March 24, 2004
WHEELCHAIR-BOUND COLUMN EXECUTED
Mentioned in this week’s Continuing Crisis column for The Bulletin are Tony Jones, John Howard, Peter Wilkins, Ricky Ponting, Matthew Elliott, Mark Latham, Bob Brown, Nick Sherry, Geoff Walden, Catharine Lumby, and Wally Potato.
Posted by Tim Blair at March 24, 2004 03:49 AMIt all looks like a case of putting lipstick on a pig.
A terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist.
As for those that have a hard time defining terrorism, how's this; any political violence taken against a civilian population by an extra-governmental organization or individual.
Posted by: Dwayne at March 24, 2004 at 04:55 AMMove over Dame Edna!! Wally Potato approaches. Tim, if don't register this guy in the U.S. you will forever rue that costly mistake.
Get over to Indymedia where columns include "the killing of Yassin is offensive to disabled people" :)
Posted by: EvilDan at March 24, 2004 at 08:45 AMScrew the disabled gimps. Let 'em march if'n they don't like it. Oh, wait...
Posted by: mojo at March 24, 2004 at 09:00 AM
The clown price, Tom bLIAR, is at it again. Tony Jones can not be punished for breaching ABC guidelines, he didn't break them. He asked should Hamas be declared a terrorist organisation by the Governement, without saying that is WAS a terrorist outfit. bLIAR made it up, dreamed it up, wished it up ... but it didn't happen. Wonder if he'll correct his mistake ...OK, OK, crazy notion.
It's offensive to disabled people to tie Yassin in with them or to view the fact that he is (sorry, was) in a wheelchair as somehow a defining characteristic of his identity. Hitler in a wheelchair would still be Hitler.
Posted by: Monco at March 24, 2004 at 09:47 AMWould Yassin’s getting killed be more acceptable to advoactes for the the wheelchair-bound if the missiles had been launched by a wheelchair-bound pilot?
Posted by: ForNow at March 24, 2004 at 10:06 AMC'mon Tim,
It's been at least 24 hrs since the news about Richard Clarke's observations regarding Dubya's posse and their salivations over Saddam in the aftermath of 9/11 (as well as other topics of interest to those of us that would like to wedge a size 12 into W's date).
No razor sharp wit to slice and dice this one?
Posted by: middlebits at March 24, 2004 at 10:48 AM"Dubya's posse and their salivations over Saddam" blah blah blah fishcakes. Yawn. Nothing there worth slicing or dicing, sorry, Middlingbits.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at March 24, 2004 at 11:30 AMOoh, I forgot to add, "IMHO." If Tim thinks it's worthy to slice -- oh, you meant Clarke's observations. Sorry, couldn't see the subject; your ego was in the way.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at March 24, 2004 at 11:31 AMMade it up, wished it up, dreamed it up, did I, Fisk?
Go read the entire Jones/Howard interview, in which Jones asks, among other things:
“But I guess what I'm wondering here is would you ever contemplate the Australian SAS being given the powers to do more or less what Israel has done -- to assassinate or attempt to assassinate a terrorist?”
He's talking about Hamas leader Rantissi.
Posted by: tim at March 24, 2004 at 11:46 AMNothing there worth slicing or dicing?
Andrea, as attack dog numero uno that's a pretty toothless response. Clarke was the counterterrorism czar in 4 successive administrations, both Democrat and Republican and he's basically shooting holes in the integrity of Dubya's entire defense strategy since 9/11, a strategy y'all seem to want to embrace despite it beginning to stink like a rotten tumor.
Are you related to Donald Rumsfeld?
Posted by: middlebits at March 24, 2004 at 11:50 AMI was referring to what you said, Middlefiddle. Now go tend your shrine to the great Clarke.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at March 24, 2004 at 11:56 AMWhat kind of effete, congealed, gutter-blocking scumbag would want Bush & co. not thinking hard starting 9/11/01 about eliminating all our enemies ? Definitely including Saddam & his regime.
On that day I was sure that they were thinking about it. I knew a little bit about Rice & had read somewhere that she & Bush were close. So I knew. And I knew that we would do it big, take out the bad guys, & reform societies along lines of increased liberty & democracy. Thank goodness I was right. The Bush Administration saw 9/11/01 for the WAKE-UP CALL that it was.
Such reformation is an American tradition, & pretty much SOLELY an American tradition. American civil & political culture are light-years advanced beyond anything that Europe has ever dreamt of. Most of those ignorant Euros don’t even know that Madison & other Founding Fathers were political thinkers flying over their Marx-&-Hegel-addled brains. Meanwhile we are trying to heed the WAKE-UP CALL & prevent nightmare scenarios slouching toward reality because of the accelerated pace of the general development in power, accessibility, miniaturization, deadly combinations, etc., of technologies adaptable for mass destruction. That is an interesting subject since none on the neo-isolationist right or the post-humanitarian left are able to address it & remain sane.
Posted by: ForNow at March 24, 2004 at 12:03 PM
Always the sneaky little out for "the clown prince of Austrlian columnists" Tom bLIAR. Faced with proof that the quotes in his column don't prove the conclusion he drew from them, he then digs for another long bow to stretch beyond breaking point. Jones for obviously talking about the possibility of Australia assasinating someone that Australia designated as a terrorist. Not someone Tony Jones was declaring to be a terrorist.
Yeah, bLIAR, you made it up, you dreamed it up, you wished it up and so you pretended the world was as you wanted it to be. As you do.
Posted by: fisk at March 24, 2004 at 12:10 PMmiddlebits,
Are you talking about the Clarke who blocked the extradition of Osama bin Laden?
"Clinton administration diplomatic troubleshooter Mansoor Ijaz charged Monday that one-time White House terrorism czar Richard Clarke blocked efforts to gather intelligence on al Qaeda and torpedoed a deal to have Osama bin Laden extradited from Afghanistan in the years before the 9/11 attacks."
Clarke has the blood of the 9-11 victims on his hands. Its sick that he is trying to smear President Bush to cover up his fuckups.
And he does it over LUNCH! With expensive wine.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at March 24, 2004 at 12:14 PMBy the way -- I was replying to "fisk" -- who must be, judging by his style, our old friend Big Hawk. Welcome back, Big! Here to recruit for the army again?
Posted by: Andrea Harris at March 24, 2004 at 12:16 PMFisk ( and how apt that sig is) : It's called "placing the remarks in context".
Let me explain.
Tim posted an article.
You criticised it, saying that the remarks as not justifying his conclusion when taken in isolation.
Tim then gave the context, blowing your arguments apart.
You then proceeded to blow a smokescreen over the whole issue, along with the usual ad hominem attacks of an incompetent debater losing an argument.
The article is about the whole silly ABC charade of trying to find descriptions for people who plan, finance, encourage, or actually carry out the deliberate blowing up of skyscrapers, trains, or busses full of children as anything other than Terrorists.
No amount of obfuscation, deliberate confusion, "depends what the meaning of 'is' is", misdirection or obscuranticism covers that up.
This was not always the case - the tactic has worked well in the past. But people are now starting to see it for what it is, and those who engage in it (on the right or the left) are losing whatever credibility they had.
Fortunately you're not very good at it.
Bruce,
Correct. That's the Clarke I'm referring to. Though you might have also wanted to include the link, on the same righty news site, that dismissed the Sudanese offer you linked to as false. That is, if you believe what your Govt's 9/11 Commission is telling you, but you'd never question the government, right?
Posted by: middlebits at March 24, 2004 at 12:45 PM
Alan, what a pity it's a case of brain by name, not by nature. Oops, there another of those odd-homo attacks that offend so. But then, if Tom bLIAR stopped using 'em what would he post? Cheap shots are the clown princes stock in trade.
And the bLIAR response did no such thing as blow any argument's out of any water. bLIAR is trying to verbal Jones into having declared Hamas as a terrorist group when all he is doing is posing questions as a journalist, in this case a hypothetical as to whether Australia would assasinate IF Hamas was declared a terrorist group. But then, who could be surprised that bLIAR doesn't grasp the basics of journalism?
Posted by: fisk at March 24, 2004 at 12:45 PM
Alan, what a pity it's a case of brain by name, not by nature. Oops, there another of those odd-homo attacks that offend so. But then, if Tom bLIAR stopped using 'em what would he post? Cheap shots are the clown prince's stock in trade. So I am simply adopting house style, when in Rome doing what the bloggers do.
And the bLIAR response did no such thing as blow any argument's out of any water. bLIAR is trying to verbal Jones into having declared Hamas as a terrorist group when all he is doing is posing questions as a journalist, in this case a hypothetical as to whether Australia would assasinate IF Hamas was declared a terrorist group by the Government. But then, who could be surprised that bLIAR doesn't grasp the basics of journalism?
Posted by: fisk at March 24, 2004 at 12:47 PMRegarding Mr. Richard Clarke:
Wonkette posted his resignation letter, released by the White House at:
http://www.wonkette.com/archives/richard_clarkes_decorum_problem_014275.php
Pretty interesting letter, given his current story. Makes me wonder if he decided any book he wrote for conservative readers would be less profitable than pandering to the delusions of the left wing nuts. Clearly those characters have money to burn, so maybe Clarke decided to bilk them of their precious dollars. Why not? Everyone else is.
I don't place a lot of credence in Mr. Clarke.
Oh, and don't expect a movie based on the book.
Posted by: JeffS at March 24, 2004 at 12:52 PM
But it was such a good post, Tom! Who is Wayne? You have an imaginary friend? Do you need them? Or just more delusional making and faking? Remember, just because you are paranoid, it doesn't mean they are not out to get you.
Actually, fisk, your debating skills need some polishing. Sniping and personal insults don't prove your point -- they just prove you can insult people.
In reading your double post, I see that you state "Cheap shots are the clown prince's stock in trade". Better buy a mirror -- your face paint is rubbing off, and your crown is crooked.
(PS -- yes, that's a cheap shot, but that's OK -- I am a clown prince coming out of the closet)
Posted by: JeffS at March 24, 2004 at 01:07 PMmiddlebits
This article? Where it points out that Clinton himself confirms the offer.
"In a Feb. 15, 2002, speech to the Long Island Association, Mr. Clinton revealed:
"We'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him.
"At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.
"So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan." [End of Excerpt]
The decision by the 9/11 Commission to reject Clinton's confirmation of the Sudanese version of events threatens to undermine the credibility of the panel's entire probe.
NewsMax.com offered the commission copies of its exclusive recording of the ex-president's stunning admission on numerous occasions. At no time did the commission express any interest in obtaining a copy of the recording, or request the original tape to verify its authenticity.
President Clinton's speech was videotaped by the Long Island Association, with selected clips broadcast on Long Island's News Channel 12 that night. His comments about the Sudanese offer were reported the next day by Newsday in its business section."
Posted by: Bruce at March 24, 2004 at 01:28 PMmiddlebits
"That is, if you believe what your Govt's 9/11 Commission is telling you, but you'd never question the government, right?"
Well ... I'm from Canada actually, and I always question the government since they are a pack of pro-terrorist, anti-american kleptocrats.
But if Bill Clinton admits, on tape, that Sudan offerred to give up bin Laden to the US, and the US refused, then I really have to question the motives of Richard Clarke ... don't you think?
Posted by: Bruce at March 24, 2004 at 01:33 PMBruce,
Maybe the authenticity of the tape is questionable and that's why the Commish ain't jumping all over it. If its the smoking gun that Newsmax reports, I'd have thought Dubya'd be driving around DC in a Hummer with the tape blaring from the stereo.
No need to slander more cautious governments just because they aint gunslinging cowboys. Maybe it's that they're not pro-lying about the reasons for war. All I want is to be able to trust the leadership in my country, which I'm uncertain about here in Oz. No uncertainty about a lack of trust in Dubya however.
Posted by: middlebits at March 24, 2004 at 02:03 PMWhen Catherine Lumby's finished feminising the NRL, she might get a job in Gympie researching gender cliches in country and western music. I foresee a PhD thesis here: 101 Ways to Stand by your Man.
Posted by: Freddyboy at March 24, 2004 at 02:25 PMTim, Wally Potato doesn't quite sound right for a rugby league player. The name shouldn't have more than one syllable in each part (RL players can't deal with too many syllables) and should be offensively Anglo eg Brad, Craig, Mal, etc. Nicknames however, being one word, can have two syllables eg Bazza, Wocca and Tugger.
Posted by: Freddyboy at March 24, 2004 at 03:52 PM
No, Jeffs, but when winning the debate and proving the point is mind-numbingly easy (bLIAR is a one trick pony), you need to throw in a few cheap shots to make the exercise entertaining. I won't assume the fact you don't recommend doing both at once stems from the fact you have trouble with the old walking and farting routine.
Middlebits:
The odd thing is, if Bill Clinton was still President, the USA would be a cautious country. As a military commander, he was VERY cautious. This would seem to be your preference in American presidents.
My point? You refute apparent evidence from Clinton. Apparently Bush isn't using the information -- I don't know if it is right or wrong, but I can offer you one reason why he wouldn't. Clinton isn't running for President, Kerry is. Also, the 9/11 probe is something he doesn't want to influence, so people can't blame him for manipulating facts. NOt that it matters, the lefties won't listen, but he can try.
So your brushing this off and complaining about gunslinging cowboys just shows that you have a attitude.
Now, if you really just don't like Bush for whatever reason, and want us to accept your reasoning, don't use the term "gunslinging cowboys". Contrary to popular opinion, in American West lore, gunslingers were usually criminals. Cowboys, on the other hand, were the working class of the day, since ranching and farming were the principal industries during the colonization of the western United States. Not always good guys, but often hardworking men who didn't look for trouble. The use of "gunslinging cowboy" is a just a slam against the US, the sort of thing someone with an attitude might use. It's not that you can't or shouldn't use the term, but, please, use it right. The proper usage would be "gunslinger".
As to trusting leadership (like Bush), well, that's your call. I'd like to completely trust our leadership here in the US of A, but I don't (for a number of reasons).
I do accept Bush's decision on terrorism, though, in spite of my lack of total trust in him. That's because I will never have 100% comfort; risk and uncertainy are part of life. In that context, a decisive decision and dedicated action are far better than detailed studies and public meetings. We are on a trip, and can adjust our plans so that the destination is a good one. Not perfect, but good. That's best because if we don't depart, we'll never get anywhere.
middlebits
"No need to slander more cautious governments"
Cautious? The Prime Minister of Canada at the time, Jean Chretien, happens to have a daughter married to Paul Desmarais Jr., and once worked for Paul Desmarais Sr. Paul Desmarais Sr owns Power Corporation, which happens to be the largest shareholder in TotalElf.
Both the Desmarais are on the Board of Directors of TotalElf, which happens to be the French Oil Company that had multi-billion dollar contracts with Saddam Hussein. Those contracts were amazingly lucrative compared to normal contracts.
The current Prime Minister, Paul Martin, owes his fortune to an amazingly cheap deal he got on Canadian Steamship Limited. Guess who sold him the company? Paul Desmarais Sr.
The current PM's company, CSL, did an amazing 161 million dollars worth of business with the Canadian government while Paul Martin was Finance Minister. During the leadership campaign, some "helpful" civil servants claimed that CSL only did 137,000 worth of business with the Canadian government.
Both Chretien and Martin voted to keep Canada out of the Iraq war despite the amazing conflict of interest they had.
I don't call the government a kleptocracy lightly.
They corruptly helped out their close friend and relative by marriage by trying to stop the war in Iraq.
Posted by: Bruce at March 24, 2004 at 05:49 PMOh wow! This Clarke guy wrote a book? That's cool!
Remember that time when the Hutton Inquiry totally brought down the British government, and then that time that Paul O'Neil wrote a book and destroyed the Bush Administration? Yeah. That was cool.
Posted by: Sortelli at March 24, 2004 at 07:14 PMFreddy Boy - ever heard that great Anglo name Hazem, or Jamaal, or Epalahame, or Wairangi, or or or? Rugby League players mightn't be the brightest, but at least they don't get points for missing like in that great socialist sport AFL.
Posted by: Ross at March 24, 2004 at 09:23 PMMiddlebits wrote :"Clarke was the counterterrorism czar in 4 successive administrations, both Democrat and Republican and he's basically shooting holes in the integrity of Dubya's entire defense strategy since 9/11, a strategy y'all seem to want to embrace despite it beginning to stink like a rotten tumor."
Um, yeah--his focus was on CYBERterrorism--he had no clue about planes flying into skyscrapers--and he lost his job--gee, I guess he sucked at it, considering, huh?
Middlebits would have at least a slightly better argument if he actually read as much as possible considering the charges made. Obviously, he wants to accept only what he likes. While this may make him happy, it is hardly a winning line of logic. Close of Clarke's recorded statements are already showing a consistent pattern of provable lies. Perhaps Middlebits could explain some of them.
Posted by: JorgXMcKie at March 24, 2004 at 11:19 PMFisk said :
Alan, what a pity it's a case of brain by name, not by nature.Oh! Cut to the Quick! Damn you're good at this dielectic stuff. Why, I haven't heard such a witty play on my name since primary school.
BTW if you go outside at about 10 pm, and look really, really hard, you might see a speck called FedSat whizz overhead. Australia's first satellite in 30 years, launched in 2002. I headed the on-board computer software development team.
I'm not egotistical enough to believe that gives me any more qualification than anyone else to write on political matters. But it makes a nice counter-argument when encountering something like yourself.
Never mind, my own fault. I was hoping for, you know, facts, evidence, cogent argument, logic, something I could learn from. From your posts, you have a reasonably good vocabulary, so can't be unintelligent. You even have the intellect to make a pun, weak and whiffing of bigotry ("odd-homo" indeed) though it might be. What a shame to waste that intelligence the way you're doing. Maybe it's just emotion getting in the way. But you're capable of better.
Besides which, I never get into a battle of wits with someone who's unilaterally disarmed. <g>
Bruce:
I hope Canada squares itself away. I was raised just south of the 49th Parallel, and have known many Canadians for a long time, most of them good people. As a young lieutenant, I trained with Canadian soldiers, and found them to be good troops.
I don't live by the 49th anymore, but the Canadian government current decent into socialism, stupidity, and corruption is worrisome to me. You don't deserve it.
Posted by: JeffS at March 25, 2004 at 12:45 AMoooh, Alan is a serious geek. oooh, pity Alan doesn't get humans. They send things up, including themselves, deliberately. And laugh when people like Alan come over all hurt and pious and start blathering about their achievments to end a political debate. bLIAR verballed Tony Jones - how come you are not concerned about that? And if you are so concerned about cheap shots, I've good news Alan - there's this bloke Tim bLIAR and he runs a bolg that is FULL of 'em. Sic 'im boy!
Posted by: fisk at March 25, 2004 at 08:42 AMOkay, I've followed the exchange between this "fisk" person and a few others.
I'm beginning to wonder when "fisk" will use more devastating epithets like "doo-doo head" or worse.
Posted by: Patrick Chester at March 25, 2004 at 10:02 AMCan we get someone on another blog to cut and paste the bloghead's continuing crisis in confidence into itty bitty little peices? Any takers?
Posted by: Miranda Divide at March 26, 2004 at 10:07 AM