While it’s true that we haven’t been attacked since September 11, have we simply been lucky, or are the harsher, more sweeping and more intrusive methods favored by the Bush Administration the real reason?
In his speech Wednesday, President Bush cited various intelligence breakthroughs that he attributed to the CIA's interrogation methods. For example, he described the case of alleged Al Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah:
We knew that Zubaydah had more information that could save innocent lives, but he stopped talking. As his questioning proceeded, it became clear that he had received training on how to resist interrogation. And so the CIA used an alternative set of procedures. These procedures were designed to be safe, to comply with our laws, our Constitution, and our treaty obligations. The Department of Justice reviewed the authorized methods extensively and determined them to be lawful. I cannot describe the specific methods used -- I think you understand why -- if I did, it would help the terrorists learn how to resist questioning, and to keep information from us that we need to prevent new attacks on our country. But I can say the procedures were tough, and they were safe, and lawful, and necessary.
However, in his new book, "The One Percent Doctrine," Pulitzer Prize-winning author Ron Suskind gives a very different account of what happened. In an interview with Salon, Suskind says that
I think we oversold (Zubaydah's) value -- the administration did -- to the American public. That's indisputable. As well, what folks inside the CIA and FBI were realizing, even as the president and others inside the administration were emphasizing the profound malevolence and value strategically to the capture of Zubaydah, is that Zubaydah is psychologically imbalanced, he has multiple personalities. And he was not involved in various events that we thought he was involved in...So that's the real story of Zubaydah, more complicated than the administration would like, and maybe more complicated than the president at this point feels comfortable saying in an election season. It's one of the many instances where you could shine a light through this prism and see an awful lot about some of the dilemmas of the war on terror. In the case of Zubaydah, when it comes to some of the harsh interrogation tactics he was put through, what occurred then was that he started to talk. He said, as people will, anything to make the pain stop. And we essentially followed every word and various uniformed public servants of the United States went running all over the country to various places that Zubaydah said were targets, and were not. Ultimately, we tortured an insane man and ran screaming at every word he uttered.
As porous as our borders are, there can only be one reason for no more attacks within the United States: the terrorists have chosen not to attack us again.
Which begs the question of why they have made this choice.
I believe it is because the 9/11 attack was an attack directly at the Bush family. Their goal was accomplished on 9/11/01 and there is no further need to kill more Americans in terrorist attacks here to make their point.
Originally posted by darevrap: I believe it is because the 9/11 attack was an attack directly at the Bush family. Their goal was accomplished on 9/11/01 and there is no further need to kill more Americans in terrorist attacks here to make their point.
Hmmmm. Osama bin Laden made his first declaration of war against the U.S. in 1996 and Al Qaeda launched its first attacks against U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998, well after George H.W. Bush left office and long before George W. Bush got that 5-4 nod from the Supreme Court. (Here's a 2001 Washington Post articlethat details some of this history.
More importantly, as the 9/11 Commmission reportdetails, planning for the attacks began at least two years before George W. Bush took office.
By late 1998 or early 1999, Bin Ladin and his advisers had agreed on an idea brought to them by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) called the "planes operation." It would eventually culminate in the 9/11 attacks. Bin Ladin and his chief of operations, Mohammed Atef, occupied undisputed leadership positions atop al Qaeda. Within al Qaeda, they relied heavily on the ideas and enterprise of strong-willed field commanders, such as KSM, to carry out worldwide terrorist operations.
But beyond all that, if Al Qaeda was focused on attacking the Bush family, wouldn't it have made more sense to crash a jetliner into Kennebunkport, instead of the North Tower of the WTC? The September 11 attacks didn't harm any of the Bush family, (except in the sense that the attacks harmed all Americans).
But do feel free to elaborate and explain your reasoning.
There is nothing spectacular about us not being attacked on our own soil since 9/11, no matter what the administration would have us think. Remember, we went 8 years before 9/11 without an international terrorist act on our soil. When you look at it this way, it's not surprising that we've gone 5 years. On the other hand, attacks against us internationally have increased, and attacks against our allies has increased, dramatically since March of 2003.
Have you guys ever heard about my Patented Tiger Repellant? You just spray it on and voila! You will be safe from tigers! Just $19.95 per bottle!
So how do you know it's working? Well I don't see any deer around here do you?
By the way, if you do get attacked by a tiger YOU were probably the one who didn't apply it correctly...
But seriously, a lack of a terrorist attack is not proof that his "secret" tactics are working, because if that were the case, then the "secret" ingredients in my Tiger Repellant would work just the same and I'd be stinking rich! It's a logical fallacy to suppose that there is a direct connection when it could just be dumb luck or logistical problems on the enemy's side. This is Logic 101 people.
No. Bush has to prove a direct connection through facts and causal relationships. UNLIKE he did when making the case to go into Iraq in the first place. Call me paranoid, but after this fiasco, I don't trust him farther than I can throw him. By the way, where was this oversight the Constitution talks so much about anyway? Bush didn't buy some of my Constitution Repellant did he?
By the way, if you do get attacked by a tiger YOU were probably the one who didn't apply it correctly...
Bush didn't buy some of my Constitution Repellant did he?
LOL. He might have. I do think that our lack of attacks can be summed up in a number of things the Bush Administration and our intellegence community did after 9/11.
Certainly the CIA, FBA, and NSA were all embarassed (quite deeply) at what happened. There's no doubt in my mind that the efforts of these three agencies alone, whether they are under one grand umbrella or not, have a lot to do with our current security.
Also the INS made a huge effort, and a rather successful one at that, to expel all visa holders who had overstayed. Certainly some cell members were ousted that way.
But my main beef with the Bush Administration is that it is going too far in these efforts. Frankly the changes implemented with the department of Homeland Security made a huge and effective difference. A difference that had it been there prior to 9/11 might have prevented that plot in the first place.
But apparently this is still not enough. And curtailing rights, picking up and jailing people on talk alone, or jailing Arabic surnamed people because they have a large number of cellphones and took a picture of a bridge is just plain silly to downright dangerous.
And the extremes to which this administration is going, unnecessarily I might add, will not prevent further attacks, but most likely cause any number of currently neutral people to choose a side that we are not on.
Originally posted by pat_k: Bing-go: that's about the most intellectually honest, nuanced post that I've read so far. I hope you'll further expand upon your views.
Thanks Pat. I'm hoping to hear from other posters about this. I quite sure some will say that not enough has been done though personally I feel that not only has enough been done to prevent another attack; continued efforts to "protect" the United States are now hurting this country.
do think that our lack of attacks can be summed up in a number of things the Bush Administration and our intellegence community did after 9/11.
Yes I admit it. You're probably right about that. But as my boss once told me very pointedly "Doing what is expected of you in your job does not constitute doing something exceptional. There is a difference between fufilling your job expectations well and doing extrodinary work. Extraordinary work comes from improving upon what is already being done and that does not include fixing something that was broken in the first place."
I have a feeling that come election time, the Republicans are going to sing from the rooftops about how safe they've made us (which is debatable) and that's why we should reelect another Republican Congress. But they are simply doing what is expected of them. If they are so proud about merely being competent (which is also debatable) then we really have something to worry about.
P.S. I really wish the Dems would get off their stupid butts and stick it to 'em. Bush has handed them so many golden opportunities but I have a feeling I'll be dissapointed again by the lack of conviction. It's almost like they know what needs to get done, but don't care to actually do it. Everytime the Supreme Court rules against the Man, or a jounalist publishes something juciy on his illegal tactics, I keep expecting the piano to come crashing down on Bush's head... and yet...
Yes I admit it. You're probably right about that. But as my boss once told me very pointedly "Doing what is expected of you in your job does not constitute doing something exceptional. There is a difference between fufilling your job expectations well and doing extrodinary work. Extraordinary work comes from improving upon what is already being done and that does not include fixing something that was broken in the first place."
Oh I completely agree with this. I was just pointing out that whatever has been done has been effective...up to a point.
quote:
I have a feeling that come election time, the Republicans are going to sing from the rooftops about how safe they've made us (which is debatable) and that's why we should reelect another Republican Congress. But they are simply doing what is expected of them. If they are so proud about merely being competent (which is also debatable) then we really have something to worry about.
Well then there's the Abramoff scandal, the Terri Schiavo flap, the Iraq misrepresentation, the attempts at a Marriage amendment, repeated attacks on Social Security, the impasse over immigration. As far as effectiveness this has been one of the worst congress' on record. And remarkably the Republicans have control yet seem not able to get any of their hot-button issues passed as law.
quote:
P.S. I really wish the Dems would get off their stupid butts and stick it to 'em. Bush has handed them so many golden opportunities but I have a feeling I'll be dissapointed again by the lack of conviction.
I honestly think many people feel sorry for Bush.
quote:
It's almost like they know what needs to get done, but don't care to actually do it. Everytime the Supreme Court rules against the Man, or a jounalist publishes something juciy on his illegal tactics, I keep expecting the piano to come crashing down on Bush's head... and yet...
The Dems are going to come out swinging in the next few weeks. But of course the Repubs will have their own arsenal.
It's going to be an interesting mid-term that's for certain.
<<It's going to be an interesting mid-term that's for certain.>>
I wish that the mid-term could give the nation a chance to have a real, honest debate about the Bush Administration's anti-terror policies. But is that really possible any more, in an age when sticking stubbornly to one's talking points is perceived as toughness and moral clarity? Any thoughts on that?
This actually should be in another thread, but since you guys are here today....the Washington Post reports in this article that former Secretary of State Colin Powell is publicly opposing Bush's military tribunal bill--including the part that would allow the CIA to violate Common Article 3of the Geneva Conventions.
I wish that the mid-term could give the nation a chance to have a real, honest debate about the Bush Administration's anti-terror policies. But is that really possible any more, in an age when sticking stubbornly to one's talking points is perceived as toughness and moral clarity? Any thoughts on that?
There are certainly a lot of emotions running high when it comes to the "War on Terror." I know I'm certainly upset (as if you guys couldn't tell :P). So it makes it very easy to utulize one of the three classical rhetorical styles extremely effectivley: Pathos.
What is Pathos you ask? The three classical rhetorical styles are Ethos, Logos and Pathos. Ethos = an argument baised on one's expertiese, aka credibility. Logos = an argument baised on logic. Pathos = an argument based on emotinal appeal. (I was a philosophy major in college )
True to the style of Pathos all one has to do is use trigger words such as "9/11, terrorism, Islamofacist, national security, etc." People will react to these words on an emotional level and feel as if the argument is compelling. Save the Children uses this tactic all the time and so does the Bush Administration.
In fact, all Bush had to do in the months following 9/11 was say "Saddam Hussein," "WMD's" and "9/11" in the same sentance and Whamm-o! we are invading Iraq and not really knowing why.
Finally, I think people are coming to their senses because they are trying to find the logic behind these actions. Problem is, there wasn't any. Bush argument was entirely Pathos and Ethos. Logos on the other hand was nowhere to be found (just listen to any of his speeches and you'll know exactly what I'm talking about). He and his people are scrambling to think of something plausible to give them but all the reasoning is coming AFTER the fact.
The Dems on the other hand are almost being TOO reasonable. The problem with using Logos all the time is that there are ALWAYS exceptions to the rule and it's too easy to point them out. Only using Logos and Ethos causes them to seem "intillectual" and "disconnected." And when the holes in the arguments get pointed out they have to concede to it which makes them seem "wishy washy."
The best arguments utulize all three rhetorical styles. The Dems need to not only point out how Bush's actions were wrong if not illegal, but also hammer home WHY we should be so pissed off about it. They should use trigger words like "lies, emotional manipulation, civil rights violations, incompetence, accountability, etc." Heck, I'd even throw in "Conspiracy to go to war." (I say in reference to the "War Memo").
So can we have a meanigful debate on these polices? I believe we can, but there is a lot of emotional issues that we are going to have to work through first. Some of us (like myself) have been burned pretty badly in these last 6 years. America might need a brilliant family councilier to help, but in the meantime I think if we get all of our feelings out in the open, it'll be a start.
Forums 
) 
