ABC-TV’s Path to 9/11

After seeing the first instalment of ABC-TV’s Path to 9/11 I can understand why Clinton wanted this movie not shown but I cannot see how the removal of a few scenes changes very much.

Where I think that this movie does the most damage is not in its negative portrayal of Clinton, because his personal portrayal is not really that negative, and also not in leaving you with the impression that the MAIN PREOCCUPATION of practically everybody involved in national security were POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS rather than the nation’s security. The main preoccupation was CYA.

Obviously mistakes were made and wrong decisions were taken but I think that most people would understand that, as tragic as the results of these mistakes were, humans are not perfect no matter how high a position in government they reach and most people would be willing to forgive. I think, though, that where this movie is going to have a large impact is in bringing clearly into focus that there is NO DIFFERENCE in approach, with respect to national security especially when dealing with terrorism, between the PAST AND CLEARLY UNSUCCESSFUL CLINTON ADMINISTRATION ANTI-TERRORIM POLICIES and the CURRENT DEMOCRATIC PARTY POLICY.
If I am correct, this will have a huge impact on the upcoming elections: If you do not like what was done in the run-up to 9/11 and do not want it repeated, then you better think carefully before voting for Democrats!

How Bad are things in Iraq

I just wonder what is the meaning of Iraq has gone bad. Everybody seems to have an answer to this question. But let’s ask the opposite question: What would the situation have to be in Iraq for people to say that Iraq is a really a successful endeavor?

Just for a moment do the exercise of writing down the answer to this question. Once the answer to what a successful situation in Iraq would look like has been firmly established and written down then, and only, the next important question should be asked and answered:
Is it reasonable to expect that outcome?

If the answer to the second question is negative, I suggest that what people expect out of President Bush is not something that is possible to accomplish! In such case Bush should not only be cut some slack but should be praised for what he has accomplished to date in spite of the overwhelming lack of support.

Who won?

When looking at the outcome of the war in Lebanon, opinions are split as to the winner or looser of this engagement. In my opinion this is so because both sides won something but more importantly both sides lost more than they gained. Only time will tell the impact of the loses in question will have on each side.The principal loss for Israel is that of perceived invincibility of the IDF. This loss is likely to have a major impact on the decisions of other Arab states on how to deal in the future with Israel and obviously it will not be to Israel’s advantage. As serious as this loss is to Israel in a future conventional war, it may become irrelevant in the case of a commonly predicted nuclear exchange with Iran.Hezbollah lost ground position, fortifications, unrestricted access to the border with Israel, a significant part of their fighting men and equipment and a lot of good will. As Hezbollah survived the confrontation with Israel, it can claim victory but the claim is rather hollow. But, just as Israel lost its aura of invincibility so did Hezbollah lose its near-term potential of significantly damaging Israel in a conflict.

So in final analysis, I agree with you in the sense that I feel that Hezbollah lost more than Israel lost but somehow everybody ends up losing in this engagement including the Iranians and, for once, the US avoided a big loss.

Olmert's Decision

If one forgets for a moment about who won in Lebanon or if Hezbollah has been defeated or not, and focuses only on the use of three separate committees, separate in the sense that each one deals with a different aspect of the situation at hand, it is hard not to think of the saying: “The camel is the design of a horse drawn by a committee.” Try to imagine what the ultimate shape of that horse would be if it’s different parts were drawn by different committees!

Another saying that comes to mind in this situation is also “Divide and conquer”. By this clearly transparent decision to appoint three separate committees, again forgetting for a moment the make-up of these committees, Olmert has shown, in my opinion, that he does not want a clear answer and that very likely he is aiming for separate reports which then can be used against each other to deflect attention and blame. While it is understandable that a politician under pressure may use this tactic, its use is understandable only because no honesty is expected from politicians and politicians are held in such low esteem.

Another very sad way to look at the current situation in Israel, and one which is probably correct, is that for Olmert the Israeli people themselves have become a greater danger than Hezbollah.

Sunday, August 27, 2006

There seems to be an “industry” manufacturing “new” facts about Islam and it is not limited to the Left. Take for instance Andrew J. Bacevich’s latest article in The American Conservative entitled “The Islamic Way of War” which starts with the following lead-in“Muslims have stopped fighting on Western terms—and have started winning.”After a lot of verbose nothings Dr. Bacevich makes the following seemingly-profound statement: “What the Islamic Way of War does mean to both Israel and to the United States is this: the Arabs now possess—and know that they possess—the capacity to deny us victory, especially in any altercation that occurs on their own turf and among their own people.”How easy is to fool this man! A simple analysis of the facts shows that that the new Arab capacity is nothing more than the use of their own brethren's life for political or military gain; getting more innocents among themselves killed. This tactic is effective today only because WE are willing or, better still, anxious to accept responsibility for their deaths.Even this so-called new capacity is not new to people familiar with that part of the world, which have seen these BASTARDS capable of maiming their own children so that they can send the crippled children to beg for charity on the street.I wonder who is more demented, them for using the new tactics or us for accepting so easily responsibility for their shameful tactics!