The transcript — along with the Dukakis and "Dr. Strangelove" clips — is here. He's talking about the new Bob Woodward book:
Woodward asks about terrorism, terror attacks, and so forth. Obama says, "We can absorb a terrorist attack. We'll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever, we absorbed it, and we're stronger." That, to me, is the equivalent of Dukakis being asked, "If your wife were raped and murdered, would you favor the death penalty?" So Woodward says, "What about terrorism?" Obama figures, "Ah, we can handle it. We can absorb it. We're even stronger." That's not cool. That is cold, and it reminded me of something. One of my all-time favorite movies is Dr. Strangelove. A Stanley Kubrick movie. And one of the characters in this movie is General Buck Turgidson....Did he just call Turgidson a leftist?
And Buck Turgidson is one of these stereotypical generals. He just wants to nuke the world. He just loves war and hates the Russians, hates the commies. He just wants to nuke everything. And Buck Turgidson said, "Mr. President, we are rapidly approaching the moment of truth, both for ourselves as human beings and for the life of our nation. Now, truth is not always pleasant thing. But it's necessary now to make a choice: To choose between two admittedly regrettable but nevertheless distinguishable postwar environments, one where you get 20 million people killed, the other where you'd get 150 million people killed." Turgidson was saying, "Let's send more B-52s! Let's just wipe these people out while we're at it, since we can't call this one back. Let's just be rid of them. We'll kill 20 million of them and that's it. They can't kill any of ours. It's a livable situation, Mr. President."
Peter Sellers playing President Merkin Muffley says, "You're talking about mass murder, general, not war," and Turgidson replies, "Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed but I do say no more than ten to 20 million killed tops, depending on the breaks." Here's a guy totally cold and unaffected by the possibility of ten to 20 million people being killed in an accident and wants to say, "Let's go wipe 'em out even further." The president can't believe what he's hearing. You have Dukakis, "If your wife was raped and murdered, would you favor the death penalty?" "No, Bernard. As you know, I've long and consistently opposed the death penalty during all my life." Obama is asked, "Mr. President, what is your attitude on terrorism?"
"Well, we could absorb one of those, a terrorist attack. We'll do everything we can to prevent it but even a 9/11, but even the biggest attack ever we absorbed it and we're stronger. We can deal with it." All these examples are of leftists and they are cold, removed, unemotional, unaffected, uninvolved.
Anyway, you know how it must pain the average-citizen leftist to hear that Obama, like Dukakis, is cold and unemotional. It can't be true! Obama is about empathy.
[Click here for video of George Lakoff explaining Obama's "empathy campaign."]
Remember when Bill Clinton made us — some of us — think he feels our pain? Obama, aloof, observes that we have an excellent capacity to absorb pain. We're pain sponges, apparently, so there's nothing to get too worked up about.
I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops! Uh, depending on the breaks....
Posts
163 comments:
"Well, we could absorb one of those, a terrorist attack."
One thinks of eggs, and an omelette.
Again, all I heard from Obama prior to his ascension was how less safe Bush made us after 9/11 but now the tune has changed to how stronger we are?
What we absolutely won't be able to absorb is another Obama-Pelosi government program.
But hey now, these would really just be garden-variety crimes and O would just deploy some sort of international Jack Lord to haul the perps before the International Criminal Court.
Obama is utterly passionless unless it's about him. End of story. But many of us have known that for some time. Woodward isn't really breaking new ground except for those who were taken in by Obama in the first place.
That may make it a bit more difficult for me to read exactly how much Obama's support is sloughing away, because I wasn't fooled by him. My feelings haven't changed a bit, but I understand some other people's have.
With the egotistic certitude that he, Obama, will never be among those "absorbing" the blow, that's for sure...
"Well, we could absorb one of those, an unemployment rate of 10%."
"Well, we could absorb one of those, a rationed national healthcare system."
"Well, we could absorb one of those, a national debt exceeding all prior debts."
Cold?
Shit, that level of indifference has to be measured in degrees Kelvin.
Breaking news: Obama forgoes another appearance on The View to tell the UN that he saved the world.
I love how the left uses an old photo of Limbaugh. They can't deal with reality. Limbaugh has lost a LOT of weight and no longer looks like this.
The Democrats and the left lie about even the little things.
Obama IS a cold and emotionless creature. He doesn't care about the results of his policies on the individual. It is all theoretical gamesmanship to him.
He INTENDS for us to suffer and he doesn't care.
"Pain sponges". That's classic. It sometimes seems Obama is intent on discovering what our maximum absorbency is as pain sponges.
Right on DBQ. It's all about the guilt baby!
I'm going to do something I normally don't do and bump a comment I put on a post from yesterday (the one about the deck chairs on the Titanic).
I was listening to my iPod last night at work and one of the songs that came up was Lisa Loeb's "I Do," from back in 1997. The lyrics really seemed to fit in with the current zeitgeist. Here's the video:
I Do
She looks a little bit like a proto-Sarah Palin when she's lying on the bed, and the lyrics about the disappointing, manipulative lover also fit perfectly for how voters are feeling about Obama and the Democrats:
"You don't hear it but I do,
"You don't seem angry but I do..."
Meanwhile, the government owned and controlled car company, GM, is now making political contributions to candidates, mostly Democrats?
Anyone see anything wrong in that? J? Anything wrong with that?
Nah, I didn't think so.
We could absorb another one of those, a Chicago-pol-like corrupt political act.
Easy to say, when you have the Secret Service to assure that you're not part of the sponge.
As always with Obama I am left wondering just who "we" are. "We" can absorb more casualties.
If anyone can figure out who Obama considers to be "we" --- who the members of his tribe are --- then we will be closer to unlocking just what kind of creature he is.
Cold, indeed. And not the most confidence-inspiring response from the commander-in-chief.
But, hey, the real bad guys are doctors and businessmen, cheating and swindling their way to wealth. That's what really burns his ass. Can't expect him to get worked up about terrorism!
And to interject another related and sobering thought: This is the guy who is supposed to deal with Iran getting nukes?
Obama 2012 as Rosie the waitress:
"US Citizens are super-absorbent, They're the quicker picker upper."
Obama is right. What he expresses is not coldness, but confidence. He knows the country is strong enough to absorb 1,000 attacks on the scale of September 11, 2001.
Churchill knew the Germans could bomb London every night killing thousands of civilians, and his country wold still stand, because he had the same confidence.
It was over-reaction, fear, and the panic of cowardly men like Dick Cheney that led to the idea that Al Qaeda posed an existential threat to the U.S. and justified torture and other abhorrent practices.
Had our leadership been cool and confident in 2001 we would never have opened up Guantanamo Bay or other black sites -- and we might be able to keep our shoes on and carry water bottles in airports.
Dr. Strangelove was a superb film. I have lost many "precious bodily fluids" laughing every time I've watched it.
Or a maxi-pad, with wings!
Lucien, I would steer clear of the Churchill/O comparisons if I were you.
... and all those dorky bike helmets?
Total Dukakis redux.
What everyone has to realize is that for Obama, the year Zero began with his ascendancy to power. All that went before is not worth preserving, as it is the tainted product of evil white european colonialists--architecture, art, science, the entire American social matrix--you name it. What's the loss of the Empire State and Chrysler bldgs, and a few hundred thousand bitter christian whites after all? Small potatoes in Obama's scheme of things....maybe even a cleansing, cathartic thing...
Kelvin is not measured in degrees, instead it is based on absolute zero.
And an absolute zero is what we have for president.
The confusion here is, once again, the misstatement of politics as idealism, as opposed to the prosecution of individual self-interest, in this case the self-interest of the U.S.
The left keeps trying to tell us that the job of the President is to advance great ideals. They're wrong.
President Reagan was the only president in my lifetime who understood the reality. The job of the President is to advance and protect the self-interest of the U.S. Idealism is not his job.
Reagan pithily summarized this in his famous statement of what U.S. goals should be vis-a-vis the Soviet Union: "We win. They lose."
Obama is making the same mistake Carter made. Obama's job is not to advance great ideals like world peace and fraternity. His job is to protect and advance the interests of the U.S.
What he should be saying in relation to the jihadis is: "We win. You lose."
He's so smart and idealistic that he's rendered himself stupid. He doesn't understand the nature of his job.
Whay hasn't more been made of the fact that there has been a dramatic increase in the number of attempted, successful, or near-succesful domestic terrorist attacks since Obama has been in office?
His lackidaisical attitude toward a terorist attack perfectly fits the actual outcome we are having--he just doesn't think terrorist attacks are such a big deal. And he would rather concentrate on taking over and then re-distributing our health care to other people.
I think we have had something like 11 domestic terrosist attacks since he came into office--many more than occurred under Bush.
So, what is up with this? And why is no one calling him on it?
Lotta times cold is good.
I had an emergency appendix operation once. There were two docs available. My Mom thought one was "nicer" (ie. not cold) than the other. I thought - hey, give me the best doc available, I don't care if he is a cold hearted SOB. In fact, I want someone cold and efficient.
This applies to lots of things.
It most cases it includes foreign policy and military actions.
I want an icy cold calculation of what is best for the US, for liberty, for the economy, etc.
Let Oprah be nice and warm. That's her job, not the President's.
Obama is Spock without the intelligence and logic.
Rush Limbaugh is one to talk about coldness. Good actor though.
(The Crypto Jew)
Had our leadership been cool and confident in 2001 we would never have opened up Guantanamo Bay or other black sites -- and we might be able to keep our shoes on and carry water bottles in airports.
I thought all that was because of Reid and other TERRORIST attacks, I guess they just decided to try mass murder because of Gitmo, eh, Lucien? Gross over-reaction, right, only killed 3,000 civilians….why heck man we could absorb an attack like that any day, and twice on Sunday….The fundamental point of ANY polity is the ability of the polity to protect its members from attack, either domestic or external. In your “thinking” the US should surrender that fundamental point, right? What and replace it with National Health Care, “Oh sure, Al-Qaida might kill you, but if they don’t, don’t worry you’ll have the NHS to put you back together.”?
And so we should only respond to “existential threats” is that right? Does that apply only at the macro/national level, or can apply at the individual level? The police only need to come when your LIFE is at risk, 911: “Hello what is the nature of your emergency?” You: “There’s a man breaking into my house?” 911: “Does he only want your DVR or your virginity?” You: “I don’t know, I’ll ask. Yes, he’s just here for a little of the ‘old ultra-violent’ and then on his way.” 911: “as the threat is NOT ‘existential’ there’s no need for a police response. I’ll have someone drop off some brochures with the names and locations of a number of very good rape counselors, tomorrow. Have a good night” *CLICK*
Germany represented no “existential threat” to the US, should then, the US have abstained from fighting the Second World War? Japan represented no “existential threat” to the US, after Pearl Harbor, ought we have acquiesced in the establishment of the “East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere?”
Your “logic” is sadly wanting, I fear…but please feel free to explain US intervention against Hitler and Japan, but a need for restraint after 9-11.
(The Crypto Jew)
“Mein Fuhrer…I can valk!”
I don't see Dukakis's statement as the same as Obama's Their character may be similar (i.e. cool, unemotional) but the comments are very different.
Dukakis's question was basically are you so dedicated to your principle that you would stick to it even at the personal, emotional cost of yourself and your family?
Obama's statement was less about personal impact and more about an objective view of the character of the nation. That was "tone deaf" regarding the American character.
Yes we're resilient but show us more energy, empathy and fire!
A "conservative" version of the Dukakis question would be to a Senator who adamantly refuses to negotiate with terrorists, whose son has been kidnapped by Al Queda terrorists. Even though we've now seen the video with him pleading for his life on his knees, with masked and armed terrorists behind him would you still insist that we shouldn't negotiate with terrorist
Frankly, I admire Dukakis's response. Hopefully we've all had to consider what personal, moral convictions you can and will hold on to in spite of personal pain and consequence. And if the answer is:
None....
Obama's statement had the same feel as that famous line from the Godfather
its not personal its just business
As for Gen. Turgidson, a great movie. Rush misses it here, the General is very emotional AND doing hard calculus. President Muffly is more like President Obama.
President Muffley on red phone to Moscow:
Hello?... Uh... Hello D- uh hello Dmitri? Listen uh uh I can't hear too well. Do you suppose you could turn the music down just a little?... Oh-ho, that's much better... yeah... huh... yes... Fine, I can hear you now, Dmitri... Clear and plain and coming through fine... I'm coming through fine, too, eh?... Good, then... well, then, as you say, we're both coming through fine... Good... Well, it's good that you're fine and... and I'm fine... I agree with you, it's great to be fine... a-ha-ha-ha-ha... Now then, Dmitri, you know how we've always talked about the possibility of something going wrong with the Bomb... The *Bomb*, Dmitri... The *hydrogen* bomb!... Well now, what happened is... ahm... one of our base commanders, he had a sort of... well, he went a little funny in the head... you know... just a little... funny. And, ah... he went and did a silly thing... Well, I'll tell you what he did. He ordered his planes... to attack your country... Ah... Well, let me finish, Dmitri... Let me finish, Dmitri... Well listen, how do you think I feel about it?..
"Let Oprah be nice and warm. That's her job, not the President's."
Lincoln never thought that way. He agonized over the war dead. But he made the hard decisions.
Obama's calculus on what he thinks we can absorb scares the shit outta me, rather than fill me with confidence that he's a tough guy.
@Lucien:
Ok, Lucien, admit it.
You must be E.J. Dionne.
Nobody else could possibly say such completely stupid things that are so totally unrelaed to reality.
Admit it, E.J.
(Or, I guess you could also be Jonathan Chait.)
Don't let the horrible photo chosen by Media Matters here stop you from listening to the audio. It's an excellent performance by Rush....
It's funny....I went to my daughter's junior beta club induction program where they pledge to embody and promote the following ideals:
Honesty, Justice, Service, Cooperation, Responsibility, Industriousness, Humility, and Charity. Funny how these values seem so absent in our political discourse as played out in the media - radio, television, print, and blogosphere.
Then again, enacting these values does not really sell or generate traffic, readers, listeners, or viewers.
Thats why Rush gets the big bucks.
He still got it.
Lucien wrote:
it was over-reaction, fear, and the panic of cowardly men like Dick Cheney that led to the idea that Al Qaeda posed an existential threat to the U.S. and justified torture and other abhorrent practices.
Had our leadership been cool and confident in 2001 we would never have opened up Guantanamo Bay or other black sites -- and we might be able to keep our shoes on and carry water bottles in airports.
Yet the left attacked Bush for not heeding the warnings of Richard Clarke who said that Al Qaeda was the biggest threat we faced. So which is it?
Also, if the only time you treat a threat is when it becomes an existensial one, then aren't you being a little nonchalant about any threat that is not an existensial one?
In additoin to the 3000 deaths, an untold number of people may have been affected by the air quality around ground zero not to mention the shock our economy took not to mention the airline industry shut down for weeks.
And there have been plenty of hijackings, some involving shoes, some involving bottled water that were stopped either through blind lukc or because someone was vigilant and treated a hijacking like a serious threat.
And what is an existensial threat. One could argue that Katrina, since it only had a thousand deaths, far fewer than 9/11 was even less of an issue than 9/11.
More people die in car accidents every year, so why treat Katrina like the biggest natural disaster we've faced?
If you view an attack that literally brings the WTC to the ground, shuts down wall street, shuts down our airlnes as no big whoop, then I have to question your assessment of threats.
It was over-reaction, fear, and the panic of cowardly men like Dick Cheney that led to the idea that Al Qaeda posed an existential threat to the U.S.
IF Cheney believed that (and I never heard him say it), then he was wrong.
Al Qaeda only posed an existential threat to the left's world view.
And the left hasn't intellectually recovered since 9/11.
Pogo said...
"Well, we could absorb one of those, a terrorist attack."
When I heard the Obama comment, I had perhaps a slightly different take. I think he was talking, not about resiliency after an attack, but rather turning the other cheek and not retaliating.
I've said that this old soldier had only one thought when the second plane hit the tower:
We're at war, I don't know who we are at war with, but we're at war.
If we were attacked in another 9-11, and remember, they were trying for 100,000 deaths, I want my President to be acting more like Reagan than Carter. The American people will be looking for somebody to pay Full price for an attack on us. Full price.
Pogo
Lincoln could agonize all he wanted to. 500,000 men still died. They were just as dead as if he was a cold bastard.
The right policies and results are what we need. Whether the President is warm and agonizing or a cold fish does not matter to a dead soldier, a hungry child, a homeless family, etc.
It was over-reaction, fear, and the panic of cowardly men like Dick Cheney that led to the idea that Al Qaeda posed an existential threat to the U.S.
Al-Qaeda doesn't pose an existential threat to the U.S.?
You mean, those 3,000 people aren't dead?
When Al-Qaeda succeeds in detonating a dirty bomb in Manhattan will they pose an existential threat?
Should we wait until after they do it to get fearful and over-react?
How many Manhattanites need to die before you consider Al-Qaeda an existential threat?
I am very curious about the repeated statements that paranoia is not justified in this case. Al-Qaeda has already launched two successful attacks on Manhattan. When does paranoia become justified?
I have to disagree with this post.
As much as I think Obama is not up to the job of defending the nation or our interests, he is taking the right approach here.
He's saying to terrorists, 'If you attack us you'll just make us stronger.' Now, in practice, the Left's reaction to terrorism is generally one that emboldens enemies and seeks to "understand" their plight. But, rhetorically, downplaying the effects of a terrorist attack is the right posture to take for a president.
Similar to going overboard and demanding that the government screech to a halt every time there is a failed terrorist attack. A president has to balance national security with the need to demonstate perspective.
Rush Limbaugh is one to talk about coldness.
Rush has donated millions of dollars to leukemia research.
That's not cold in my book.
I think we have had something like 11 domestic terrosist attacks since he came into office--many more than occurred under Bush.
So, what is up with this? And why is no one calling him on it?
Lucid, a couple weeks ago my sister was saying the same thing. She had read that statistic and couldn't believe no one was talking about it.
Apparently verything is secondary to Obama's domestic agenda.
Similar to going overboard and demanding that the government screech to a halt every time there is a failed terrorist attack. A president has to balance national security with the need to demonstate perspective.
Who suggested that "... the government screech to a halt every time there is a failed terrorist attack?"
I suggested that Obama should be telling the jihadis: "We win. You lose."
So what if lots of Little people die? The question is about what happens to King Obama's level of power. Like shutting down the oil industry in the Gulf, Obama always picks the worst disaster for the little people as his selected outcome for every crisis. Why another good bombing by terrorist Soldiers of Allah could force Obama into placing a temporary moratorium on Elections. All of you little people should go raise your own food and be thankful for getting any tea to drink. The Obama family will also give the survivors lessons in how to build their own Mud Huts, Kenyan style.
"Whether the President is warm and agonizing or a cold fish does not matter to a dead soldier, a hungry child, a homeless family, etc."
Really?
That must explain all the engineers with Asperger's we've had for President.
(The Crypto Jew)
CJinPA said...
I have to disagree with this post.
Agreed, but all he had to say was, “Let me be clear. There will those who wish to attack the US. Some may succeed. They all believe that by striking us, they will defeat us. Let me respond with this quote from the British in the Dark Days of 1940,’London can take it.’ The Us too, and we will. And we WILL prevail.” How about that? Rather than the mealy-mouthed statement we have to “interpret”?
In Obamas mind the nation can absorb a terrorist attack..
But could he absorb loosing the democratic party over the war in Afghanistan?
Good havens.. not the whole democratic party!
*Who suggested that "... the government screech to a halt every time there is a failed terrorist attack?"*
Not you. I was refering to criticism of the response to the Christmas Day bomber.
Obama wasn't about feeling empathy for us.
We were supposed to empathize with HIM.
I wouldn't describe General Buck Turgidson as cold, crazy maybe, but not cold. Now, I ask you, is this the performance of a cold man?
For those saying that The Zero is assuming the Secret Service would save his scrawny behind, let me remind everybody that a successful terrorist attack is a surprise. The Zero's cavalier attitude may lead him to believe he would be in a secure location in the event, but, had Dubya not been listening to "My Pet Goat" and the passengers of Flight 93 not risen up, he would have died on 9/11. The same could happen to Zero next time.
Lisa said...
Obama wasn't about feeling empathy for us.
We were supposed to empathize with HIM.
Precisely, like our last Demo President, it's all about HIM.
Only statists, left or right, can see the big picture. Not for them love of a place, or its people. No such drag weight on their gigantic visions for us, their subject guinea-pigs. The point is not to attempt to convince statists to be less arrogant. Utterly futile. The point is to internalize hatred of them. Yes, own their label "hater." Own it proudly. And then act on it.
If I may be so bold, perhaps Herr Doktor Merkwürdigeliebe is somewhat more Obama-esque in his detached manner.
wv: viablepe - antonym of deadpe
Did he just call Turgidson a leftist?
Use of violence is not inherently right or left wing. Membership in the military is not inherently right or left wing.
Using government nukes to remove the most basic liberty, ie life, from 20 million people is the ultimate government program...so, yeah, he could be a leftist.
(The Crypto Jew)
Only statists, left or right, can see the big picture. Not for them love of a place, or its people. No such drag weight on their gigantic visions for us, their subject guinea-pigs. The point is not to attempt to convince statists to be less arrogant. Utterly futile. The point is to internalize hatred of them. Yes, own their label "hater." Own it proudly. And then act on it.
This means what? I’m slow, only statist…internalize hatred…own their label…act on it? My read is you’re an extreme libertarian sort, right? Smash the State? There is no such thing as ‘society” only individuals interacting? I don’t know, please explain a bit more to me.
Obama, aloof, observes that we have an excellent capacity to absorb pain. We're pain sponges, apparently, so there's nothing to get too worked up about.
The truth is, we do have that capacity, more than we’d like to think, both as individuals and as a country. “…but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever … we absorbed it and we are stronger" – he’s saying that as bad as 9/11 was, the United States was not crippled. It’s not an invitation to more attacks – his statement is in the past tense - we were not and have not been broken. Learn from it and do everything you can to prevent another. Like CJ says, it sounds like the right posture (for us and for the enemy).
The Kenyan ignore good American common sense in Patton's "speech" that reminds his soldiers that their goal is NOT to die for their country, but to make the other poor bastard die for his country.
"makes us stronger"? Pfah. What balderdash. What tripe. 9/11 did not make us stronger. It weakened us. It tore our guts out. We curled around our wound, lashed out to protect ourselves, but we knew we were hurt; hurt bad. Were we strong enough to take it and keep going? Yes. Could we take another and still stand tall? Yes. 10 more? Maybe. 100 more? Of course not. 9/11 showed our strength, but it didn't strengthen us. I have a friend whose wife had an affair and chose to stay married. Is his marriage stronger? Or was it just strong enough to handle such a blow, but now is precariously weak?
Obama's words are those of someone who felt no pain on that day. Who said "I'm still standing" so everything must be all right. They're words for ants. What matter a few drones, as long as the colony is protected? They are, in short, pablum.
Obama is a Vulcan with a bad ear job.
He's saying to terrorists, 'If you attack us you'll just make us stronger.'
You know, that could almost be interpreted as saying something along the lines of...bring it on.
"A "conservative" version of the Dukakis question would be to a Senator who adamantly refuses to negotiate with terrorists, whose son has been kidnapped by Al Queda terrorists. Even though we've now seen the video with him pleading for his life on his knees, with masked and armed terrorists behind him would you still insist that we shouldn't negotiate with terrorist"
And the correct response in either case, Dukakis or the fellow refusing to negotiate when his own son is going to be tortured and killed is to stand on the principle but make clear that the "easy" answer is the result of previous soul searching thought and necessity and the personal cost of it has been counted as much as anything like that can be counted.
The quote from Mattis talking to Iraqi tribal leaders is an excellent one: "I come in peace. I didn’t bring artillery. But I’m pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you fuck with me, I’ll kill you all."
Not cold. But no one doubts his resolve.
In the case of a terrorist attack or the prospect of a terrorist attack, the correct response is certainly that "we" will survive it, no matter what it is. But it needs that other element... that the cost has been counted and the emotional toll accepted... and that if it happens, the other guy will be very, very, sorry.
I think if you got Oprah and Rush on a seesaw it would create the first perpetual motion machine.
Obama is cold and unemotional. I'm not bothered about that in the least.
But I guess Republicans really do crave a nanny-state, with Mamma Grizzly to keep them all warm at night, and bake them cookies, and comfort them when it thunders.
"...please feel free to explain US intervention against Hitler and Japan, but a need for restraint after 9-11."
Japan attacked us with military aircraft armed with bombs. Hitler, head of a mighty war machine, declared war on America days later. Both had air forces, ground troops, and naval forces, and were entirely capable of mounting further devastating assaults against us.
9/11 was the act of a band of stateless criminals armed with boxcutters and headquartered in moutain caves. Their likelihood of repeating their act with any frequency--if at all--or with similar force, was and is almost nil.
Invading two countries who did not attack us in response to the 9/11 gang's criminal act is like firebombing Los Angeles to get rid of the street gangs.
Counterproductive, overexpensive, and criminal.
"to keep them all warm at night, and bake them cookies, and comfort them when it thunders."
No, we want him to do what the Grizzly really does - kill those who threaten her charges. Winnie the Pooh is only a grizzly in a liberal's, still vivid, childhood nightmares.
A point of order, Robert. First, Afghanistan was only a "country" in the sense that all of it's neighbors had borders with it. Granted, it was a daunting task to go in and remove the Taliban from power, but what else would have had us do?
I'm not a big fan of either war, but having served and with family now serving, I'd rather we killed a whole lot of them over there than over here.
As far as the Japan/Germany comparison, I understand you were responding to a previous question, but I believe the situation to be apples and oranges. At the time, there was no concept of nuclear non-proliferation or a former nuclear-armed superpower since cast to the dust heap of history. That context matters.
"But I guess Republicans really do crave a nanny-state, with Mamma Grizzly to keep them all warm at night, and bake them cookies, and comfort them when it thunders."
Yep, because they're intantile, pants-wetting cowards who crave an authoritarian big daddy to protect them and beat up other big daddies.
"Their likelihood of repeating their act with any frequency--if at all--or with similar force, was and is almost nil."
I'm sure you believed that on 9/12/01.
They would have already succeeded in killing thousands, if we had not stopped recent attacks. Even after extensive destruction of their abilities. So you are demonstrably wrong.
The question is why would you want to adopt such a dangerous policy?
"Let Oprah be nice and warm. That's her job, not the President's."
Please don't tell me y'all went and elected that bitch. And, yea, she's so fucking nice - that's why she just stuck the people with paying for that Australian getaway she "gave" her audience, right? Getting the American people into The Secret? That was "nice", correct? Bringing us Obama - a true sign of kindness? Telling the author of A Million Little Pieces that dissing him on national television was "just business" - those are the words of a saint.
A real sweetheart, that Oprah.
How can this nation have become so fucking gullible?
(The Crypto Jew)
Japan attacked us with military aircraft armed with bombs. Hitler, head of a mighty war machine, declared war on America days later. Both had air forces, ground troops, and naval forces, and were entirely capable of mounting further devastating assaults against us.
No, the question involved “existential threats”, Cook. Neither Hitler nor Tojo represented such to the US. The Japanese only attacked us to clear us out of the Philippines, so they could occupy Malaysia and Indonesia (Dutch East Indies). Had we acquiesced in their desire by withdrawing from the Philippines or by pledging non-interference we would NOT have been involved in a war with Japan. Japan’s focus was NEVER on the destruction of the US, its focus was on the occupation of China and the acquisition of oil. Japan represented an existential threat to CHINA, not the US.
Hitler NEVER launched devastating assaults on the US….the best he could do was torpedoing tankers off the coast of New Jersey, and Germany represented no existential threat to the US. To Poland or the USSR or Jews, yes, to the US, no.
Nice try, though.
"Granted, it was a daunting task to go in and remove the Taliban from power, but what else would have had us do?"
Leave them to their own affairs.
"Leave them to their own affairs."
That would would have been good advice for them pre 9/11, but absolutely stupid for us after it.
Remember when Bill Clinton made us — some of us — think he feels our pain? Obama, aloof, observes that we have an excellent capacity to absorb pain. We're pain sponges, apparently, so there's nothing to get too worked up about.
For the supposed tough guys, conservatives sure seem to have their poor little feelings hurt on an almost daily basis these days.
"I'm sure you believed that on 9/12/01."
I believed that on 9/11.
As I walked the 7 miles home from my job--only blocks from the twin towers, where I witnessed part of the attacks firsthand--I thought, "Well, at least they've shot their wad. They've done the worst they can do."
I believed it then, I believe it now.
This is analagous to Mohammad Ali using the rope a doap to lure his opponents into overconfidence and tiredness before he followed up with his knockout punch after the other guy wore himself out pounding the crap out of Ali. There are some benefits to this strategy but there are also some downsides. Yes, Ali could absorb the blows and each blow wasn't necessarily a knockout shot (an existential threat). But if hes facing a powerful opponent playing the rope a doam means he can potentially face some serious punishment, punishment he fmight feel the effects of long after the fight is gone. And part of the strategy has to be to knock his opponent out. If all he does it absorb damage and never goes on the offensive and beat the crap out of his opponent, then he's simply letthing his opponent wail on him.
So, as to whether we can absorb another terrorist attack like 9/11. Sure in theory. Though that could be the attack that essentially knocks us out, knocks out a major hub, knocks out our economy, our infrastructure etc etc. If, though after absorbing the damage we do nothing to offensively shut down the person attacking us, then all we're doing is the rope a dope without the payoff, meaning we're just letting someone punch away at us until 12 rounds are up or we keel over and die.
Yep, because they're intantile, pants-wetting cowards who crave an authoritarian big daddy to protect them and beat up other big daddies.
Jesus, Cookie, you really lost it!
Pathetic lack of self-understanding here.
Your "I wanna be the next Jesus/ Mao/ Lenin/ Charlie Manson" obsession is the ultimate in the "authoritarian big daddy."
You are the worst of the worst when it comes to that.
So, what are you talking about?
Have you ever looked in the mirror?
"I believed it then, I believe it now."
Luckily, what you believe doesn't matter. Stay out of politics, please, or anything where people's lives are risked by your judgemnt.
Leave them to their own affairs.
Seriously? That's your solution? I believe that's exactly what led to a couple of planes flying into the Towers.
"Seriously? That's your solution? I believe that's exactly what led to a couple of planes flying into the Towers."
The Taliban had no involvement in the crimes of 9/11 and no interest in our affairs.
As I walked the 7 miles home from my job--only blocks from the twin towers, where I witnessed part of the attacks firsthand--I thought, "Well, at least they've shot their wad. They've done the worst they can do."
I believed it then, I believe it now.
In everything you say and do, Cookie, you are motivated by your hatred of your own country.
You want to believe that it's over, because of you're hatred for the U.S. You hate the U.S. more than you hate our enemies. It's a sickness. I've lived in leftists communities for 50 years. You're a very sick man.
You hate the U.S. because the peasants have not recognized your genius and embraced you as their savior. Once again, you are a very sick man. Could be very dangerous if you could find a band of equally sick followers, but you don't seem to have that odd talent.
There is more to come, Cookie. Iran will soon have plutonium to sell to terrorists. An attempt to set off a dirty bomb in Manhattan will occur.
But, then again, you hate the U.S. more than the jihadis. Those dumb Americans refuse to recognize your genius. That's the real crime in your eyes.
You are such a detestably sick, venomous man. Capable of pure veil. Fortunately, you don't seem to have Charlie Manson's knack for gathering up a flock of devotees.
(The Crypto Jew)
The Taliban had no involvement in the crimes of 9/11 and no interest in our affairs.
But did not turn over Usama to us, when asked to.
"We can absorb a terrorist attack." - Obama
The right could make a powerful 30 second ad using this. Americans certainly have a right to know that this is what Obama thinks. Regardless of the truth of the statement - it is chilling to realize that our president has stated it. Some things ought not be spoken.
Let me say that for you very slowly, Cookie.
You... hate... your... own... country...
Because...
The... dumb... peasants...
Refuse...
To recognize...
Your...
Miraculous...
Genius...
Get some help, psycho.
"Leave them to their own affairs.
Seriously? That's your solution? I believe that's exactly what led to a couple of planes flying into the Towers."
And the same thinking that led to WWII.
It's an old foolishness, with new practitioners every generation. It does, help prevent overpopulation, so it's got that going for it.
Something else I was thinking about vis a vis existential threats and how we are overreacting. You know what also produced fewer deaths than the car accidents every year? The Iraq War.
OVer the course of 7 years we had about 4000 dead. Nowhere near the amount of car accidents in one year. So, therefore, those arguing against the Iraq War are overreacting. If we lose 4000 it's not the end of the world, not really an existential threat at all. If 50 die in a month it doesn't mean that the military will fall apart, so therefore it's not really an existential threat. So, the left overreacted to the damage caused by Iraq.
Likewise our slippery slope towards nazi germany. We waterboarded how many people? 4? Compare that to the number of people who die in pools, or skaking baby syndrome, or who fall off ladders. Or to the number of people who undergo SERE training and are waterboarded routinely. Ergo, it's not an existential threat to our liberties, and the number of occurances is statistically nil. Therefore, why the outrage?
Lefty logic is so much fun.
@jr656:
Exactly.
Lets see:
First WTC attack, February 26, 1993. 1,500 lb. urea nitrate–hydrogen gas bomb that killed 6 people and injured 1,042.
Second WTC attack, September 11, 2001. 3,000 people killed and WTC demolished.
Nothing here to indicate that another even larger attack might take place.
Only a paranoid would think such a thing.
Shouting Thomas wrote:
There is more to come, Cookie. Iran will soon have plutonium to sell to terrorists. An attempt to set off a dirty bomb in Manhattan will occur.
Aren't you being a little dramatic ST? A dirty bomb will only affect a small radius in the city. That neighborhood may be destroyed or uninhabitable, and those living in the neighborhood may die of cancer, or the initial blast, but will such an attack destroy us completely? If not then, nothing to worry about. We can simply absorb it because we are strong like bull. (sarcasm)
Which is fair, but by the same token, if we bomb the hell out of Iraq or Iran it won't destroy them completely, so is not really an existential threat to them. As long as we keep the deaths under 50,000 in our air raids, then to the left our attacks will be no worse than traffic accidents, and thus not even worthy of consideration. THey're a strong country, they can absorb some punishment too. In fact, we've bombed Iraq already, and despite the Lancet numbers that suggested we killed a million, we didn't kill that many. If we have seven years at 50,000 a year that would be the equivalent of 7 years of car accidents. That's 350,000 people. What's the big whoop. We could maybe reduce the number of bombings so that over the course of 7 years we only kill 175,000. That's 25,000 a year, half the number of those that die in car accidents. Since 50,000 a year is no big whoop and not an existential threat, then surely they can deal with 25,000 deaths a year since it's half the damage of a non existent threat.
Or to put it into Michael Moore terms so that lefties will understand "There is no air raiding threat. Yes, there have been horrific acts of air raiding and, yes, there will be acts of air raiding again. But that doesn't mean that there's some kind of massive air raiding threat." Besides Iraq, or Afghanistan or Iran are all big boys. They should be able to absorb some damage just like us.
Since Rush perceives Obama as icy cold, I wonder why he didn't compare Obama to Dick Cheney as well. Cheney made Hannible Lecter seem like Albert Schweitzer. Cheney and his wife were willing to sell their own daughter down the river for political gain (then again, what self respecting politician wouldn't!). As Flo the progressive insurance lady says in one commercial "That's cold".
Aren't you being a little dramatic ST? A dirty bomb will only affect a small radius in the city. That neighborhood may be destroyed or uninhabitable, and those living in the neighborhood may die of cancer, or the initial blast, but will such an attack destroy us completely? If not then, nothing to worry about. We can simply absorb it because we are strong like bull.
I didn't say such an attack would destroy us complete.
It will sure as hell kill a lot of people.
Rush Limbozo playing a peacenik (and quoting the old freak flick Dr. Strangelove) is about the equivalent of Newt Gingrich giving his blessing to the NAACP.
GOP--the peace par-tay! Heh heh. The Limbozo marketing BS never endeth. General Buck Turgidson IS the GOP--the embodiment of Bush-Cheney-Maverick-Nixon neo-con hawkishness
A person who refuses to defend him or herself, even when faced with injury or death, is a brave person.
A person who makes that choice for others is not.
And last I checked, Cook isn't Amish, and he's not Gandhi. Nor is DTL.
Nor is this issue a left/right issue.
The Democrats are not the "peace" party and they never have been. How much of the late disagreement with the Iraq war and the Afghan "good" war was political and how much of it was disagreement is an argument that can be argued for centuries to come, but the essential truth is that both "sides" of this agree that waging war is legitimate and doesn't have the same rules as the police have to follow. Both "sides" actually agree that any policy or action has to address the things that surround the event, that contributed and contribute even indirectly. The argument is which of those things and how and when, not if they are legitimate.
There is no doubt at all that Gore would have attacked Afghanistan. What form that would have taken is all that we don't know. Troops? A nuke? What we also don't know is what accompanying matters of State he would have attempted to address militarily, not if he would have tried to address indirect contributing factors. Of course he would have. We just can't know which ones or how.
General Buck Turgidson IS the GOP
Our general rules of engagement say otherwise.
"Cheney and his wife were willing to sell their own daughter down the river for political gain..."
Ha ha ha ha ha... and in a thread about "what would you do if your wife was raped or your son was about to be tortured to death or someone set off a nuke in New York" we now have the horror, the equivalency, of being publicly for gay marriage presented as "sell their own daughter down the river for political gain."
Oh, do please recall Kerry "Nudge-nudge-wink-wink-did-you-know-Cheney's-daughter-is-gay-nudge-nudge" in your assessment of who is willing to sell whom.
Shouting Thomas wrote:
I didn't say such an attack would destroy us complete.
It will sure as hell kill a lot of people.
To the left though, unless the terrorist threat is sufficient to destroy us utterly then it's a non existant threat which we can absorb because we're srong. That' pretty callous, I must say, and to the people who are caught in such a blast I guess we (or the libs) could say that while we lament their passing, it's not like it was an existential threat so they and their families should cheer up. No big whoop. . It's just a dirty bomb. It's not like it's a nuclear warhead. THough in truth, was Nagisaki and Hiroshima a true existential threat? They're still around after being nuked. They were able to absorb the damage. So what's the big whoop? An attack with a single nuclear warhead is not going to wipe us out completly, and will be absorbable so we shouldn't view such an event as catastrophic.
Some people get so excited over nothing.
I just saw the movie The Watchmen which is apropos to the lefties view on existential threats. At the end Ozymandias's plan is to destroy 5 major cities and then pin it on doctor manhattan, so that all the nations would come together and abandon war, as otherwise Dr. Manhattan would come back and inflict even more damage. Yet, to lefties, such attacks wouldn't be considered existential. It's just 5 cities. Such an attack didn't kill everybody in the world. So why get worked up about it.So long as there is a liberal left alive, the threat isn't existential enough for them since it's absorbable. And at any rate, the bigger the attack, the more the population is reduced, which means ultimately a cleaner environment.So it's a win win.
"(The Taliban) did not turn over Usama to us, when asked to."
We did not provide proof to them of his involvement, when asked to.
I just had this conversation at work. There is this idea floating about that heah, we lose 40,000 people to auto accidents every years so what's the problem with 5, 10k or 40k killed in a terrorist attack? But that is a fallacious argument. There is difference between losing 100 or so people a day to accidents spread across the entire nation and population with losing even 3k at one instant in one place. It would strip away the citizenry's sense security and lead to economic panic like it did in the immediate aftermath of 9-11. Imagine what several 9-11s a year would do the national psyche. You would see blood in the streets as a well armed citizenry would take the law into their own hands
It is fallacy to compare the British experience during the blitz with the Obama approach to terrorism. What held the UK together was active defense. London didn't just sit there and take it. They took it while the Army, the RAF and the RN hit back at the Germans. Without active defense Londoners would have folded like a cheap tent.
President Obama is cold in the way Joseph Stalin was cold (I know, to our liberal friends comparing Obama to Stalin is a compliment). Stalin said the death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic.
We did not provide proof to them of his involvement, when asked to.
LOL!
@Lucid:
Nobody calls me E.J. Dionne and gets away with it! I demand satisfaction.
I did not mean to suggest tha Gitmo caused Reid's attempted or the any other, but that overreaction led to TSA weenies wasting billions of hours and $$ when the key change to make was hardening cockpit doors, keeping them locked no matter what, and changing our view from "the worst thing that can happen is the highjackers will kill some passengers" to "the wrost thing that can happen is the highjackers willcrash the plane into a large building".
Also I said nothing in opposition to invading Afghanistan after its "government" insisted on harboring Al Qaeda.
Speak Softly & Carry Big Stick = Good.
Scream Hysterically & Waterboard people = Bad.
As I walked the 7 miles home from my job--only blocks from the twin towers, where I witnessed part of the attacks firsthand--I thought, "Well, at least they've shot their wad. They've done the worst they can do."
I believed it then, I believe it now..
LOL!
For the supposed tough guys, conservatives sure seem to have their poor little feelings hurt on an almost daily basis these days.
You don't know conservatives at all garage. We don't have any feelings to hurt.
Speak Softly & Carry Big Stick = Good.
Scream Hysterically & Waterboard people = Bad.
I prefer: Don't say anything and beat the shit out of terrorists with the Big Stick.
"We did not provide proof to them of his involvement, when asked to."
Are you going to make the claim that we don't know Bin Laden did it?
If so, that's nearly as retarded (sorry, Sarah, but some things fit) as the implied claim that upon being given "proof" the Taliban would have handed him over.
How about, we ask for Bin Laden on the "proof" of his very own 14 page, nicely formal and all legitimate-like Declaration of War against the United States?
And now, the Taliban and various bad-guys in the Pakistan mountains are going to turn him over to us, right? Right? We can just sit back and wait for that to happen. Someone is going to come forward now, now that this important step has been taken, and tell us where he went, where he's getting medical treatment, or where he is buried, right?
No? Really?
So what will happen is... the people who are protecting him will continue to do so, even knowing beyond all doubt exactly who is responsible and no matter how many of their fellow believers (political *or* religious) we bomb into the afterlife, because they WANT to. Because it serves their own purposes, just like protecting him and giving him a place to train served the purposes of the Taliban to keep power in Afghanistan.
Innocents, all of them.
Bush did what he could to separate the people with whom we were at war from the people with whom we were not at war. He worked overtime to identify and separate the enemy from the uninvolved population, to split those hairs that are so hard to split.
And Cook thinks that if we just treated the Taliban like civilized persons who had no idea (none!) that they harbored an actual criminal in his compounds were he trained young men to braid daisy-chains, and gave them "proof" that they'd have thrown up their hands in horror, marched some of their own troops out there and apprehended Bin Laden.
The question isn't what planet you live on Robert... it's in which universe.
Robert Cook wrote:
We did not provide proof to them of his involvement, when asked to.
it's not like Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda were unknown entities at the time. They had already claimed credit for prevoius attacks against us around the world. Something tells me that is wasn't that they weren't conviced based on our lack of proper evidence, but rather, they didn't care and nothing we oculd have said would have changed their minds.
If so, that's nearly as retarded (sorry, Sarah, but some things fit) as the implied claim that upon being given "proof" the Taliban would have handed him over.
Oh stop taking what Cookie says seriously. Here is a guy who thinks Bush and Obama are mass murderers but that the Taliban needed legal proof that the Islamofascists they were harboring committed the 'crime' of killing 3000 people.
Lucien wrote:
I did not mean to suggest tha Gitmo caused Reid's attempted or the any other, but that overreaction led to TSA weenies wasting billions of hours and $$ when the key change to make was hardening cockpit doors, keeping them locked no matter what, and changing our view from "the worst thing that can happen is the highjackers will kill some passengers" to "the wrost thing that can happen is the highjackers willcrash the plane into a large building".
That's all you got? We should have hardened the cockpit doors? No dealing with Al Qaeda's infrastructure so that they are too weakened to attack us again, demoralize future jihadists so that they don't want to join Al Qaeda? Kill al Qaeda's leadership to an extent that they don't want to join the organization out of fear for their safety?
Your suggestion is simply to harden cockpit doors? What if they attack something other than planes?
@Robert Cook
As I walked the 7 miles home from my job--only blocks from the twin towers, where I witnessed part of the attacks firsthand--I thought, "Well, at least they've shot their wad. They've done the worst they can do."
What did you think as you walked home in February of 1993? Did the wad-shooting cross your mind then? If not, wouldn't that make you criminally negligent for not warning the rest of us that you had good info that Bin Laden would be shooting his wad subsequently?
"Are you going to make the claim that we don't know Bin Laden did it?"
I'm saying that the Taliban asked for proof that bin Laden was involved in 9/11, when we asked them to turn him over to us.
"You don't know conservatives at all garage. We don't have any feelings to hurt."
Some plain talk at last by a conservative about conservatives.
Mr. Cook:
The Taliban didn't need proof. They already knew Bin Laden did it. He gave Mullah Omar advanced warning. When Omar questioned him about a possible US response Bin Laden told him we would just send a few ineffectual cruise missiles in response because that is all we did in the past.
Like all denizens of the "progressive" imaginary world you are sadly misinformed about real events.
Some plain talk at last by a conservative about conservatives.
You need to disable your sarcasm filter. Your wad-shooting generator seems to be working though.
"Here is a guy who thinks Bush and Obama are mass murderers--"
They are, that, to be sure.
"--but that the Taliban needed legal proof."
I say only what has been reported: the Taliban asked us for proof of bin Laden's complicity when we asked them to turn him over.
Mr. Cook:
Were Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt mass murders?
Dr. Strangelove was a major part of this post. I can't believe the dearth of comments about this classic film. What the hell do you all watch, Harry Potter movies? Or are you all under age 40?
ALas Terry Southern--co writer of Strangelove along with Kubrick (a liberal, at least until he became a multi-millionaire)--ain't around to hear Rush Limbelch mock his anti-nuke, anti-conservative masterpiece. Southern might have called some of his gangster cronies to dispatch the fat clown.
Cookie, you are such a ferociously idiotic asshole.
Can't you just go away.
Leave New York, too.
Go someplace where you like the way things operate.
Try Venezuela.
I think you'd like it there.
Awful. Awful. Awful man. Psycho.
And just see how Mr. Cook carefully avoids the fact that the Taliban had foreknowledge of the event.
"The Taliban didn't need proof. They already knew Bin Laden did it. He gave Mullah Omar advanced warning. When Omar questioned him about a possible US response Bin Laden told him we would just send a few ineffectual cruise missiles in response because that is all we did in the past."
Where do you get this information?
This report indicates otherwise:
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=50300
Cookie, you are a delirious psychotic.
A psychotic who knows how to write a coherent sentence.
How are you able to hold onto a job?
Do you have any human relationships?
What turned you into such a horrifying psychotic?
Cookie, I read these mad posts you write, and I just wonder:
How do you walk down the street? Do you have an attendant?
How do you pay your bills? Are you on welfare?
How do you survive?
It seems impossible?
Dr. Strangelove was a major part of this post. I can't believe the dearth of comments about this classic film. What the hell do you all watch, Harry Potter movies? Or are you all under age 40?
I'm exactly 40 (give or take a few months) and Dr Strangelove was an "old" for me, so you might want to adjust up. Beside, Failsafe was a far better movie from the same year.
shoutingthomas
More often than not, you and I are on the same side of an argument, but can you tone it down with the name calling? Once or twice might, MIGHT, be funny, but constantly is petty and stupid. I've seen you make perfectly constructive debate points. Try and stick to that instead of gumming up the works here with vitriol.
Or, if you must, be as subtly vile as you want, but can you stop with the 5th grade playground bullshit?
Someone should tell Obama that Nietzsche was a raving lunatic ... certifiable wacknut
More often than not, you and I are on the same side of an argument, but can you tone it down with the name calling?
Gotta agree with you sorta.
I'm amazed at this guy. You've got to wonder about the psychology of it all.
He's probably been infuriating people all his life with his psycho leftism. In some ways, he must get off from people getting furious with him and questioning his sanity.
Probably, I'm only driving him deeper into the psycho leftism by giving him hell. Clearly, he gets some sort of strange kick out of displaying his festering hatred of his own country.
What do you make of it?
(The Crypto Jew)
Beside, Failsafe was a far better movie from the same year.
Again you’re wrong, yesterday on EMP, and now today on “Dr. Strangelove.” Normally you are a bright fellow and on the right side of things…today, especially, you have spoken vile heresy and sacrilege! Dr Strangelove is a classic. I mean no disrespect to “Fail Safe,” truly you have missed the boat on this. Major Kong is classic…”Toe-toe nukular combat with the Ruskies”, or “Shoot, a fella' could have a pretty good weekend in Vegas with all that stuff.” Never mind the classic ending with Slim Pickens and the bomb…and the bomb’s names, come “Dear John” and “Hi There”?!?!? Dood can you think of two better, funnier names for two 25 MT thermo-nuclear warheads?
Peter Sellers as three roles, Group Captain Mandrake is classic…and George C. Scott is an under-rated comic genius.
Bottom-Line: Dr Strangelove is all that and more…I mean Kubrick never made a BAD movie, some better than others but never bad movie.
Cookie - "9/11 was the act of a band of stateless criminals armed with boxcutters and headquartered in moutain caves."
No, 9/11 was the act of a powerful ideological enemy that we later find is not HQ'd in Afghan caves, but 5-star Malayan hotels, in Dearborn Michigan, Hamburg Germany, with financiers in London and Saudi royal palaces. An enemy that ranges from 105 million to 165 million strong ranging on estimates of those Islamoids that strongly approve of the destruction of the West and seek to help.
" Their likelihood of repeating their act with any frequency--if at all--or with similar force, was and is almost nil."
That is not what the US Government thinks. It is more importantly not what the other nations of the world think, inc. those that want repeats of 9/11 scale enemy attacks on the West.
"Invading two countries who did not attack us in response to the 9/11 gang's criminal act is like firebombing Los Angeles to get rid of the street gangs."
9/11 was not a criminal gang's doing. Nothing in the nature of the holy jihad of the enemy is analogous to common civilian criminality.
Afghanistan attacked us. Saying they didn't is like arguing the militarists in Japan, who were only a tiny fraction of the noble, peace-loving Japanese people, attacked us at Pearl Harbor - starting what should have been a criminal law enforcement investigation aimed at eventually arresting, giving free lawyers out, and then prosecuting the Japanese responsible.
Joe
EMP rightness or wrongness aside, Group Captain Mandrake is definitely my favorite character from that movie. I'm not knocking DSL at all. For some context, I saw that Orson Wells Nostradamus movie when I was 12. Fucked me up well and good when they did the "future" that was coming and I hadn't even gotten laid yet. I still don't know why my parents let me watch that damned thing.
Right after that I saw Failsafe for the first time. It made a helluva bigger impact on me which remains to this day. The phone cutting off and melting...ugh.
IPS started as communist front organization. I hardly think it is a reliable source of news.
Just because Omar said show the proof doesn't mean he didn't know.
It's kind of like a gang banger telling the cops show me the proof and I will turn the dude over to you.
Simpleton.
I meant no disrespect to Fail Safe, hearing the 'phone squeal was an EXCELLENT device. The movie scared me very much, as a child...
But DSL is just more my cup of tea.
Oh and J I don't hear mockery in Limbaugh, he loves the film...I think Southern and Kubrick would like that.
Shouting Thomas - "There is more to come, Cookie. Iran will soon have plutonium to sell to terrorists. An attempt to set off a dirty bomb in Manhattan will occur."
That is just being doomsday prophetic about radioactive waste present in 140 of 185 countries and saying 1 will "doom Manhattan".
Nor do Iranians have access to do anything with their spent nuke fuel they please - that is under Russian and IAEA control. Nor do they have any plutonium reprocessing facility. Nor are they likely stupid enough to sell fissile plutonium bomb grade nuclear material to terrorists if they ever get past Russian and IAEA controls and manage to build a reprocessing facility that satellite sensors will spot when it starts.
What Iran does have is limited enrichment capacity and a not misplaced concern that surrounded by nuclear-armed enemies or potential enemies (Zionist Israel, the US, Russia, Pakistan) - they need their own nuclear deterrent.
Honestly, at 12, I think the only thing I remember was the bomb ride out of the aircraft. It wasn't until years later, and older, that I had the historical context and a sophisticated enough sense of humor to really appreciate DSL. Not much humor in Failsafe, unless you count the bomber commander's wife's hair.
"Just because Omar said show the proof doesn't mean he didn't know."
Just because you declare he did know doesn't mean he did.
I don't claim omniscience on this point, but I see reporting indicating the Taliban didn't know and wanted evidence. I have never seen reports that the Taliban did know--much less that they knew and approved (or didn't care).
Given the readiness of the Bush administration to lie to justify their actions/cover their asses--in this they were no different than any government, although the scale of their crimes was somewhat larger--I see no reason to accept any unsupported claims that issue from Washington that just happen to support and justify their policies and actions.
Of course Cook, Clinton had already presented evidence of Usama's complicity in earlier acts of terror, but the Taliban didn't extradite him, then either....
"...Clinton had already presented evidence of Usama's complicity in earlier acts of terror, but the Taliban didn't extradite him, then either...."
No, you've got it confused. Bin Laden was in Sudan, and they offered him to us; Clinton declined, claiming we didn't have enough to hold him on.
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/9/10/181819.shtml
Another article of interest regarding the Taliban's request for evidence of bin Laden's complicity in 9/11:
http://www.fff.org/comment/com0905c.asp
And here's another, more nuanced article regarding the impasse between the Taliban and the U.S. regarding what to do with bin Laden:
http://rupeenews.com/2010/09/20/taliban-warned-u-s-about-bin-ladens-attack-wikileaks/
Re: Cook
Quit arguing with this moron. All he wants is to derail any thread. It isn't worth your time.
RE: Ahmahdinnerjacket (aka Members Only) comments at the UN
"Rather than representing the aspirations and goodwill of the Iranian people, Mr. Ahmadinejad has yet again chosen to spout vile conspiracy theories and anti-Semitic slurs that are as abhorrent and delusional as they are predictable," says US United Nations mission spokesman Mark Kornblau.
Someone get this guy a higher posting quickly. Finally someone at the UN with plumbing on the outside.
@Hoosier Daddy
Excellent point.
Thanks Joe[The Crypto Jew], I agree George C Scott was superb in comedic roles. He was good in The Flim Flam Man which would have been shit if not for Scott's comedic genius. Speaking of genius...Peter Sellers.
Finally,I'm new to this blog. I don't know if you give a shit about baseball. The first player to ever appear as a DH was Ron Blomberg of the Yankees. His moniker was "Super Jew." For your outstanding critique of Dr. Strangelove I would like to call you Super Jew.
I mean Kubrick never made a BAD movie, some better than others but never bad movie.
I take it you've never seen "Eyes Wide Shut", then?
I swear, if someone had told me a film could have Nicole Kidman naked in it and still put me to sleep, I would've said it was impossible. But "Eyes Wide Shut" did it. I have trouble believing that was the same director.
wv: vishar. But at least it wasn't as bad as that Warren Beatty flick, vishar...
@Lucien
Okay now I'm really confused.
Obama has said that he doesn't believe in American exceptionalism but wouldn't such stalwart resolve be in of itself exceptional?
So if we are going to derail threads with irrelevant stuff...at least let's make it fun.
Two headlines that made me laugh
"Woman fends off bear attack with zucchini"
"Man, Parrot Scuffle On Ann Arbor Street"
I also like the bra that turns into a gas mask.
The bipartisan pledge I, and the Tea party, was looking for;
We resign, effective immediately.
Barry Lyndon? 2001? A Clockwork Orange? Have you watched those? Lately? Sober? Paths of Glory? Seriously, is there a more over rated director than Kubrick? Full Metal Jacket? He made those actors do so many takes that by the time they got to the take he used in the film they were completely drained of anything fresh or meaningful.
R. Lee Ermey strove mightily, but even he could not keep his DI rants alive. Seriously, watch it - all that comes across during those long tracking scenes is a flat voice, dead eyes and a desire to get that take in the can and call it a day.
And the stupid B-52 on a stick, unmoving, in the middle of the frame in DSL - are you shitting me? That's one of the worst bits of film making I have ever seen. Kubrick was a terrible director. I can't even begin to tell you how terrible The Shining is - I could never make it through that POS.
And who the fuck is fooled by his attempt to place Eyes Wide Shut in NYC when all through the film there are visual clues that it is London - the zigzag lines at pedestrian crossings and so on. The man was a freak and a terrible director.
WV: urboom - what Omongrel wants our cities to become at the hands of muslim terrorists.
Robert Cook wrote:
No, you've got it confused. Bin Laden was in Sudan, and they offered him to us; Clinton declined, claiming we didn't have enough to hold him on.
Wait a second, now I'm confused. If the CLinton's didn't have enough evidence to hold Bin Laden on, then how was Richard Clarke and the liberals able to suggest that George Bush took his eye off the REAL threat, which was Al Qaeda?
Also, I think by the african embassy bombings and the USS Cole that we pretty much had all the evidence we needed that Al Qaeda was responsible.
And as for whether the Taliban knew, considering by 2001 Al Qaeda was pretty well known around the world, and considering that The Taliban kill muslims who don't wear beards or who play music, it's kind of inconceivable that the Taliban would welcome as their guest a Muslim who was anything other than like them. So at the very least they had to know him by reputation.
Plus, doesnt the left argue that Osama bin Laden was trained by the CIA when we helped the Afghanis fight the Russians. IT's of course a bald faced lie, but even if it were true, wouldn't the fact that Osama bin Laden fought the Russians in Afghanistan mean that Afghanis probably had an idea who he was? The Taliban were so oblivious that the didn't know who the most renowned and most militant jihadist terrorist at the tme who fought beside the jihadis in Afghanistan when they invited him to stay at their crib? That's ludicrous.
(The Crypto Jew)
Barry Lyndon? 2001? A Clockwork Orange? Have you watched those? Lately? Sober? Paths of Glory? Seriously, is there a more over rated director than Kubrick? Full Metal Jacket? He made those actors do so many takes that by the time they got to the take he used in the film they were completely drained of anything fresh or meaningful.
Short answer, yes I have…
Longer answer, OBVIOUSLY, you good madam/sirrah are a Philistine. First, I said he never made a BAD movie….Barry Lyndon, is BEAUTIFUL, it is, as American Photography wrote, “a still life portrait of the 18th Century.” I stand by it, a beautiful, still life, in motion…
As to A Clockwork Orange, oh yes, my droog, I viddy A Clock Work Orange as often as I can…”Viddy well then Brother, viddy well….” “A bit of the old ultra-violence”…Alex is my second favourite evil lead, Richard III being my favourite. What is your problem with A Clock Work Orange, that evil triumph? It too, is beautiful…that Alex is an absolute monster doesn’t make it any less horrorshow, and is still a great comment on social decay, collapse of family, and the perils of a large Nanny State, and the proclivity of politicians to muck things up.
And 2001, you didn’t like 2001?!?! What you must have a linear film? “Hey, what’s going on? First they was on the Moon an’ now they is in a space ship on the way to Jupiter. I doan unnerstan!” EVERYTHING is made clear, in the end…and HAL is one of the greatest characters of all time. Here’s a hint, the ending is symbolic…in the bedroom as Bowman eats, and the lighting is such that there are no shadows. The shadow is, in many societies, the symbol/sign for the soul. Bowman casts no shadows, he has no soul, he is dead, already…the ending compresses Bowman’s existence into a few short scenes, from arrival, to dinner, to death to re-birth as Star Child.
Paths of Glory, Ok it’s preachy…so was the book.
Conclusion: I write this tongue-in-cheek, I hope you realize, but the films you list aren’t bad, and in fact, two of them are tremendous, I think you are a bit off in your analysis of Kubrick.
What's the big whoop. We could maybe reduce the number of bombings so that over the course of 7 years we only kill 175,000. That's 25,000 a year, half the number of those that die in car accidents. Since 50,000 a year is no big whoop and not an existential threat, then surely they can deal with 25,000 deaths a year since it's half the damage of a non existent threat.
Now we're getting into Turgidson Territory.
This is the scene that always got me laughing. I love Scott's initial look and then his intrigue at the male and female ratio.
(PS On a serious note: Growing up in the nuclear age/"duck and cover" and living next to a SAC base I had an "existential" fear of annihilation.)
"I say only what has been reported: the Taliban asked us for proof of bin Laden's complicity when we asked them to turn him over."
Sort of the same way my high school Algebra class would make up endless questions that needed answering when asked to turn over the previous day's homework.
Bad guys are more honest than high school students though, so I'm likely being unfair.
2001 was based on a short story and as a film, it is way short of story. Nice visual effects, but in the end - nothing. An empty story about not much at all. A computer is defeated by a human, which was done by Spock at least once a year.
Barry Lyndon - too bad he left the story out of that one, too. And since when is a movie supposed to be a still life? They are, or at least I think they are, supposed to move. If you want to watch paint dry or seriously slow movies, watch Warhol's 24 hour movie.
As for A Clockwork Orange, read the book. The film is very weak - sure, Alex has his moments, but all in all, it falls way short of the writing of Anthony Burgess. Burgess could write puns in two languages, Kubrick could numb us to sleep in one.
But thanks for your junior year analysis of 2001 - if that lousy film works for you, that's nice. It is still a lousy, unwatchable movie, and it is dated beyond belief. I worked on mainframe computers in the 70s - HAL was cutting edge for 1968, but compared to computing power available today, that thing is a joke. Linearity - ooo, yet another film class word. How about this one - it sucks.
I take it we agree on DSL, as you didn't defend that pathetic mess of bad movie making, and we must agree on how Kubrick sucked the life out of Ermey's rants - he had to be a tough man to put up with Stanley's bs, that's all I can say.
To sum up, Kubrick, as mentioned, is over rated. He was not a great film maker, maybe only a good one. Based on your writing, your ad hominem attacks and your bad spelling, I assume you are a subject of the Queen. Good luck with that.
Based on your writing, your ad hominem attacks and your bad spelling, I assume you are a subject of the Queen. Good luck with that.
Ad hominem atttacks, what you can't understand humour? Jeeeeez, dood lighten up...Oh well, sorry you can't appreciate good movies.
There is only one "u" in "humor". And only two "t"s in "attacks".
Thanks for your concern, but I do appreciate good movies, which is why I can't stand the crap that Kubrick directed.
WV: bactine - what we need to use to remove the bacteria of English spellings from our language.
There is only one "u" in "humor". And only two "t"s in "attacks".
Really, humour, rumour, honour, labour...just think millions and millions of folks spell it wrong...good to know.
What difference does the short story genesis of the film have to do with anything. Rollerball was based on a 1.5 page short story, Rollerball Murder, Inc. Where the film came from is irrelevant.
Let us review - Rollerball is a good movie, and superfluous "u"s, because they are used by a few million subjects of some inbred jug eared freaks, is somehow okay. Well, you are wrong on both counts.
We have come to expect such "logic" from people too weak minded to rebel against the Crown. Get back to me when you become citizens instead of subjects.
Ok, now I get it, you're having me on....
Having me on - I need to add that to my list of crappy Bristishisms. That's "putting me on" you twit. I wouldn't have you on anything, except maybe a don't fly list.
Post a Comment