Krugman, Living In His Own World

Paul Krugman is not reality-based on the subject of the Iran:

...Iran had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11 — in fact, the Iranian regime was quite helpful to the United States when it went after Al Qaeda and its Taliban allies in Afghanistan.

Quick, alert the 9/11 Commisison - they will want to revise this part of their report:

Intelligence indicates the persistence of contacts between Iranian security officials and senior al Qaeda figures after Bin Ladin's return to Afghanistan. Khallad has said that Iran made a concerted effort to strengthen relations with al Qaeda after the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole, but was rebuffed because Bin Ladin did not want to alienate his supporters in Saudi Arabia. Khallad and other detainees have described the willingness of Iranian officials to facilitate the travel of al Qaeda members through Iran, on their way to and from Afghanistan. For example, Iranian border inspectors would be told not to place telltale stamps in the passports of these travelers. Such arrangements were particularly beneficial to Saudi members of al Qaeda.¹²⁰

Our knowledge of the international travels of the al Qaeda operatives selected for the 9/11 operation remains fragmentary. But we now have evidence suggesting that 8 to 10 of the 14 Saudi "muscle" operatives traveled into or out of Iran between October 2000 and February 2001.¹²¹

...We have found no evidence that Iran or Hezbollah was aware of the planning for what later became the 9/11 attack. At the time of their travel through Iran, the al Qaeda operatives themselves were probably not aware of the specific details of their future operation.

After 9/11, Iran and Hezbollah wished to conceal any past evidence of cooperation with Sunni terrorists associated with al Qaeda.

The Iranian attempts to conceal their presumably unwitting involvement seem to have met with some success, at least on Planet Krugman.

UPDATE:  Jon Henke is similarly struck by Krugman's claim of Iranian non-involvement.

   

Comments

[kim]

I think a little birdie put a wordie in the ear of Abdullah, the King of the Sauds, about Persia's march to the Mediterranean late last winter.
===================================

[Terry]

Krugman's column was also telling in the sense that it displays Krugman's very limited view of history. His opening paragraph states: "In America’s darkest hour, Franklin Delano Roosevelt urged the nation not to succumb to 'nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror.' But that was then."

Somehow, Krugman seems to have forgotten a very big chunk of American history, namely the forcible internment of nearly 120,000 Japanese and Japanese-Americans by the same Franklin Delano Roosevelt that he praises here. President Franklin Roosevelt authorized the internment with Executive Order 9066.

Maybe I've not been following the news closely enough, but I don't believe that either the Bush Administration or any of the Republican candidates for President have called for the internment of Muslims resident in the US.

[Bilby]

This is my favorite part of Krugman's moonbat screed:

Most Americans have now regained their balance. But the Republican base, which lapped up the administration’s rhetoric about the axis of evil and the war on terror, remains infected by the fear the Bushies stirred up — perhaps because fear of terrorists maps so easily into the base’s older fears, including fear of dark-skinned people in general.

How original. I don't think I've ever heard or read that people concerned with the war on terror or Islamofascism just don't like brown people.

[kim]

"Muscle" from Saudi Arabia through Iran? For what? Steroid treatments?
=====================================

[Neo]

Let's ask the other follow on question ..

Iran had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11

.. so why the obsession with 9/11, Paul ?

You'd think that the only danger to America comes from UBL">http://video2.bullwinkleblog.com/binkerry1.flv&">UBL and his band of virgin-seekers, not so I say.

[kim]

Baluchi my Bamiyan. Cohen travelled posh.
===========================

[kim]

Dang, 'Cohen Kombi'd posh'.
====================

[kim]

'Shot cattle and dogs for fun', Neo.
======================

[kim]

In a manner reminiscent of Thomas Scott Beauchamp.
===============================

[Kilo]

"The Iranian attempts to conceal their presumably unwitting involvement seem to have met with some success, at least on Planet Krugman."

Meanwhile the witting, unconcealed involvement of US allies continue to be absolved, ignored or even concealed by everyone else.

So the Saudis passed through Iran. I wonder if anyone knows if the Pakistani money which funded the attacks passed through any Iranian banks too. Someone should look into that.

I can't wait for the day that an Iranian terrorist is captured in Iraq and added with great glee and fanfare to the thousands of Pakistanis and Saudis already detained. Won't that just be overwhelming evidence that Iran's the problem when it comes to jihadists FFS.

Why not just get it over with and pretend they were Iranians flying the planes. If you are picking crap like this out of the 9/11 commission report as meaning something you're only one step away right now. Go all in buddy.

[Neo]

Beyond that, the claim that Iran is on the path to global domination is beyond ludicrous. Yes, the Iranian regime is a nasty piece of work in many ways, and it would be a bad thing if that regime acquired nuclear weapons. But let’s have some perspective, please: we’re talking about a country with roughly the G.D.P. of Connecticut, and a government whose military budget is roughly the same as Sweden’s.

Thsi seems to be the centerpiece of Paul's piece of work. But he misses two very important points: 1) it cost between $300k to $400k to stage 9/11 (something that a 4th world country could do) and 2) he never explores what a nuclear Iran really could mean.

Left out are the predictions of a nuclear arms race between the Shia (Iran) and the Sunnis (Saudi Arabia et al). This isn't just between the nuts in Iran and the nuts in the US.
There is no monopoly on stupidity or fear, as Paul shows.

[Ralph L]

So if we successfully neutralize Iran, will the Saudis reopen the oil spigots, so the 'bats can claim another war for oil? The Saudis may do so anyway, to bankrupt the alternative fuel companies now getting off the ground.

[narciso]

By muscle, they mean those like Al Midhar and Al Hazmi that weren't pilots; like Hanjour & Jirrah.
Timmerman's last book has records of Ramzi bin Al Shibh traveling to Iran from Germany in that period.

[RichatUF]

Wow-maybe Krugman had a 4 aspirin hangover because of the Red Sox victory and just called in Hersh to recycle one of his older columns.

Beyond that, the claim that Iran is on the path to global domination is beyond ludicrous. Yes, the Iranian regime is a nasty piece of work in many ways, and it would be a bad thing if that regime acquired nuclear weapons.

I'm sure that the people living under their loving embrace in Lebanon and those that have been victims of their proselytization in Argentina, Panama, and al-Khobar might see them as a global threat.

For one thing, there isn’t actually any such thing as Islamofascism — it’s not an ideology

Nothing to see here folks, nothing at all.

[RichatUF]

narciso-

Timmerman's last book has records of Ramzi bin Al Shibh traveling to Iran from Germany in that period.

Silly-don't you know that al-Qeada is just a criminal organization and we would have solved that problem long ago if we would have used international law and international courts. And remember [this is a hint for anyone that has read "The Cell"]-remember-Sunnis and Shiites-Salafists and Khomininists-could never, ever co-operate.

[MikeS]

I was relieved when I read Krugman’s article. I had been thinking that since Iran had given its most advanced technology to terrorists in Lebanon in the form of Silkworm missiles and in Iraq in the form of man portable anti aircraft missiles and explosively formed penetrators, they might also be reckless with nuclear weapons should they acquire them.

I also thought that the hundreds of terror attacks, killing thousands each year, by groups advocating the same or similar Islamist ideology was something to be concerned about.

Apparently, I was also ‘infected’ with the idea that people with a similar Islamist ideology had taken over Afghanistan and Iran, and that those governments and the terrorist groups they sponsor had been actively subsidizing “asymmetrical warfare” across the globe. Paul Krugman has laid my fears to rest with these tidbits.

Krugman: “There is no such thing as Islamofacisim.”

Krugman: The loss of 3,000 civilians in New York is over-hyped.
Krugman: The loss of 4,000 soldiers is the worst calamity ever to befall the U.S.

Krugman: Al Qaeda is the only terrorist group that the U.S. should oppose.
Krugman: The Republican base is “infected.”
Krugman: Iran is a fourth rate military power that can’t really bully neighboring countries, even if they had a nuclear bomb, but if attacked by the U.S. they will bring the world to the brink of extinction.

[RichatUF]

MikeS-

I'm a big believer in the Krugram Contrarian Indicator™

Take this sweeping statement for instance:

And Iran had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11 — in fact, the Iranian regime was quite helpful to the United States when it went after Al Qaeda and its Taliban allies in Afghanistan.

The KCI indicates that Iran probably had some involvment and they have been unhelpful in Afghanistan

Or take this statement from the renowned military strategist Enron consultant economist DNC hack

Meanwhile, the idea that bombing will bring the Iranian regime to its knees — and bombing is the only option, since we’ve run out of troops — is pure wishful thinking.

Normally I would agree that punitive bombing would be pointless: it didn't really get us anywhere regarding Iraq during the 1990's and the possibility exists that a bombing campaign would provide some support for the the regime. Now that Krugman has weighed in I'm not so sure. A limited strike package of nuclear facilities [doubtful that the CIA knows where any of them are] and visible regime targets [maybe the roads into Evin prison] might stir up enough courage in the people that they throw off the Khomininist dictatorship. Doubtful, but with the KCI on my side, its much better than even odds.

He also chimes in with:

There’s every reason to believe that an attack on Iran would produce the same result, with the added effects of endangering U.S. forces in Iraq and driving oil prices well into triple digits.

Again the KCI would prove that bombing Iran would reduce the danger to US forces because the terrorist supply lines would dry up, probably reduce tensions between Iraq and Turkey [what the Iranians wouldn't kill Turks using the PKK], and send oil prices crashing down because the Iranian threat would have passed and the Iranians (with Russian help) wouldn't be able to push oil prices ever higher.

Also-my book review is going slow-I got tied up the last couple of days and when I started writing the thing looks to top a hefty 1850 words-I'll post the highlights. I ran across an interesting passage, which, with a flourish, could explain the Fleisher bafflegab about "Pla-may"...the 'e' with an accent mark, like in French. Or maybe its my own paranoid mind-I'll let the readers decide.

[Syl]

Krugman: Iran is a fourth rate military power that can’t really bully neighboring countries, even if they had a nuclear bomb, but if attacked by the U.S. they will bring the world to the brink of extinction.

Pow!

You nailed it, Mike. :)

[Gmax]

nuclear facilities [doubtful that the CIA knows where any of them are]

fortunately, we dont have to rely exclusively on the VIPs successors at the CIA. The Mossad seems to have a pretty good track record of sniffing these things out. I would guess the Brits and the French have some inkling too.

[boris]

they will bring the world to the brink of extinction

IIRC Fidel Castro wanted to launch Russian nukes on the US and start a global nukular war but Kruschev kept strict control over the Cuban missiles and removed them rather than risk it.

If Putin allows his new buddy Iran to get nukes what happens when Iran launchs on Israel?

[Gmax]

Anybody else but just me having trouble getting into the seniorclassaward website? LMK if the trouble is on my end or if the site is down.

[PMII]

Gmax,

I haven't been able to get in for at least 20 minutes - believe the site is down. Is there a way to see actual votes vs. %?

[Breschau]

Iran had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11

...

We have found no evidence that Iran or Hezbollah was aware of the planning for what later became the 9/11 attack.

I'm sorry - could someone please explain how these two are supposed to be contradict each other?

[Neo]

Of course, we could all wait until Paul is ready to take on Iran. Maybe, in a couple or so years, after Iran finally gets around to trying to wipe Israel off the map, Paul can send a "sorry about that" and get on board.

There was once this idea that every few years there should be an assembly of world leaders to witness a French ("we don't care, we'll sink Greenpeace") nuclear test in the South Pacific, just so they can grasp the power of a nuclear device.

The Iranians seem to have this misconception over just how big and small a nuclear device actually is. On the one hand, it is bigger than nearly every other kind of non-nuclear device, but at the same time the number to actually wipe Israel off the map is more than a handful, especially in the short term.

What this means is that while Iran is trying to wipe the Israelis off the map, the Israelis will not just lay down and die, so Iran can expect some return engagements with nuclear devices coming to many different parts of Iran. I believe it's called a "nuclear exchange".

While a couple of years ago, we all thought we might get to witness this type of exchange between the Indians and Pakistanis, this type of exchange would probably be enough to get Paul on board, but by then their wouldn't be much left to do anything about, except give us another mess to clean up. But shoot, it would be a better demonstration than that South Pacific idea.

[bio mom]

FDR was talking about fear during the economic depression when he said we had nothing to fear but fear itself. It was a totally different story once Pearl Harbor happened.

Krugman is a liberal weenie who thinks himself an expert on all things, including those he has absolutely no experience of. He should stick to his left-wing economic theories. As for everything else, my mailman knows at least as much, probably more.

[Sara]

Nah Iran is just a pussy cat. Wath this: Rattling">http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1587.htm">Rattling the Scimitar And yes, that is supposed to be an American flag and a Star of David.

[Neo]

Krugman is a liberal weenie who thinks himself an expert on all things

Shoot, it didn't matter whether he did or didn't work for Enron, he was completely unable to recognize the unseamly game they were playing with his supposed field of expertise, economics.

[Breschau]

Neo:

Doesn't Israel have its own nuclear weapons? Quite a few of them, if I remember.

And quite a competent air force, going by the reports of the recent bombings on Syria.

So... exactly what is it up to the US to protect a country fully capable of defending themselves? Especially when that involves a (nother) pre-emptive war against a country that poses no credible threat to the US whatsoever?

[MikeS]

Krugram Contrarian Indicator™

Isn't that based on the original Jimmy Carter Index of Higly Unlikely Eventualities, J.C.I.H.U.E, or what's commonly referred to as the Jimmy Huey Index?

[PeterUK]

"I can't wait for the day that an Iranian terrorist is captured in Iraq".

That day has been and gone,fairly senior Iranian military officer have been detained.

[MayBee]

I don't think for a minute we are on the brink of going to war against Iran, and I am suspicious of the fear mongers that keep trying to convince us otherwise:the Krugmans and Larry Johnsons of the world.

Having said that, wasn't Yugoslavia pretty much taken care of with all air strikes?

[Sara]

That day has been and gone,fairly senior Iranian military officer have been detained.

Not to mention the Iranian missiles we've captured that keep getting lobbed at American forces or the fact that the Iranian Embassy in Iraq is staffed by high ranking officials of the Iranian Guard posing as diplomats.

[clarice]

Breschau, review the history of WWII and see what happens when Allies turn there backs. Start with Hailie Selasie's speech to the League of Nations.

The threat of course is not JUST to Israel. It is to all of Europe and the ME. But, hey, let the little guy go it alone, you merry Paulian.

Of course, we cn also take the Osirik and Syrian examples--let the littel guy do it, breathe a sign of relief and then condemn him for not giving diplomacy a chance.

Somedays I can barely tolerate idiocy.Today's one of them.

[Neo]

pre-emptive war

I don't expect a pre-emptive war, rather a pre-emptive battle. There won't be any infantry or tanks in this battle.

[Neo]

So... exactly what is it up to the US to protect a country fully capable of defending themselves?

What about the Jordanians ?, the Palestinians ? Who is going to protect them when the fallout from an Iranian attack on Israel comes floating their way ? Or flying their way if Iran can't shoot straight ?

Further, what country in the region is beyond threat ? The Saudis are already looking to Pakistan for technology to protect themselves. Other oil-rich Sunni countries in the region are also looking. You ain't seen anything like a civil war so far if the Shia and Sunnis take their disputes nuclear.

Of course, being a "super-Ostrich" rather than a "super-power" may appeal to some, but eventually you will get your tail feathers scorched.

[PeterUK]

H&R monopoly voting site

[Enlightened]

Hmmm. let's see.
The US has nuclear weapons - check.
The US has a competent Air Force - check.
The US is 50 times larger than Isreal and maybe 5 times larger than Iran.

Israel has a little over 7 million inhabitants - check.
Isreal is roughly the size of New Jersey - check.
Iran has 10 times more inhabitants. Iran is 10 times larger than Israel - check. check.

A 5th grader can figure out what is inherrently and morally wrong about throwing Isreal under the bus to appease Iran, without even having to delve into the political morass of an arrogant bully's Napoleon complex.

[PeterUK]

"Who is going to protect them when the fallout from an Iranian attack on Israel comes floating their way ? Or flying their way if Iran can't shoot straight ?"

It is worth pointing out to the Syrians that "What goes up comes down" and a common fault with missiles is that they fall short,some times they overshoot.The other common fault is that missiles often veer of course quite considerably.Many times the don't leave the launch pad.
Unfortunately this is "Rocket Science", of the Second and Third World kind.

[Neo]

After the administration announced a new package of Iran sanctions on Thursday, (fill in the blank) declared that the president and his team had once again "rattled their sabers in their march toward military action." Bush hatred has driven him to the point where he regards sanctions as a harbinger of war rather than an alternative.

Fill in the blank.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

For one thing, there isn’t actually any such thing as Islamofascism — it’s not an ideology

I'd pay to see Krugman debate this woman.

[Enlightened]

"For one thing, there isn’t actually any such thing as Islamofascism — it’s not an ideology"

Uh - what? What part of Islam's ideology is not fascist?

[SlimGuy]

I posted this over in the Plame thread but also want to post it here.

I have been watching dear Val on her net tour of FireDogLake and her posting gig over at HuffPo.

The last time I saw that much sucking up was when my Uncle put the milking machine one of his prize Holstein cows.

[Enlightened]

As usual - the left reads a portion, comprehends even less, posts a portion and declares with glee, what about these FACTS?

Breshcau forgot this part of the Iran/Hezbollah/9/11 connection:

"At the time of their travel through Iran, the al Qaeda operatives themselves were probably not aware of the specific details of their future operation."

In fact, maybe Breschau, in all his/her lefty glory can provide the facts of the 9/11 plot? Just how many operatives were in on it? Did they all know what the other was doing? More likely - you are just assuming, as did the 9/11 commission that Iran and Hezbollah were not in the loop.

But then again - there is the Troofers. They have all the info we need to know about 9/11 don't they?

[Topsecretk9]

I don't think for a minute we are on the brink of going to war against Iran, and I am suspicious of the fear mongers that keep trying to convince us otherwise:the Krugmans and Larry Johnsons of the world.

You are so right maybee. They are agitating for a reason it seems. Wonder if they have something to gain?

[Enlightened]

Well yeah, Iraq is no longer the "quagmire" they professed it to be - they need a new reason to Hate Bush.

Plus the war the lefties have always been behind - Afghanistan is teetering on collapse.

BDS is really wallowing these days.

Funny - Breschau...Salon...Glenn...hmmm....IP addresses and the like....just sayin

[RichatUF]

Enlightened-

More likely - you are just assuming, as did the 9/11 commission that Iran and Hezbollah were not in the loop.

It helps that they believe that the fanatical Khomeinist Persians of Iran and the fanatical Salafist Arabs of al-Qeada could never co-operate

It makes groveling to them not look so bad when you really, really believe that they aren't terrorists

[RichatUF]

MayBee-

I am suspicious of the fear mongers that keep trying to convince us otherwise:the Krugmans and Larry Johnsons of the world.

I'd look to see if they are on the Gazprom or NIOC payroll-black hats those guys.

[PeterUK]

"It helps that they believe that the fanatical Khomeinist Persians of Iran and the fanatical Salafist Arabs of al-Qeada could never co-operate".

Just as the fanatical Nazis and the fanatical Communists could never cooperate? Well,apart from Molotov and Von Ribbentrop.

[Enlightened]

Hmmm, yes I'd like to imagine, on this ever-warming globe of ours, whilst my BDS is remission of some sort, that the leaders of all terrorist regimes love Amerika! They love us! They really, really love us! They loved us even more on 9/10! And they would NEVER, not EVER be associated with Islamic Fascists that committed an act of war on Amerikan soil! Allah Ahkbar! Only Amerikans would kill Amerikans! Iran would NEVER deny they knew something was going down. Saddam Hussein would've told GWB immediately everything he knew - He Loved Amerika! And our lovely state-sanctioned troll Arafat always LOVED Amerika! He would never have allowed such an act to occur!

It just simply was not an act of war. It was an act of Love. GWB had to kill all those people because they knew he was about to participate in a glorious Act of Love.

If we just would have had a Nationwide Group Hug, these silly little children with bombs would just stop playing with them.

Ok, that lasted what - 5 minutes. I'm already feeling sweaty - too many brain synapses not connecting to the right neurons - no wonder the lefties are unhinged. Imagine keeping up with that shit 24 hours a day, 365 days a year...for your lifetime. I can see why Glenn needs sockpuppets. He must need to identify all the rocks in his brain he keeps chatting with...

[Neo]

When I was in Holland, the idea was, all cultures are equal and all are to be preserved. from Patrick R. Sullivan's link

This reminded me of a story about efforts to stamp out AIDS at a biodiversity conference. A bit oxymoronic to talk of "stamping out a lifeform" and "biodiveristy".

[PeterUK]

Damn,they have swatted the link.

[hoosierHoops]

Sue and Maybee
I have posted a reply to your insults to the hoopster..I'm sure you can find it in the earlier threads.
regards
The Hoopster

[DDDDoug]

And I quote--We have found no evidence that Iran or Hezbollah was aware of the planning for what later became the 9/11 attack. At the time of their travel through Iran, the al Qaeda operatives themselves were probably not aware of the specific details of their future operation.

After 9/11, Iran and Hezbollah wished to conceal any past evidence of cooperation with Sunni terrorits associated with al Qaeda. A senior Hezbollah official disclaimed any Hezbollah involvement in 9/11.[128}

We believe this topic requires further investigation by the U.S. government.

Page 241 9/11 Report.

You can BELIEVE anything you want, but the evidence of available to the 9/11 Commission doesn't support Iranian collusion in that attack.

[Sara]

Doesn't know which side he is on? Isn't he running for President of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA? Not President of the UN.

Idiocy.

Obama Explains National Anthem Stance

http://www.azconservative.org/Semmens1.htm" target="_blank">AZCONSERVATIVE ^
| 27 Oct 2007 | John Semmens

Posted on 10/29/2007 4:38:01 PM PDT by John Semmens

Hot on the heels of his explanation for why he no longer wears a flag pin, presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama was forced to explain why he doesn’t follow protocol when the National Anthem is played.

According to the United States Code, Title 36, Chapter 10, Sec. 171, During rendition of the national anthem when the flag is displayed, all present except those in uniform are expected to stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart.

“As I’ve said about the flag pin, I don’t want to be perceived as taking sides,” Obama said. “There are a lot of people in the world to whom the American flag is a symbol of oppression. And the anthem itself conveys a war-like message. You know, the bombs bursting in air and all. It should be swapped for something less parochial and less bellicose. I like the song ‘I’d Like to Teach the World to Sing.’ If that were our anthem, then I might salute it.”

In case you missed it, he put his hands over his crotch instead of his hand over his heart.

[Walter]

Rich,

If Clarice or Rich can't get you a slot at AT, or Rich doesn't pony up at YARGB, I'll find another spot on the Web for the whole enchilada.

But I vote for the first two. No one will read my spot without a link.

[Walter]

*Rick*.

I'm going back to the football game.

[cathyf]

The guys who carried out the London Tube bombings had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11.

The people who carried out the Madrid bombings had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11.

The people who carried out the Beslan school massacre had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11.

The people who carried out the Bali bombings had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11.

The D.C. snipers had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11.

The New Jersey military base suicide bombers had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11.

Odds are that the people who carry out the next large-scale terrorist attack against American civilians on American soil will have had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11, too.

Let's just let them do it without even trying to stop them, then, right?

There is a saying that a human weakness is to fight the last war instead of the present one, by which we usually mean that generals use the strategies and tactics which would have been successful in the last war without appreciating that a new war has unique characterics and those tactics might not be successful. But in the case of the American left wing, they literally fight the last battle: the only terrorist attack which the US has the right to try to "prevent" is the terrorist attack that happened 6 years ago.

[Gmax]

Late night link back within 1%, give a click!

http://soccer.seniorclassaward.com/public/women/vote.aspx>Vote Jmax!

[Pofarmer]

Having said that, wasn't Yugoslavia pretty much taken care of with all air strikes?

Not really, it just wasn't OUR mechanized and infantry forces going in.

[RichatUF]

Walter-

But I vote for the first two. No one will read my spot without a link.

I'll post some highlights here tomorrow of issues that I think would be of interest-I've had a crazy schedule here the last couple of days and feel pretty bad for promising but not delivering yet-but the book [Plame's work, not the Afterword] is interesting in what it says about the concept of counter-proliferation, Clinton's "strategic crime" thesis from the 1990's, and the cultural politics of the 1990's. The afterword is a seperate issue and really shouldn't have been included in the book.

When one reads the book one can't help but wonder: how many other questions have been distorted by CIA agents spouse's because the work gives off the air that it is common practice to have a spouse leak to the media information to shape policy. It is actually shocking how much "contact" "social spouse" Valerie Wilson had with the media as part of Joe's A-lister schmoozing. It is also troubling if the CIA actually runs operations the way they are described.

The redactions in the book a very distracting however [some are stupid: "green phone girl" is "Penny" some 20 pages later] and I could see why Simon and Schuster would be sueing.

[Topsecretk9]

Rich

One hopes that

It is actually shocking how much "contact" "social spouse" Valerie Wilson had with the media as part of Joe's A-lister schmoozing.

is all a little known DOJ investigation Unit needed.

[kim]

Dante hasn't enough Hells to house the people PreacherLady has damned. Larry calls me ignorant, and I tell him the only thing saving his soul is his ignorance.
============================

[PeterUK]

"We have found no evidence that Iran or Hezbollah was aware of the planning for what later became the 9/11 attack."

Jimmy Hoffa has never been found either.

"You can BELIEVE anything you want, but the evidence of available to the 9/11 Commission doesn't support Iranian collusion in that attack."

Isn't the very lack of evidence,to quote two authorities,Congressmen Schumer and Waxman,suspicious in itself?

[Sue]

Hoosier,

I don't feel like searching for it, especially since I didn't insult you.

[Gmax]

Morning and within 1%, expecting an announcement at the B school this morning which should up the flow of votes.

http://soccer.seniorclassaward.com/public/women/vote.aspx>Vote Jmax!

[MarkD]

Can I pay for the reinstatement of Times Select? It'd be worth $49 to never hear of or from Krugman again.

[kim]

The lane is very dirty.
My shoes are very thin.
I've got a little pop-up,
To put a penny in .
If you haven't got a penny,
A sock-puppet will do.
If you haven't got a puppet,
God bless Sue.
=============

[anduril]

Is it just me being out of it or has this this news item, "Laura Bush’s embrace of tyranny," not gotten the attention it deserves? The story notes that Mrs. Bush was braced on Fox News re this escapade, but if I were a Dem I'd be making a big deal of this. Of course, if I were a Dem I wouldn't have a brain (to paraphrase Ann Coulter).

Check out the photo, too. Am I alone in seeing a certain Alfred(a) E. Newman (sp?) quality in Mrs. Bush's expression? Like, if the photo suddenly became animated she just might say: What, me worry?

Sorry, but I just find Mrs. Bush's conduct extremely offensive and degrading. I realize she's no rocket scientist, but doesn't she have keepers to steer her clear of this type of stuff?

[clarice]

When Pelosi went hijabi on her ME visit, people had a fit. But as I understand it, that gear was to visit a Christian shine in a mosque. In Laura's case it was to don a pink ribboned hijab gift which she donned to show her gratitude.

In both cases I think the criticism was unwarranted.

When I visit cathedrals, I wear long sleeves, etc out of respect.
There's a difference between swaddling up to show solidarity with our Muslim sisters and being polite.

[kim]

It is shelter necessary in a harsh environment.
============================

[clarice]

I'm mulling something over and could use some help. Can anyone tell me how I might find the demographics on people who watch that show "The View"?

[MayBee]

Laura Bush had an important message to give. If she had done something to reject the gift, she would have shut off the minds of the women -and their men- she was encouraging to get breast screenings.

[Gmax]

Clarice

That sounds like a question for Brian Maloney, his web site is the Radio Equalizer but I bet he knows enough about the ratings to tell you where to go look for TV. Nice guy, send him an e-mail from his website, I bet he will help.

[Gmax]

By the way Laura was photoed in the private home of an Iraqi. If someone gave you a gift, I think you would make a big deal about it, even if you knew it was going to the bottom of the sock drawer when back in the US. I would cut her some slack. Its not like she converted to Islam or something.

[anduril]

Caroline Glick had a legitimate, and important, point to make:

Sunday morning, Mrs. Bush sought to answer her critics in an interview with Fox News. Unfortunately, her remarks compounded the damage. Mrs. Bush said, “These women do not see covering as some sort of subjugation of women, this group of women that I was with. That’s their culture. That’s their tradition. That’s a religious choice of theirs.”

It is true that this is their culture. And it is also their tradition. But it is not their choice. Their culture and tradition are predicated on denying them the choice of whether or not to wear a garment that denies them their identity just as it denies them the right to make any choices about their lives. The Saudi women’s assertions of satisfaction with their plight were no more credible than statements by hostages in support of their captors.

For Saudi women, wearing an abaya is a choice they make every morning, following on the more fundamental question: do I want to be beaten and thrown in jail by the religious police today? That's different than being denied entry to a European cathedral for inappropriate attire in that particular setting.

If Saudi women would shut off their minds to screening for breast cancer because the message came from the wife of the U.S. President sans abaya, that says an awful lot about what this entire struggle is about.

[anduril]

And I suspect that Caroline Glick doesn't view the standard dress code at Catholic churches in Europe (not however in the US)--long sleeves, skirts or dresses to the knees--as in any way comparable to enforced wearing of an abaya everywhere outside the home. Oh, and accompanied at all times by a male relative.

[cathyf]

Saudi Arabia has a terrible problem with women not getting treated for breast cancer. ap link There is a movement of women advocating for testing and treatment. They are advocating for very practical and simple changes, for example mammography centers staffed exclusively by women doctors, nurses and rad-techs. The political statement being made by the hajib with the pink ribbon is that women who wear hajibs should still be getting tested and treated.

They are not trying to save the whole world, or remake Saudi society wholesale. They are just trying to save the lives of some Saudi women with breast cancer.

[MayBee]

If Saudi women would shut off their minds to screening for breast cancer because the message came from the wife of the U.S. President sans abaya, that says an awful lot about what this entire struggle is about.

She wasn't wearing the abaya when she delivered the message. After traveling throughout the middle east delivering the message, she was given the abaya as a gift. It was black with the pink breast cancer awareness ribbons adorning it. She tried it on and a picture was taken.
Had she made a political message and rejected the gift, she would have been seen as anti-muslim. Those same Saudi women that don't have a choice whether to have an abaya also can't drive themselves. They can't really do much beyond that which their husband approves. So Laura's rejection of her gift could become a rejection of Islam, and men throughout the region could decide breast cancer screening isn't for their wives.
Yes, it is a huge problem for women in Saudi Arabia. However, breast cancer is important enough that it has to be able to transcend.

Also, in many of the countries where Mrs. Bush traveled, abayas are a choice. Some women see them as a choice, although perhaps you think Mrs. Bush is lying that her companions told her that's how they saw it.

[gmax]

Complaint about the lack of security in the voting may have had some effect. I am getting some reports now that if you try to vote again, it now says "sorry you already voted". Others are not getting the same message, I think its a cookie set on the machine but have not been able to get my guru of all things geeky to confirm.

Let me hear about your experience and keep voting please, she may surge if spammers are blocked from repeatedly voting.

[anduril]

cathyf: Saudi Arabia has a terrible problem with women not getting treated for breast cancer.

Not any more--Laura Bush just solved that problem. However, according to Maybee, she solved that problem without resort to the abaya:

Maybee: She wasn't wearing the abaya when she delivered the message.

But in that case, why did she put it on? Oh, right, because it was a gift. At that point, I'll refer to Caroline Glick's views: some gift.

Maybee: ...perhaps you think Mrs. Bush is lying that her companions told her that's how they saw it.

Why you should think that (that I think Mrs. Bush is lying) is anyone's guess. No, to the contrary, I'm quite sure that Mrs. Bush's companions really told her that wearing the abaya is totally their choice, just as offering that as a gift to her was totally their choice, and just as all the anti-American nonsense that government controlled media spouts in the homes of our Middle East "allies" is a result of a free press. Just like it's your choice to buy the Brooklyn Bridge from me. I can give you a good price. :-)

[MayBee]

Anduril-
some gift

I'm sure it isn't the pony she'd always wanted, and I doubt we'll see her wear it again.

[gmax]

While less and less frequent, it is still quite possible to see elderly women attending a Catholic mass to be wearing head coverings. I think at the Eastern Orthodox churches that is also the case.

I dont see this to be a big deal. But be upset if you wish, its the beauty of America.

[richatuf]

test...

[richatuf]

test 2

[richatuf]

clarice-http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/recent_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003576066 article from April 07
graf-

[richatuf]

Season to-date (though April 15), The View is averaging 3.56 million viewers, with a 2.0 rating/13 share among key women 25-54, according to Nielsen Media Research data.

[anduril]

Maybee, not to beat a dead, uh, horse :-) but I'm sure you're right. My view is simply that symbolism is highly important and should be carefully staged. American women may think Mrs. Bush did an incredible amount of good on her trip and that now thousands, if not millions, of Saudi men will accompany their wives to the screening clinics just down the block. And will agitate to have more clinics built. However, I suspect the symbolic message that Mrs. Bush was maneuvered into was more important than the message she thought she was delivering, and that the symbolic message was the one that most Saudi viewers came away with: even the President of the United States' wife has to bow to our traditions and the "choices" that our superior culture imposes. From that standpoint, the Saudi stage managers did a superior job to our stage managers--ran rings around them, in fact. Not for the first time.

[richatuf]

To get a more complete history http://www.nielsenmedia.com/nc/portal/site/Public/menuitem.55dc65b4a7d5adff3f65936147a062a0/?vgnextoid=dcc81ae22bac5010VgnVCM100000880a260aRCRD contact NMR and they should give you the metrics.

[richatuf]

odd I can't html format and it seems I'm space limited

[richatuf]

Sorry for goofing up the thread

[kim]

You learn to stage manage when you live life under a tent.
====================================

[MayBee]

The interesting thing will be to see how Hillary would handle such a moment when/if she is President.

[clarice]

Thnx Rich and Gmax, I just went ahead without it:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/10/luxe_and_luxemburg.html>Luxe and Luxemburg

As for the hijab..it was a scarf fer Chrissakes, not a full field abbaya. I take my shoes off before entering a mosque; wear headcoverings in houses of worship where that is traditional and make nice about gifts even if I can't stand them.

[anduril]

gmax: While less and less frequent, it is still quite possible to see elderly women attending a Catholic mass to be wearing head coverings. I think at the Eastern Orthodox churches that is also the case.

I dont see this to be a big deal. But be upset if you wish, its the beauty of America.

In fact, my mother may still do that, although she feels free to leave the house without a male relative. That type of head covering is pretty much vestigial, however, nothing like the abaya. It's interesting to note that that Christian practice seems to derive from Middle East custom, according to which the sight of flowing female hair drives men wild. As Paul wrote to the Corinthians: "a woman's long hair is her glory." And not only men are at risk, for Paul also writes: "a woman should wear a sign of authority on her head for the sake of the angels." That reference to the angels may take us back to Genesis 6, where we read that "the sons of heaven (gods? angels?) saw how beautiful the daughters of man were, and so they took for their wives as many of them as they chose." So, Paul may have been suggesting that the beautiful Christian women should give the "sons of heaven" (angels, who were perhaps thought to be watching over the liturgy) a break.

In fairness to Paul, he makes clear in the extended passage that men and women are equal before God and that the custom he suggests is a human one: he prefers women to avoid attracting attention to their persons during the liturgy for the sake of the men, whose attention span might suffer. Even at that early stage it was not a matter of subjugation.

[Rick Ballard]

"From that standpoint, the Saudi stage managers did a superior job to our stage managers--ran rings around them, in fact. Not for the first time."

Absolutely not for the first time - I recollect an imam sitting "onstage" in the National Cathedral during the 911 memorial service and the President declaiming about a certain "Religion of Peace". I suppose we should be thankful that he no longer refers to the death cult in that manner. Perhaps the curious absence of moderate muslims finally convinced him. That, or the persistent assasination of US troops by rather unpeaceful cult members.

Twenty minutes with Montesquieu still has more value than twenty years with Locke. Unless one is commited to life as fantasy, of course.

MayBee,

Miz Clinton made a fool of herself in Italy by wearing a "scarf" (mantilla) improperly at St. Peter's. My Italian friends were surprised at her lack of basic social skills. I'm quite sure she is capable of doing something similiar with a hijab.

[anduril]

clarice: As for the hijab..it was a scarf fer Chrissakes, not a full field abbaya. I take my shoes off before entering a mosque; wear headcoverings in houses of worship where that is traditional and make nice about gifts even if I can't stand them. [my bold added]

Uh, clarice, another way of making nice, still honored among many, many Christians, is to avoid reference to "Christ" in a profane manner. I understand that "Christ" is simply Greek for "Messiah" or "anointed" but nowadays it is usually understood to have reference to a particular person.

The larger point upon which Maybee and I seemed to reach agreement (I hope?) was this:

anduril: My view is simply that symbolism is highly important and should be carefully staged. American women may think Mrs. Bush did an incredible amount of good on her trip and that now thousands, if not millions, of Saudi men will accompany their wives to the screening clinics just down the block. And will agitate to have more clinics built. However, I suspect the symbolic message that Mrs. Bush was maneuvered into was more important than the message she thought she was delivering, and that the symbolic message was the one that most Saudi viewers came away with: even the President of the United States' wife has to bow to our traditions and the "choices" that our superior culture imposes. From that standpoint, the Saudi stage managers did a superior job to our stage managers--ran rings around them, in fact. Not for the first time.

My personal practice is to go along to get along in most situations, and to avoid situations where that isn't possible. But I don't travel the world as a representative of the world's most influential country, under constant scrutiny with my every move being examined and (mis)interpreted, so I don't have to be as concerned about misunderstandings--which have obviously arisen. But this Administration should be concerned about misunderstandings. More concerned than they apparently are.

[clarice]

Paul was talking like Saul. Orthodox Jews separate men from women in temple --in fact placing them utterly out of sight so as not to be distracted and their women wear wigs or cover their heads in public--though these days the wigs are quite glamorous and indistinguishable from the real thing.

Societies obsessed about the seductive charms of women are generally those were sexual impulses are quite repressed to marriage only.Where it's free and easy you can walk down the street half-garbed and no one cares. Where you are covered up to beat the band a tendril of a bang or glimpse of ankle apparently is enough to trigger wild fantasies.
Go figure.

[clarice]

Point taken, anduril--my apologies--for "goodness sake". I still think this has been blown out of proportion and that I'm glad I am not and never will be a First Lady.

[Jane]

Just so you know....it's very fun to be in Red Sox Nation today. If you see it on TV, look for the orange Duck boat. My brother-in-law is the driver - and the happiest guy on the planet today, I suspect.

[anduril]

clarice, my brother agrees with you that I may have blown this out of proportion.

My view is that almost all these official occasions are elaborately choreographed, including the exchange of gifts. For that reason I strongly suspect that everything involved (choice of the women, choice of words, choice of gift, etc.) was carefully...chosen--by Saudi government officials. That "gift" IMO was carefully chosen for internal Saudi consumption. The symbolism of female subjugation in Islam is entirely different than the symbolism involved in various forms of "modest" attire--and IMO should be carefully avoided. We have our own customs and traditions, and the Saudis should respect them, too, rather than foisting tendentious "gifts" on unsuspected First Ladies. There are, or certainly should be, alternative "work arounds" in such staged settings--there were any number of imaginative gifts they could have offered Mrs. Bush. I think that was, at least minimally, Glick's point.