Condi the fact fudger
In a move that is utterly consistent with the Bush administration's habit of simply eliminating the evidence of facts they don't like, Condi Rice has cancelled a 19-year-old terrorism report. The reason? It documents that more terrorist attacks occured in 2004 than in any year preceding it, including the previous record-holder, 2003.
Of course the right will accuse the left of "going negative." But it is difficult to conceive of a more cynical, negative act done for worse motives than cleansing history to protect the illusion that the emperor is clothed.
posted by Chris Dykstra @ 12:13 AM |
| 
5 Comments:
Wow, not doing something the way we have for 19 years is unconscionable and a sure sign that something is drastically wrong huh?
So how about obstructing appellate court nominees? Haven't been doing that for 19 years. When a Democratic president nominated the head lawyer of the ACLU to be a SCOTUS justice, the GOP didn't obstruct.
How about keep marriage between one man and one woman? Been like that for quite a while.
Here's a little newflash for you kids. You don't get to be the advocates of change and then snivel about change. It makes you look hypocritical. Then again it is a post from Chris.
My expectations there are pretty low.
Signed,
-Censored
Censored - Stop being obtuse. I am not mourning the loss of an establish methodology simply because we have always done it. It is curious that up until now, presidents and intelligence folks from both sides of the aisle have found that report useful. But this administration does not have any use for "reality."
Condi has an opportunity to improve that report. That would be an example of positive progressive change. If the methodology is broken, which it might be, then fix it. Instead she chose to eliminate it. why? Because no matter how you slice it, if you tell the truth about the state of terrorism in the world, Bush's approach doesn't work.
Chris,
Are you really trying to say that the for that past 19 years our intellignece apparatus has been all that and a bag of chips?
Did you miss that whole 9/11 intelligence failure thing?
The not subtle and obvious point that you are missing here is that the report may have been useful when the official policy of the US was to ignore global terrorism, now that the policy is to confront terrorism a feel good / justify the policy of playing ostrich report really isn't called for.
In regards to Bush's policies, you couldn't be more wrong.
Signed,
-Censored.
The 9/11 intelligence thing was an ideological failure as well as an operational failure. Richard Clark and a trail of analysts were beating the warning drums on 9/11. Bush and co. ignored them. If the leaders of the country get a report entitled Bin Laden determined to attack inside the US" and dismiss it as hogwash, then it isn't an intelligence failure that left us defenseless. It's a leadership failure.
Post 9/11 Bush has create a terrorist factory in Iraq and made it more difficult to track them. He's left our ports and borders the same or worse. He's alienated our allies, which if you think about it is the worst. Terrorists don't start out in our country (except the home grown ones of course) they start out in other countries. So catching them before they get here is a really good idea. He has also made it easier for all of us, including terrorists, to buy guns anonymously, cut federal funding of police forces... I could go on and on.
The real subtle,dirty secret, Censored, is that we are still ignoring terrorism except where the timely mention of it will help scare the population into voting Republican.
In my mind, a working approach to terrorism = a reduced number of terrorist attacks, a reduced number of terrorists, pro-active and willing allies, an informed public. We have none of these at the moment, thanks to El Presidente.
Since Bush attacked Iraq terrorist activities have skyrocketed. The report showed that, clear as a bell. That's why little neo-con-robot-girl-Sec-of-State killed it.
Its apples and oranges.
Again, before when the US was pretending that we really didn't have to do anything about terrorism and the states supporting it we had a report that pretended the problem didn't exist.
Did it count the 1000's Saddam was killing? Did it count starving children in North Korea? How about women beaten to death in Iran for being seen with a man? Nope.
Aren't those people victims worth counting (if not helping?)
Yes, the report did show terrorist attacks in Iraq as way up. But that doesn't tell the story. It doesn't show that the regimes perpetrating the other crimes are gone and that there is a future that can be terrorist free. It doesn't show that on balance the world is a MUCH better place.
Times have changed. The reporting needed to as well.
Chris, you are a business man. Do you use the same reports you did 19 years ago to manage your business?
Wake up.
-Censored
Post a Comment
<< Home