This site is dedicated to everything that can be disagreed about. There are appropriate swear words and graphic descriptions so PLEASE, keep your children off this site. In fact, don't let your kids look at anything with a screen.

Saturday, August 27, 2005

Did Casey Sheehan Die For A Lie?

How much of the press is liberal or left-leaning? Well, for the ten years I went to universities, 70%. As a very red-state midwesterner, my university was not overrun by leftists (except the liberal arts). I can just imagine that the percentage would be higher at a place like Columbia (who, no doubt have a leg-up on the best MSM jobs). A moron with half a brain can assert (correctly) that the MSM has a leftist bias. This moron can then assume that they don't like conservatives (Bush).

The leftists like Sheehan assert the the MSM is owned by evil corporations which are run by evil Republicans. They are ignorant or ignore that most of the coverage of a story is made by leftists who were sent to cover the story by another leftist (editor-a reporter who rose thru the ranks). They have only one obligation: to get their way.

To this end, they have the dual task of limiting (or completely ignoring) coverage of competing ideas as well as protecting their own (message and messenger). In this case, the MSM is not only serving a dual purpose (make Bush look bad, while protecting Sheehan), they are also protecting the Clinton Administration.

Is there any doubt that "Able Danger"* is a much bigger story? Bigger than Iran-Contra, bigger than Watergate (Remember the media coverage of those events? Remember the posturing politicians? Remember which party was in the WH?). If you don't know what "Able Danger" is, then my point is proven and the media has gotten its way.

The folks who read this site are some of the best educated in the country. I wonder how many of Plato's "masses" know about "Able Danger".

Yes Cindy, your son may have died for a lie. A lie that lives to this day. Unfortunately for you and the MSM, it is Bill Clinton's lie, not Bush's.

*for those of you with busy lives, the link is small and precise


Anonymous marshall said...

Kind of funny you post to the Washington Times to prove the media is liberal. Who is the Washington Times owned by again?

Conservatives love to talk about Clinton...Clinton this...Clinton that...hate to break the news but Clinton isn't the president, he hasn't been the president for five years.

Clinton obviously made some mistakes but I say if you want to go back and place the blame on a previous adminstration why stop with Clinton. I would say maybe the Reagan adminstration that orginally armed Bin Laden probably takes some of the blame. Rummy meeting with Saddam and funding the his war against Iran. But I am sure you will just want to talk more about Clinton...

8:31 PM

Blogger The Plumber said...

Hi Marshall,

I provided the Washington Times article simply because it is short and to the point. I had a complaint from a friend with two small children who says that he simply doesn't have time to read lots of links in order to be educated enough to understand some of my posts. If the NYT or the Washington Post had short, clearly written articles on Able Danger, I'd have used them. Unfortunately, these "respected" newspapers are more interested in some loon in Crawford. Conversely, if the Washington Times only had long pieces, I'd have tried to find another source.

Also, the King of Siam could have been the President rather than Clinton. If so, then it would have been his fault that we knew who the hijackers were and did nothing to stop them.

Nice try with the Rumsfeld red herring. You ever hear of "the enemy of my enemy"? It has been around longer than the United States has even existed; and it will be around until there are but two humans left on Earth.

How can you type with your hands over your ears and your eyes shut?

11:01 AM

Anonymous marshall said...

Here is a website that you might want to try reading.

Where's bin laden again? How long has it been since 9/11? I am sure when we get attacked again it will be Clintons fault again. Looks like you are the one that needs to wake up...Clinton isn't President...its 2005.

I am sure you have read Richard Clarke's book or Paul O'Neill...nice how when you can't support your argument so you come at me personally, cute strategy, wait that must the politics of personal distruction that Republicans have patented brought to your cute little blog.

10:28 PM

Blogger The Plumber said...

Richard Clark? Wasn't he in charge of intelligence during the Able Danger operation? I gots a couple questions for that fellow.

Another question, why was Jamie Gorelick on the Commission and not a witness?

Inquiring minds want to know! Unfortunately, "Single Bullet" Arlen Spector will be doing the whitewas...I mean, "investigation".

Hey look Marshall! I just insinuated that a Republican will be covering up for a bunch of Democrats! I'll bet those evil Republicans will stop sending me my talking points.

As far as Bin Ladin goes...I don't have any idea where he is or even if he is still alive. I know where he was in 1996 though. So did Bill Clinton. He was being served on a silver platter to the WH by the Sudanese.

Did Slick "misspeak" when said that the WH didn't take Bin Ladin because there was nothing to hold him on? Did Sudan's Minister of Defense, Fatih Erwa, lie to the Commission about the offer? If so, why? Is Sandy Bergler lying about the offer when he says that he "saw no chance that Sudan would have handed Bin Ladin over"?

I'd sure like to get my hands on Clinton's videotaped testimony. Inquiring minds want to know.

12:08 AM

Blogger The Plumber said...

Maybe we could get a Blue Ribbon Panel to investigate it. We could call it "The Committee to Investigate the 9-11 Commission's Investigation of 9-11",
"CI911CI911" for short.

12:15 AM

Blogger The Plumber said...

Hel-lo-o? Mar-shall?

Get'n too hot in the kitchen?

10:59 AM

Blogger Holly said...

Able danger is not new, not even to us leftist liberals. Yes, Clinton screwed up. I thought he was a good President in many ways, certainly charismatic, and he did many good things. He was a marital cheater(not that he was the first president, nor did this has anything to do with his job...), and certainly not a perfect or even close to the 'best' of presidents. But quite far from the 'worst' either.

However, I am completely at a loss as to what 9/11 and to the Clinton administration's obvious screw-up with stopping Al-Qaida when they had a chance - with Iraq? What does Iraq and Cindy Sheehan's protest at this war have to do with al-Qaida? You don't mention any known sources of a link there, nor has any turned up. Not even from Fox news, known conservative media source, has reported anything like that.

Early on, 9/11 and terrorism was Bush's excuse for going to war - but we all know how many times his reason for going to war has changed, and he has admitted himself there is no link.

So, please enlighten me. What does this have to do with the Iraq war?

9:45 PM

Blogger The Plumber said...

Ahh. The real reasons we are in Iraq.

The thought is that the only way to reduce the influence of radical Islam is to establish democracy in the Middle East (Turkey is actually part of Asia Minor). IMO, Iraq was the most convenient: decimated military, hated dictator, established no-fly zones. Iraq, geographically, is perfect. It borders more Arab countries than any other and it is in the heart of the Middle East. It works out militarily.

There has been some success. There is signs of democracy occurring all over the region. Egyptians get to choose a new president for the first time in over 20 years. Saudi's for the first time in history get to choose local govt. officials through elections. Other significant changes have occurred after our entrance into Iraq. Lebanon kicked out the Syrians. Isreal made a huge sacrifice for hopes (ha!) of peace. Khadafi renounced his desire to acquire WMD's and invited inspectors in. Those are just the one's I know about, I'm sure there are many more.

Now, one can debate whether or not democracy can reduce the influence of radical Islam, but it is difficult to debate whether or not our presence in the Middle East is affecting the region in the way the Bush Administration wants it to. The changes I mentioned above give the President and his administration all of the moral support they need to ignore the snipping of intellectual dynamo's like Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore, and the MSM.

If the administration had told you that establishing an Arab democracy in the Middle East was the only way to reduce the influence radical Islam, that we were going into Iraq to install a democracy and to also establish a military presence in the Middle East for the goal of reducing the influence of radical Islam, and that if we don't do this type of dynamic action now, we risk having to battle militant Islam for generations, would you be in favor of the war then? How do you think this line of reasoning would play on the world stage?

Hell, I wouldn't tell you the truth either.

There were ultimately two choices Bush had to fulfill his duty to protect the U.S. citizen: 1)remove Muslims from the country who are not citizens and isolate the Middle East from all but diplomatic contact, or 2)try to bring the Middle East into the 21st Century. He chose #2, the hard, but correct, way.

Able Danger a "screw up"?! We may have known who four of the highjacker's were, including Atta, in 1998, and we did nothing to stop them! Three thousand people died that may not of had to because Gorelick set up a wall that prevented the DIA from communicating with the FBI. That single event (9-11) provided Bush with all the impetus he needed to declare a war on terrorism in the first place. Meanwhile, the antiwar crowd humms bars of "Four Dead in Ohio" in a ditch down in Texas. I guess if Clinton were a Republican, there would be a similar song written about how he killed 3,000 people by choosing to play hide the cigar and hanging out with Johnny Huang than meeting with his CIA director (whom he met with twice). Good Lord! We wouldn't even be having this discussion if 9-11 hadn't happened. A screw-up? That doesn't even come close.

If we lived in a vacuum, then there is no need to connect dots. There is no need to connect dots here, the colors already overlap.

1:51 AM

Blogger Holly said...

OK, well there is your camp that supports Iraq. And there is mine that doesn't. We will likely never agree on it. My point was that Clinton's lack of response which led to 9/11 is TRAGIC and should be held up to more scrutiny, yes.

But I disagree that this can be directly connected to Iraq.

9/11 or not, the Middle East is a hotbed for Islamic radicals and would have been no matter what. They have been plotting over there (and hating Americans and other westerners) for a LONG time.

8:07 AM

Blogger The Plumber said...

"held up to more scrutiny"? The press coopted the soap operas to televise the Iran-Conta hearings. Able Danger is a much bigger deal than I-C. The lack of outrage on the left and the MSM is appalling.

The response to 9-11, the War on Terror, and the War in Iraq, are all the same thing. Iraq may not of had anything to do with 9-11 (except giving the hijackers families money afterwards), but it is central to the War on Terrorism. You seem to still be in a "criminal act" mode where we simply punish those involved in terrorist activities. That kind of thinking is incompatable with a global war on Islamic fundamentalism.

What would you do to reduce Islam's threat to western civilization?

BTW, Saddam's troops routinely fired on U.S. aircraft that enforced the no-fly zones. That is an act of war, and the only reason Bush would have needed, had he chosen to pursue it.

10:05 AM

Blogger Holly said...

Peace is the only way Plumber.

I realize you are not a Christian.

But if you were, you would understand Jesus' command to turn the other cheek after your enemy has smited you. If you were, you would know at what point he spoke those words.

It is what I believe and follow. It is the truth. And I am not even an evangelical Republican...

9:49 PM

Blogger The Plumber said...

Did Jesus recognize a need for government? If so, why?

If they are successful, the jihadists will have to turn my cheek.

9:14 AM

Blogger Holly said...

Yes, Jesus did recognize the need for government. Why? Because he recognized that some form of government was essential for order. But he was also clear that we should only worship God and that government cannot solve all our problems, we must rely upon God above all.

Now you must realize I am not a biblical scholar here, so I am not putting lot's of scipture down - and I doubt you want that anyway.

I must say though - we are quite a pair of anomolies here, aren't we? Me, the liberal Christian. You, the conservative agnostic.

Rove and Company would have America believe that all liberals are godless and all conservatives are god fearing and go to church every Sunday. Anyway, I digress....

9:02 PM

Blogger The Plumber said...

Although an agnostic, I am also a diest. An anomoly in my own mind.

12:07 AM

Blogger Holly said...

Hmmm, interesting. Before having kids, I was more of a Deist too.

Post-kids however, I felt a strong need for a more concrete, defined faith. Probably driven by fear of something happening to my children, I admit. My Christian faith has helped me to let go and put my worry on the hands of God.

With this said, however, I completely understand where Deist's are coming from. And as a progressive Christian, I too worry about the us vs. them mentality that led to religions wars throughout history. Today we still face it, with Muslims vs. Christians.

If we have learned anything from history, it is that these differences will never be resolved through war. And God surely does not approve.

I do understand, however, that extremist Muslims are the ones initiating it today with terrorism. What I am still not on board with, however, is the Iraq war. I think it fuels the terrorist fires more than safeguarding the American people. Many people think to just sit back and wait for them to strike again is foolish, and I understand that concern as well. But I don't think the Iraq war is mitigating the risk of that happening. I think there are better things we could be doing to prepare and safeguard against that happening than spending all these lives and money in Iraq and this is where I differ from Iraq supporters.

With this said, however, to pull troops out now will have to be done carefully. I think all people who are against the war want to hear is that it was a mistake, based on lies, and that we are now looking at how to withdraw and not abandon the Iraqi people in the process.

11:01 AM


Post a Comment

<< Home