click, previously, here's another link.


Often, extremist Islamic movements arise in direct response to U.S. policies. The 1953 overthrow by the CIA of the moderate constitutional government of Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran, followed by years of support for the brutal regime of the shah, led directly to the rise of the Islamic revolution in that country. U.S. support for the regime of Jafaar Nimeiry during most of his repressive 16-year rule of Sudan led to the destruction of much of that country's civil society, resulting in the 1989 coup by hard-line Islamist military officers who overthrew that country's brief democratic experiment. During the 1970s and 1980s, the destruction of moderate Muslim-led factions in Lebanon by U.S.-backed invasions and occupations from Syria and Israel--and later military intervention by the U.S. itself--led to a vacuum filled by more sectarian groups such as Hezbollah, even as most of the other militias that once carved up the rest of the country were disarmed by a revived central government and its Syrian backers.

The roots of Islamic radicalism stem from economic inequality, military occupation, and authoritarianism. Given that U.S. policy in the Middle East and elsewhere has often perpetuated such injustices, responsibility for the rise of radical Islamic movements can often be traced to the U.S. itself.

Washington has used the threat of Islamic fundamentalism as a justification for keeping a high military, economic and political profile in the Middle East. Yet it has often supported Muslim hardliners when they were perceived to enhance U.S. interests, as they did in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. A background report from a professor of MidEast politics can be found here...

So to ask whether we are at war or not isn't even the right question. The right question is why have we been more or less constantly invading, occupying, manipulating or warring in that region since approximately 1953? Riddle me that, batboy, and you'll work out the answer to your own question (See, I don't believe in intellectual welfare cheats: give a man to fish, he eats for a day, teach a man to fish, he eats for the rest of his life!). But you'll have to do some reading on your own to get there.

If you still don't quite get it (understandable vis a vis your comment upstream), please click on the links for further edification...um...sorry  .... 'learning'.

by delicatemonster (delicatemons@delicatemonster.com) on Wed Jun 20th, 2007 at 11:49:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series