Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Demented and wrong
Posted by: McQ on Tuesday, January 03, 2006

Scott Shields at MyDD had this to say about the 13 coal miners trapped by an explosion in their West Virginia mine in a post entitled "How Bush failed the Sago 13":
Undoubtedly, some will criticize me for placing blame on President Bush here. The defense will be that Bush didn't cause the explosion that collapsed the mine. My response will be that he didn't do anything to prevent it. In fact, if anything, the actions of his administration made the situation worse.
Yes, that' right, Shields is sure it's ... altogether now ... "Bush's fault!"

Shields then goes through some painful machinations and extended rationalizations to figuratively pin the disaster on Bush and his administration and his alleged pandering to greedy corporations. It reads like, well like a screed you'd expect from a leftist blog intent on blaming everything from swamp gas to STD on Bush.

Then comes your turn for a headshaking chuckle. His update:
UPDATE: Welcome Cornerites and Malkin readers. If you've gotten this far, you likely know that this piece most certainly does not blame Bush for the Sago Mine disaster. Now ask yourselves why the conservative pundits want you think that's what I was writing. Here's a clue: Bush's indefensible fealty to corporate power undercuts the health and safety of workers at every level of the economy. Corporations understandably want to save money any way they can. Sometimes government has to step in to remind them that there are some corners that just should not be cut. And that's what offends the punditocracy so much — God forbid you should actually see this issue from the side of the workers.
Freakin' hillarious ... and in reality, pretty damn sad. We have no idea yet what caused the explosion or the cave in, but Shields, backpeddling like a madman and despite his title, really isn't blaming Bush. But he's sure that "fealty" to corporate power is responsible for this and that puts it squarely in Bush's lap (Or it doesn't. It does? I'm still not sure yet).

In fact, the lead from an AP report directly contradicts Shield's unsubstantiated conjecture:
The West Virginia mine where 13 miners remained trapped Tuesday is a newer addition to a recently minted coal producer, created by a New York billionaire known for turning around troubled companies without scrimping on safety.
And going even further into the article:
Citing the recent takeover, Kitts said ICG had greatly improved safety at the mine since.

"We've been working closely with the regulatory agencies on various issues such as supervisor training. We're working to improve the safety program across the board," Kitts said. "We're instilling the notion that this is a continuous improvement process."

While investigators have yet to pinpoint the explosion's cause, workers from Ross' previous venture give him high marks for safety.

[...]

Eddie Reust, a hot mill worker at Mittal's Cleveland plant, believes "definitely there was an improvement" with safety after Ross' group took over from LTV.

"We want to work safe and get out of there in one piece to get home to our families," Reust said Tuesday. "They addressed it. It wasn't just show and go. They're much more safety conscious than LTV."

Unlike at Sago, unions represent Mittal workers in most U.S. mills. Mike Wright, director of health, safety and environment for the United Steelworkers of America in Pittsburgh, said Ross and ISG had a good safety record with his union.

"They cared a fair amount about safety," Wright said Tuesday. "They had a pretty good safety program and one that really respected the union."
Wonderfully done, Mr. Shields. Facts shall not get in the way of a good "it's Bush's fault" will they? I'm sure once he becomes aware of how woefully he's erred he'll issue and apology and retraction immediately. And remember, Google is your friend.

[/sarcasm]

Meanwhile back in the harsh real world, they just found the first body of a miner.

UPDATE: From the RCP Blog, Tom Bevan posts some stats which point to the fact that compared to 10 years ago, mines are much safer and have continued a downward trend in mining accidents ending in fatalities.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
That’s the kind of animal that you just want a cut the heart out of his chest and force feed it to him. Trouble is, experience teaches us that his ilk doesn’t have one. He’s simply another far leftist robot. All one can do is use the truth to discredit them. You’ve done a fair enough job of that. Not that it’ll change the mind of his robot followers.

(sigh)
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
I’m not neccesarily up to speed with the whos-who of the blogosphere, but is there any particular reason why this guy is important enough to dignify his ramblings with a response?

This seems to be yet another example of searching out the most absurd thing you can find posted from someone on the other side and hold it up as some sort of prime example of what the other side is supposed to be like. I could at least understand if this was posted at KoS or something... but who the hell is this guy?
 
Written By: Rosensteel
URL: http://
He writes for a top 100 blog (averaging about 16,000 hits a day) in the TLB ecosystem.

This seems to be yet another example of searching out the most absurd thing you can find posted from someone on the other side and hold it up as some sort of prime example of what the other side is supposed to be like.

Well I’d suggest that if we’re considered by other large (and small) blogs to be fair game (and we are), he’s certainly fair game.

As for the absurdity, take it up with him. But one of the things you might have noticed is that we indeed do point out absurdities on a regular basis. It’s what bloggers do. The fact that we add good commentary and analysis and are semi-civil about it all is a bonus. ;)
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Well, there is a good reason why I dont venture much into the blogosphere outside of QandO. I may give you guys a hard time on occasion, but I havent found any other blogs that I can tolerate for very long.

If you say this guy is reasonably important though, I’ll take your word for it. Bunch of crazies out there. *shrug*

 
Written By: Rosensteel
URL: http://
I may give you guys a hard time on occasion, but I havent found any other blogs that I can tolerate for very long.

Well thanks Rosensteel ... I take that as a very nice complement.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
It’s easy, I’m sure, to pass such nonsense off as rare , and just a random crazy.. a radom absurdity...

The fact of the matter is however, that it’s anything but. It’s SOP on the left, anymore.

Rosensteel, what you have just been exposed to is what’s out there daily. This is an everyday occurrence, anymore. This Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS) has gotten to the point now, where if it moves Bush gets the blame for it and if it doesn’t move Bush gets the blame for it, all in the most vitriolic terms possible.

The sheer hatred that drives these people would have been frankly unimaginable twenty years ago. And that’s all it is; Hate.

The link earlier in this blog today to Kos is another such. It doesn’t have to make sense, it doesn’t ahve to be true; indeed, it can be flat-out lies and usually is... even by Kos’ own description, not mine. All it has to be is angry as hell, impudent as hell, and throw large piles of feces at the nearest Republican.... hopefully GWB.

I wrote one today about a peice that showed up in yesterday’s WSJ, that also explores some of the hate Democrats dish out daily... in this case directed at Black Republicans. In another case, we see the Associated Press what its collectivist panties over the concept that the White House web site uses a hit counter.... something that every blog on the planet uses. Yet we see the AP trying to fan it into yet another fabricated scandal.

Again, this stuff is very common. Do not fall into that trap that this is just another random crazy. This stuff goes far, far deeper.

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
Ignore this clown and focus on the important parts of the story, not the least of which is that all but one of the miners seem to have been found alive.
 
Written By: Brian Martinez
URL: http://cluebyfour.livejournal.com
I kinda think that the piece is part of an experiment to show how right wing bloggers tend to overreact. I read the piece earlier today, and it just had that certain ring about it, like it was some kind of decoy designed to trap winger bloggers who intended to shine a light on it before taking a shot at it. And considering a significant part of the wingnuttia brigade has resonded as expected, my guess may not be far off. McQ, as expected, fell in line.

And good point again, Rosensteel. McQ does tend to grab an extreme story and generalize based on it. It’s his trademark bumper-sticker blogging.

Compared to Ann Coulter, who regularly appears not only on mainstream cable news shows, but on network television itself, Sheilds is a rank amateur. He should have said that killing the miners at their workplace was a good thing, a desirable thing. After all, Ms. Coulter’a "only" regret about Tim McVeigh is that he did not got the New York Times builduing and blow it up. And for that she gets a spot on Good Morning America, interviewed by Diane Sawyer, no less. Shields would be lucky to get a gig on cable access in Amarillo.

Oh - and by the way - did you know that the mainstream press has a vendetta or at least some kind of bias against conservatives. Turns out, the mainstream press if full of a bunch of vengeful liberals. How else to explain that the entire GMA program dedicated to Ms. Coulter?

Message to Shields: Next time, complain that Al Qaeda should have taken out the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board. You might just get an interview with Katie Couric if you do.

P.S.

Yes, thank god the 12 were found alive. Hope this does lead to safety improvements.

 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
wasn’t dedicated to Eva, I mean Ann, of course.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
How else to explain that the entire GMA program dedicated to Ms. Coulter?

Ah, since you’re talking about Ms. Coulter, then you’re a closet conservative. Isn’t that how your logic goes?

 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
Yes, thank god the 12 were found alive.

Unfortunately, not so. Only one survived.

 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
"He should have said that killing the miners at their workplace was a good thing, a desirable thing."
Actually, some of his commenters said that the miners deserved to die because they voted Bush into office. (And you thought you were being outrageous.)
 
Written By: mikem
URL: http://
Well thanks Rosensteel ... I take that as a very nice complement.
No problem. I tend to get a bit critical of some of the partisan sniping that takes here, because the blogosphere is rife with it. However outside of the occasional political jabs, there are some top notch articles ever now and then too. The analysis of Technology and Warfare, the discussion of taxation and the Laffer curve, the problem with democracy, etcetera.

Most blogs seem to exist for the sole purpose of partisan sniping and party politics. While there is certainly a share of that here, especially among some of the commenters, it is not the primary focus of QandO. I think that is a good thing.
It’s easy, I’m sure, to pass such nonsense off as rare , and just a random crazy.. a radom absurdity...

The fact of the matter is however, that it’s anything but. It’s SOP on the left, anymore.
I think you need to take a vacation from the blogosphere for a little while, Bithead. The crazies are not the beginning and end of everything, even though sometimes it may seem that way when you spend your time reading political blogs that are either far left or far right. I dont pretend that all Republicans are like Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh, so you should probably extend that same courtesy to ’the left’ before you go and declare what their SOP is.

For what its worth, I agree that much of the vitriol and rhetoric against black Republicans can be disgusting. Even then, though, I havent found that to be representative of all Democrats. That seems to be a specific feature of the ’race card’ Democrats (or whatever you would like to call them), which is hardly everyone in the party.
 
Written By: Rosensteel
URL: http://
I kinda think that the piece is part of an experiment to show how right wing bloggers tend to overreact.

Ah, an "experiment", eh? So words don’t mean things and Shields didn’t mean it at all when he said "some will criticize me for placing blame on President Bush here." It was all an "experiment".

Brilliant, MK.

I read the piece earlier today, and it just had that certain ring about it, like it was some kind of decoy designed to trap winger bloggers who intended to shine a light on it before taking a shot at it.

Leave it to you to fall in line with the defense of the indefensible. Of course, in reality, Shileds put up something which was pattently offensive and indefensible. Then he, like you, tried to pretend it was something it wasn’t.

You, of course, comply and attempt to defend him when in fact he did the foreskin foxtrot and was casting around desperately for a way out.

Even you don’t sound very convinced or convincing. In fact your defense is pretty pathetic.

McQ does tend to grab an extreme story and generalize based on it. It’s his trademark bumper-sticker blogging.

Says the man from "Cliches R Us".

Compared to Ann Coulter ....

And here we have the expected red herring.

This isn’t about Ann Coulter, MK ... pay attention.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
I posted this on his site:
Scott Shield wrote:
"Undoubtedly, some will criticize me for placing blame on President Bush here."
and then wrote
"If you’ve gotten this far, you likely know that this piece most certainly does not blame Bush for the Sago Mine disaster."
Scott Shields is either a genuine moron or thinks we all are.
Yours, Tom Perkins,
molon labe
montani semper liberi
para fides paternae patria
And showing himself to be intellectually dishonest and an example of why it’s almost impossible for a competent person to vote Democratic, he deleted it.

If he can’t face his own stupidities and contradictions, how can he expect to gain anyone’s confidence in his positions?

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, pfpp, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Actually, I have to retract that. It seems like my comment is moving around in the list of comments. It started below this person’s post:

"by mleflo2 on Wed Jan 4th, 2006 at 06:48:16 AM EDT"

and now it’s below, this person’s post:

"by turnerbroadcasting on Wed Jan 4th, 2006 at 10:18:34 AM EDT"

I now suspect that comments move around based on some unknown criteria.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Doesn’t seem any more irrational than the notion that Clinton was responsible for 9/11, because he "didn’t do [enough] to prevent it". Which is to say, it’s not terribly rational, but that hasn’t stopped a lot of people from making that case.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
I “kinda think” that MK’s piece is part of an experiment to show how left wing wackos tend to knee jerk. I read the piece earlier today, and it just had that certain ring about it, like it was some kind of apologia designed to glorify what was clearly a reasoning error by a lefty blogger. Considering a significant part of the commenters on that blog responded as expected and fell in line, my guess may not be far off. MK, as expected, fell in line.

And good point again, Rosensteel. McQ does tend to grab an extreme story and generalize based on it. It’s his trademark exemplary blogging.

Compared to Ann Coulter, who regularly appears not only on mainstream cable news shows, but on network television itself, Sheilds is a rank amateur. He could have said that killing the miners at their workplace was a good thing, a desirable thing. After all, Ms. Coulter’s amusing "only" regret about Tim McVeigh is that he did not got the New York Times building and blow it up. And for that she gets a spot on Good Morning America, interviewed by Diane Sawyer, no less. Shields would be lucky to get a gig on cable access in Amarillo.

Oh - and by the way - did you know that the mainstream press has a vendetta or at least some kind of bias against conservatives. Turns out, the mainstream press is full of a bunch of vengeful liberals. How else to explain the entire GMA program dedicated to attempting to discredit Ms. Coulter?

P.S.
“Yes, thank god the 12 were found alive.”
Wrong yet again, MK.
 
Written By: notherbob2
URL: http://
Jon:

Are you suggesting that assigning blame (even if wrongly) to the man who was POTUS immediately prior to a national security catastrophe is equivalent to assigning blame to the man is POTUS at the time of a local mining catastophe?

In what way is that syllogism logical?

I don’t necessarily agree that Clinton’s lack of seriousness with repsect to al Quaeda and bin Laden "caused" 9/11, but there is a legitimate argument to be made that had Clinton done things differently 9/11 might not have happened. What on earth could honestly be expected of Bush to have prevented the mine accident?
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://
“If he can’t face his own stupidities and contradictions, how can he expect to gain anyone’s confidence in his positions?”
In the liberal cocoon contradictions are ignored and stupidities and contradictions pointed out by “wingers” are just dismissed, ignored or deleted.
Liberals don’t seem to mind. That is why liberalism is a religion.
 
Written By: notherbob2
URL: http://
“Even then, though, I havent (sic) found that to be representative of all Democrats. That seems to be a specific feature of the ’race card’ Democrats (or whatever you would like to call them), which is hardly everyone in the party.”
Rosensteel, you are quite correct, the idiots excoriated by Bithead are not the entire Democrat party. However, they are the leaders of that party and their excesses are tolerated by the rest. Sitting on your butt, always voting Democrat regardless of the issues and remaining silent while left wing wackos do all the talking for your party are not admirable qualities. If Democrats do not support the wackos, they should speak up, like Lieberman. If they don’t, they deserve to be tarred with the same brush. Your defense of the Democrat dead-beats is unwarranted.
 
Written By: notherbob2
URL: http://
I don’t necessarily agree that Clinton’s lack of seriousness with repsect to al Quaeda and bin Laden "caused" 9/11, but there is a legitimate argument to be made that had Clinton done things differently 9/11 might not have happened. What on earth could honestly be expected of Bush to have prevented the mine accident?
Shields’ argument was that "he didn’t do anything to prevent it. In fact, if anything, the actions of his administration made the situation worse." That could be said about the Bush administration’s approach to mining safety regulations and to the Clinton administrations approach to terrorism. (not that I’d necessarily agree with either)
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Shields’ argument was that "he didn’t do anything to prevent it. In fact, if anything, the actions of his administration made the situation worse." That could be said about the Bush administration’s approach to mining safety regulations and to the Clinton administrations approach to terrorism. (not that I’d necessarily agree with either)
Well, yeah ... except that the duty of POTUS has nothing to do with mine safety, while it has a great deal to do with a national approach to terrorism.

Leaving aside the name of the POTUS, does this comparison seem right to you:

POTUS:mining safety::POTUS:national security

I don’t think they’re equivalents.
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://
Hmmmm... Symptoms of BDS: An inability to make value judgements correctly when Bush is involved.
 
Written By: notherbob2
URL: http://
The bottom line is that 9/11 happened because of a lack of response to Terrorism during the Clinton White House.

Terrorism, such as the Cole.
Terrorism, such as the First WTC attack.
Terrorism, such as the Embassy Bombings.

The 9/11 attackers had no reason to think Bush was going to respond any differently than did Clinton... which is to say not at all.

What is irrational, is comparison of that and the mining situation since as Mike points out, the President hasn’t anything to do with that, whereas our national defense, the president does. Or in the case of Bubba, SHOULD HAVE, and DIDN’T.



 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
The bottom line is that 9/11 happened because of a lack of response to Terrorism during the Clinton White House.

Terrorism, such as the Cole.
Terrorism, such as the First WTC attack.
Terrorism, such as the Embassy Bombings.
By that logic, Bithead, wasn’t Reagan responsible for all three incidents above because of the oullout from Beirut?
What is irrational, is comparison of that and the mining situation since as Mike points out, the President hasn’t anything to do with that, whereas our national defense, the president does. Or in the case of Bubba, SHOULD HAVE, and DIDN’T.
"Bubba" did at least get the 1998 Regime Change Act passed and signed.
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://
"Well, yeah ... except that the duty of POTUS has nothing to do with mine safety, while it has a great deal to do with a national approach to terrorism."
Ah, naive young man, haven’t you realized yet that it is the responsibility of the Pres. to protect each and every American(and certain other favoured groups to be designated later) from each and every actual and potential danger and discomfort, whether manmade, natural, or supernatural?
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
timeactual:

heh.

but, you forgot to include [/sarcasm] ;)
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://
By that logic, Bithead, wasn’t Reagan responsible for all three incidents above because of the oullout from Beirut?
No.
At the time of the Beirut situation, we were not equipped as yet to deal with such things, given the state of the Military as left us by the Peanut farmer. Remember, we had just started builindg the military back up. Afterward, the situation seemed more under control, and thereby didn’t warrant a military response.

However, the subsequent attacks as I mentioned, should have been a clue to anyone who didn’t consider getting their knob polished to be of greater import.
"Bubba" did at least get the 1998 Regime Change Act passed and signed.
But never followed through.
Passing a law doesn’t solve the problem.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
Look, we’re not talking about what should fall under the Presidential purview in an ideal world. In this world, the Executive branch directs the agencies who do oversee this kind of thing.

That doesn’t make the President responsible for anything bad that happens in those areas — it just means that such blanket attributions of responsibility are about equivalently plausible.

Meanwhile, in the real world, bad things happen in areas over which the President has oversight, but that doesn’t make the President "responsible". Such claims are generally just partisan cheap shots.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Jon;
Look, we’re not talking about what should fall under the Presidential purview in an ideal world. In this world, the Executive branch directs the agencies who do oversee this kind of thing.
Quite so. And let’s consider the directives that these were operating under. See Gorelick for the first stop. You know that kida stuff would never fly under any administration but a Democrat one... and historically speaking, wouldn’t have come about in most of those, either.
That doesn’t make the President responsible for anything bad that happens in those areas — it just means that such blanket attributions of responsibility are about equivalently plausible.

Meanwhile, in the real world, bad things happen in areas over which the President has oversight, but that doesn’t make the President "responsible". Such claims are generally just partisan cheap shots.
The Buck stops... ummmmm.... where, again?
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
The 9/11 attackers had no reason to think Bush was going to respond any differently than did Clinton... which is to say not at all.
What is to say that Bush did not react in exactly the way that Al Quada expected and desired?
 
Written By: Rosensteel
URL: http://
"What is to say that Bush did not react in exactly the way that Al Quada expected and desired?"

Yes, Bush did something AlQaeda did not expect and did not want. They wanted him to respond ineffectievly like Clinton did. Pres. Bush characterized Clinton’s approach as "shooting a $5 million dollar missile at a $5 dollar empty tent and hitting a camel in the butt". I think that is a more than fair charaterisation.

Witness the mansion BinLaden was building in Afghanistan which he had to abandon without completion, never mind the training camps there is no reason to think AlQaeda thought it would not remain in.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
What do a few relatively rare and, with the exception of 9/11, relatively small terrorist attacks do to strategically advance the goals of militant Islam? What do they have to gain if, as you claim, the west simply ignored their attacks and went on with their everyday lives.

The answer is, of course, nothing.

I sometimes wonder if people even understand what the purpose behind terrorism is. Terrorism is used when you dont have enough force to directly cause signifigant damage to your enemy, and instead is used to intimidate them into certain desired and often self-destructive responses.

Islamist desperately desired outright war between Islam and the West. They wanted us in Iraq. We have given them exactly that.

This isnt to say that they will not be defeated, nor that there plan is a sound one. Terrorism is a completely pointless activity unless the enemy responds in some way.
 
Written By: Rosensteel
URL: http://
What is to say that Bush did not react in exactly the way that Al Quada expected and desired
Give that man a ciagr and his choice of prizes from the seond shelf.
What do a few relatively rare and, with the exception of 9/11, relatively small terrorist attacks do to strategically advance the goals of militant Islam?
To force people to give into their demands.
What they got instead was destruction on a scale they couldn’t have imagined, much less been prepared for.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
Oh.. and make sure the cigar’s loaded, right?
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
Rosensteel wrote:

"The answer is, of course, nothing."

And he is wrong. Part of their worldview is that we are weak, have no moral courage, and will not respond—that we can be taken if they have the resolve. Bush’s response shows that worldview to be baseless.

"Terrorism is used when you dont have enough force to directly cause signifigant damage to your enemy, and instead is used to intimidate them into certain desired and often self-destructive responses."

And as they demonstrated they were unsuccessfully opposed in conducting terrorism, they would accrue resources given freely by the Islamic world, and then have the strength to be secure in their own territory as were the Soviets. Why do you concede that advantage to the Islamists?

"Islamist desperately desired outright war between Islam and the West. They wanted us in Iraq. We have given them exactly that."

For the Islamist, the war was ongoing, and they desperately hoped we would not engage them directly. They desperately did not want that. They wanted Afghanistan, they wanted the turbaned ex-soviet republics, and they wanted every dissaffected Moslem in the World to look for them for leadership. We have precluded the first two, and the "arab street" is sickened by them.

We’re doing very well.

"This isnt to say that they will not be defeated, nor that there plan is a sound one. Terrorism is a completely pointless activity unless the enemy responds in some way."

That is a foolish point of view. When you never or only accidentally are effective in opposing attacks, you eventually don’t survive the last one.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
I think you suffer from a case of US-centricism which is not neccesarily warranted. What militant Islamist seek first and foremost is to see their idealogy imposed across the middle-east, the United States and the West as a whole are more secondary targets and means to an end rather than primary targets.

This is easy to see when you realize that the vast majority of the victims of Islamic terrorist are not westerners, but Muslims in their own nations. The primary operations of Zarkawi and his ilk in Iraq have not been against US forces, but rather in operations meant to destabilize the Iraqi government and spark sectarian conflict. This type of instability grants them the perfect oppourtunity to maneuver for power and influence, which was typically denied them by most stable authoritarian governments in the mideast. (Tyrants dont like those looking to seize their power, even their fellow countrymen or co-religionist.)

Just look at how terrorist operate in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They hold no allusions about actually being able to destroy the state of Israel with ragtag groups of suicide bombers. The goal is just as much to provoke Israel into actions that will leave them hated by the rest of the Muslim world as it is to actually strike directly at them. You dont think that after all of this time that Palestinian terrorist dont full-well know that Israel will retaliate, again, after every terrorist attack? They know full well that is exactly what Israel will do. They count on it.


Nobody gives Palestinians any attention when things are going relatively peacefully, but they know that the exposure from such attacks is a useful tool. Look at how often competing and seperate groups in Israel will immediately claim responsibility for the same attack, when it is clear that they were not all operating together. Its more important to get credit for the attack than it is to actually carry out the attack.


I think you are sorely mistaken if you think that they expected no reaction whatsoever from 9/11. Make no mistake, they wanted open warfare. They wanted to goad the United States into a response that would infuriate the Muslim world and lend support to their cause. They counted on the United States responding with a heavy hand.

The plan was flawed, and it will fail, but it is hard to deny that Islamist did not seek open warfare with the United States, and we gave them precisely that.

The problem with their plan was the obvious one, and you allude to this yourself. The more they expose themselves to their fellow Muslims, the more disgusted they become with what they see. This of course isnt surprising, as historically tyrants have been known to make blatant and egregious mistakes of judgement based on their own arrogant confidence. They counted on the Muslim world uniting behind them in the face of a heavy handed United States response, and while many Muslims are understandably enraged by the recent actions of the US, what the Islamist did not count on is that the outrage that would be directed at them from their own people would be greater than than the outrage towards the US.
 
Written By: Rosensteel
URL: http://
The plan was flawed, and it will fail, but it is hard to deny that Islamist did not seek open warfare with the United States, and we gave them precisely that.

Except for the "responding with a heavy hand" bit.


 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
I think you are sorely mistaken if you think that they expected no reaction whatsoever from 9/11. Make no mistake, they wanted open warfare.
No, they wanted CONTROL.... control by intimidation. What they got was far more than they bargained for.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
Brit Hume was interviewsing some official in the Mine Safety Department and the joker began to blame the Bush Administration for the accident as a result of Bush downsizing the department. The downsizing began under Clinton and the mine safety stats under Clinton were far worse than during the last 4 years under Bush.
 
Written By: Mitt
URL: http://
"but, you forgot to include [/sarcasm] ;) "

Those that have a sense of humour/sarcasm do not need it. Besides, I am too lazy.
 
Written By: timctual
URL: http://
I think you are sorely mistaken if you think that they expected no reaction whatsoever from 9/11. Make no mistake, they wanted open warfare. They wanted to goad the United States into a response that would infuriate the Muslim world and lend support to their cause. They counted on the United States responding with a heavy hand.

I actually agree with your point here. I think what you leave off is "they counted on the United States responding with a heavy hand but didn’t expect them to actually stay the course".

I also don’t expect they figured on the Iraq invasion.

That’s what was wrong with their calculation and that is why they’re in a bit of trouble now.

A few cruise missile strikes, perhaps banging around in Afghanistan for a bit, yes, that would have been considered by the Muslim world as a "heavy hand" and I think you’re right, it could have been parlayed into something which was to their advantage. But I don’t believe, even in their wildest dreams, they expected the US to react by toppling the Taliban and blowing away the Baathist regime in Iraq or staying to fight in both.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
I think you are sorely mistaken if you think that they expected no reaction whatsoever from 9/11. Make no mistake, they wanted open warfare. They wanted to goad the United States into a response that would infuriate the Muslim world and lend support to their cause. They counted on the United States responding with a heavy hand.
I’ll take a slightly different approach than McQ here. Al Qaeda did expect the US to respond and they did expect it to inflame the Muslim world. I’m not sure to what degree they they expected the US to respond, or whether than was necessarily a part of their calculation.

What I think they clearly miscalculated was the Muslim worlds response to our response. They thought the Muslim world would united against US agression in the ME. They were very, very wrong on that point. Not only did the Muslim world not united against the US, it’s actually uniting against Al Qaeda. (which is not to say they’re necessarily uniting with the US against Al Qaeda)
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
yeah, without knowing more it seems like a bit of a stretch by shields to make that connection. particularly when there are so many objective, non partisan cases that people are unaware of or confused by poor media coverage.
 
Written By: Ivan Carter
URL: http://www.pressthenews.com
I think what you leave off is "they counted on the United States responding with a heavy hand but didn’t expect them to actually stay the course".

you are kidding, right? stay what course? where did you get this phrase. from the fact that the president has stated it like 10,000 times? stay the course in Iraq? that course was to remove hussein, hopefull bring democracy, and perhaps stem fanatical anti western islamic extremism (though Iraq was not much of an example of that before the war, it was a suitable state which many therein wanted assistance with overthrowing their dictator on). but going into Iraq, if anything, (wrong or right) may have presented more of an opportunity for them, since it was not a base beforehand.

so what course are you talking about? making sure we get al Qaeda? we, sadly, have not even been much on that course since afghanistan. afghanistan>? we need to do more there, not less. securing our borders? okay, next one. how about integrating intelligence data between the various agencies? nix, a govt (GAO) report came out yesterday concluding that the adminstration has, in essence, dropped the ball on this, in that IT STILL isn’t being done. how about securing unsecured WMD’s? nope. etc etc. stay what course? Iraq? I think we should stay there, but how do we even know for sure if that is right, when we dont know (AND CANT KNOW Otherwise we’d know how to defeat it with the best military fighting machine in the world)what effect our presence is having on the insurgency. what are yout talking about "stay the course.? it is like you were programmed by the bush administration to say this or something? I dont mean any disrespect, but rhetoric is starting to rule this country. rhetoric doesnt lead to good policy, or process, in the long run.
 
Written By: Ivan Carter
URL: http://www.pressthenews.com

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider