Road Cycling · Public discussion

Semi-OT--Biking To Nowhere

Started by B. Lafferty · · Last activity · 30 posts · 686 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Road Cycling
Published
17 August 2005
Last activity
22 August 2005
Original author
B. Lafferty
Posts
30
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
686
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–20 of 30
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. August 17, 2005
    Biking Toward Nowhere
    By MAUREEN DOWD
    How could President Bush be cavorting around on a long vacation with
    American troops struggling with a spiraling crisis in Iraq?

    Wasn't he worried that his vacation activities might send a frivolous signal
    at a time when he had put so many young Americans in harm's way?

    "I'm determined that life goes on," Mr. Bush said stubbornly.

    That wasn't the son, believe it or not. It was the father - 15 years ago. I
    was in Kennebunkport then to cover the first President Bush's frenetic
    attempts to relax while reporters were pressing him about how he could be
    taking a month to play around when he had started sending American troops to
    the Persian Gulf only three days before.

    On Saturday, the current President Bush was pressed about how he could be
    taking five weeks to ride bikes and nap and fish and clear brush even though
    his occupation of Iraq had become a fiasco. "I think it's also important for
    me to go on with my life," W. said, "to keep a balanced life."

    Pressed about how he could ride his bike while refusing to see a grieving
    mom of a dead soldier who's camped outside his ranch, he added: "So I'm
    mindful of what goes on around me. On the other hand, I'm also mindful that
    I've got a life to live and will do so."

    Ah, the insensitivity of reporters who ask the President Bushes how they can
    expect to deal with Middle East fighting while they're off fishing.

    The first President Bush told us that he kept a telephone in his golf cart
    and his cigarette boat so he could easily stay on top of Saddam's invasion
    of Kuwait. But at least he seemed worried that he was sending the wrong
    signal, as his boating and golfing was juxtaposed on the news with footage
    of the frightened families of troops leaving for the Middle East.

    "I just don't like taking questions on serious matters on my vacation," the
    usually good-natured Bush senior barked at reporters on the golf course. "So
    I hope you'll understand if I, when I'm recreating, will recreate." His
    hot-tempered oldest son, who was golfing with his father that day, was even
    more irritated. "Hey! Hey!" W. snapped at reporters asking questions on the
    first tee. "Can't you wait until we finish hitting, at least?"

    Junior always had his priorities straight.

    As W.'s neighbors get in scraps with the antiwar forces coalescing around
    the ranch; as the Pentagon tries to rustle up updated armor for our
    soldiers, who are still sitting ducks in the third year of the war; as the
    Iraqi police we train keep getting blown up by terrorists, who come right
    back every time U.S. troops beat them up; as Shiites working on the Iraqi
    constitution conspire with Iran about turning Iraq into an Islamic state
    that represses women; and as Iraq hurtles toward a possible civil war, W.
    seems far more oblivious than his father was with his Persian Gulf crisis.

    This president is in a truly scary place in Iraq. Americans can't get out,
    or they risk turning the country into a terrorist haven that will make the
    old Afghanistan look like Cipriani's. Yet his war, which has not
    accomplished any of its purposes, swallows ever more American lives and
    inflames ever more Muslim hearts as W. reads a book about the history of
    salt and looks forward to his biking date with Lance Armstrong on Saturday.

    The son wanted to go into Iraq to best his daddy in the history books, by
    finishing what Bush senior started. He swept aside the warnings of Brent
    Scowcroft and Colin Powell and didn't bother to ask his father's advice. Now
    he is caught in the very trap his father said he feared: that America would
    get bogged down as "an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land," facing a
    possibly "barren" outcome.

    It turns out that the people of Iraq have ethnic and religious identities,
    not a national identity. Shiites and Kurds want to suppress the Sunnis who
    once repressed them and break off into their own states, smashing the Bush
    model kitchen of democracy.

    At long last, a senior Bush official admits that administration officials
    can no longer cling to their own version of reality. "We are in a process of
    absorbing the factors of the situation we're in and shedding the unreality
    that dominated at the beginning," the official told The Washington Post.

    They had better start absorbing and shedding a lot faster, before many more
    American kids die to create a pawn of Iran. And they had better tell the Boy
    in the Bubble, who continues to dwell in delusion, hailing the fights and
    delays on the Iraqi constitution as "a tribute to democracy."

    The president's pedaling as fast as he can, but he's going nowhere.

    E-mail: [email hidden]

  2. I'm fine with GW's mtn biking as long as he wears a helmet. Maybe he
    could get a set of the new and improved ceramic body army too.

  3. pacqueman said:

    I'm fine with GW's mtn biking as long as he wears a helmet. Maybe he
    could get a set of the new and improved ceramic body army too.

    [censored] never wore a bicycle helmet. Idi Amin never wore a bicycle
    helmet. The Ayatollah Khomeini? Nope, not him either. President Bush
    is not like them. He stands for freedom!

  4. "Tim Lines" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    President Bush is not like them. He stands for freedom!

    Thanks for the humor. I needed that this morning.

  5. pacqueman said:
    Quoted message said:

    I'm fine with GW's mtn biking as long as he wears a helmet. Maybe he
    could get a set of the new and improved ceramic body army too.

    Tim Lines said:

    [censored] never wore a bicycle helmet. Idi Amin never wore a bicycle
    helmet. The Ayatollah Khomeini? Nope, not him either. President Bush
    is not like them. He stands for freedom!

    So by your logic:
    Bush wears a helmet * Everyone who isn't with Bush's war on terrorism is
    against Bush -> Everyone who opposes wearing helmets is against Bush ->
    Everyone who opposes helmets in The Triki Beltran thread is a terrorist

    So when is the Dept. of Homeland Security going to arrest Kunich ?

  6. Tour von Deutschland 2005
    Cyclingnews.com results

    Stage 3 - August 17: Bodenmais - Kufstein, 232 km

    Results

    1 Daniele Bennati (Ita) Lampre-Caffita 5.12.04
    2 Filippo Pozzato (Ita) Quick.Step
    3 Sebastian Siedler (Ger) Wiesenhof
    4 Luciano André Pagliarini (Bra) Liquigas - Bianchi
    5 Baden Cooke (Aus) Française des Jeux
    6 Roger Hammond (GBr) Discovery Channel
    7 Sébastien Hinault (Fra) Crédit Agricole
    8 Philippe Gilbert (Bel) Française des Jeux

    General classification after stage 3

    1 Bram Tankink (Ned) Quickstep 14.04.51
    2 Filippo Pozzato (Ita) Quickstep 0.07
    3 Jörg Jaksche (Ger) Liberty Seguros-Würth Team 0.17
    4 Mauricio Alberto Ardila Cano (Col) Davitamon - Lotto 0.19
    5 Bobby Julich (USA) Team CSC 0.21
    6 Alexandre Moos (Swi) Phonak Hearing Systems 0.22
    7 Philippe Gilbert (Bel) Française des Jeux 0.23
    8 Chris Horner (USA) Saunier Duval - Prodir

    -Ken, now back to Laff.

  7. "I call upon all nations to do everything they can to stop these terrorist
    killers. Now watch this drive."

  8. "Semi"?

    -eric

  9. Donald Munro said:
    pacqueman said:
    Quoted message said:

    I'm fine with GW's mtn biking as long as he wears a helmet. Maybe he
    could get a set of the new and improved ceramic body army too.

    Tim Lines said:

    [censored] never wore a bicycle helmet. Idi Amin never wore a bicycle
    helmet. The Ayatollah Khomeini? Nope, not him either. President Bush
    is not like them. He stands for freedom!

    So by your logic:
    Bush wears a helmet * Everyone who isn't with Bush's war on terrorism is
    against Bush -> Everyone who opposes wearing helmets is against Bush ->
    Everyone who opposes helmets in The Triki Beltran thread is a terrorist

    So when is the Dept. of Homeland Security going to arrest Kunich ?

    I said "he stands for freedom". Kunich still has a chance to avoid
    arrest if he has saddle sores. Otherwise, it's Gitmo for sure.

  10. Bill C said:

    Brian, what did Clinton do in all the time after he was given these
    reports? http://www.judicialwatch.org/5504.shtml

    http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch4.pdf

  11. Tim Lines said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    [censored] never wore a bicycle helmet. Idi Amin never wore a bicycle
    helmet. The Ayatollah Khomeini? Nope, not him either. President Bush
    is not like them. He stands for freedom!

    Donald Munro said:
    Quoted message said:

    So by your logic:
    Bush wears a helmet * Everyone who isn't with Bush's war on terrorism is
    against Bush -> Everyone who opposes wearing helmets is against Bush ->
    Everyone who opposes helmets in The Triki Beltran thread is a terrorist

    So when is the Dept. of Homeland Security going to arrest Kunich ?

    Tim Lines said:

    I said "he stands for freedom". Kunich still has a chance to avoid
    arrest if he has saddle sores. Otherwise, it's Gitmo for sure.

    Being a saddle sore probably means he is safe then.

  12. Robert Chung said:
    Bill C said:

    Brian, what did Clinton do in all the time after he was given these
    reports? http://www.judicialwatch.org/5504.shtml

    http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch4.pdf


    Thanks it was good to read through that again. It just confirms the
    fact that the Clinton administration, did nothing even remotely
    effective, mostly for fear of offending people and creating a backlash.

    I think we would've been perfectly justified for being more agressive,
    especially after the embassy bombings, but as the report points out
    quite clearly there was a large backlash here at home against even the
    cruise missile strikes, which did nothing, as too strong a response.
    It was a different country before 9/11 and we were still dancing with
    the anti-assasination law that was passed in the 70s which was why we
    "didn't" try to kill Khadafi and the Bin-Laden operation was being
    really limited to diplomatic and legal options which had zero chance of
    success given his money which we never cut off, and a home country that
    was working with and protecting him.
    There were reasons why neither President did much of anything about Al
    Qaida before 9/11 and most of them go straight back to the Church
    Commission, but it needs to be clear that it was both administrations
    because those are the facts.
    Bill C

  13. Bill C said:

    There were reasons why neither President did much of anything about Al
    Qaida before 9/11 [...] but it needs to be clear that it was both
    administrations

    In every other thing it did during its first few months, the guiding
    principle of this administration was: if Clinton did it, it must be bad,
    so we'll do it the other way. If the previous administration had done
    nothing about terrorism, this administration would have made it their top
    priority.

  14. Robert Chung said:
    Bill C said:

    There were reasons why neither President did much of anything about Al
    Qaida before 9/11 [...] but it needs to be clear that it was both
    administrations

    In every other thing it did during its first few months, the guiding
    principle of this administration was: if Clinton did it, it must be bad,
    so we'll do it the other way. If the previous administration had done
    nothing about terrorism, this administration would have made it their top
    priority.


    I don't think they were even vaguely organized enough to begin to deal
    with this. The people who say that it was low on their list of
    priorities are absolutely right. All the intel from the during the
    Clinton administration said that at most Al-Qaida could kill a couple
    of hundred, and probably outside the US as they had already done. They
    were being pretty closely monitored, and Clinton had decided against
    several possible military and covert solutions.
    Please tell me what alarming new info came in between 20 Jan and 9 Sep
    that should have caused an all out scramble to attempt to quickly
    cobble together an operation to kill or capture Bin-Laden by the Bush
    team? The Clinton administrations decided, and I can ubderstand why,
    that there was way too much risk, and cost, both internally and
    internationally to going after him using all resources. They
    consistantly blocked this option, that's clear from the evidence before
    the committee, and had followed this since at least 96, and continued
    it even after the embassy bombings. The planned operation to capture
    him sounds a lot like the failed Iranian hostage mission, and probably
    had less chance of success and more risk for global disaster.
    I'm willing to bet that, even now, if the US military or Intel types
    kill Bin-Laden, there will be a huge outcry among the "progressives"
    about extra-judicial executions, and that he was killed, rather than
    brought to trial to protect the Saudi government from being exposed. It
    would've been a hundred times worse before 9/11 if they had killed him.
    Arresting him once he was out of Sudan was going to be damn near
    impossible.
    You tell me how either administration could've done anything really
    effective against him without generating a huge legal headache both
    here in the US, UN, and World Courts? Then how about the backlash
    against the US for unilaterally going into another sovereign nation,
    before 9/11, and killing or kidnapping a guest, especially an Islamic
    hero?
    What came out of the Church commission and the US intel agencies
    actions prior to that around the globe was the neutering of our
    capability to deal with any situation, no matter how bad. Carter gutted
    US Humnit, becuase he personally found spying repugnant, but that just
    added to what Congress and Ford had done in swinging the pedulum on
    Intel way too far the other way so that they were3 basically blind
    except for NSA, and that doesn't give you people on the ground to
    handle operations, and get a feeling for the context of the intercepted
    information, let alone actually act on it to kill someone like
    Bin-Laden. We didn't have the ability, or any way for the president to
    legally authorize his killing. The Taliban sure as hell weren't going
    to extradite him, kidnapping him using the US military would've been an
    open act of war, especially when it failed and they had a couple of US
    helicopters, bodies, and prisoners to parade on tv. Sanctions almost
    never work.
    How about you telling us just what reasonable action, either
    administration could've taken, without causing a huge legal and
    political firestorm?
    Bill C

  15. Bill C said:

    Please tell me what alarming new info came in between 20 Jan and 9 Sep
    that should have caused an all out scramble to attempt to quickly
    cobble together an operation to kill or capture Bin-Laden by the Bush
    team?

    How about, "Bin Ladin determined to strike in US?"

    "The system was blinking red:"
    http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch8.pdf

  16. Robert Chung said:
    Bill C said:

    There were reasons why neither President did much of anything about Al
    Qaida before 9/11 [...] but it needs to be clear that it was both
    administrations

    In every other thing it did during its first few months, the guiding
    principle of this administration was: if Clinton did it, it must be bad,
    so we'll do it the other way. If the previous administration had done
    nothing about terrorism, this administration would have made it their top
    priority.

    Actually, I remember reading one area that they saw things the same
    way; that the US would not accept a judgement by the World Court--at the
    same time as the administration acceded to holding other countries to
    accept the court.
    It was supposedly something to do with surrendering sovereignty to a
    foreign power.

    Steve

    --
    Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
    http://www.dentaltwins.com
    Brooklyn, NY
    718-258-5001

  17. Robert Chung said:
    Bill C said:

    Please tell me what alarming new info came in between 20 Jan and 9 Sep
    that should have caused an all out scramble to attempt to quickly
    cobble together an operation to kill or capture Bin-Laden by the Bush
    team?

    How about, "Bin Ladin determined to strike in US?"

    "The system was blinking red:"
    http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch8.pdf

    There was an increase in activity, but it was way too late, with way
    too little in the way of Human Intelligence resources to do a damned
    thing about it. If we had solid evidence of a specific cell operating,
    or even solid info on the target we might've had a shot at stopping it.
    Nothing in the intelligence world happens quickly, especially when we
    hadn't restructured after the cold war. There was a complete failure to
    assess where, and what type of threats we were going to face. As far as
    I can tell we were still locked in on China, and the activities of Cuba
    in Central and South America. We had [censored], and still have [censored] for a
    reliable network in the Middle East, we've always counted on the
    Israelis to handle that for us. Didn't work out too well, did it?
    You've got to recruit good people, but the CIA recruiters keep getting
    run off college campuses here, train them, acclimate them to the
    culture and life of the region they're going to work in,make them
    fluent and literate not only in the academic language but local slang
    and dialects, get them enough experience to have some idea when they
    are being mislead, and then have enough of them inserted and trusted in
    all the strategic places you need them.
    Any guesses how long that takes?
    This isn't a stupid Hollywood thriller movie, intelligence work is
    years of dull boring plugging away at getting to the right spot to pick
    up one or two important and accurate chunks of info. Do you have any
    idea of the amount of garbage they sort through, and have to try to
    piece together to even beging to decide on what's crdible and where to
    beging digging at it? Then since the early 70s they more often than not
    found they didn't have the resources on the ground to really follow it
    up and relied on the Brits, French, and other allies who did, and do
    have extensive networks on the ground.
    If on Jan 21 someone had guaranteed that before June Bin-Laden was
    going to be at a certain spot, at a certain time, they might have been
    able to get an operation together to slip in a sniper team, make the
    kill and get them out, but the hard intell needed to make a strike
    happen, and the network to support it just didn't exist, and still
    doesn't.
    Are you aware of the fact that over 75% of the intel budget was
    dedicated to NSA, who was supposed to have 0 Humint Resources? Carter
    took us out of that business in a wholesale fashion. NSA does have some
    clandestine operations groups, and the ability to call up anything they
    need from the military, but without people on the ground you just
    aren't sure exactly what those satelite photos are, or those
    conversations mean for sure. Bit us in the ass big time, didn't it?
    The truth is that there was really no way in hell politically for
    Clinton to do much more than he did, and Bush had no time, if he'd
    wanted to, and neither had the resources.
    I'm on the outside looking in taking guesses about what we were
    capable of, and I'd bet that I'm seriously overestimating just how
    prepared and capable we were, and still are.
    Bill C

  18. Bill C said:

    intelligence work is
    years of dull boring plugging away at getting to the right spot to pick
    up one or two important and accurate chunks of info. Do you have any
    idea of the amount of garbage they sort through

    Yes.

  19. Bill C said:
    Robert Chung said:
    Bill C said:

    Brian, what did Clinton do in all the time after he was given these
    reports? http://www.judicialwatch.org/5504.shtml

    http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch4.pdf


    Thanks it was good to read through that again. It just confirms the
    fact that the Clinton administration, did nothing even remotely
    effective [about Al-Qaida], mostly for fear of offending people and
    creating a
    backlash.

    So what has the Bush administration done that's been remotely effective
    about Al-Qaida? Not for want of trying in Afghanistan, either (although the
    whole Iraq thing IMO has benefited Al-Qaida, as there never were many
    members in Iraq under Saddam, but you can bet there are now).

    Peter

  20. Peter Allen said:
    Bill C said:
    Robert Chung said:

    Bill C wrote:

    > Brian, what did Clinton do in all the time after he was given these
    > reports? http://www.judicialwatch.org/5504.shtml

    http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch4.pdf


    Thanks it was good to read through that again. It just confirms the
    fact that the Clinton administration, did nothing even remotely
    effective [about Al-Qaida], mostly for fear of offending people and
    creating a
    backlash.

    So what has the Bush administration done that's been remotely effective
    about Al-Qaida? Not for want of trying in Afghanistan, either (although the
    whole Iraq thing IMO has benefited Al-Qaida, as there never were many
    members in Iraq under Saddam, but you can bet there are now).

    Peter

    Have you read the thread? Bush has made it worse by going into Iraq.
    They along with the other governments have taken out a huge portion of
    Al-Qaida's top leadership, the Saudis just got another. If Bush hadn't
    gone off on his merry little adventure, we would've had plenty of
    troops available to really hurt Al-Qaida in Afghanistan, but the
    problem is that they are perfectly safe on the Pakistan side of the
    border as long as they stay in those tribal regions. The reality is
    that the Pakistan situation is a little better than it was with
    Cambodia but not much and the list of friends and neighbors still
    pouring in money and support for the extremists starting with the
    Saudis makes this a holding action for the forseeable future.
    Bill C

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.