My Photo

« Notes From A Postracial Society | Main | One Hundred Years of Solitude »

June 17, 2008

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515c2369e200e55376b2778834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Obama's Nonexistent 9/10 Mindset:

Comments

Spain has tried convicted and jailed more people for direct involvement with the 3/11/04 Madrid train attacks than the US has with the 9/11/01 attacks. The millennium LAX attack was prevented through law enforcement.

"If the law enforcement were adequate, we wouldn't have had September 11."

Actually, if someone had taken his 8/6/01 PDB seriously and focused more on threats to th nation instead of the proliferation of brush in Crawford, TX, we might very well have avoided 9/11.

does that 8/6/01 PDB refer to a daily briefing by Clarke? And weren't there also attempts by the CIA guy to warn Condi? Something about al-qaeda determined to strike?

I'm glad Obama is not leaving it at criminal prosecution. I always thought that al-qaeda's actions signified more than a criminal action.

And I think that perception is well supported in an enthralling documentary titled Terror's Advocate.

The original Algerian terrorist were offended by the idea that they're violence could be reduced to a criminal act.


Yeah, like those cruise missiles that President Clinton fired at bin Ladin's training camps? The ones the Republicans called "wagging the dog" and a distraction from the true threat of the Lewinsky scandal? Maybe they're referring to the successful thwarting of the Millennium bomb plots by smart law/border enforcement?

Lets get real: conventional warfare works great against armies - but has always had problems with insurgencies, let alone terrorist cells. Do we fight the "war on drugs" by carpet-bombing Columbia? Hellfire missile strikes on suspected crack houses and meth labs?

"it was just a few months ago that McCain was criticizing Obama for recklessly threatening to go after terrorists in Pakistan."

McCain's speech going after Obama on this is here, and the quote in question at the time is this:

"... if we have actionable intelligence about
high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

Lets get real: conventional warfare works great against armies - but has always had problems with insurgencies, let alone terrorist cells. Do we fight the "war on drugs" by carpet-bombing Columbia? Hellfire missile strikes on suspected crack houses and meth labs?

was Richard Clarke suggesting that we send in an Army into the House of Allah?

I refuting their claims with evidence, while noble, isn't going to cut it in this media environment. All these quotes should come right back at them with equal fire:

"I want to stress that the approach that Senator McCain is suggesting, that we do everything through the George Bush method of deliberate deception and stubborn incompetence, is precisely what failed in the last eight years."

"By favoring George Bush's disastrous strategy and rejecting a new approach, we leave ourselves vulnerable and weak in our national effort. If George Bush's governing methods were adequate, we wouldn't have had September 11."

"McCain holds up George Bush's foreign policy as a model for his administration, and George Bush's campaign slogans as a model for his campaign, when in fact this failed approach of treating terrorism simply as an occasion for bluster and deceit rather than a clear and present danger to the United States contributed to the tragedy of September 11th and the ongoing fiasco of the Iraq War."

And if I read the news correctly, the Columbia on the OK of Condi was put out FARC's lights with a hell fire on their Equadorian encampment.

It's going to be this way through the election. The Republicans have a big problem:

(1) They have no positive message.
(2) The reason they have no message is that after eight years of bullpoo they are no longer credible on their own pet issues (small government, national defense, even social conservatism)
(3) The only message they have left is fear of the other guy. This is going to be a very defensive election for the Republicans.

(1) They have no positive message.

But... but... but the Democrats are the Party of No! Charles Bird told me so!

Shorter McCain campaign:

I am aware of Obama's counterterror positions.

*ducks*

Not as important as lying about Obama's position, but, back in the 90s the Clinton administration did not use a purely law enforcement approach -- they attempted to kill Bin Laden with cruise missiles remember ? and Republican senators* said that Clinton was trying to distract from the really important issue of the blowjob.


* plural as in 2 Dan Coats and Arlen Specter so senatorS is technically accurate. I'm trying to learn how to mislead without lying, but I guess explaining the trick is ... oh damn I'm no good at this.

Nombrilisme, ha! I am still hping someone makes a t-shirt that says "I am aware of all internet traditions."

I will not hesitate to use military force to take out terrorists who pose a direct threat to America.

And we are supposed to be glad he said that? What exactly is a direct threat to America? How can the US claim carte blanche for military strikes against "terrorists" at any time anywhere in the world?

I also really hope Obama will take the "constraints of the constitution" seriously. This would involve shutting down a variety of CIA and NSA operations.

Is there something wrong with a 9/10 mindset? I mean, setting the bar at getting things right 9 out of 10 times is pretty good these days, especially compared to GWB, who AFAICT has a 1/100 mindset.

Wait, were you talking about something else?

I absolutely agree that we can fight terrorism within the confines of the Constitution. But, if we can do that, why can't we do everything else within those confines, too? I mean, let's face it, "living constitutionalism" is just a way of pretending those confines are larger than they really are. And if Obama takes the same attitude towards the suspension clause, (to be current) as he takes towards the 2nd amendment, he's not going to be any more confined than Bush.

If Obama leads on FISA/telecom immunity then I might believe he has a September 10 mindset. Why spend any energy or capital dismantling the unitary executive when you will be president in six months. Gitmo is such a clusterfuck I would not be suprised if the Obama adminstration took a pass on it during his first term.

And if Obama takes the same attitude towards the suspension clause, (to be current) as he takes towards the 2nd amendment, he's not going to be any more confined than Bush.

The attitude he takes toward the second amendment is that it protects an individual right to bear arms, so I'm not sure where you're going with that.

i'm shocked to see McCain campaign surrogates lying in service of their master. such talk has no place on the Straight Talk Express.

power corrupts: the posting rules forbid profanity. Thanks.

"The attitude he takes toward the second amendment is that it protects an individual right to bear arms, so I'm not sure where you're going with that."

Yeah, and Bush will tell you that he's respecting the suspension clause, too. Obama's attitude towards the 2nd amendment is that it's politically necessary to say you're in favor of it if you're running for President. His history of advocating major infringements speaks louder than his politically expedient rhetoric of late.

(Whoo, FF3 is fun.)
Scary to think of an off-the-rails nutbar like Woolsey in charge of, um, Intelligence.

The Straight Talk Express is off the rails too. Coincidence?

Brett, not every regulation is a violation. Government "shall make no law" restricting freedom of speech -- except for obscenity, libel, discussing abortion if you receive federal funding, disclosure of trade secrets, etc., etc. There's no reason to think gun rights can't be sensibly restricted too.

The Constitution is not a suicide pact. I think even you have occasionally conceded that some restrictions on individual ownership of weapons is permissible, so how much is a question on which reasonable minds may disagree even if they agree that there is some kind of core individual right.

And you wonder why I call you "single issue", Brett...

"There's no reason to think gun rights can't be sensibly restricted too."

Well, of course there isn't. It's just that sensible restrictions aren't what the gun control movement is about.

Let's take an Obama proposal: A nationwide ban on concealed carry. With what, 38 states having democratically adopted laws permitting it, without harmful consequence, you think a national ban would be "sensible"?

Or take another Obama proposal: Banning all forms of semi-automatic firearms. Just sensible regulation?

DC's ban, which Obama defends? The harshest gun control law in the nation, AND merely sensible regulation?

Everybody's for "sensible" regulation. Some people define it in a way that's totally lunatic.

Anarch, I never wondered. But you're wrong: You want me to dis him on illegal immigration? Of course, that's not a constitutional issue...

Let's take an Obama proposal: A nationwide ban on concealed carry.

Or take another Obama proposal: Banning all forms of semi-automatic firearms. Just sensible regulation?

AFAIK, he has made no such proposals.

care to provide cites ?

Oh, don't bug brett about facts, he's on a roll! Good thing there's no concealed carry on the internet.

aimai

Good thing there's no concealed carry on the internet.

But if there were, I'd bet Obama would try to ban it.

"AFAIK, he has made no such proposals."

Not since he started running for President, you mean? True, but why should I care about that?

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm

so, no. he didn't make any such proposals.

But you're wrong: You want me to dis him on illegal immigration? Of course, that's not a constitutional issue...

No, but it's just as relevant to this thread as your jejune obsession.

Hellfire missile strikes on suspected crack houses and meth labs?
Ah, 1985. MOVE headquarters in Philadelphia. Good times.

We all have our 'obsessions', Anarch, you just don't like this one because people noticing what Obama really thinks on this subject will hurt him at the ballot box.

Cleek, having a reading comprehension problem? There's this little problem with claiming Obama didn't support such measures: We now write things down and record them. I don't think Obama has adapted yet to the reality that people can easily look up http://www.barack-obama.tv/barack-obama-articles-audio-video/category/articles-about-barack-obama/issues/#Gun_control>what he was saying before he started running for President.

When you threadjack over your hobbyhorse, then you are obsessed. There's a difference between someone who supports an NRA-lite position on the 2nd Amendment and a gun nut and part of the way you can tell is over obsession. Gun nuts only care about one amendment in the Bill of Rights and it's a questionable at best interpretation of that admendment. Guess what Brett, you're a gun nut.

My 2nd amendment argument shields are up, and I'm going to leapfrog back to the original post for just a minute to note the following:

Omar Abdul Rahman -- in jail.
Osama Bin Laden -- at large.

Advantage: criminal justice system.

Thanks -

you just don't like this one because people noticing what Obama really thinks on this subject will hurt him at the ballot box.

No, I don't like this one because it's boring, and you're being boring for trying this particular threadjack. Boring. I mean, you've pretty much admitted outright that your vote in the fall will be determined by the candidates' positions on the Second Amendment which -- to me -- shows a fealty to an obsession that's on the far side of ludicrous, and you've taken pains to mention Heller and the Great! Gun-Related! Peril! that you and your Legions of Similarly-Obsessed Doom will bring upon the heads of the unworthy whenever you can... and we get it.

Really, we get it.

Now, if you don't have anything to add to the conversation -- which you clearly don't -- could you please let it go? Save the Second Amendment histrionics for a more relevant thread and just, I dunno, try to contribute meaningfully on the topic at hand.

There's this little problem with claiming Obama didn't support such measures:

no no, Brett, leave the goalposts where they are. you said "proposals", a word with a specific meaning, when we're talking about politicians. and then you failed to provide any evidence of any such proposals.

I think I've already mentioned that I'm going to be voting for Barr, because McCain's support of campaign censorship puts him beyond the pale for me, regardless of him being considerable less awful on the 2nd amendment than Obama.

I did get somewhat off track. My point is that Obama shows no particular signs of being willing to work within the Constitution wherever the Constitution happens to get in the way of something he wants to do. He's no better than McCain in that respect. People who think otherwise are just rationalizing that the Constitution somehow permits a huge range of things the text just can't be stretched to cover without tearing.

Shorter Brett: The Constitution is about GUNS. Everything else is window dressing.

Shorter Dr Ngo: "Who cares if Obama wants to violate the parts of the Constitution I don't like?"

The Constitution is about a lot of stuff. My point is that Obama doesn't show any sign of caring about any part of the Constitution that gets in the way of something HE wants to do.

Being willing to obey constitutional provisions that don't get in your way isn't a terribly impressive trait. It's what you do when they DO get in the way that's a measure of whether you really believe in the rule of law.

Shorter Brett: The Constitution is about GUNS. Everything else is window dressing.

Posted by: dr ngo | June 20, 2008 at 01:56 AM

Shorter Dr Ngo: "Who cares if Obama wants to violate the parts of the Constitution I don't like?"

Three observations:

1) "Shorter Dr Ngo" is actually longer than the original. Not a very precise precis.

2) Also under the "not precise" heading, flagrant and gratuitous mindreading. I said nothing about Obama, here or elsewhere in the thread. I said nothing about liking or disliking any part of the Constitution. IOW, "Shorter Dr Ngo" is completely fictional, not to be confused with the True, the Unique, the Genuine Article undersigned here.

3) "The Constitution is about a lot of stuff." Indeed it is, Brett. So why do you only get exercised over one amendment, and drag it in on all conceivable occasions, even if the topic is something completely different? And then wonder why anyone thinks you're obsessed with guns?

BTW - why are you obsessed with guns?

The answer is that I'm NOT "obsessed" with guns. I haven't so much as touched a gun in months, haven't fired a gun since deer season last November, and likely won't again until this fall.

Is the ACLU obsessed with swastikas and pornography, because they care whether the 1st amendment is violated? The 2nd amendment is an explicit guarantee of a basic liberty, a liberty that's being walked all over by our government, and which one of the two major parties in this country wants to abolish. (But has reluctantly come to admit it doesn't dare be open about attacking.)

I happen to think that your position on the right to keep and bear arms is diagnostic of your attitude towards your fellow man, and that wanting your fellow man disarmed says something REALLY nasty about you. It says something even worse about an organized political movement.

I happen to think that your position on the right to keep and bear arms is diagnostic of your attitude towards your fellow man, and that wanting your fellow man disarmed says something REALLY nasty about you.

I do a few martial arts, so quite possibly spend an inordnate amount of my time thinking about how to not only disarm, but also throw, pin, armlock, as well as slice and dice my fellow man (and woman). By your logic, this says something nasty about me. This seems to reveal a certain willingness on your part to take leaps that go beyond beyond logic.

Brett: dr ngo asked questions. That is fine.

You engaged in insulting mindreading. That is not fine.

Civility.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Whatnot


  • visitors since 3/2/2004

November 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30            
Blog powered by Typepad

QuantCast