They would do that?
Sure as shootin'.
Posted on 06/19/2006 5:06:47 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
by Mark Finkelstein
June 19, 2006
The Bush administration takes terror threats too darn seriously.
That's what Ron Suskind says in his recently-released book, 'The One Percent Doctrine'. Suskind, who was on the Today show this morning to discuss the book with Matt Lauer, is a former Wall Street Journal reporter. Those who might think that would indicate a conservative bent should be aware that, perhaps more than at any other paper in America, there is a remarkable contrast in the political leanings of the news and the editorial operations of the WSJ. Yes, the editorial page is keenly free-market conservative. But as per a 2004 study, the Journal's news operation is 'the most liberal of all 20 news outlets [studied]', more liberal than even the New York Times.
In any case, according to Suskind, two months after 9/11, VP Cheney was being briefed about the possibility of Pakistani nuclear scientists colluding with Osama Bin Laden. Responded Cheney:
"Look: these low probability/high impact events, we need to think about them in a different way. . . If there is 1% chance that WMDs have been given to al-Qaeda, we need to treat it as a certainty. Not in our analysis but in our response."
Judging by his initial follow-up, Lauer seemed to approve of the cautious approach: "Post 9/11, don't you think a lot of Americans would want that to deal with every 1% possibility as a certainty?"
And Suskind himself at first seemed to agree: "Absolutely, the thing about the 1% doctrine is that it will be debated, and there will be for and against. People will say 'what choice does he have?' And others will say 'look what it does in terms of guiding the ship of state of the only superpower in the world."
But as the interview progressed, it became clear that Suskind is an ardent critic of the policy. Lauer: "You think there are grave dangers in this type of policy. Why?"
Suskind: "The fact is that for us, as the most powerful nation in the world, what it does is it sends us into a tactical ferocity where we're following everything, where we can't even have a 1% chance not be handled, often with the full force of the US. The difficulty is that there is backlash when you act that way."
O-o-o-h. We wouldn't want to make our enemies mad, or anything.
Lauer seemed to capitulate, and proceeded to make Suskind's case: "So in terms of money, in terms of resources, time, energy, you think it spreads the United States too thin."
Suskind: "Certainly that's one of the great dangers here, that everything has to be dealt with, even if it's just a 1% chance."
Call it a cliche, but isn't it obvious that if the Bush administration failed to take a threat of which it was aware with great seriousness, and an attack occurred, this same Suskind and his MSM brethren would be excoriating the president for being too lax?
Today Show/NewsBusters one-percent ping.
John sKerry says we should be inspecting every piece of cargo that comes into the US. Talk about spreading ourselves thin.
If that 1% danger were to materialize, guess who the libs would BLAME?
If Bush took the terror threat seriously he would have closed the borders.
> The Bush administration takes terror threats too darn seriously.
And 9/11 was a laugh-a-minute, right? Crikey... they'll publish any fool's notion these days.
Hey, be kind to Mr. Suskind. He's a graduate of the Mr. Roger's School of Will-You-Be-My-Neighbor.
re headline....after all, they are oly a police matter...(sarcasm)..
These people, if they regain power, are gonna get us all killed!
Geeeeesh..not only do they want their cake, they want to eat it, keep the platter, the eggs, flour and sugar..
And yet- they see no conflict in these views.
They would do that?
Sure as shootin'.
I have the book, but haven't opened it yet. surely it depends what we are talking about. A 1% chance of a dirty bomb is more serious than jaywalking. Yet, it seems to me that many politicians are to chicken to deal with tough problems. So, they retreat into soft, safe areas. For example, Bloomberg says just let 1/2m illegals stay in New York city. When elected, he attacked the problems of smoking in bars and cell phones in theatres. Likewise, the great castratti who say we cannot deport 11m instituted a four day dragnet to enforce seat belt compliance over Memorial Day. It was so ironic, because, if they had been looking for illegals that weekend, instead of libertarians, much of the immigration debate would be moot.
Thanks for posting this so we are in on the ground floor of what will no doubt be a MSM blitz. The MSM will love the author saying Cheney runs the show. He's the evil visionary, Bush only carrries out Cheney's ideas.
The author thinks the government has excessive control over the information people get.
The author thinks following Cheney's doctrine of reacting to every possible threat, spreads us too thin, in other words, it's a mistake to react to each and every little perceived danger. (don't you wonder if he would have written this book if there had been another stateside attack after 9-11, even a smaller one)
The author assured viewers repeatedly, that this book will not give Al Queda any information they don't already have, and folks just so you know: (according to this author) Homeland Security is a joke.
Threadjacked at Post #5
After the beating the administration took on the PDB, no wonder they're going to look at everything. In the end, the media will castigate them for doing too much or doing too little, it's a no-win situation when you're a Republican.
Denial is an effective coping mechanism.
Didn't want you guys to miss this thread because I predict Ron Suskind will be the new media darling this week.
On a side note, did you happen to catch the CNN Presents episode last night? It was titled "Dead Wrong". A complete slam piece on the Rove/Plame/Wilson/Libby... fiasco. They gave Larry Johnson free and unquestioned views on the complete story. It was the most disqusting thing I have seen in quite awhile. Shameful
Bingo.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
