posted on October 10, 2001 09:03:50 AM
I thought the Presidential tantrum was a poor demonstration of leadership.
It seems to me he sacrificed the perception of a unified command for the sake of an opportunity to prove "I'm a tough President."
What the world saw was dissension between the President and Congress at one of the most crucial times in the nation's history -- a chink in the armor.
The matter could easily have been handled privately. There was no reason, none, that it had to be paraded before the public. What must the leaders of other countries have thought? This alliance is fragile at best, with many countries just waiting for the first excuse to bail out. For the man at the center of that alliance to go out of his way to show the world that our Congressmen can't be trusted just strikes me as foolhardy.
I'm also disturbed by the nature of the factoid that was leaked. If there is a "100% chance" of further domestic terrorism, shouldn't we know that? Instead they're telling everybody not to worry, to go about life as always. It's like they decided that getting the economy back in shape is more important than any potential risk to the population.
posted on October 10, 2001 09:21:56 AM
Yes, it's as though he's playing charades with the truth. That factoid is not harmful to the people or to the troops, as he claimed. It is harmful to the promotion of flying and spending. So where are the priorities set? This morning there's a release that says that the Taliban government has lifted all restrictions previously imposed on bin laden in carrying out his plots. I'm waiting to see if it's announced in our news. There's another that says that the administration is now putting bin laden on the back burner in this escapade and the focus is shifting to Iraq. So what does that mean? That bin laden was only used to objectify the country's ire so that the bush family could gain the funds and approvals to carry out their old agenda items? Or that it's now been found that Iraq carried out the WTC attack? If so, why are the taliban being bombed?
posted on October 10, 2001 09:23:01 AM
"I'm also disturbed by the nature of the factoid that was leaked."
A factoid? This doesn't come anywhere near close to the level of a factoid. It's an opinon.
Who can say with any certainty that, if we bombed Afghanistan, that there's a 100% chance that we'll be retaliated against on our own soil? No one in Congress, or the U.S. adminstration, that's for sure. And yet this opinion, offered to the Washington Post by a Congressman, put into play shrieks of "leaks of classified information," with attendant Bush scowls.
Similarly, who can say with any certainty that, if we had not bombed Afghanistan, that there would be a repeat of an attack like Sept. 11th, on our own soil? No one in Congress, or the U.S. adminstration, and certainly not anyone here on AW.
And yet we have heard this latter claim trotted out again and again by the adminstration, and spewed as truth by regular people, like posters here. Some posters here have labelled those who do not believe that bombing Afghanistan will improve the situation, and may make it worse, as "naive." Clearly, the naivetee is on the part of those who swallowed this "we have to bomb Afghanistan or else we'll be attacked again" line without examining it to see it if made any sense.
The Congressman's "leak of classified information," should provide a clue. It doesn't make sense, it never did.
Do you know what some Congressman told the press the other day, what he "leaked" that put Bush in this frenzy? The Congressman said that if we bombed Afghanistan, there'd be a 100% chance of retaliation on our own soil.
You surely realize that this congressman can't possibly be certain that his "leak" is the one Bush was so upset about. There is certainly no way that you or I could know that. None of the parties involved has come forward to discuss the specifics of the leaks that could have compromised security. You may choose to believe that Bush would just arbitrarily grab power from Congress, but the flaws in your thinking are obvious.
The American public is squarely behind the actions of Bush and the administration thus far--so are our allies. Can't imagine why you think that Bush needs to go to "Plan B" at this point.
[ edited by elfgifu on Oct 10, 2001 09:31 AM ]
posted on October 10, 2001 09:40:17 AM
"You surely realize that this congressman can't possibly be certain that his "leak" is the one Bush was so upset about. There is certainly no way that you or I could know that. None of the parties involved has come forward to discuss the specifics of the leaks that could have compromised security."
On the contrary, elfgifu, I am quite sure.
Bush referred to this himself during his Rose Garden apprearance with the German Chancellor yesterday (I think he was the German Chancellor.) Additionally, the Congressman in question appeared on CNN to talk about it last night.
If you want a link, try this one from USA Today. That wouldn't normally be my preferred source, but the AP news story of this morning, which the NYT online carried, has been removed and updated. Read it quick, before it is disappeared.
"Bush, angry that some details of a briefing to the Senate Intelligence Committee last week appeared in news reports, issued an order Friday that administration officials provide classified information to only eight key members of Congress."
"White House officials say the president was angered by news reports that an administration official predicted a 100% certainty of additional terrorist attacks if the United States retaliated for the Sept. 11 attacks."
posted on October 10, 2001 09:50:31 AM"White House officials say the president was angered by news reports that an administration official predicted a 100% certainty of additional terrorist attacks if the United States retaliated for the Sept. 11 attacks."
Since that's an anonymous source, it's meaningless. It could just as easily be disinformation, to obscure the actual leak that was deemed important.
posted on October 10, 2001 09:57:17 AM
"Since that's an anonymous source, it's meaningless."
If it's reported by AP, USA Today, the New York times, it's a bit more than "meaningless." To tar every report ascribed to "White House Officials," as anonymous and therefore meaningless, is absurd. That's the language of reporting. Throw out 90% of the news reports you read, if that's your criteria.
And, as I posted, Bush himself referred to this. We won't delve into whether he's "meaningless" but we surely can't say he's "anonymous."
do you really believe that the White House is going to point out the specific leak that may have compromised security? That wouldn't be a very good idea. And again, I repeat, the Congressman might like to believe that his remarks caused such a flap, but that don't necessarily make it so. I saw the President's remarks yesterday, and I still say--we don't know what the leak was.
posted on October 10, 2001 10:02:00 AM
As far as the "leak" - These terrorists obviously are not sane, rational people; and I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out that if they will hijack planes and fly them into the WTC and Pentagon, they have the will to try anything - and will stop at nothing. This Congressman simply stated what is on every American's mind right now. It this is the "leak"...
As far as the "tantrum" - Poor demonstration of leadership? Though certainly not a positive act by the President; however, he is human. I honestly don't think it negated his image in the eyes of the international community. I definitely could not hold up as well and perform as well as he is doing. I would not want to have to make the decisions the President is having to make right now. And I don't think his "tantrum" will be viewed out of context or consideration for the tremendous weight he has on his shoulders. Everyone has their breaking point; and unfortunately sometimes it is not in private.
Yes, this war is not what we would prefer, but it IS what is needed and necessary; and I fully support the actions we are taking.
[ edited by nanandme on Oct 10, 2001 10:03 AM ]
posted on October 10, 2001 10:02:02 AM
"and I still say--we don't know what the leak was."
You can say whatever you like, elfgifu, say it and still say it, in the face of anything contradictory. It's America's new favorite pastime, indulge yourself.
posted on October 10, 2001 10:12:43 AMYou can say whatever you like, elfgifu, say it and still say it, in the face of anything contradictory. It's America's new favorite pastime, indulge yourself.
As long as the source is so questionable, I will continue to question it, thanks. The number of news agencies who pick up a story is never a good barometer of its reliability. Expressing a contradictory opinion--even if it flies in the face of impeccable information--is not a new pastime in America and does not qualify as an indulgence.
posted on October 10, 2001 10:15:52 AM
I am well aware of the language of reporting. Unnamed sources are meaningless, as a basis to substantiate "fact".
You need to read what isn't said, as well. How many leaks were there? What were they?
Sorry. These amorphous non-specifics just don't pack it when you're attempting to dissect the cause of Bush's anger. You may not care for it, but it's certainly possible he was justified.
posted on October 10, 2001 10:31:53 AM
Laugh! This is why I love this place.
From the transcript of Bush's Rose Garden talk:
Bush:
"And I was in the--when those leaks occurred, by the way, it was right before we committed troops. And I knew full well what was about to happen. And yet, I see in the media that somebody or somebodies feel that they should be able to talk about classified information."
If you do understand the language of reporting, then you should understand that the AP, the Washington Post, the New York Times, know full well who the unidentified "White House Official" is, and consider this person credible and qualified.
"I am well aware of the language of reporting. Unnamed sources are meaningless, as a basis to substantiate "fact". "
Again, preposterous. Let's dig Nixon up and put him back in the White house, apparently "Deep Throat's" information, as it was reported as coming from an "unnamed source," was "meaningless as a basis to substantiate "fact." "
posted on October 10, 2001 10:37:47 AM
Yes, no matter what, "nevertheless."
As a matter of vanity, I've told myself for years that nothing surprises me, and that I don't underestimate the power of stupidity. And yet, I admit that I find myself surprised, over and over again, at how much people can persist in not "knowing" what is clearly present. The power is indeed great.
posted on October 10, 2001 10:46:23 AMAs for all of the warmonger testimonials from AW women--who cares? Women don't fight wars, and I doubt that many of the AW women would be appreciated as cheerleaders by the strong young men in uniform
Perhaps we don't but we give birth to those who do and part of us is ALWAYS with the strong young PEOPLE in uniform.
As for whether or not those people in uniform would appreciate AW women as cheerleaders, you know this how? Phone interviews? Email campaign? Hiring a poll company?
My kitten, one of those strong young people in uniform, never mentioned that he or any in his squad spoke with you...and he's darned happy for the cheerleading support of this AW woman.
Darned UBB
[ edited by Shadowcat on Oct 10, 2001 10:47 AM ]
I wonder if you are equally surprised at people's ability to see and hear only what they choose to while ignoring any other possibilities. Just another example of stupidity...
Touche, toke!!
[ edited by elfgifu on Oct 10, 2001 10:49 AM ]
posted on October 10, 2001 10:51:12 AM
Bush's public scolding of Congress was embarrassing (for me). It could/should have been handled privately.
If the "leak" was indeed the "100% chance" of more terrorism directed at us, I would call that a non-leak.
We would have to have our heads in the sand to not think there was/is more planned for us.
For example (per my local 10/5 newspaper), "16 more men indicted in Pa. driver's license scam." They were among "21 arrested last week..." "Eighteen of the men indicted so far had permits to transport hazardous chemicals."
The terrorist's themselves are all over the TV threatening us.
krs's remarks regarding women and war (barely worthy of notice, coming from such an obvious lack of knowledge of history) do bring to mind some other questions as well. I wonder if krs thinks men who have never seen combat should have their opinions on war respected. I further wonder, if no one cares about women's opinions on war because we don't fight it, should we then be barred from military service, public office, voting? Of course, it's all moot because the only intent of krs's remarks was to inflame.
posted on October 10, 2001 12:03:47 PM
Hmmmm... I said nothing about Clinton. My remark was about how previous attempts at using covert operations to kill bin Laden and failed. FYI...the interview where this was discused was not the link KRS provided.
Clinton said that he'd sent men over undercover to try and kill bin Laden. It did not work. This was a couple of weeks ago and was not mentioned again in any of the news that I could find at the time.
Soon after we hear about the times when "other countries" were supposed to take out bin laden for us and those times failed. But no more mention of our own attempts.
I wonder if you are equally surprised at people's ability to see and hear only what they choose to while ignoring any other possibilities. Just another example of stupidity..."
Another example? It's the prime example, and exactly what I've been pointing out.
If you refuse to accept that the "100% possibility" statement is the "leak" that led to this unprecedented action on the part of the president, in spite of the numerous supporting documentation I've presented, fine. But does anything else about this episdoe intrude on your consciousness at all?
Congress is supposed to be the representative of the people, the most direct link the people have in the federal system. If the executive branch declares that it will no longer provide information to a branch that's supposedly co-equal, the branch that controls the purse-strings, the branch that is supposed to oversee the actions the executive branch takes, this doesn't bother you? One teeny bit? You'll accept that the press is getting too much information, and take that without a squawk, you're willing to forgo the illusion of "The Freedom of the Press." And you'll also as easily accept that Congress is getting too much information and let go of the basic structure of our system of government.
Okay, you'll swallow that too. What won't you swallow? Anything? Do you ever stop to think - "What's going on here?"
It's not in dispute that the Congressman told the Washington Post, after the Congressional briefing, that there's a 100% chance of another strike on our own shores if we bomb Afghanistan. Does thatmake any impression on you? Do you wonder at all why it shouldn't have been clear to everyone before that there's no certainty, either way, bombing Afghanistan or not, that there'd be another strike on us? Or was it enough to happily repeat the drivel that the adminstration put out, that we had to bomb Afghanistan or else we'd be attacked again.
If none of that makes you wonder - how about this - If the "100%" remark wasn't the leak that prompted the executive branch to try, in effect, a coup over the other branch, what sort of leak should be enough to justify this action? How can it ever be enough to blindly chirp that it's certainly possible that Bush was justified, without demanding to know more?
With unthinking attitudes like this, you'll get the sort of government you deserve. Unfortunately, I'll get the sort of government you deserve also.
Your comments are becoming combative. Please remember that the Community Guidelines require that you treat your fellow AW members with respect and consideration. Please take a step back and keep the Community Guidelines in mind as you post.
posted on October 10, 2001 12:37:01 PM
Most of our "covert" operations were curtailed years ago as part of our government's concession to the Vietnam/Watergate era. The problem most "peacemakers" have is their inability to realize that evil simply DOES EXIST. Since there was no 60's era CIA to deal with the heads of the beast,we have to deal withthe consequences.
You cannot deal with an illiterate savage who wants to murder you based on the contents of a book he cannot read.
You have to pursue this totally and ruthlessly. The johnny-one-notes with "it's our fault, we did this to ourselves", yadda yadda yadda, on & on & on, besides being incorrect, also attempt to curtail retaliation because "bombing them to the stone age won't do any good, they're already there.". Well maybe if you blew up every 1985 Toyota pickup and 30 year old Russsia tank in the entire country, when bin Laden decides to move on and take that penthouse in Algeria, the Algerians just might say no.
The Afghans per se are nothing, they are just the beginning in the attempt to make a smaller box.
posted on October 10, 2001 12:37:25 PM
donny--
please get a grip! Never, not once, have I ever imagined that the US would not be hit again by terrorists. Whether we pursue the current course in Afghanistan or not, we will be hit again. Now that we have that out of the way, I have never asserted that the President's course with regards to the leaks was the desirable one. You are assuming that you know what I think--let me assure you that you do not. And lest you missed it, I will repeat--never, not once, did I "blindly chirp" or in any fashion say that Bush's action with regards to Congress was justified. Lastly, I have never been guilty of blindly accepting anything that comes from our government or our news media (the actual bone of our contention is your blind acceptance of the idea that we know the actual leak just because some congressman and xyz news agencies say so.)
posted on October 10, 2001 01:05:29 PM
That's exactly what I thought when I read the Post.
Just because they reported that the reason for the clamp down and scolding was because of the "100% chance" of more terrorism, does not mean that was the real reason. That just doesn't sound like classified information to me.
Congressional members are hardly going to repeat to the press or public what was not to be said out loud in the first place, per Bush, IMO.
posted on October 10, 2001 01:41:23 PMJust because they reported that the reason for the clamp down and scolding was because of the "100% chance" of more terrorism, does not mean that was the real reason.
I agree. Nor are the going to make a big deal out of what ever was leaked, instead they hope it went more or less unnoticed.
posted on October 10, 2001 01:51:12 PM
"Congressional members are hardly going to repeat to the press or public what was not to be said out loud in the first place, per Bush, IMO."
That would be a fair assumption, but look at what Bush himself said about it:
"when those leaks occurred, by the way, it was right before we committed troops. And I knew full well what was about to happen. And yet, I see in the media that somebody or somebodies feel that they should be able to talk about classified information."
Bush's tries to make the argument that it wasn't merely that saying that a retaliation on America was "100% likely" that was in and of itself the security leak. He's saying that that comment telegraphed that strikes were about to begin. It was those two pieces of information, that the strikes were going to begin Sunday, and that the adminstration foresaw that this action of ours would prompt further strikes against us, that was among the information given to the Congressman at the briefing.
This discussion about what the leak was occurred after it was no longer an issue. The "leak" was on Friday. The deployment was on Sunday, the discussion was on Tuesday. On Tuesday, no one would care about keeping the big secret that we had started operations the previous Sunday.
This isn't hard to see. Forget about what Bush said about when the leak occurred, say that he's dissembling. Look at when Bush swung into action and put out the memo about restricting info. It coinincides with the reported comment. If the leak he was concerned about happened before then, wouldn't he have put out the memo before then?
People who should know say that the Congressman's statement, reported in the Washington Post, prompted Bush's memo. I do not "blindly accept" that, but I do find that credible, from, among other things, my own observation of what information the press was reporting around that time. Did any of you notice anything reported that jumped out at you as a security risk?
Again - If you don't accept as credible that this was the leak that incensed Bush... Don't you wonder at all what sort of leak would justify the executive branch trying to steal the authority of the legislative branch? It should have to be something huge.
This is a very serious business. How much is the American public going to accept unquestioningly as being in the National Interest, a Matter of Security, Necessary in a Time of War? Judging by the crowd here, whatever's handed out.
posted on October 10, 2001 02:01:01 PMYou can say whatever you like, elfgifu, say it and still say it, in the face of anything contradictory. It's America's new favorite pastime, indulge yourself.
Unnamed sources are meaningless, as a basis to substantiate "fact".
