“In April 1993, less than two months after that attack, former President Bush visited Kuwait, where an attempt was made to assassinate him by?as our own investigators were able to determine?Iraqi intelligence agents. The Clinton administration spent two more months seeking approval from the UN and the ?international community? to retaliate for this egregious assault on the United States. In the end, a few cruise missiles were fired into the Iraqi capital of Baghdad, where they fell harmlessly onto empty buildings in the middle of the night. (p. 21)

NP fails to mention that all those buildings were destroyed and that they housed the Mukhabarat, Iraq’s intelligence service.

In his own words:

“But not a shred of the documentary evidence cited by the Times for this categorical statement actually predicted that al Qaeda would hijack commercial airliners and crash them into buildings in New York and Washington.” (p.19)

If the true case for WW4 had been advanced from the outset there would have been no need for pretend urgency, there would have been time for proper planning and preparation, way less than 49% of the US would now be polarized against the administration and the eventual need for a draft would not have become so imminent.

WW4 is not going to be won by a leadership team which opens itself up to credible portrayal as an assortment of keystone cops, zionists, crusaders or cronies with a personal financial stake.

Podhoretz’ honesty and clarity is a lesson for the administration.

While portions of your posts may be interesting, I find the endless cut-and-pastes of material with little relevance to your stated points to be tiresome. In your last multi-part post you seem to be unaware that your articles undercut your theses regarding Podhoretz’s failings both times. I imagine that there is an argument you would like to make, but you are not making it.

Preprocess, please.

“The commission also spoke of a ?failure of imagination.?

was possible. (p. 19)

It’s NOT “maybe so,” it’s “definitely so,” as you can see from these excerpts:

Ms. Rice confirmed in 2002 that information picked up by U.S. intelligence services indicated that an attack might be made on Mr. Bush and other leaders at the July 2001 Group of Eight summit in Genoa, Italy. Former White House officials confirmed that in response to the warning, Italian authorities closed the local airport, restricted airspace and positioned surface-to-air missiles around the city. WSJ, 4/1/04

?FBI investigators visited two of the flight schools in 1996 after the plot was uncovered in the Philippines, school operators said. In 1998 and 1999, analysts warned federal officials that terrorists might crash hijacked aircraft into landmarks such as the Pentagon and the World Trade Center. Then, last July, the Italian government closed airspace over Genoa and mounted antiaircraft batteries based on information that Islamic extremists were planning to use an airplane to kill President Bush.

According to Italy’s Deputy Prime Minister Gianfranco Fini, in remarks reported by the Italian news agency ANSA, Italy told the Americans “that there was the possibility of an attack against the U.S. president using an airliner. That’s why we closed the airspace and installed the [antiaircraft] missiles” around the meeting site.

Because of the threat from jetliners, it has been standard operating procedure since the Atlanta Olympics in 1996 to create “no- fly zones” for high-profile occasions designated “National Security Special Events.” Others included the 50th anniversary summits of NATO and the United Nations. The no-fly zones are areas of restricted airspace defended by fighter jets and antiaircraft batteries?

Clues Pointed to Changing Terrorist Tactics; Foiled Plots, FBI Data Showed Al Qaeda Groups Might Use Airplanes as Missiles

Steve Fainaru. The Washington Post. Washington, D.C.: May 19, 2002. pg. A.09

“The point I wish to stress is not that Clarke was

enough to figure out what to do about it.“(pp. 18-19)

There were attempts to figure out what to do about it, as you can see from this excerpt from the 9-11 Final Report:

“Clarke had been concerned about the danger posed by aircraft since at least

the 1996 Atlanta Olympics. There he had tried to create an air defense plan

using assets from the Treasury Department, after the Defense Department

declined to contribute resources. The Secret Service continued to work on the

the situation. Officials from the Pentagon said they could scramble aircraft from

Langley Air Force Base, but they would need to go to the President for rules

of engagement, and there was no mechanism to do so. There was no clear resolution

of the problem at the exercise.16

In late 1999, a great deal of discussion took place in the media about the

crash off the coast of Massachusetts of EgyptAir Flight 990, a Boeing 767.The

most plausible explanation that emerged was that one of the pilots had gone

berserk, seized the controls, and flown the aircraft into the sea. After the

of a possible airplane hijacking by al Qaeda.17 ”

(911 Final Report, p. 345)

I take heart from the comments here. My dour German-Catholic heritage does prejudice me towards seeing the worst of any situation.

I’m now reminded of Mike Myers’ line in (I believe) So I Married An Axe Murderer: “If it’s not Scottish, it’s crap!”

LOL!

Yes, you should take heart.

The Scots-Irish are the never-say-die people, it appears.

That was another ‘new angle’ on something that’s always puzzled me a little. Not infrequently I will have people tell me, ‘I don’t know how you do it.’ The other day I ran into a woman at Barnes & Noble whom I’d met in a knitting class, and by the time she told me me she didn’t know how I did it she sounded actually despairing. She was so shaken up I started to feel rude just standing there smiling.

I’m usually at a loss in these exchanges, because although I’m plenty frazzled I don’t have the sense that I’m more frazzled than anyone else I know who’s in the thick of raising kids. I’ve always been a little mystified myself over the question of ‘how I do it.’

Webb’s book has given me a whole new answer: the reason I can do it is that I like doing it! I have the ‘born fighting’ gene, and wrangling two autistic kids is nothing if not a daily war of all against all. I’m probably supposed to be doing this.

I’m guessing your basic Scots-Irish type gets bored without a challenge, and I don’t see them (us) running out of steam on the WOT any time soon.

1) Scots-Irish dueling tradition? Read a biography of Andrew Jackson. Or listen to Zell Miller.

2) Scots, Irish and “Scots-Irish.” The “Scots-Irish” were neither Scots nor Irish in any sense that has meaning today. They first lived on both sides of the changing border between the Roman empire and the Picts, between the kingdoms of England and Scotland, forever the most lawless part of Britain. They emigrated to America in the 18th c. from the Scottish lowlands, the English border and Ulster, where many had settled in the 16th and 17th centuries. Those who lived in Boston or New York or Philadelphia looked at them in the same way that people who live in such cities look upon “Rednecks” or “Red State People” today. The Scots-Irish wanted nothing to do with such corrupt, honorless people, and settled in upstate New England and the Appalachians.

3) The “Scots-Irish” influence in America. Protestants. Not Slaveowners. For the Union. Against cities. They shaped America in a complex interaction with the New England Puritans, the Southern aristocrats, and central England emigrants to the Delaware River Valley, who ultimately became the default variety of Americans. The Scots-Irish and the southern aristocrats are American military power. Read David Hackett Fisher’s Albion’s seed, which explains, inter alia, how German, Italian, Irish and other immigrants became “Scots-Irish” when the immigrants settled among them.

4) “Scots-Irish.” The term always used in America for the group until recently was “Scotch-Irish.” I don’t know why Webb chose “Scots-Irish,” but I don’t like it. I suspect he chose it because of the relatively modern insistence of the northern British on being called “Scots” rather than “Scotch.” (”Scotch is a drink.”) Many generations of my ancestors stir in their graves scoffing at this affected nomenclature.

5) Add me to your list. Scotch-Irish and a dash of German. One of the lessons I’ve learned since 9/11 is that I’m Scotch-Irish not just to the bone, but into the marrow.

Hope the book is selling well.