June 29, 2004

THE TRUE COST OF TERRORISM

Damn, you, Osama! Damn you for helping the bad people! Phillip Adams is way furious:

Before September 11, there was unrest in the Bush team. Take Donald Rumsfeld. The White House was energetically undermining him. The Washington Post was one of many papers receiving leaks and backgrounders from the White House, including names of the candidates most likely to replace him. Rumsfeld knew he was for the chop and told his confidantes that only a major terrorist attack could save him.

The precise source of Phil’s claim -- well, it’s a little stronger than a claim -- isn’t identified. Begin hunting!

The same attack saved his boss. Bin Laden gave Bush the biggest boost of his career. After all, Bill Clinton's buoyant economy was going down the toilet.

The greatest tragedy of September 11: it helped George W. Bush.

What was bin Laden's thinking? It wasn't hard to anticipate Bush's response – that he'd launch a war against terror that would be seen as anti-Islamic. That he'd introduce draconian laws to dramatically reduce the freedoms of Americans.

For the love of God, after nearly three years of this could somebody please provide one example -- one solitary, factual example -- of these alleged "reduced freedoms"? To close out his column, Adams resorts to not giving a damn:

In objective terms, September 11 was infinitesimal. For the mighty US to lose a couple of large skyscrapers in a nation with cities as full of these perpendicularities as a jungle is of trees, would hardly destroy its prospects ...

Even a Cessna colliding with the Statue of Liberty would be more than enough to defeat John Kerry. Just as a few Australians coming under fire in Baghdad may be more than enough to defeat Mark Latham.

Note how casual is Phillip’s turn of phrase: "A few Australians coming under fire." This from a man who works himself into a rage over inaccurate hat allegations.

Posted by Tim Blair at June 29, 2004 05:40 AM
Comments

For the love of God, after nearly three years of this could somebody please provide one example -- one solitary, factual example -- of these alleged "reduced freedoms"?

I'm no longer allowed to pack a spot of Cemtex into my shoe heel and walk on board a commercial flight. So nuts to you, digital brownshirt!!

Posted by: Tongue Boy at June 29, 2004 at 05:47 AM

Oh, and that Adams dude is totally asleep at the wheel. Or just lazy. The following words/phrases did NOT appear in today's column:

John Ashcroft
Abu Ghraib
Patriot Act
Haliburton
hegemony
unilateral
yellowcake


What *other* words did not appear in today's column?

Posted by: Tongue Boy at June 29, 2004 at 05:52 AM

--What was bin Laden's thinking?--

Why doesn't he read bin laden, he told us awhile ago why he attacked US and he didn't think we'd attack.

Posted by: Sandy P at June 29, 2004 at 06:00 AM

"In objective terms, September 11 was infinitesimal. For the mighty US to lose a couple of large skyscrapers in a nation with cities as full of these perpendicularities as a jungle is of trees, would hardly destroy its prospects ..."

disgusting. simply disgusting.

Posted by: madne0 at June 29, 2004 at 06:01 AM

Tongue Boy, about 99.99% of this did not appear in the column. I'm very suspicious...

Posted by: Ken Summers at June 29, 2004 at 06:02 AM

For the love of God, after nearly three years of this could somebody please provide one example -- one solitary, factual example -- of these alleged "reduced freedoms"?

Fewer Americans* than ever before read and pay attention to Phil Adams. Thus, their freedoms have clearly been reduced, even if they don't realize it. QED.

* Not to mention the reduced freedoms of everybody else in the world who was forced to stop paying attention to him. Bush is the Great Reducer of Freedom Worldwide, wouldn't you know it.

Posted by: PW at June 29, 2004 at 06:02 AM

"For the mighty US to lose a couple of large skyscrapers in a nation with cities as full of these perpendicularities as a jungle is of trees, would hardly destroy its prospects ..."

What unbelievably vile reasoning. Did he really write this?? Sure, we Americans have plenty of tall buildings, so what's the loss of a couple on a fine autumn day? We've got people and planes to spare, too. No biggie.

Posted by: c at June 29, 2004 at 06:04 AM

"For the mighty US to lose a couple of large skyscrapers in a nation with cities as full of these perpendicularities as a jungle is of trees"

For the mighty US to lose a few thousand people in a nation with cities as full of these perpendicularities as a jungle is of animals...

By golly, he's right. 3,000 corpses is barely 0.001% of our population. Nothing to fret about.

Posted by: Ken Summers at June 29, 2004 at 06:06 AM

I have never before referred to people as "perpendicularities". Let's hope it doesn't happen again.

Posted by: Ken Summers at June 29, 2004 at 06:08 AM

As tho "a couple of large skyscrapers" were the biggest of our losses on that day. Tell that to the 3000 who died, and their families who will be forever haunted by final cell phone calls and images of loved ones jumping out the windows rather than being burned alive. How about NY citys finest, police and firefighters, running into the blaze while others were running out. Hundreds of whom never came out , and who had more valor and honor in their little toes, than Adams has in his whole lard ass body. What a moral pigmy!!!

Posted by: debbie at June 29, 2004 at 06:09 AM

Ken: not only did he not use 99+% of your source, the parts he did use were inaccurate, lies, misusages, and so on. He might as well not be allowed to use the stuff at all. Just as automatic weapons are apt to be dangerously misused by adolescents, so is the dictionary by those like Phat Phil.

As for excess buildings, surely a lefty like himself doesn't really need his place. Maybe we could arrange for it to be the site of the next large explosion.

Posted by: JorgXMcKie at June 29, 2004 at 06:10 AM

This "they were only a couple of buildings" meme has started to emerge from the Left. I've seen in in a couple of comments on various blogs. After all of the Lefts "arguments" against the war have been thoroughlu debunked, this is their final position. Shameless. Disgusting. Amoral.

Posted by: nobody important at June 29, 2004 at 06:35 AM

Adams couldn't have given us a more horrifying illustration of the Far Left's moral and logical bankruptcy, autism, blindness, disease, lunacy, and venality.

Everyone should write letters to the paper on this one. Dibs on calling Adams a depraved ghoul.

Posted by: c at June 29, 2004 at 06:44 AM

Is "perpendicularities" a word?

Posted by: mojo at June 29, 2004 at 06:51 AM

C....

They are interchangable.

Posted by: debbie at June 29, 2004 at 06:52 AM

Thanks, debbie.

And, mojo, Adams's blather about our buildings and use of that "p" word makes one wonder whether he is obsessed with big American erections and feeling a might infinitesimal himself--

Posted by: c at June 29, 2004 at 07:16 AM

Clinton's "buoyant economy" was in detectable decline well before the election.

Not that Adams could be educated on the point.

Posted by: SteveH at June 29, 2004 at 07:20 AM

Who is this smug bastard? 3,000 deaths are infinitesimal? Does this moral retard even realize what's falling out of his brain?

Oh! Stupid question.

Posted by: Rebecca at June 29, 2004 at 07:21 AM

If Phil could handle a crayon, he'd be another Ted Rall.

Posted by: The Real JeffS at June 29, 2004 at 07:21 AM

"That he'd introduce draconian laws to dramatically reduce the freedoms of Americans."

I was debating the dreaded Patriot Act with our lefty-secretary. I asked her what freedoms, name one, that she has lost since the PA.

(not that I'm a fan. They had me at sunset clause. Hell, I willing to suspend the writ of habeaus corpus, with a sunset clause.)

She gave me a blank stare.

Give over. Keep pushing. Let freedom Reign.

Posted by: gimpy at June 29, 2004 at 07:39 AM

But remember, he really *cares* about the people. That's people with a the.

Posted by: chuck at June 29, 2004 at 07:54 AM

OK, I'm not familiar with this Adams guy, so I have some questions about him:
1. What planet is he from?
2. When are they coming back to pick him up?
3. And, is there any way to speed up the process?

Posted by: rinardman at June 29, 2004 at 08:14 AM

Look mates, I think you're all being a bit hard on old Adams. The poor guy has just been the victim of a "hat" sting.

Anyway, imagine life for him if you will: conservative government in Australia, still with a possibility of being re-elected, conservative "evil" government in USA, with a good likelihood of being re-elected, "treacherous" centre-left government in UK.

Adams is just depressed that he has finally realised his own irrelevancy.

:)

Posted by: Quentin George at June 29, 2004 at 08:37 AM

For the love of God, after nearly three years of this could somebody please provide one example -- one solitary, factual example -- of these alleged "reduced freedoms"?

EU lawmakers want to ban 'hate speech', violators face criminal charges.

"This proposal could potentially outlaw free speech," said Malcolm Hutty, general director for Campaign Against Censorship on the Internet in Britain, or CACIB. "That would be a great infringement of civil rights."

There you go, Tim.


Oh... wait, you were referring to the USA.

My bad.

Posted by: Bleeding heart conservative at June 29, 2004 at 08:40 AM

Senator Kennedy remarked "right on there Aussie"

Mary Jo Kopechne was unavailable for comment.

Posted by: EddieP at June 29, 2004 at 08:41 AM

Tim, everyone in the US knows that the Patriot Act has made it virtually impossible to offer an anti-Bush opinion. It says so in Fahrenheit 911. It says so in Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them. It says so in The Republican Noise Machine. It says so in The Politics of Truth. It says so in House of Bush House of Saud. It says so in Against All Enemies. You can hardly walk into a Barnes and Noble without being confronted by a huge display of silenced books.

Posted by: Mike G at June 29, 2004 at 08:44 AM

Mike G
LOL

And-- Air America could never get an FCC in John Ashcroft's police state.

Posted by: Bleeding heart conservative at June 29, 2004 at 08:49 AM

ahemm add "license"
Hoom. Too hasty.

Posted by: Bleeding heart conservative at June 29, 2004 at 08:53 AM

phil desperately need to attend a TAFE referesher course in LOGIC and Clear thinking.
Assuming he has the inteligence to master the curriculum that is.
You know what they say
people are like wine, they either become vintage or turn to vinegar.

Posted by: davo at June 29, 2004 at 09:11 AM

Phillip Adams is useless above the ground - he ought to be below it, encouraging the cabbages.

Posted by: Parker at June 29, 2004 at 09:17 AM

Well, according to almost all the staff at the library where I work, these reduced freedoms consist of the fact that, given the proper paperwork, the FBI can now look at the records of the books you've taken out! The horror!

Oh, wait...they could do that pre-9/11. Oh dear.

The truly nauseating aspect of it is that they, like every other library in the Chicago 'burbs, have a whole campaign going: bumper stickers, leaflets etc all nicely printed up with slogans like "I Support Libraries and I Vote!" and "Another `Hysteric` Librarian For Freedom." Not that I'm for forcing them to stop or anything - freedom of speech for all, however dumb - but I do wish they could do that stuff on their own dime and not co-opt library money for it. You know, the stuff that's supposed to expand the collection.

Some days I just think of quitting and sitting in front of a computer writing depressing fiction and moaning all day. It's starting to get to me.

Posted by: Sonetka at June 29, 2004 at 09:51 AM

Does this mental midget have trouble crawling up on stools?

Posted by: Mike H. at June 29, 2004 at 09:57 AM

This "they were only a couple of buildings" meme has started to emerge from the Left. I've seen in in a couple of comments on various blogs. After all of the Lefts "arguments" against the war have been thoroughlu debunked, this is their final position. Shameless. Disgusting. Amoral.

But at least they're finally honest about how they feel.

Posted by: Robert Crawford at June 29, 2004 at 10:35 AM

Had it been the kremlin or Mao's tomb, I wonder how Phil would have felt.

Though seriously, imagine the turn around in leftist braying if it had been the UN building that was hit.

Unreservedly disgusting.

Posted by: nic at June 29, 2004 at 10:48 AM

I hate the fact that this idiot is an Australian.

I find his views abhorent and embarrassing.

Posted by: Heebee at June 29, 2004 at 10:52 AM

nobody important:

This "they were only a couple of buildings" meme has started to emerge from the Left.

Makes sense. It's the perfect bookend to their other argument: "there are only a couple of WMDs in Iraq".

Has a certain symmetry, you must admit.

Posted by: Carl in N.H. at June 29, 2004 at 11:26 AM

I would really like to know if Adams himself could name one freedom that was taken away from an american citizen by the PA. He would probably respond like the rest of the conspiracy theorists - bitter silence

Posted by: Oktober at June 29, 2004 at 12:17 PM

Hey, Hoges: that website you link to is totally self-contained -- it doesn't tell us where it got its information. As far as we can tell, whoever put up that website could have just pulled all that "crushing of dissent" out of his or her ass. And considering what a small list it was, that's a pretty tight ass.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at June 29, 2004 at 12:26 PM

Thank you, Andrea. Exactly the non-argument I expect around here.

Posted by: Hoges at June 29, 2004 at 12:27 PM

Well, hoges, I see many things that you may not like, but only a few are in the Patriot Act, and none of them are new. Oddly enough, all these things existed in the Drug Laws and the Organized Crime Laws prior. In fact, the RICO statutes, which were supposed to be applied *only* to Mafia-types (pardon the non-PC) were quickly used by the usual lefty suspects against corporations and individuals in them. Where were you then, when real freedoms were being taken away?

In point of fact, where are the actual *cases* which restricted freedoms that were not previously used? (Especially by the jack-booted thugs of Janet Reno and Bill Clinton?)

Long on hypotheticals, short on realisms. Lame.

Posted by: JorgXMcKie at June 29, 2004 at 12:29 PM

By the way: of course this Adams being doesn't think that the loss of nearly 3,000 people is important. For one thing, people of his set of beliefs like to think they are above all this sentimental regard for one's fellow man. Individuals don't matter, only the manipulations of some hive-like entity known as "the masses" by some omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent (but not divine! never that!) force known as "History" matters. For another thing, all those people were in America. It doesn't matter that a lot of the September 11 dead were immigrants or even just visitors here. Once you cross the borders of America you become a non-person. (The exception to this sweeping indictment, of course, are the nineteen terrorists who murdered nearly three-thousand people; they are helpless victims of the Evil Capitalist Christian Amerkkkan Hegemon, and could not vent their frustrations any other way.)

Posted by: Andrea Harris at June 29, 2004 at 12:33 PM

I don't argue with inferiors, Hoges.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at June 29, 2004 at 12:36 PM

Hey JorgXMcKie, you guys insist Saddam crushed the rights of all Iraqis whether he actually killed, tortured or imprisoned them or not but when it comes to our side you want the victims' names and addresses before you'll accept the evidence? Be consistent.

Posted by: Hoges at June 29, 2004 at 12:36 PM

"Exactly the non-argument I expect around here"

Hoges, a hit piece by some local California chapter of the ACLU hardly counts as evidence of "reduced freedoms".

F'rinstance, here's the first item:

"Congress abdicates oversight responsibilites, granting President Bush unfettered power to wage war on terrorism. "

9.15.01

This refers to the resolution approving the use of force against those responsible for 9-11. (98-0 Senate; 420-1 House, thanks to Barbara Lee D-Cal)

Hmm, funny how ominous things look if you ignore the actual content and substitute your own scary phrases picked out of--well, Andrea said it best.

Nice try, is that the best you've got ?

Remember, Tim is asking for factual content, not frothing lefty fantasies. It should be a pretty low bar, but you guys are having trouble clearing it.


Posted by: Carl in N.H. at June 29, 2004 at 12:39 PM

I think Andrea Harris has pretty much given you the appropriate answer, Hoges. And the horse you rode in on.

Posted by: Rebecca at June 29, 2004 at 12:45 PM

"In objective terms, September 11 was infinitesimal. For the mighty US to lose a couple of large skyscrapers in a nation with cities as full of these perpendicularities as a jungle is of trees, would hardly destroy its prospects ... "

Of course the US should have just brushed this off as the fleabite that Phil reckons it was. Two buildings collapsed, over 3000 killed, nothing to see here people move on!

When are they going to put this bloke out to pasture - or the knackers yard - or anything, he is such an embarrassment.

Posted by: Rob at June 29, 2004 at 12:49 PM

you guys insist Saddam crushed the rights of all Iraqis whether he actually killed, tortured or imprisoned them or not

If it makes you happy, statements about crushed rights can be limited to those that Saddam actually did kill, torture and/or imprison. That leaves only, oh, several hundred thousand to a few million. I can see how unsubstantiated allegations about "reduced freedoms" in America are so much worse than that.

Run along Hoges, nobody here's falling for your empty rhetoric.

Posted by: PW at June 29, 2004 at 12:53 PM

Adams' column also seems to have fallen foul of more current events - Australian troops have come under fire. There was a mortar attack recently, as well as ground fire on an RAAF Herc (which tragically resulted in the death of an American). Using his 'logic', i take it we can expect to see a free fall in Latham's support, and that this will be directly attributable to Iraq? My ass.

Posted by: attila at June 29, 2004 at 01:12 PM

Don't miss the true gem of Hoges' comment about Saddam: "You guys insist Saddam crushed the rights of all Iraqis. . ."

Is there some doubt on this subject? How many oil vouchers are you expecting to get for that one, Hoges? The oil for food scam is over.

Posted by: Sortelli at June 29, 2004 at 01:37 PM

I wonder if the Phat fuck sits in one of these "excess of buildings" as he pens his bullshit...

Why couldn't have Bin Laden done humanity a favour and targetted Phatso's house instead????

Posted by: scott at June 29, 2004 at 01:47 PM

Phuck phat phil . . . . I want Rummy for President in 2008!

Posted by: steve at June 29, 2004 at 02:03 PM

Just a question, has Adams ever been even remotely right about anything? And has he ever written a column with actual content instead of wafer-thin glib (and highly offensive) non-arguments?

Posted by: Matt T at June 29, 2004 at 02:10 PM

Steve: Or Condi. She is super cool.

Wasn't Adams one of the chief proponents of the view that Howard was responsible for those boat-people drowning? I think about 200 died tragically on that occasion.

But 3000, mostly American, murder victims? No biggie.

Posted by: CurrencyLad at June 29, 2004 at 02:50 PM

I want Condi!

Er...um, for President, I mean. Yeah, that's what I meant.

Posted by: Ken Summers, Perversion Catalyst at June 29, 2004 at 03:51 PM

I think the hat this Adams fella says he never wears is a little too tight.

And "they were only a couple of buildings"... I hope none of those asshats ever says that to me, because I'll be going to jail shortly thereafter...

Posted by: richard mcenroe at June 29, 2004 at 04:01 PM

The only time that I think 9/11 was small is when I consider the effect of a series of WMD terrorist attacks in major cities or public events. This thought is genuinely terrifying (Like hundreds of thousands dead) and is exactly why eliminating Iraq was important and why we should set our sights on N-Korea, Iran and Syria. September 11 was a large scale attack but the threat of something bigger is there and it will not stop just because some lefty collumist believes that if we didnt go to war in Iraq September 11 wouldnt have happened (This is out of chronological order of course, the reason is that those same Left wing collumists have since blamed Bali on the fact Howard was supporting war in Iraq ignoring the fact that that happened before the war too).

Posted by: JBB at June 29, 2004 at 04:19 PM

If it weren't for the fact that many people, around the world, have died at the hands of the terrorists, this guy would be funny to read because he's so stupid. However, people died in the 'two buildings' on 9/11 and many others have died in other places around the globe because of the Islamists who want to usher in a global Caliphate.

I liked one phrase from his article:

"When I was a teenage communist .."

Has a certain ring to it. Could be the title of a movie ala 'I was a Teenage Werewolf'. Perhaps the title of a book as well.

Posted by: Chris Josephson at June 29, 2004 at 05:09 PM

Tim.

As for the source of P.A.'s information, regarding Rumsfeld heading for the chop.

I remember P.A. saying on Late Night Live in an interview with another guest that he originally heard this on Background Briefing.

Background Briefing (ABC RN) did a program on Rumsfeld some time ago. I listened to it at the time. I can verify this is the source of most of his claim.

"Before September 11, there was unrest in the Bush team. Take Donald Rumsfeld. The White House was energetically undermining him. The Washington Post was one of many papers receiving leaks and backgrounders from the White House, including names of the candidates most likely to replace him. Rumsfeld knew he was for the chop"

The one part that I have no recollection of from that program was that he (D.R.) "told his confidantes that only a major terrorist attack could save him".

No idea where P.A. got the last bit from.

Posted by: domitar at June 29, 2004 at 07:42 PM

Tim seeing as you quoted Adams out of context to give the impression you'd somehow 'caught him out' maybe it would be a good idea to shut up about the 'hat' thing. As Jertho pointed out -

Tim's quote of Adams - 'UPDATE. Adams writes: "I've always appeared bare headed, never worn a cap or, for that matter, any other form of headgear." Really? Here’s Phillip in an old byline shot. The hat-wearing freak.'

The actual full sentence in The Australian - 'In decades of appearing on talk shows hosted by the likes of Michael Parkinson, Clive James, Ray Martin, Andrew Denton, David Frost – and even William F. Buckley Jr – I've always appeared bare headed, never worn a cap or, for that matter, any other form of headgear.'

Tim's pathetic attempt at a 'gotcha' moment - quoting out of context - that's the kind journalism you learn at The Truth!

Posted by: dobaman at June 29, 2004 at 08:38 PM

Much thanks, Dom.

Posted by: tim at June 29, 2004 at 08:38 PM

domitar I think I know where he got it from but I refuse to link to a picture

Posted by: Just Another Bloody Lawyer at June 29, 2004 at 08:43 PM

Out of his rectal cavity.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at June 29, 2004 at 08:43 PM

(My reply was to domitar's last sentence. My you folks are fast!)

Posted by: Andrea Harris at June 29, 2004 at 08:45 PM

Dare I say.... great minds

Posted by: Just Another Bloody Lawyer at June 29, 2004 at 08:45 PM

Tim seeing as you quoted Adams out of context to give the impression you'd somehow 'caught him out' maybe it would be a good idea to shut up about the whole 'hat' thing. As Jethro pointed out -

Tim's quote of Adams - 'UPDATE. Adams writes: "I've always appeared bare headed, never worn a cap or, for that matter, any other form of headgear." Really? Here’s Phillip in an old byline shot. The hat-wearing freak.'

The actual full sentence in The Australian - 'In decades of appearing on talk shows hosted by the likes of Michael Parkinson, Clive James, Ray Martin, Andrew Denton, David Frost – and even William F. Buckley Jr – I've always appeared bare headed, never worn a cap or, for that matter, any other form of headgear.'

Tim's pathetic attempt at a 'gotcha' moment - quoting out of context - that's the kind journalism you learn at The Truth!

Posted by: queengeorge at June 29, 2004 at 08:47 PM

By September 11, the Bush team was for the most part still reviewing previous policies on anti-terrorism and defense, which is why Richard Clarke still, tragically, had a job.

Rumsfeld was not headed for the ax pre-9/11. He had barely begun to reform Defense. George Bush is famously - or notoriously - loyal. No doubt there were disgruntled careerists feeding anti-Rumsfeld rumors to the Post, which was more than eager to print them. What else is new?

Posted by: lyle at June 29, 2004 at 08:48 PM

Congrats quentin you appear to have your own troll. A real badge of honour.

Posted by: Just Another Bloody Lawyer at June 29, 2004 at 09:04 PM

And it has to be the troll formerly known as doofus-man, er, doba-man. Could we please institute a "no comments from elementary schoolers" policy here?

Posted by: PW at June 29, 2004 at 09:13 PM

Why yay! A stalker!

Posted by: Quentin George at June 29, 2004 at 09:41 PM

...Though why I have acquired this stalker is harder to understand. After all, as he so helpfully pointed out, I'm just a twenty-two year old public servant with a crappy website.

Do I offend his masculinity that much?

Posted by: Quentin George at June 29, 2004 at 09:48 PM

"public servant" - Fetch!

Oh you mean he's paid by getting the state to threaten other people with jail if they don't hand over their cash. That's different!

Has anyone else noticed that lefties allways seem to exist in parasitical jobs?

Posted by: Rob Read at June 29, 2004 at 10:38 PM

i'm still depressed that i haven't been able to find any of the gulags that aschroft has set up, where he carts away all those who dare speak out against his protocolian policies.

i gotta go over that wyoming atlas again; they must be there...

Posted by: Mr. Bingley at June 29, 2004 at 11:00 PM

Uh...I was referring to me. And I'm not really a leftie.

Posted by: Quentin George at June 29, 2004 at 11:19 PM

can we hold a "stalk a civil servant day" quentin?

Posted by: Mr. Bingley at June 29, 2004 at 11:27 PM

If I can just opt in for a mo about the further up "they were only a couple of buildings.."

ABC, late 2001, either 'Foreign Correspondent' or '4 Corners'. An Aussie female reporter tracing Bin Laden's roots interviews an Egyptian man on the street in Cairo. He says "it was only two buildings, just two buildings!" His context was that the West has been killing many more Muslims for years.
There's one of your unbiased sources for Comrade Adams' self-righteousness.

Posted by: RM in Newtown at June 30, 2004 at 12:01 AM

If I can just opt in for a mo about the further up "they were only a couple of buildings.."

ABC, late 2001, either 'Foreign Correspondent' or '4 Corners'. An Aussie female reporter tracing Bin Laden's roots interviews an Egyptian man on the street in Cairo. He says "it was only two buildings, just two buildings!" His context was that the West has been killing many more Muslims for years.
There's one of your unbiased sources for Comrade Adams' self-righteousness.

Posted by: RM in Newtown at June 30, 2004 at 12:01 AM

"they were only a couple of buildings.."

ABC, late 2001, either 'Foreign Correspondent' or '4 Corners'. An Aussie female reporter tracing Bin Laden's roots interviews an Egyptian man on the street in Cairo. He says "it was only two buildings, just two buildings!" His context was his belief that the West has been killing many Muslims for years.

One of Comrade Adams' sources?

Posted by: rm at June 30, 2004 at 12:35 AM

I guess that means that if you see Adams you can feel free to knock out a couple of his teeth -- he presumably will have 30 more. Perhaps break a finger -- it's just one of 10. Of course, that's the kind of thing our jackbooted Nazi commanders in the U.S. do to us regularly. Toughen up, Adams!

Posted by: Mark from Monroe at June 30, 2004 at 12:47 AM

Tim

Here is a link to the transcript of the program mentioned above.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/bbing/stories/s865620.htm

Selected excerpts:

Stan Correy: When American Airlines flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, Rumsfeld was working on the other side of the building. He rushed to the scene of devastation, helping out the wounded. The President was out of town, flying back to Washington. The Vice President, Dick Cheney, was hidden away in a secure location. Many people simply don’t remember that two days before September 11, Rummy was being written off as an aging political dinosaur. The White House was leaking rumours that Bush was looking for a replacement for the 68-year-old Rumsfeld. But on September 11, he became the voice of the wounded America.

.....

Stan Correy: September 11, 2001 was a defining moment in international politics. But it was literally a career saving moment for Rumsfeld. 2001 was proving to be a horrible year for the oldest Secretary of Defense in US history. The military reforms he was pushing were getting a bad press. His conservative supporters couldn’t even blame the attacks on the liberal media. The nastiest rumours flooding into the open were from other conservatives, the Pentagon and the White House. The general didn’t want their troops cut back, they didn’t want to rely on the revolution in military affairs, high technology warfare and missile defence. They feared the Vietnam nightmare, the body bag. Even Rumsfeld’s deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, was having no luck convincing sceptics in the Pentagon and Congress. In July, 2001, the talk around the corridors of power was of trade-offs and compromises.

In the media, they even started a Rumsfeld death watch.

Jeffrey Krames is author of The Rumsfeld Way.

Jeffrey Krames: Time, Newsweek and even Business Week, all described him as an out-of-touch bureaucrat who no longer knew the ways of Washington, and on September 7th, 2001, the very influential Washington Post was starting even to name successors to the Defense Secretary, having already written him off, and of course then with the horrific events of September 11, came and proved Rumsfeld right on many ways. And on the morning of September 11th at 8am, Donald Rumsfeld was hosting a breakfast in the Pentagon in which he said, ‘Sometime within the next 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 months, something so horrendous is going to happen in the US that it will remind people why it’s important to have a strong and healthy Defense Department . And it was something like 20 minutes later that a huge jet crashed into the Pentagon and of course the World Trade Center and also in Pennsylvania, and it was a chilling prediction of course, that he made that morning, which became of course true that very day.

Posted by: Domitar at June 30, 2004 at 01:10 AM

As you can see all of the below P.A. quote is taken from the above transcript.

"Before September 11, there was unrest in the Bush team. Take Donald Rumsfeld. The White House was energetically undermining him. The Washington Post was one of many papers receiving leaks and backgrounders from the White House, including names of the candidates most likely to replace him."

Surely no-one could sanely accuse P.A. of morphing this:

"And on the morning of September 11th at 8am, Donald Rumsfeld was hosting a breakfast in the Pentagon in which he said, ‘Sometime within the next 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 months, something so horrendous is going to happen in the US that it will remind people why it’s important to have a strong and healthy Defense Department ."

Into this:

"Rumsfeld knew he was for the chop and told his confidantes that only a major terrorist attack could save him. "

Surely?

Posted by: Domitar at June 30, 2004 at 01:54 AM

Hey Hoges,

Here's a somewhat longer argument. I trust you'll read it.

Posted by: Ken Summers at June 30, 2004 at 09:44 AM

I'm waiting, Hoges-with-the-phony-email.

Posted by: Ken Summers, Perversion Catalyst at June 30, 2004 at 12:18 PM

Ken, thank you. Someone here can argue points instead of scoring points. I'm impressed.

I don't think the ACLU's position is completely debunked but I'll concede many of the points made by you and backed by Dave J. I'll be watching for further contributions with interest.

I would like to point out that if I disagree with people here on one point it doesn't follow that I disagree on each and every point and in particular you shouldn't assume that I'm a Saddam apologist. In reply to Sortelli, I do believe that Saddam violated the rights of all Iraqis regardless of whether he had them murdered, imprisoned, tortured or not. His supporters also had their freedoms infringed because of course there was no real choice in the matter.

I still believe the the erosion of rights in the US and Australia is happening. Not to the murderous extent of Iraq or Zimbabwei, but I believe it's real and not just left-wing paranoia. Philip "I was a Teenage Communist" Adams describes it as "dramatic" however I find that a little, well, "dramatic".

And just so you don't think I'm a complete fruitcake, I'd like to say Michael Moore is a lying dickhead and I've thought so since long before "Bowling For Columbine".

Oh, and I'd like to point out for the record that my email address as posted is valid but primarily a spamtrap and not checked on a regular basis.

Posted by: Hoges at June 30, 2004 at 12:58 PM

Hoges, sorry about the email issue. The email stripped the .au off the first time.

Glad to see you were willing to read it. I have to tell you that, except for the ridiculous security lines at airports, there really is no effect on us. I opposed many of the measures taken, but so far they have not been abused. I'd like to think this would continue but I'm not that naive, which is why I want these measures rolled back after the war.

Posted by: Ken Summers, Perversion Catalyst at June 30, 2004 at 02:43 PM

In objective terms, September 11 was infinitesimal. For the mighty US to lose a couple of large skyscrapers in a nation with cities as full of these perpendicularities as a jungle is of trees, would hardly destroy its prospects ...

Is there some sort of "Vile Comment of the Year" title that Adams, Ted Rall, Kos, and Mikey Moore are vying for?

Posted by: Sean M. at June 30, 2004 at 06:57 PM