Posted on 09/11/2006 2:02:14 PM PDT by mware
Edited on 09/11/2006 4:11:51 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
I will not be here for the first hour of tonights program. Thought I would put it up for those FReepers overseas that are viewing it now.
For those who wish to see the clips the Clinton lawyers complained about, Click here
Aaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, my imprudent FRiend, I just say that I am "blunt, but honest". LOL
Yes, we most certainly DO have to do that and we shall, if we all work together. :-)
And they weren't buying pallets of the stuff, just a few bags. Farmers, and landscapers, buy much larger quantities.
If we were Dems we could vote early and often...against her....LOL!
Thanks to you and everyone else for being here tonight.
I'm cross-eyed with fatigue and headed off to bed.
Night, FReepers...:)
Thanks for the companionship, conversation, and fun, but I too am headed off to sleep now.
Pleasant dreams.....................
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v204/potlatch/GroundZ.gif
beautiful!! I sent it to Pookie18
You know I do bray.
1. The Bush Administration was not portrayed as negligent as much as they were portrayed at novices and newbies. That is probably a fair assessment. (The casting of Cheney was horrible and was incredible distracting. That was the first truly crazy misstep in that department.) The entire organizational structure of the US was caught flat footed. We were completely and utterly helpless. But how could we not have been? The terrorists once again used innocents as human shields and exploited the weaknesses of freedom. Even John O'Neill, who is really the hero in this narrative, did not anticipate this and was more concerned that day about checking parking stickers. Above all else, we must know our own weaknesses intimately.
2. We've got to connect the dots. It's become a cliché, but the legal-mumbo-jumbo-ass-covering in Washington is an easy weakness to exploit. I'm not sure how can be done. There are an awful lot of people in Washington with hidden agendas. That makes change very time consuming and loaded with pitfalls...and it's amazing we've raised that grade to a D. Ironically, when we have reorganized the government and the military and the legal system to fully meet this new challenge...it will signal our victory, the war will be over and we will have to go through the same process to meet the next emerging threat. I guess that leaves me as grateful...and in it for the long haul.
3. They'll do something bigger as soon as possible. The terrorists really raised the bar with this one. In many ways, they need the next attack to be worldwide or nuclear to project power. They must at very least match, but most likely are attempting to exceed, these attacks. That makes my blood run cold and frankly, it's amazing the people at the top can sleep at night.
4. We are damn lucky. Actually, we were blessed. Despite how horrific that attack was, the fact that only 3000 died is simply miraculous and we owe the Almighty an enormous thank you, along with a lot of brave, committed people. This is a great day to remember that.
5. The biggest mistake we made was selling out people like Mossaud. This kind of war has to be fought making allies with our enemy's enemy. We can not take these people for granted and in addition and above all we have to remember that culturally honor is everything. Being dissed is worse than being dead. In this case, we didn't protect the assets we had. Morally, that is very difficult to live with.
6. Regarding the shaky camera. One of the things I found fascinating is how the shakiness and twisting got more and more frenetic as it went a long. As distracting and uncomfortable as it was, it was a great way to build suspense and give the viewer the "feeling" of being trapped in a world spinning wildly out of control. Creating suspense when you already know the outcome is exceptionally difficult. In this case, they did it with the camera rather than trying to build shallow interpersonal subplots, or vapid imagery. It was kind of nauseating, but very effective artistically.
7. It is docudrama, not history. As great as the story telling was, it still simplified the issues. It compressed time, which makes things appear easier and less complex. Therefore, while it summarizes our mistakes effectively, and illustrates the nature of our enemies, it can not be relied upon as a perfect reflection of history. There were too many things going on where the camera wasn't "looking." This is a world wide conflict, with many, many agendas and power struggles. I hate to use the insufferable and narcissistic Albright to illustrate my point, but it could be pretty bad if Pakistan thought India was shooting at it. Obviously in hindsight, that could have been solved easily and should have been. But these events didn't happen in a vacuum and at the time, we didn't have a handle on the priorities. It is an understandable, albeit wrong in retrospect, position.
Finally, on a personal note, I would have loved to hear what Mossaud would say about the current President. Does he understand? The funny part is, that President Reagan was hobbled by the same bureaucracy...but he projected power which influenced behavior. I think the current President does the same. In this war, perception is everything.
Ok, that's it. I'm going to dump my first night summary here just for reference. Please forgive me.
Night all!
Thank you bitt, I just made that up today - well daaa! LOL.
Oh my...you've got to look up Baltimore MD voting history.
"In Haiti, the dead walk; in Baltimore they vote Democrat"...:)
Sweet dreams to you, too.
I have other spiritual directors who say I am prudent.I think I am -nevermind-I'm not.
You know, I don't think you can judge this threat based on land mass/allies.
Communism was bad, no doubt...but we are now dealing with a small area that has HUGE assets.
If it wasn't for oil, we wouldn't be talking about this at all. I'd like to see a map now of allied countries and enemy countries based on oil production. I have a feeling the "feel" of the challenge would change dramatically.
Execellent and bookmarked for the morning!
Thanks!
Woolsey is the one who got in trouble for taking his laptop home.
>>She was a Clinton crony I assume?
Presidents don't pick ambassadors to Yemen. She was a career foreign service officer.
great summary!
"Meanwhile, Bob Schieffer was telling Katie Couric that we haven't asked the American people to sacrifice enough, because we don't have a draft. "
aside from dealing with TSA and excepting the families of casualties in the 2001 terrorist attacks, what are non-military families sacrificing in this war? seriously, it seems to me fedgov wants to keep a civilian consumer-debt driven economy runnings on all cylinders rather than risk complications on that area.
I heard recently that GHWB called him "SAD-dam" as an insult.
Amy Madigan played the CIA Senior Analyst "Patricia." She was the one who stormed into the staff meeting, saying "We had him!" You may remember her as Kevin Costner's wife in "Field of Dreams."
I think that may have been Shirley Jones as Mad Mad.
OK, that was it. It was SBA, not Bank of America. I'm thinking he didn't have enough collateral for a loan that big.
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.
