What's with Dean's proclivity for sharing his strategy before he even has a chance to use it?

Wierd but refreshing.
sobko | Email | Homepage | 01.03.04 - 9:08 pm | #

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news..._pr/ dean_terror

Any comment on VT's lax nuke security?
PB | Email | Homepage | 01.03.04 - 9:34 pm | #

Dean didn't go out of his way to spend state money on what a private company should have been doing.

Compare that to what Kean is going to deliver in his 911 Report. Go ahead.

This has been a very laughable GOP meme the last week. Dean may have inaccurately checked the distance to oncoming traffic before making a right turn on red, thus he's no better than Bush, who lied so people could die and got the wrong bearded madman.

Oh, PB, one more thing. Three more dead GIs today. And military spokesmen said "the enemy is becoming more sophisticated."
Dana Blankenhorn | Email | Homepage | 01.03.04 - 9:48 pm | #

60 Minutes. A few weeks ago they had a special on how chemical plants across the country are walk-in terrorists destinations. The same goes for Nuclear plants, ports, etc.

For nuclear plants the answer should be that there are many fuel alternatives that we do not seek, as we should, to get off the foreign oil dependence. We will not because of the financial interests endeared.

Dean responded much the same way any governor did prior to the absurd 911 surprise: he put resources elsewhere and trusted that the company would police itself without supervision in a state that's known for its domestic tranquility. Well, when the shit hit the fan he was the first to see where the priority was. Thats' a lot different than having the best intelligence in the world telling you there's something coming and not acting on it. Go on the offensive.

Just a theory. Try it on for size, beat me up, but come up with something good before tomorrow night.

HE
Heath@DeanTV.org | Email | Homepage | 01.03.04 - 9:58 pm | #

Sorry, of course, I mean getting off nuke along with foreign oil independence.
Heath@DeanTV.org | Email | Homepage | 01.03.04 - 10:01 pm | #

Let's see, the Governor of Vermont is castigated for not taking steps to prevent a possible but theoretical terrorist attack that never happened. This is supposed to vindicate the President of the United States ignoring intelligence reports of an actual pending threat?

I saw this garbage trumpeted by AP this morning under the headline "Dean Security Lapse Exposed". When is the AP going to give thir pretense of being an impartial news service?
Anthony Segredo | Email | Homepage | 01.03.04 - 10:04 pm | #

Back on topic, I agree with Dana's formulation. Since Bush supposedly talks with God, didn't God ever tell him that "Those who live by the sword, die by the sword."
Anthony Segredo | Email | Homepage | 01.03.04 - 10:06 pm | #

Hmmm, it took 9/11 for Dean to take the threat of terrorism seriously?

Well, thank goodness the Bush administration was ahead of the curve and got on the ball before 9/11... oh, wait...
sobko | Email | Homepage | 01.03.04 - 10:37 pm | #

Pretty good. Outflank Bush on the right on homeland security and on the budget too--and the better part of a year to do it in! I expect we will have Democratic swing voters who come out and vote for us in droves, and very significant numbers of Republican swing voters who withhold their votes from Bush.

Remember that Clinton stole the Republicans' issues too. I recall a cartoon of Clinton and Dole as mounted knights preparing to joust, but they were side by side facing the same way, toward a target (that may or may not have had a label). A surprised looking Dole was protesting to Clinton (I paraphrase) "Hey, I thought we were supposed to be facing each other!" while Clinton looked at him with a big grin.
Alan in CA | Email | Homepage | 01.04.04 - 12:08 am | #

Has anyone considered that the administration doesn't Want us to be safer? That way they can keep the war hysteria going, & guess who that benefits.
Carolyn | Email | Homepage | 01.04.04 - 3:15 am | #

I don't know if it's a plan, Carolyn, but it sure seems to work for them.

One thing they may have confronted is this: tightening operations isn't going to protect you really from suicide terrorism, because there really isn't any defense against suicide terrorism, not in a democratic society.

So I get a bad feeling when Democrats talk about being tougher on security than Bush... they propose to beat him by taking away more liberties from the population.
wellbasically | Email | Homepage | 01.04.04 - 11:27 am | #

One other thing on the Saudis...

The general theory is that we like the Saudis because they give us cheap oil. I hate this line of argument because 1. it indicts American drivers, always a stupid thing to do, and 2. it doesn't make sense economically.

I propose an alternative theory. We like the Saudis because they are politically friendly: they promise not to do another oil shock as in 1973, and they promise not to use their wealth against Israel.

The problem is the Arabian people really want to use their oil wealth to the benefit of the middle-class, and really don't appreciate Israel's treatment of the Palestinians.

This wedge between the people and the Saudi royalty is where Osama bin Laden comes from.

The problem with Bush is he believes if we simply install the right guy at the top of Afghanistan or Iraq, the terrorism will end... he's making the same mistake all over again with the Saudis.

If you have a political goal, you have to address the needs of the people, in this case the Islamic people of the Middle East. It doesn't take more advertising... I almost had an aneurism when I read that. If you send more diplomats over there, they'll just come back with reports about how bad we're doing -- reports which will go straight into the circular file until we have a president who sees the point of listening to the people of the Middle East.
wellbasically | Email | Homepage | 01.04.04 - 11:34 am | #

Wellbasically: I don't think we have to like the Saudis. And the real cutting-edge of Dean's foreign policy seems to be that he doesn't feel the need to like them, either.

We're dependent on them. As we lesson the dependence, they become less important.

The biggest problem of the last 30 years has been our psychological dependence on them, our co-dependence with them. That must end. Period.

Now, how do we do that?
Dana Blankenhorn | Email | Homepage | 01.04.04 - 11:38 am | #

The Saudi rulers are closer to the US than the Arabian people. The Saudi rulers have agreed to respect US political goals at the expense of Arabian political goals.

The world is going to be dependent on gasoline for years and years and years... that's not going away. So let's just forget it, and forget the SUVs, and forget berating American drivers for depending on the Saudis.

The political situation can resolve itself a couple ways... the Saudis can keep going the way they are, and get deposed by a popular movement a la Iran. Then we put on sanctions for 20+ years. The Saudis can forget US goals, and side with the Arabian people. Then we invade. Or the US can recognize the legitimate goals of the Arabian people, and allow the Saudi rulers to get more into line with what their people want.
wellbasically | Email | Homepage | 01.04.04 - 11:51 am | #

The US benefits from a singular source of wealth in Saudi Arabia... middle-class development means middle-class power. It means a diverse economy of banking, jet travel, biomedical research, industrial/chemical development, computer development... all of these things are danger points to the US in the war on terror. The US has got itself into a situation where it must attempt to squelch economic development because popular power is a threat to us.
wellbasically | Email | Homepage | 01.04.04 - 11:54 am | #

just checked in to reply to any replies, read that over and thought one thing needs clarifying:

The US does not have to do what Osama wants on Israel (ie kick out the Jews) all we have to do is what most Arabians want -- allow a real Palestinian state to occur.

At that point, we can let the Saudi control either wither away, or the Saudis will have to get in line with their people... which will be another way for them to be replaced by elected rulers.
wellbasically | Email | Homepage | 01.04.04 - 2:30 pm | #

wellbasically, I agree with everything you said.

Western countries must stop thinking they can keep middle east people subjected forever.

The oil is theirs. We'll just have to buy it at the market.

As far as Israel goes, the time has come for western countries to tell him:

1) we've given you all the money and the military aid you could need to survive. Now it's your turn to choose which kind of peace you want:

2) one lay palestinian state, one person - one vote democracy, where jew, christians and muslims can live together;

3) OR retreat to your 1967 boundaries, dismantle colonies, build all the walls you want in "your" side of Palestine;

4) OR from now on you are on your own; we won't go to world war three for the sake of your religious-nationalistic expansionism;

The alternative is to continue our Crusade for Oil - let's just stop thinking we are the "good" guys in the show.
claudio | Email | Homepage | 01.04.04 - 3:33 pm | #

Wellbasically: You're going to be disappointed every time you hear Gov. Dean talk about the Mideast.

Because attacking the Saudis, and our historical reliance on them, is a big piece of his rhetoric.

The place ain't Saudi, by the way. It's Arabia. Saudi refers to the rulers, the House of Saud.

It's like calling the France of Louix XIV Bourbon, because the House of Bourbon ruled France at the time.

And that is exactly what we're propping up here. A bunch of latter-day Louis XIVs who are using their money to back, not Cardinal Richelieu (that would be too liberal for them) but Torquemada.

For more, see last week's New Yorker. Great feature by a reporter who actually worked at a Saudi paper for a year.

That society is going to explode, sooner or later. I don't want to be on the rulers' side when it does. And I definitely don't want to be part of any effort to put their attempt at democracy back into the bottle.

The reaction won't be Jeffersonian, by the way. Think Roquespierre.
Dana Blankenhorn | Email | Homepage | 01.04.04 - 4:30 pm | #

I think you're getting me wrong, the Saudis should be ditched. But ditching them for a democratic government right now would be a recipe for more war.

There was a little contretemps about Instapundit when he said the Palestinians are our enemy. But he's right, in a way. The entire Muslim Middle East population is opposed to our policies. The Iraqi population is going to be opposed to our policies. Not because Bush is incompetent.

A democratic Arabia would be naturally in opposition to certain US interests. It would hurt the US wealth and economy. That's why I don't think there's much to be gained in a US election by calling for that.

Now if you envisioned a realignment of US interests that allowed for a democratic Muslim Middle East, then calling for the end of the Saudis would be easy, and it would probably happen by itself, peacefully.
wellbasically | Email | Homepage | 01.04.04 - 4:51 pm | #

The biggest problem of the last 30 years has been our psychological dependence on them, our co-dependence with them. That must end. Period.

Again, I agree completely!

But if Dean can successfully use this as a campaign issue, I will be mightily impressed. There is SO much money tied up in middle eastern oil and other interests that I think there is no way a candidate can win with this. If people think Dean has special interests and the media against him now, wait until he starts talking about ending our dependence on foreign oil. I actually think his tough talk about Saudi Arabia is a political mistake. I don't think any number of web sites and small personal donations will give Dean a slingshot big enough to kill that Goliath.

He should wait until he wins the election before talking tough about Saudi Arabia.
mcgovernforprez72 | Email | Homepage | 01.04.04 - 6:26 pm | #

What does "be tough on the Saudis" exactly mean? Can anyone explain?
PB | Email | Homepage | 01.04.04 - 9:12 pm | #

"It really was all about oil, man... by using hidden pipelines that we actually built for Saddam, we have secretly stolen the precious lifeblood of the Iraqi people. The vast neoconservative cabal used those oil revenues to fund the construction of a freaking Death Star man! And don't let them tell you we found Saddam... that's a lie! We had to kill him so we could steal the oil, and then we later captured a brainwashed clone created for us by aliens... Zionist aliens! Why have so many probes sent to Mars just disappeared? Think about it man!"
Gus | Email | Homepage | 01.04.04 - 11:09 pm | #

Bush better make sure the Iraqi people have "FREEDOM" like he promised before the election. If he doesn't, he's going to have a lot of explaining to do to the American people when they start paying attention to the Presidential Race!!!

CLOCKS TICKING BUSHIES!!!!


BUUUUUUUUUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!
Bush Whacker | Email | Homepage | 01.05.04 - 3:00 am | #

TICK TICK TICK TICK TICK TICK......


BUUUUUUUUUUUUUHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!
Bush Whacker | Email | Homepage | 01.05.04 - 3:01 am | #

PB: That's one of those questions where you know the answer, but you're being deliberately obtuse.

15 of the hijackers were Saudi. Bin Laden is a Saudi. The Saudis are still funding the schools that teach terrorism, while living like a bunch of Louis XVIs.

A President who pointed this out would be a revolution, and might make one. That revolution would be hard for anyone to control, even us. But that revolution is coming, anyway, and it is way past time we admitted it.

Dean has admitted it.
Bush has denied it.
Dana Blankenhorn | Email | Homepage | 01.05.04 - 7:59 am | #

Dana,

You proposed no policy. Many people have "pointed to" the problems with the Saudis, but it is very complicated.

Being able to point to a problem does not a president make. Bush has already taken steps that are productive there. I have no idea what Dean would do the same/different.

Explain to me what he would DO, not say.

BTW, you should check out a Foriegn Affairs article on it. I review it on the link below. There was also a decent story in National Geographic a couple months back worth searching out and a NY Times magazine story a week or so back.

http://unit731.blogspot.com/ 2004...326671179377588
PB | Email | Homepage | 01.05.04 - 8:27 am | #

Basically PB is right about "what to do". If you get tough on the Saudis, they just crack more heads of their dissidents, such as they are.
wellbasically | Email | Homepage | 01.05.04 - 9:32 am | #

The Saudis are extremely sensitive to American pronouncements. Pronouncements are often policy. Anyone who doesn't understand that is a troll, or an idiot, or likely both.

Sorry to be so blunt here, but when PB goes off on Dean it's one thing, and when he goes off on me personally it's something else.

The Saudis are going down. Arabia will be free. The only question is whether it will be done with or without our acquiescence. The Bushes are the very best friends the Saud family has had, in a long, long line of American friends.

Dean is going to get tough. He is going to tell them to close the Madrasas, to stop teaching terrorism to their young people, and to open up their society. He's going to tell them, we're looking for alternatives to your oil, right now, so you become less important in the world.

The claim made by trolls that this will be the proximate cause of a Bin Ladenite Revolution in Arabia is, frankly, bunk. That revolution is coming, just as it came in Iran.

The only question is, do we take the Shah's side again?

Dean says we shouldn't. Dean says we should be on the side of the people of Arabia, showing moral leadership that will, in time, lead to a true democratic result, in the way that Clinton's leadership was leading Iran toward democracy until Bush screwed that up with his "Axis of Evil" speech.
Dana Blankenhorn | Email | Homepage | 01.05.04 - 11:46 am | #

>>>He is going to tell them to close the Madrasas, to stop teaching terrorism to their young people, and to open up their society. He's going to tell them, we're looking for alternatives to your oil, right now, so you become less important in the world.

--- Dana the Arabian people are attacking us because we don't consider their opinions important enough to listen to. What you're suggesting is to shut them out farther... it's wrong and it won't work.

That's why it's a bad idea. It won't reduce terrorism. Nobody can "teach" you to be a suicide terrorist. It doesn't take any money.

And there's no freebies in the world anymore, no Sister Souljah's to ruin with a free pass. The Saudis make a good target because they look impervious. How do you know we won't start bombing in 2 years? Where will you be then?
wellbasically | Email | Homepage | 01.05.04 - 12:49 pm | #

Who taught Kim Jong Il to manufacture NUKE???

According to Bush, North Korea is one of the three in the "Axis Of Evil".


WHERE ARE THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION??????????????

WHERE?????????????
Bush Whacker | Email | Homepage | 01.05.04 - 3:42 pm | #

They're sensitive to pronouncements?! Only the ones we need! Who is the idiot?

I said nothing offensive to you. Look, I don't know how much you follow SA, but saying things is not going to change SA. PLEASE offer a substantive plan to help/fix/deal with them.

snark snark snark
PB | Email | Homepage | 01.05.04 - 7:48 pm | #