Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: a Kinsleyian slip ?

  1. #1
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default a Kinsleyian slip ?

    (snip)"How Dare Charlie Black Point Out the Obvious

    Charlie Black is getting rapped on the knuckles for this comment:

    As would, Black concedes with startling candor after we raise the issue, another terrorist attack on U.S. soil. "Certainly it would be a big advantage to him," says Black.


    Of course. There's no reason to think that after a terrorist attack, Americans would prefer the leadership of a war veteran who's spent his entire career dealing with national security issues. There's every chance that with Americans dead and more attacks possible, they would turn to the former community organizer who, when asked about his military response to terrorist attacks, gives a lengthy answer listing every action except the military response:

    Williams then turned to Sen. Barack Obama, second in the polls but gaining fast on the frontrunner, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. “If, God forbid, a thousand times, while we were gathered here tonight, we learned that two American cities had been hit simultaneously by terrorists,” Williams said, “and we further learned beyond the shadow of a doubt it had been the work of al Qaeda, how would you change the U.S. military stance overseas as a result?”

    The question was specifically focused on a military response, but Obama didn’t talk about the military, or any use of force at all. “Well, first thing we’d have to do is make sure that we’ve got an effective emergency response, something that this administration failed to do when we had a hurricane in New Orleans,” Obama said. “And I think that we have to review how we operate in the event of not only a natural disaster, but also a terrorist attack.”

    “The second thing,” Obama continued, “is to make sure that we’ve got good intelligence, A, to find out that we don’t have other threats and attacks potentially out there; and B, to find out do we have any intelligence on who might have carried it out so that we can take potentially some action to dismantle that network.”

    The reference to “some action” might be interpreted as an endorsement of the use of force, but in the rest of his response, Obama softened even that notion. “But what we can’t do is then alienate the world community based on faulty intelligence, based on bluster and bombast,” he said. “Instead, the next thing we would have to do, in addition to talking to the American people, is making sure that we are talking to the international community. Because as has already been stated, we’re not going to defeat terrorists on our own. We’ve got to strengthen our intelligence relationships with them, and they’ve got to feel a stake in our security by recognizing that we have mutual security interests at stake.”


    That was it. Obama’s answer to a question of how, as commander-in-chief, he would change America’s “military stance” in response to an attack by al Qaeda did not involve using the military.

    Williams' question deserved a brief answer: "We find the perpetrators and kill them." Or, alternatively, "unleash hell." Or some variation of that.

    No, of course, Black is wrong. The American people would eagerly want the guy whose foreign policy advisers contend that Osama bin Laden, if captured, should be allowed to appeal his case to U.S. civilian courts.

    They'd love to have a commander in chief who erroneously claims that all of the perpetrators of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing have been brought to justice, and who praises the pre-9/11 approach to al-Qaeda terrorism, ignoring the fact that the attacks kept getting larger.

    Marc Ambinder calls the gaffe Kinsleyian - meaning it's an accidental statement of the truth."(snip)

    from

  2. #2
    God/dess
    Joined
    May 2006
    Location
    Rhode Island
    Posts
    2,420
    Thanks
    36
    Thanked 291 Times in 210 Posts

    Default Re: a Kinsleyian slip ?

    With Obama the leading candidate for the Oval Office, you have to think the terrorists are already planning stuff for '09 and beyond. I am starting to feel resigned to the fact he'll be the next president, because the more McCain opens his mouth, the more conservative support he loses.
    Last edited by bem401; 06-26-2008 at 05:20 AM.
    "never trust a big butt and a smile"-- Bell Biv DeVoe

    If you're in your twenties and aren't a liberal, you have no heart. If you're in you're forties and aren't a conservative, you have no brain - Winston Churchill

  3. #3
    madmaxine
    Guest

    Default Re: a Kinsleyian slip ?

    I didn't post this statement in the Gitmo thread because reading that thread made me want to bang my head against the wall-

    A quote from a friend who works in National Security (US): "Americans WILL NOT understand the need for vigilance against terrorism until there is another attack on US soil."

    As harrowing and heinous the years have been since 2001, to downplay the efficacy of Al-Qaida is actually an insult against them.....One has to appreciate the cultural differences between Westerners and Middle Eastern/South Asian Muslim countries. The things that make them incomprehensible to us also make them POTENT!

  4. #4
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: a Kinsleyian slip ?

    A quote from a friend who works in National Security (US): "Americans WILL NOT understand the need for vigilance against terrorism until there is another attack on US soil."
    probably true, and absolutely true in terms of my personal opinion. My only hope is that, when this second attack actually occurs, the terrorists will choose a different target besides hitting NY again. In terms of personal loss, economic impact etc. we still haven't fully recovered from the 9/11 attack.

    As harrowing and heinous the years have been since 2001, to downplay the efficacy of Al-Qaida is actually an insult against them.....One has to appreciate the cultural differences between Westerners and Middle Eastern/South Asian Muslim countries. The things that make them incomprehensible to us also make them POTENT!
    from the strategic standpoint that your National Security friend must employ, the willingness of any 'opponent' to voluntarily sacrifice their lives in order to maximize the impact of their 'attack' offers a huge advantage which equalizes vast differences in numbers / weapons etc. From this standpoint, I have been told that today's islamic terrorists possess the same potential deadly effectiveness of World War 2's Kamikazes ! I have also been told that this potential deadly effectiveness will be multiplied many times over if their suicidal 'sacrifice' is made in conjunction with a 'dirty bomb' or biological agent.


    be that as it may, Charlie Black's point is still on the table ...

Similar Threads

  1. Bill Clinton's Freudian Slip
    By Eric Stoner in forum Member Boards
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-16-2008, 01:11 PM
  2. non slip shoe pads
    By lazydaisy in forum Newbie Board
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 06-08-2006, 02:02 PM
  3. slip guards ?
    By hotSeraphina69 in forum Stripping (was Stripping General)
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11-02-2005, 06:59 AM
  4. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 01-20-2005, 02:27 PM
  5. Don't slip me a Mickey
    By Juliette_deSade in forum Stripping (was Stripping General)
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 03-18-2004, 08:51 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •