Baseball Crank
Covering the Front and Back Pages of the Newspaper
October 16, 2009
POLITICS: Conveniently Forgotten

One of the things that I confess has stunned me about the Obama era is the extent to which Obama's supporters, after an eight-year orgy of hysteria and rhetorical excess directed at George W. Bush, have been acting stunned and shocked at the intensity of opposition to Obama. There really is a sort of collective amnesia - disnigenuous, presumably, in most cases - about their side's incandescant hatred of Bush.

Anyway, Vladimir over at RedState has a look at one example of this, comparing a Facebook poll on killing Obama to Facebook groups championing killing President Bush, a cause that - if you recall - was even made into a movie. (Related example here).

Somehow, we are to believe that none of this - and believe me, we could go on for days with examples - ever happened.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 4:41 PM | Politics 2009 | Comments (76) | TrackBack (0)
Comments

Dude, the collective amnesia of liberals has been the one subject I have been consistently expounding on now for a few years here. It is a real life version of 1984 and it is very scary arguing with people who just memory dump history and events that they don't like .

Make sure to archive all the comments of our favorite trolls regarding Afghanistan because I am pretty sure thos memories are the next ones they will be ordered to erase by their masters.

Posted by: dch at October 16, 2009 5:01 PM

I'm a Democrat but I agree that the vitriol towards Bush far exceeded any hatred expressed towards Obama.

It's not that the left have forgotten that vitriol, however, they just feel that Bush earned or deserved it. It's beyond their comprehension that someone could feel that way about Obama. Classic Pauline Kael thinking about Nixon.

Posted by: Marc R at October 16, 2009 5:36 PM

Crank,

Bush was evil. He deserved to die. Obama is the One. It is horrifying that anyone should even criticize him, much less want to hurt him. Now do you understand?

Posted by: stan at October 16, 2009 5:57 PM

Are you stunned stunned by the people who criticized the venom then, but accept it now? It seems like an odd reversal and amnesia as well.
Unless - gasp - the actions weren't what was being criticized before, and people were being disingenuous about it and only using it as a political wedge. But of course, now are totally telling the truth. Same goes for those who were passive about it before, but now hate it.

Hmmm, I wonder if I should file this under 'but you did it first!' or 'relative morality is alive and well, but only when we want it to be'. I need to think about that.

I'm quite solid on where I am Crank - both are wrong. Do you have a judgement on this? Has one been thrown up on the frontpage of Redstate, to decry this current level of protests? To say 'yeah, he's not a socialist-facist or a nazi, and it really lowers us to be saying this, we're better than that' - and been embraced by the community at large?

And of course, avoiding the timeline and refusing to compare dates of entry to office means nothing as well. Why just the other day, I was talking about how 3 months is exactly the same as 6 years.

Posted by: Dave at October 16, 2009 6:43 PM

Obviously, no President should ever be the subject of possible assasination.

The fact remains however, as Crank has shown, that this crap went on constantly while Bush was president and no one was concerned then on the left about it. Nothing said about Bush was ever deemed to be too outrageous, too insulting, too insane. Whether the comments came from regular lefties or all the way up to and including elected US Senators and Congressman.

So please stop the faux outrage and crocodile tears.

Posted by: dch at October 16, 2009 7:12 PM

Right on, Crank. Seems everyone's forgetful.
Hannity and friends even forgot criticism of a sitting President during time of war is tantamount to treason.
Loving Saddam and wanting the terrorists to win are the calling cards of Presidential critics. Just ask any Conservative between 1/20/01 and 1/20/09.

Posted by: Berto at October 16, 2009 7:21 PM

When the left shows outrage, its "Bush derangement syndrome". When the right shows outrage, its spontaneous populist uprisings. When 20% of Democrats believe Bush had advance knowledge of 9/11 attack in some form, its "the looney left". When 40% of Republicans think Obama was born in Kenya and an additional 30% arent sure, its...well you havent really come up with a cogent response to that yet have you Crank? Oh wait, I can think of one for you....if its not a Rasmussen poll its to be entirely discredited. There you go...

Posted by: robert at October 16, 2009 8:05 PM

robert, you just made up those numbers. You're not even close. Don't you people ever learn?

While I'm the first one to laugh when others justify their actions by saying, "Well, this is different!" for some lame-ass reason or another, it really does matter when you undermine the C-I-C when we have troops at risk.

Protesting against a president's domestic policies does little to aid and comfort our enemies. Selling "They lied us into this immoral and illegal war!" plays right into the hands of terrorists. If you can't see the difference you are just plain delusional or stupid.

Posted by: spongeworthy at October 17, 2009 7:56 AM

"If you can't see the difference you are just plain delusional or stupid."

Based on the usual comments left here, I'm voting both.

Posted by: Largebill at October 17, 2009 9:22 AM

Crunk,

Here's the difference: when people opposed Bush, "your" side likened it to a Treasonable Offense.

Ever the hypocrite, you now say, "Well, you did it to Bush..." when people criticize the new Prez, instead of harping on the whole Support Your President/Patriotism angle.

Jesus hated hypocrites, Crank.

Posted by: ihatecrank at October 17, 2009 9:55 AM

Dave - I'll put that on my list of things to write about when I get paid to do this full-time. You will note that there have been front page posts at RS mocking Birtherism and pointing out that the "Obama=Nazi" signs have come from loony LaRouchies.

Robert - It was more than 20%.

"when people opposed Bush, "your" side likened it to a Treasonable Offense"

Examples? I guarantee you won't find examples of people saying that about criticisms of Bush's domestic policy. When words like "treason" got used it was generally in the context of things like disclosing national security secrets or making it actively more difficult for the US to win a war. Which is rather different than, say, Joe Biden questioning the patriotism of anyone who opposes higher taxes.

Posted by: Crank at October 17, 2009 10:19 AM

To elaborate on a key distinction: politics ain't beanbag, it wasn't under Bush or Clinton. But one thing that's different is that the Democrats are much more apt to try to delegitimize political criticism and debate in the area of domestic policy. We saw that under Clinton when he blamed Rush Limbaugh and Newt for Oklahoma City, and we are seeing it again now.

Posted by: Crank at October 17, 2009 10:30 AM

Can libs ever provide actual, verifiable facts to back up their inflammatory emotional assertions For years I have now heard 1) Bush blamed Iraq for 9/11-he didn't
2) Any opposition to Bush was deemed to be treasonous and dissent was shut down-really? provide evidence for those claims and I just want to make sure I have this straight your position was that during Bush's 2 terms opposition was muzzled in this country.......really?

Posted by: dch at October 17, 2009 11:09 AM

You'll get *crickets* , dch, but that won't stop them from repeating this garbage.

I think lefties believe in some sort of supernatural "quote vault" that exists somewhere that confirms these delusions of theirs. No one's ever seen it, but the proof is right there! Google, however, is of this world and therefore cannot reach to these "magic quotes".

But if it could, well, they'd sure show us!

Posted by: spongeworthy at October 17, 2009 11:56 AM

Sponge : didnt make up the numbers PPP has it 42% birthers, 25% truthers look it up on pollster.com. Results duplicated by REsearch 2000 and other pollsters on the same site. They dont even mind if you move your lips when you read them.

Crank: so its 25 not 20 percent. NIce to see you go silent on the high birther percentages upwards of 40% plus 30% "agnostics". Such courage. A party of racist crazies, no wonder you guys get so defensive when someone dares to call it as it is.

Posted by: robert at October 17, 2009 7:05 PM

Not a peep of "treason" whisperings from the right over the actions of Cheney and Scooter Libby in outing the identity of intelligence officials for political gain.

Posted by: seth soothsayer at October 17, 2009 7:07 PM

"Not a peep of "treason" whisperings from the right over the actions of Cheney and Scooter Libby in outing the identity of intelligence officials for political gain.
Posted by seth soothsayer at October 17, 2009 7:07 PM "

Of course not since the outing was done by that noted gossip Richard Armitage. Lying Joe Wilson himself contributed to it by including the missus in his Who's Who entry.

Posted by: Largebill at October 17, 2009 8:26 PM

"Cheney and Scooter outing the identitys of intelligence officials for political gain."

Thanks for confirming your total ignorance.

The leaks came from Richard Armitage- he was neither a neo-con or one of Cheney's people or one of the people pushing for war with Iraq. His identity and lack of agenda in leaking the info was known within the 1st week of the investigation by Special Prosecutors Fitzgerald's office. You have now been corrected -so don't make me repeat myself again little boy.

Scooter Libby was not convicted of leaking info. His offense, such as it was, dealt with getting dates confused when he spoke to reporters and had meetings and testifying about it-which became obstruction of justice. If you were familiar with the actual facts presented at trial you would have known that the period of time in question was filled with him constant meetings regarding terrorist threats and intelligence/security matters. So here is a guy working his ass of to protect simpletons like you and he gets railroaded.

BTW-you do know that Joe Wilson was found by a bi-partisan Senate Committee to have provided false testimony to them-you know that right? You also know that your little talking point that your masters gave you was never proven right? Also you know both Joe Wilson and his wife were known all over DC, right? and that Joe Wilson was angling for a job with John Kerrey, right?

So why don't you go back to your masters and sources and maybe start questioning them instead of getting slapped around over here......beeyatch

Posted by: dch at October 17, 2009 8:34 PM

Foxotron Largebill with the latest bogus theory. A unanimous jury of both republicans and democrats begged to differ beyond a reasonable doubt until President Bush saved the day. Some party of personal responsibility.

Posted by: seth soothsayer at October 17, 2009 8:34 PM

Amazing, talk about amnesia! I guess the wing nut harassment of the Clinton Administration from day one never happened.

Sorry, Crank. You guys started it. Keep those crocodile tears.

Posted by: magrooder at October 17, 2009 11:12 PM

Both parties get their share of grief from their supporters in their general population. Some are funny, some are dumb, some are inappropriate.

The only times I get irritated is when politicians and party leaders engage in it because they should know better and should be held to a higher standard.

I'm thinking most recently of the Jimmy Carter statement that the opposition to Obama is racist. It's probably true that some Republican extremists are racist, but that's hardly a fair characterization of what is going on. If political debate is going to be focused on the fact that there are idiots at both ends of the political spectrum, then we might as well not have a debate at all.

(I have to admit, the line gets a little blurred when one of the idiot extremists actually gets elected to office. Paging Nancy Pelosi...)


Posted by: MVH at October 18, 2009 8:22 AM

It's all about marginalizing conservative thought. If it takes fabrications the left is happy to fabricate. Dowd-ify, take statements out of context, assasinate character, whatever it takes. They won't confront the ideas because they know most conservative ideas are popular. So they intend to make it unfashionable to think conservative thoughts as those thoughts might be shared by such untouchables as Rush Limbaugh or Liz Cheney.

Posted by: spongeworthy at October 18, 2009 11:28 AM

"His offense was getting dates confused".
Yup. The calendar is the biggest enemy to the Right. Sure they tortured their enemies before the Justice Dept. gave them the OK to do it, but they shouldn't be charged with crimes just because they got the dates wrong.
Remember, it's not lying if a Republican does it.

dch, For a guy that knows everything, you sure got suckered by the Saddam/ WMD lies. You'll have to explain how you fell for that one hook, line, and sinker sometime.

Posted by: Berto at October 18, 2009 11:38 AM

Berto, in the meantime, perhaps you could explain how the Clintons, Gore, Kerry, et al got suckered into believing Saddam had WMDs and/or voting to approve the war.

Posted by: chrisa798 at October 18, 2009 2:09 PM

robert - For people who aren't plugged into politics, Birtherism is a lot less crazy than Trutherism, since the one involves mainly a conspiracy to falsify documents to benefit one man, while the other involves a colossal deception by the entire top level of the government to stage a terror attack and kill thousands of their own citizens. Birtherism looks crazier the closer you look, but we're talking rank and file here. Anybody who is a Truther probably needs to be committed.

seth - "outing the identity of intelligence officials" - Even aside from ignoring the problems with the timeline (not just Armitage but the whole fact that Wilson took to the pages of the NYT to discuss a secret mission), I'm wondering how the plural crept its way into this sentence.

Your reliance on the jury verdict misrepresents the subject of the charges.

magrooder - Oh, yeah, the GOP invented the Independent Counsel statute and politicized sexual harrassment charges. History didn't begin in January 1993 either. But you're changing the subject entirely from the topic at issue.

Posted by: Crank at October 18, 2009 4:02 PM

GOP/Dem politics aside, it is amazing at the high number of folks worldwide who are 9/11 truthers. I mean, mind-boggling numbers. Maybe that helps explain why Bush was/is so hated.

I cannot emphasize enough at the sheer magnitude of people (especially Europe) who believe that stuff.

Posted by: RW at October 19, 2009 10:07 AM

RW,

I would have expected most of them to reside in the Roswell, NM area.

Posted by: MVH at October 19, 2009 10:26 AM

They believe this even after Bam-Bam said that was nuts? They can't take the word of a Nobel prize winner?

Posted by: spongeworthy at October 19, 2009 11:24 AM

chrisa798,
Allow me to use my crystal ball to explain how other people fell for a lie. Sorry, I don't know what was going through their delusional heads.
I'd rather hear it from them.
dch is my guy. he spouts here like he knows something (maybe that Republicans will never be held accountable for their actions, but surely everyone knows that), yet he fell for such a blatant lie. Curious.
I hope he doesn't use your shitty response that Clinton, Gore and Kerry (you and dch's heroes?) fell for it, so you both did too. I'd feel I'm stuck back in the loop of the accountability-free conservatives.

Posted by: Berto at October 19, 2009 3:21 PM

Only Truthers believe 9/11 is important. The rest of us followed the lead of our President, and supported the stonewalling of the 9/11 Commission.

Posted by: Berto at October 19, 2009 3:23 PM

So Berto, you believed that the Clinton Administration improperly bombed Iraq on multiple occasions based upon a "lie" that Saddam was continuing his WMD operations? Or did it only become a lie later on? You act as though there was some worldwide consensus that Saddam stopped seeking WMDs and Bush ignored it. You are making up your own reality here.

You also suggest that chrisa798 implied that Clinton, Gore and Kerry fell for Bush/Cheney lies. However, Clinton and Gore were there before W's administration, so if anything, by your reasoning they were perpetuating a lie, not falling for it. Maybe we should give W a pass for falling for Clinton and Gore's lie instead!

Posted by: Paul H. at October 19, 2009 3:54 PM

The more indisputably true a Crank post is, the more you'll see lefties come on here and bitch about it. Call it Crank's Iron Law of Blogging.

Posted by: John Salmon at October 19, 2009 3:59 PM

The sign of success is when they are so eager to change the subject from the post.

Posted by: Crank at October 19, 2009 5:51 PM

I like it when they say they "came for the baseball but got this instead".

Bullseye.

Posted by: spongeworthy at October 19, 2009 6:06 PM

I didn't even know what "birtherism" or "trutherism" were until a few moments ago. If this is what's become of the American political landscape, I'm glad I'm no longer aware of what goes on there.

Democratic Party, do you really think that everyone who takes issue with the current administration blindly supported the previous one? Are you always this childish?

"Truthers" need to stop watching so many movies. Isn't "the massive government coverup" one of the most popular tropes ever conceived?

Posted by: Jesse at October 19, 2009 10:56 PM

I didn't even know what "birtherism" or "trutherism" were until a few moments ago. If this is what's become of the American political landscape, I'm glad I'm no longer aware of what goes on there."

It's sad, it really is. It's politics by the lowest common denominator. And it shows the downside of political blogs. Anyone can start one, and often you have little idea if the blogger is a credible source or commentator. Going even further, the people who post on those blogs are even more of a wild card.

Posted by: MVH at October 20, 2009 10:22 AM

Crank,

Your view of the "subject" of the post is an effort to stick it to the left. To point out that the right has at least (and I'm being very generous here) the same amount of amnesia is not to change the subject of the post. My comments address a side of the subject you would rather not address -- understandably because you have no defense for the right's hysterical attacks on Clinton (example -- he murderd Vince Foster).

Posted by: magrooder at October 20, 2009 10:31 AM

"Maybe we should give W a pass for falling for Clinton and Gore's lie instead!"

Of course we should. W was a Republican, and we all KNOW Republicans are never to be held accountable for their words and deeds. So yes, another mulligan for Li'l George (this will go along well with the mulligans for allowing 3000 citizen deaths on his watch, the clusterfucks that are the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and of course, the wholesale destruction of the world's economy).

I'm off to see if I can talk Gore, Kerry, and Clinton to jump off a bridge. The world will be a better place once the lemmings like dch, Crank, and W follow them.

As for why I didn't fall for the Saddam/ WMD lies. I asked for proof, and it NEVER came. But I'm weird like that. When someone wants to send American soldiers into a meatgrinder of death, they have to give me a better reason than "Defense contractors want the Treasury."

Posted by: Berto at October 20, 2009 11:52 AM

I would recommend that people refrain from responding to the previous two posts (Berto and magrooder's). I think the old saying that if you talk to a fool you can never have an intelligent conversation applies to those two.

Posted by: Lee at October 20, 2009 12:13 PM

Sorry Lee, but I'm going to respond.

The question is Berto, were you convinced that the claims that Saddam had or was pursuing WMD's was a lie during the Clinton administration, or did you come to that realization only after W took office? Were you asking for proof during the Clinton administration? Since I believed the reports that Saddam was seeking WMD's during the Clinton administration, I certainly didn't see the need for additional proof when W's administration continued those claims. It was, indisputably, right or wrong, widely acknowledged that Iraq had WMD's. I can only conclude from your continued avoidance of the question, that your skepticism began only during the Bush administration, which makes it seem far more likely to be a partisan opinion rather than a reasoned one.

Posted by: Paul H. at October 20, 2009 1:29 PM

You guys are wasting your breath, Berto is a Chomskyite, they thought Clinton was too much of a national security hardliner ;)

I've said my own bit on that issue too many times to waste my breath going over it here yet again, but just to refresh for the uninitiated:

1) The main reason for the war, in my view, was the nature, intentions and history of Saddam's regime (including, among several other factors, violations of the cease-fire agreement, active support of terrorism outside his borders, and a record of using WMD) rather than the precise state of its WMD capabilities.

2) Of course we had trouble getting good intel. Over the past seven decades we have always had trouble getting good intel on foreign WMD programs, especially in police states.

3) We remain in the dark even now as to what got shipped out of the country during the protracted debate over the war. We also remain in the dark over what was done with Saddam's previously known chem/bio stockpiles.

4) I have little doubt that the Bush Admin firmly believed Saddam had bio and chem weapons and was actively at work on a nuclear program.

5) That belief was shared by many leading Democrats as well as numerous foreign intel services, and was disbelieved almost exclusively by people with no access to intelligence reports.

6) Postwar inspections found that Saddam did indeed intend to revive his nuclear program once he got out from under the sanctions regime, which people like Berto wanted lifted and which was not only crumbling under Saddam's efforts to corrupt and evade it but was part of a broader containment strategy that had included US troops being stationed in Saudi Arabia, a point of some contention. Such reports showed other ways in which Saddam remained, if anything, more dangerous than we had realized.

7) Ultimately, the reason the world - and many high-ranking officials in Saddam's own regime - believed he had stockpiles of WMD was because Saddam wanted people to believe that and acted in such a way as to encourage that perception.

Posted by: Crank at October 20, 2009 1:49 PM

My response to Crank:
1)We may not agree on whether Saddam had WMDs (I never saw any proof, not even under Clinton), but it seems we both agree that Saddam did not have the capabilities to use WMDs against the United States.
As for Saddam's record of using WMDs, what was the record of America's reaction to Saddam's use of WMDs? Clue: Akin to "attaboy!"
2)True, our intelligence can't even confirm that Israel has nuclear weapons. I do question why Crank left out the part about Cheney creating a group within intelligence community to provide the answers (i.e. justification for war) that he was looking for. Could be that "lack of accountability" program the Right is always trying to push.
3) There is no greater indictment of the total incompetency of the Bush Administration than the charge that his administration may have missed the shipment of WMDS during the run-up (what debate?) to the war.
Just wow! The linchpin reason for starting war, and they missed it? Too busy clearing brush from a fake ranch in Midland? I don't care who W ran against in 2004, if you believe this and still voted for Bush in 2004, you should have your vote taken away for being an idiot who can't add 2+2.
4) Gullibility is America's greatest disease. Taking the word of those who profit from war might have been a red flag that you were going down the false path.
Follow the money, Crank.
5) Only the hippies (with a track record of always being correct) and UN Weapons inspectors (what would they know?) disbelieved the WMD story.
And those foreign intelligence communities didn't think enough of it to start a war. Just saying.
6) Yet Saddam invited the weapons inspectors into Iraq to prove the falsehoods of Crank's claims. The fact the George W. Bush lied to the American public about Saddam throwing the weapons inspectors out of Iraq during the run-up to the war was also a big clue that they were making it up as they went along. Yup, this just in: Despite what Hannity told you, Bush really did lie in the run-up to the war.
7) Don't play poker, Crank. The whole bluffing thing will go right over your head.

You got suckered, Crank. Despite what the GOP tells you, there is nothing wrong in admitting your mistakes. Just try not to fall for it again (like in Iran or Afghanistan, for instance). And don't feel too bad. You may have been suckered, but at least it was some other parents' kids who died for your mistake.

To Paul H.,
Clinton was a politician. I don't take the word of politicians as "good faith" when they are planning to send American soldiers off to die. They need proof of their charges.

Let's face it, the Iraq War was supposed to make the USA look tough. Instead it made the USA look incredibly stupid and gullible. OBL may appreciate the gullibility and stupidity, but that doesn't mean I have to.

Posted by: Berto at October 20, 2009 3:46 PM

I only read the last lines of your diatribe, but if you think OBL liked anything about the Iraq war, you need to get help. Where were OBL's crack jihadi besides lying dead in Ramadi with flies buzzing around them? When has AQ looked more ineffectual? How's recruiting going for AQ these days in light of their fine battlefield successes?

Seek help.

Posted by: spongeworthy at October 20, 2009 4:21 PM

spongeworthy,
Spending a half-trillion dollars fighting a war against a handful of teenagers for 6-and-a-half years and counting. Who wouldn't be impressed?

Posted by: Berto at October 20, 2009 4:57 PM

Why do you guys continue to let Berto and magrooder suck you into old arguements and take you off topic? Just don't respond to these guys! It is a waste of your time!

Posted by: Lee at October 20, 2009 6:22 PM

Crank, that last post is about the most amazing piece of revisionist histroy I've ever seen. I understand that trying to make the Bush Admin seem competent, let alone rational, requires creativity, but geesh, let's try to approach reality.

Lee, your pointless ad hominem responses show only the bankruptcy of your cause.

Posted by: magrooder at October 20, 2009 8:13 PM

Crank, that last post is about the most amazing piece of revisionist histroy I've ever seen. I understand that trying to make the Bush Admin seem competent, let alone rational, requires creativity, but geesh, let's try to approach reality.

Lee, your pointless ad hominem responses show only the bankruptcy of your cause.

Posted by: magrooder at October 20, 2009 8:13 PM

Eh. It's pretty much the same thing I have been saying for 6-7 years.

Posted by: Crank at October 20, 2009 8:50 PM

Who wouldn't be impressed?

Can't imagine. Maybe there were some who doubted our will, or thought we might bend to the international left and bug out. I guess they learned a painful lesson. Too bad BamBam is going to waste all we earned there.

Posted by: spongeworthy at October 21, 2009 7:07 AM

Berto, you have once again avoided answering my question...did you (contemporaneously, not after the fact) oppose Clinton's bombing of Iraq during his term in office? My problem with the "hippies" (as you called them) is that they only complained that WMD's in Iraq were a lie when Bush was in office, not when Clinton was in office. Obviously, there is no claim of hypocrisy applicable to those who complianed about both, while those who complained about one but not the other (I haven't heard of many who claimed Clinton lied but that Bush didn't, but they would be included too) are being hypocritical. Now if somebody changed their opinion post-invasion once no WMD's were found, that's fine. But to believe Clinton's claims then call Bush a liar before any additional evidence was offered is naked partisanship and total hypocrisy. If you were one of the few who did challenge Clinton as a liar, congratulations, while I still think you are wrong, you are not a hypocrite.

Magrooder, what exactly did Lee say in his post that constituted ad hominem? All he did was tell people to ignore you, he did not engage in a personal attack. If that indicates a bankrupt cause, the Obama administration's campaign against Fox News must indiacte that the administration is pursuing the most bankrupt cause ever!

Posted by: Paul H. at October 21, 2009 9:33 AM

To get back on topic, I gotta go with Marc R when he says "It's not that the left have forgotten that vitriol, however, they just feel that Bush earned or deserved it. It's beyond their comprehension that someone could feel that way about Obama." I think he nailed it.

It is sort of ad hominem (I looked it it to find out what it meant) in that if Bush did it, it must be wrong and hence deserves being attacked with "no holds barred". But if O-bama says it, it must be right and no disagreement allowed. It must be nice to live in such a black and white world!

Posted by: Lee at October 21, 2009 12:20 PM

Yes, I opposed Clinton's bombing of Iraq...at the time.
I never trust any politician to bomb anyone without providing just cause.

BTW, I love Lee's 'don't argue with Berto and macgrooder' schtick. Odds are you'll find yourself staring at the face of a hypocrite when you shave in the morning.
As for black and white world, surely he missed the first 8 years of this decade when that was a badge of honor.
After BO voted for telecom immunity everyone should have realized they shouldn't believe the hype.

The lesson the world learned: With all that money and all that military might, you can still fight the US to a standstill with a handful of teenagers.
The lesson spongeworthy learned: Sending other people's kids to die and be maimed in war makes the weak feel manly.

Posted by: Berto at October 21, 2009 7:44 PM

Berto,

Relunctantly, I will actually try to engage you in some intelligent conversation.

You seem to really think that our reaction to 9/11 was not what you think should have been. Can you please share with us what you would have done, if you were in charge, after the 9/11 attacks?

Please don't tell us what you would NOT have done or why someone else was wrong. That we have noticed you are very willing to do.

Please tell us what you would have done.

Thank you.

Posted by: Lee at October 22, 2009 7:31 AM

For starters I would have investigated what happened and why? The fact that 8 years have passed and this wasn't done should tell you how important 9/11 was in the eyes of the Bush Administration.
I have written here in the past about how the man who was the President of the United States on 9/11/2001 underfunded and stonewalled the 911 Commission. I also wrote about how he promoted those (Ms. Rice, for starters) who bald-face lied to them. Therefore, the first question that needs to be asked about 9/11 is how important was it. After watching the actions of the man who was President on that day, one can only come to the conclusion it wasn't very important.
I've left this question here in the past: if the President of the United States didn't think it was important, why should anyone else? The only people I know who make a big stink about 9/11 are "Truthers", who have been (rightly?) cast by the media as weirdos, and those who lost friends and family in the attacks. The latter group gets my condolences. Anyone else who brings it up is just buying into the media's hype.

Posted by: Berto at October 22, 2009 12:47 PM

"For starters I would have investigated what happened and why?"

OK, assume that an investigation that met your standards was conducted, and the conclusion was exactly the same as that set forth by the 911 commission. What would you have done then?

Posted by: MVH at October 22, 2009 12:54 PM

It would be...interesting...to hear what Berto thinks was not sufficiently investigated about 9/11.

Conspiracy theorists always have a theory why there have never been enough investigations. There's always another grassy knoll, always another pumpkin to shoot, always some poorly-mimeographed diatribe about how jet fuel can't melt steel.

Posted by: Crank at October 22, 2009 1:19 PM

Berto,

Thanks for answering my question. Now I think I am beginng to understand where you might becoming from. Since you don't believe that 9/11 was done by terriorists (al-Qaeda) then from that any action taken by anyone based on that premise was wrong. Did I capture your position correctly?

Please note, I am not trying to argue for/against your position; rather I am trying to state it as claerly as I can so I can see where you are coming from.

Thanks!

Posted by: Lee at October 22, 2009 3:33 PM

Boy Crank, you really know how to miss a point.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist about 9/11. I said the President of the U.S. on 9/11/2001 doesn't think enough about that day to seriously look into it.
Do you want to argue that point? If so, you tell me why he underfunded and stonewalled the commission, and then promoted Condi Rice after she lied to them.
There are people who think W did care about 9/11. They are called "Truthers".
It must pain you horribly that the guy who you've spent the last 8 years protecting cares naught for your 9/11 fetish.

Posted by: Berto at October 22, 2009 3:40 PM

That's what I thought: not willing to answer.

Given that Obama has not recently sponsored a taxpayer-funded commission to determine whether the earth is round, I assume he doesn't care about that, either.

Posted by: Crank at October 22, 2009 3:42 PM

Exactly, Crank.
September 11, 20001 means NOTHING. So the next time you think it's a good reason to justify your war-mongering, stick it back in your pocket and try again.

Posted by: Berto at October 22, 2009 8:36 PM

MVH,
Find the perpetrators, arrest them, charge them---and if you find them guilty, jail them.

Posted by: Berto at October 22, 2009 8:43 PM

Lee,
Not exactly. I'd more say the Commission's findings are tainted since we know, for example, that main national security players were lying to the commission.
If you want to know how I think we should react to terrorist acts, see my prior response to MVH.

Posted by: Berto at October 22, 2009 8:52 PM

Crank,

The fact that you've been saying the same thing for 6-7 years shows you are a slow learner.

Posted by: magrooder at October 22, 2009 9:28 PM

The point, Berto - which you would have gotten by now if you were not so determined to miss it - is that you lack the balls to come out and say what you think is unknown or uninvestigated about 9/11. It may come as news to you, but not all national security functions of the Executive Branch are performed solely by bipartisan commissions consisting of retired politicians. The Administration already knew the facts it needed to act before the Commission was established. You have offered not the slightest reason why any thinking person would come to a different conclusion.

Posted by: Crank at October 22, 2009 9:40 PM

Actually, Berto did answer my question:

"Find the perpetrators, arrest them, charge them---and if you find them guilty, jail them."

This means he would do nothing about Al Queda outside the US, except perhaps merely hope those countries investigate and arrest them for us.

Posted by: MVH at October 23, 2009 9:01 AM

Berto, the Bush administration was hesitant to embrace the 9/11 Commission because they knew that there was a strong chance it would become a partisan attempt to pin blame for the attacks on Bush. Have you completely forgotten Sandy Berger stuffing documents in his pants at the National Archives?

The fact that you ignore the obvious political implications of the 9/11 Commission and instead embrace a belief that the attacks simply weren't considered a big deal is quite frankly disturbing. You may not be a Truther, but I can certainly see why how you could be confused for one.

Posted by: Paul H. at October 23, 2009 9:01 AM

Well, well, well. So Crank and his boys are making excuses for George W. Bush. Did anyone get the license plate of the feather that just knocked me over?
I get it. Lying to the group, which was commissioned (with tax-payer dollars) to investigate "the day that changed the world", is just politics. Got it. I hear you loud and clear.

I can certainly see why Crank feels the Bush Administration already had the facts about 9/11. After all, they already knew the fact that Saddam Hussein had WMDs and was planning to use them against the United States in the run-up to the Iraq War--who would ever think they'd just make shit up for their own benefit?

So Paul H., exactly what blame for 9/11 was laid at the feet of the President who when warned about an imminent attack told those who warned him that they "covered their own ass"?
Have you completely forgotten that EVERYTHING in the Bush/ Rove White House was partisan? (Including the Justice Department).
RE: The Sandy Berger story. Be careful, Crank doesn't suffer Conspiracy Theorists gladly.

C'mon Crank. Any thinking person would have to wonder why the President would promote his NSA head to Secretary of State after she lied to a group commissioned with tax-payer dollars to investigate 9/11.
Have the balls to to pick a side.
1) 9/11 was an important date in the history of this country and George W. Bush is hiding something
or
2) 9/11 was not that important, unless one is a 9/11-fetishist (which any thinking person can see you are).

I had the balls to pick one side. How about you Crank? You going to grow a pair?

Posted by: Berto at October 23, 2009 1:47 PM

"Find the perpetrators, arrest them, charge them---and if you find them guilty, jail them."

This means he would do nothing about Al Queda outside the US, except perhaps merely hope those countries investigate and arrest them for us.
----------------------
It also means he wouldn't start military ventures which are used as Al Queda's greatest recruiting tool against the United States.
He also wouldn't merely hope that the US could win wars sometime this century so it won't bankrupt the country.

Posted by: Berto at October 23, 2009 1:52 PM

In other words, in all these many comments on this thread, Berto is still unable to identify any question about the September 11 attacks that remains unanswered. He just wants his political opponents subjected to investigations without any basis. Got it.

Posted by: Crank at October 23, 2009 1:54 PM

Berto,

Would you have supported a more narrow, surgical military operation focused just on al Queda?

Posted by: MVH at October 23, 2009 1:57 PM

MVH,

There could have been no such thing as a "...narrow, surgical military operation focused just on al Qaeda". That is because al Qaeda was intertwined with the Taliban governement. The idea that we could have just hit terrorist camps was not a workable solution.

Recall that the US told the Taliban that unless they "gave up" al Qaeda, then we would consider them harboring terrorists and hold them accountable. The Taliban refused.

Posted by: Lee at October 23, 2009 2:07 PM

"We to this day don’t know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us,” said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. “It was just so far from the truth. . . . It’s one of those loose ends that never got tied.”

As for Crank, he knows he can't defend the Bush Administration underfunding, stonewalling, and lying to the bipartisan group funded with tax-payer dollars to investigate the events that led to the 9/11 attacks.
Too bad, I was looking forward to hearing his conspiracy theory.

I guess I'll just take comfort in knowing that anytime Crank uses 9/11 as an excuse for his war mongering, thinking people will know it's just a smokescreen and even Crank doesn't believe what he writes.

Posted by: Berto at October 23, 2009 2:19 PM

Lee,

I didn't posit that option as something that should have been done at the time. Basically, I'm trying to figure out if Berto would favor -any- kind of military option against al Queda outside the US. If I don't get a straight answer, I'll just assume the answer is "no."

Posted by: MVH at October 23, 2009 3:10 PM

MVH,
If the question is, could I support a hypothetical military strike outside the US--the answer is yes.
If the question is, would I support a hypothetical military strike outside the US--the answer is maybe. But I really need to see the proof on who we were striking and the logistics of how to pull it off without creating more enemies.

Posted by: Berto at October 23, 2009 5:15 PM

Berto, you deserve a medal for your ability to suffer and smackdown fools.
I'm reminded of a time I was walking my German Shepard on the beach. A pack of four or five mostly smaller dogs appeared and made some loud, threatening runs at Buddy. When I unleashed him so he could defend himself, some serious ass-kicking commenced, with Buddy playing the part of Bruce Lee in an old kung fu film.
Nice work, buddy. The only difference is that those annoying, yapping animals had the smarts to recognize who the big dog was.

Posted by: rs at October 24, 2009 9:41 AM

Berto,

I suspect that you have set standards for military engagement that would never be satisfied. Logistics are never perfect, and any time you use military force, somebody won't like you. Did you have a problem with our initial attack on Afghanistan after 9/11?

Posted by: MVH at October 24, 2009 11:08 AM
Site Meter 250wde_2004WeblogAwards_BestSports.jpg