Recently the NYT reported on an leaked National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), highlighting that the Iraq war has increased the Islamic terrorist threat. To clarify this document, and to shed light on the selective analysis by the NYT for politcal/commercial gain, President Bush released to the public, some of this NIE. I frequent The Belmont Club because I like his analysis style. Here is his review of the released National Intelligence Estimate. I note 2 things:
1. Yes, Iraq is a rallying call for Islamic extremists. But they did not need Iraq for this. They were already rallying against the west for decades. Prior to 9/11 they were rallying in Afghanistan, readying for the fight. Iraq is just the location of the current fight.
2. Not reported in the NYT piece, the same NIE that says Iraq is causing more terrorists states the Jihadi's view a victory of a democratic Islamic nation in Iraq will be a great loss to their Islamic extremist future. (So winning in Iraq will ultimately reduce terrorists even though, prior to victory, it has increased it)
"Iraq was not necessary at all to provoke the attack of September the 11th."
- The Belmont Club
Thursday, September 28, 2006
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Condi responds to Clintons Out-burst
Comments from Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice in the NY Post:
----------
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice yesterday accused Bill Clinton of making "flatly false" claims that the Bush administration didn't lift a finger to stop terrorism before the 9/11 attacks.
"The notion somehow for eight months the Bush administration sat there and didn't do that is just flatly false - and I think the 9/11 commission understood that," Rice said...
"What we did in the eight months was at least as aggressive as what the Clinton administration did in the preceding years," Rice added.
The secretary of state also sharply disputed Clinton's claim that he "left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy" for the incoming Bush team during the presidential transition in 2001.
"We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al Qaeda," Rice responded...
In her pointed rebuttal of Clinton's inflammatory claims about the war on terror, Rice maintained the Bush White House did the best it could to defend against an attack - and expanded on the tools and intelligence it inherited.
"I would just suggest that you go back and read the 9/11 commission report on the efforts of the Bush administration in the eight months - things like working to get an armed Predator [drone] that actually turned out to be extraordinarily important," Rice added.
She also said Clinton's claims that Richard Clarke - the White House anti-terror guru hyped by Clinton as the country's "best guy" - had been demoted by Bush were bogus.
"Richard Clarke was the counterterrorism czar when 9/11 happened. And he left when he did not become deputy director of homeland security, some several months later," she said.
----------
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice yesterday accused Bill Clinton of making "flatly false" claims that the Bush administration didn't lift a finger to stop terrorism before the 9/11 attacks.
"The notion somehow for eight months the Bush administration sat there and didn't do that is just flatly false - and I think the 9/11 commission understood that," Rice said...
"What we did in the eight months was at least as aggressive as what the Clinton administration did in the preceding years," Rice added.
The secretary of state also sharply disputed Clinton's claim that he "left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy" for the incoming Bush team during the presidential transition in 2001.
"We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al Qaeda," Rice responded...
In her pointed rebuttal of Clinton's inflammatory claims about the war on terror, Rice maintained the Bush White House did the best it could to defend against an attack - and expanded on the tools and intelligence it inherited.
"I would just suggest that you go back and read the 9/11 commission report on the efforts of the Bush administration in the eight months - things like working to get an armed Predator [drone] that actually turned out to be extraordinarily important," Rice added.
She also said Clinton's claims that Richard Clarke - the White House anti-terror guru hyped by Clinton as the country's "best guy" - had been demoted by Bush were bogus.
"Richard Clarke was the counterterrorism czar when 9/11 happened. And he left when he did not become deputy director of homeland security, some several months later," she said.
Thursday, September 07, 2006
Interesting analogy
Here's a short piece from Powerline. The punch-line is:
Remember when Timothy McVeigh blew up the federal building in Oklahoma City, and liberal commentators immediately blamed Rush Limbaugh and other conservatives, who, to put it mildly, had never advocated blowing up government buildings? We can only wonder what these same liberals will say if someone makes a serious effort to assassinate President Bush.
The best line, though is:
Chris Matthews is so far around the bend that the only explanation for his continued tenure on MSNBC is that MSNBC executives don't watch their channel, either.
Remember when Timothy McVeigh blew up the federal building in Oklahoma City, and liberal commentators immediately blamed Rush Limbaugh and other conservatives, who, to put it mildly, had never advocated blowing up government buildings? We can only wonder what these same liberals will say if someone makes a serious effort to assassinate President Bush.
The best line, though is:
Chris Matthews is so far around the bend that the only explanation for his continued tenure on MSNBC is that MSNBC executives don't watch their channel, either.
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
What if the boy cried wolf and we came running every time?
Will we ever learn? Howard Kurtz in the Washington Post documents for history the latest Media frenzy involving the alleged JonBenet murderer.
----------
This is what produces 25-hour-a-day cable coverage, causes the network morning shows to go nuts and even tops the nightly news two days straight? Aren't the TV types who pumped up this empty balloon just a little bit ashamed?
Oh, and does the New York Daily News run a retraction for its banner headline "SOLVED"?
Of course, you will now hear that it was all the fault of the Boulder D.A., Mary Lacy, for arresting Karr in the first place. And maybe that was a dumb move. But the last time I checked, she didn't own any television stations. Of course you would report that some wack job had claimed to have killed JonBenet, but the resulting frenzy suggests that many journalists either didn't know or didn't care that strange people sometimes make false confessions in high-profile cases.
And yet things got so crazed that reporters jumped on the flight that brought Karr to the U.S., and the morning shows were interviewing fellow passengers about what he ate and so on.
----------
Did we not suspect this from the beginning? Did the "experts" on the news tell us they were skeptical from the first moment? Yet we say every second of John Karr's trip to Colorado, including live phone conversation from the plane. It sounded something like. "He is sitting, talking to the FBI agent. He eat a peanut. He looks guilty."
----------
This is what produces 25-hour-a-day cable coverage, causes the network morning shows to go nuts and even tops the nightly news two days straight? Aren't the TV types who pumped up this empty balloon just a little bit ashamed?
Oh, and does the New York Daily News run a retraction for its banner headline "SOLVED"?
Of course, you will now hear that it was all the fault of the Boulder D.A., Mary Lacy, for arresting Karr in the first place. And maybe that was a dumb move. But the last time I checked, she didn't own any television stations. Of course you would report that some wack job had claimed to have killed JonBenet, but the resulting frenzy suggests that many journalists either didn't know or didn't care that strange people sometimes make false confessions in high-profile cases.
And yet things got so crazed that reporters jumped on the flight that brought Karr to the U.S., and the morning shows were interviewing fellow passengers about what he ate and so on.
----------
Did we not suspect this from the beginning? Did the "experts" on the news tell us they were skeptical from the first moment? Yet we say every second of John Karr's trip to Colorado, including live phone conversation from the plane. It sounded something like. "He is sitting, talking to the FBI agent. He eat a peanut. He looks guilty."
Thursday, August 17, 2006
Commitment
An excellent article at by Wretchard and The Belmont Club regarding legend and commitment.
--------
Wretchard:
Hassan Nasrallah is that they probably agree with Keyser Soze
From The Usual Suspects:
The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.
(Soze shoots two Hungarians, then shoots his children and his wife as the last Hungarian watches in surprised horror) He tells him he would rather see his family dead than live another day after this.
About Schelling:
...the basic notion of commitment, which communicates to the enemy that you will do what you undertake.
"The most difficult part is communicating your intentions to your enemies. They must believe that you are committed to fighting them in order to defend" what you say you will defend for them to take you seriously. As Verbal Kint put it "to be in power, you didn't need guns or money or even numbers. You just needed the will to do what the other guy wouldn't." To accomplish it no matter what.
From Die Welt:
"Hezbollah's barbarism is legendary. Gen. Effe Eytam, an Israeli veteran of that first Lebanon war, tells of how--after Israel had helped bring "Doctors without Borders" into a village in the 1980s to treat children--local villagers lined up 50 kids the next day to show Eytam the price they pay for cooperating with the West. Each of the children had had their pinky finger cut off."
For those who were for the war, but are now against it:
The cost of escaping one commitment "is the discrediting of other commitments that one would still like to be credited".
--------
Wretchard:
Hassan Nasrallah is that they probably agree with Keyser Soze
From The Usual Suspects:
The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.
(Soze shoots two Hungarians, then shoots his children and his wife as the last Hungarian watches in surprised horror) He tells him he would rather see his family dead than live another day after this.
About Schelling:
...the basic notion of commitment, which communicates to the enemy that you will do what you undertake.
"The most difficult part is communicating your intentions to your enemies. They must believe that you are committed to fighting them in order to defend" what you say you will defend for them to take you seriously. As Verbal Kint put it "to be in power, you didn't need guns or money or even numbers. You just needed the will to do what the other guy wouldn't." To accomplish it no matter what.
From Die Welt:
"Hezbollah's barbarism is legendary. Gen. Effe Eytam, an Israeli veteran of that first Lebanon war, tells of how--after Israel had helped bring "Doctors without Borders" into a village in the 1980s to treat children--local villagers lined up 50 kids the next day to show Eytam the price they pay for cooperating with the West. Each of the children had had their pinky finger cut off."
For those who were for the war, but are now against it:
The cost of escaping one commitment "is the discrediting of other commitments that one would still like to be credited".
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
Risk Analysis
In risk analysis, you consider the consequences of being wrong. The consequences of being wrong that Islamic Terror is over-blown, or a Bush plot, will be catastrophic - World War III with 30,000,000 American soldiers required to stop it's spread. The risk of being defensive, or preemptive, will cost lives, and will be a tremendous economic burden. We have to take one of these approaches. Which are you willing to take?
The following are excerpts from Michael Barone
---------
What we are looking at here is cognitive dissonance. The mindset of the Left blogosphere is that there's no real terrorist threat out there.
The Iranian mullahs and the Holocaust-denying Mahmoud Ahmadinejad want to destroy Israel and inflict as much damage to the United States as they can. They say so over and over again. They hate our way of life, our freedoms and our tolerance. Unfortunately, there's no obvious and easy way to handle the Iranian regime, just as there was no obvious and easy way to handle Hitler in the late 1930s.
Neville Chamberlain was made of sterner stuff. His ("victory") was the Munich agreement in September 1938, when he and the French persuaded Czechoslovakia to give up its borderlands to Hitler. He was cheered by vast crowds eager to avoid the horrors of war. His ("lesson") came in March 1939, when Nazi troops marched into Prague.
Joseph Lieberman is being criticized for saying, "I'm worried that too many people, both in politics and out, don't appreciate the seriousness of the threat to American security and the evil of the enemy that faces us -- more evil, or as evil, as Nazism and probably more dangerous than the Soviet communists we fought during the long Cold War. We cannot deceive ourselves that we live in safety today and the war is over, and it's why we have to stay strong and vigilant."
The following are excerpts from Michael Barone
---------
What we are looking at here is cognitive dissonance. The mindset of the Left blogosphere is that there's no real terrorist threat out there.
The Iranian mullahs and the Holocaust-denying Mahmoud Ahmadinejad want to destroy Israel and inflict as much damage to the United States as they can. They say so over and over again. They hate our way of life, our freedoms and our tolerance. Unfortunately, there's no obvious and easy way to handle the Iranian regime, just as there was no obvious and easy way to handle Hitler in the late 1930s.
Neville Chamberlain was made of sterner stuff. His ("victory") was the Munich agreement in September 1938, when he and the French persuaded Czechoslovakia to give up its borderlands to Hitler. He was cheered by vast crowds eager to avoid the horrors of war. His ("lesson") came in March 1939, when Nazi troops marched into Prague.
Joseph Lieberman is being criticized for saying, "I'm worried that too many people, both in politics and out, don't appreciate the seriousness of the threat to American security and the evil of the enemy that faces us -- more evil, or as evil, as Nazism and probably more dangerous than the Soviet communists we fought during the long Cold War. We cannot deceive ourselves that we live in safety today and the war is over, and it's why we have to stay strong and vigilant."
Monday, August 14, 2006
Delicious
I've started using a service called del.icio.us (pronounced "delicious"). I have added a link to My del.icio.us site on the right.
del.icio.us is a public place to keep bookmarks online. I am using it as "blog-light". If I find an article interesting, but either I don't have time, or it doesn't warrant a full Geoffosphere blog post (complete with my wit and charm (and spelling/grammar errors)), I post it there. If you come here and don't see anything new or of interest, you may find an interesting article over there. Hope this is of interest to you. And maybe you'll like it enough to start your own. IT'S FREE!
del.icio.us is a public place to keep bookmarks online. I am using it as "blog-light". If I find an article interesting, but either I don't have time, or it doesn't warrant a full Geoffosphere blog post (complete with my wit and charm (and spelling/grammar errors)), I post it there. If you come here and don't see anything new or of interest, you may find an interesting article over there. Hope this is of interest to you. And maybe you'll like it enough to start your own. IT'S FREE!
What if... Is it Worth the Risk?
Here is an interesting article at MSNBC. I’ve pasted a couple quotes that I find relevant. My accent in Bold.
---------
Michael Gerson
The View From the Top - A former Bush adviser on 9/11, Iraq and the lessons of five tumultuous years—for the president and the public.
From those events (9/11), President Bush drew a fixed conclusion: as long as the Middle East remains a bitter and backward mess, America will not be secure.
In the traditional diplomatic view, this chaos can be contained through the skillful management of "favorable" dictators. But what if the status quo in the Middle East that produced Muhammad Atta and his friends and successors cannot be contained, or boxed up, or bought off? What if the false and shallow stability of tyranny is actually producing people and movements that make the whole world less stable? And what if the problem is getting dramatically worse as the technology of weapons of mass destruction becomes more democratically distributed?
Every element of the Bush doctrine was directed toward a vision: a reformed Middle East that joins the world instead of resenting and assaulting it. (ed. In the end, is it not resentment that drives them?)
…the nation may be tired, but history doesn't care.
…presidential decisions on national security are not primarily made by the divination of public sentiments; they are made by the determination of national interests. (ed. This is the mistake made by Ehud Olmert. A tentative President can lose an opportunity that can take years and many lives to correct.)
…inaction might bring the harshest verdict of history: they knew much, and they did nothing.
-----------
Ok, work calls. I’ll have to read the rest later. Hope you find this story interesting.
---------
Michael Gerson
The View From the Top - A former Bush adviser on 9/11, Iraq and the lessons of five tumultuous years—for the president and the public.
From those events (9/11), President Bush drew a fixed conclusion: as long as the Middle East remains a bitter and backward mess, America will not be secure.
In the traditional diplomatic view, this chaos can be contained through the skillful management of "favorable" dictators. But what if the status quo in the Middle East that produced Muhammad Atta and his friends and successors cannot be contained, or boxed up, or bought off? What if the false and shallow stability of tyranny is actually producing people and movements that make the whole world less stable? And what if the problem is getting dramatically worse as the technology of weapons of mass destruction becomes more democratically distributed?
Every element of the Bush doctrine was directed toward a vision: a reformed Middle East that joins the world instead of resenting and assaulting it. (ed. In the end, is it not resentment that drives them?)
…the nation may be tired, but history doesn't care.
…presidential decisions on national security are not primarily made by the divination of public sentiments; they are made by the determination of national interests. (ed. This is the mistake made by Ehud Olmert. A tentative President can lose an opportunity that can take years and many lives to correct.)
…inaction might bring the harshest verdict of history: they knew much, and they did nothing.
-----------
Ok, work calls. I’ll have to read the rest later. Hope you find this story interesting.
Thursday, August 03, 2006
Rock Chuckers
The missiles coming from Lebanon into Israel are similar to the videos you see of people throwing rocks at tanks. They just go a lot further and hurt a lot more. They are less accurate than a rock, though.
Here is video that gives you a sense of the what it must be like to live in Haifa, Israel, today. Chilling. Warning: This video contains images of someone severely hurt. No blood is seen, but it is still very disturbing.
Israelity
Here is video that gives you a sense of the what it must be like to live in Haifa, Israel, today. Chilling. Warning: This video contains images of someone severely hurt. No blood is seen, but it is still very disturbing.
Israelity
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
Censorship
I find it interesting that I have not heard any talk about the Israeli, Hezbollah and now British censorship. If you watch Fox News, you have seen the correspondents talk about not showing images that the enemy could use like where a rocket landed. And their correspondent in Tyre, Lebanon cannot show details of where rocket launches take place presumably because they don't want Israel to use it to drop a bomb on them. Hezbollah rules of censorship. Israeli rules of censorship. Hey NYT, don't you think the public has a right to know???
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
