Just imagine what would have happened...

if President Bush had reacted to the August 6 memo in a more ... determined way.

AN ALTERNATIVE HISTORY: Washington, April 9, 2004. A hush fell over the city as George W. Bush today became the first president of the United States ever to be removed from office by impeachment. Meeting late into the night, the Senate unanimously voted to convict Bush following a trial on his bill of impeachment from the House.

Moments after being sworn in as the 44th President, Dick Cheney said that disgraced former National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice would be turned over to the Hague for trial in the International Court of Justice as a war criminal. Cheney said Washington would "firmly resist" international demands that Bush be extradited for prosecution as well.

On August 7, 2001, Bush had ordered the United States military to stage an all-out attack on alleged terrorist camps in Afghanistan. Thousands of U.S. special forces units parachuted into this neutral country, while air strikes targeted the Afghan government and its supporting military. Pentagon units seized abandoned Soviet air bases throughout Afghanistan, while establishing support bases in nearby nations such as Uzbekistan. Simultaneously, FBI agents throughout the United States staged raids in which dozens of men accused of terrorism were taken prisoner. (...)

Bush justified his attack on Afghanistan, and the detention of 19 men of Arab descent who had entered the country legally, on grounds of intelligence reports suggesting an imminent, devastating attack on the United States. But no such attack ever occurred, leading to widespread ridicule of Bush's claims. Speaking before a special commission created by Congress to investigate Bush's anti-terrorism actions, former national security adviser Rice shocked and horrified listeners when she admitted, "We had no actionable warnings of any specific threat, just good reason to believe something really bad was about to happen."

Announcing his candidacy for the 2004 Republican presidential nomination, Senator John McCain said today that "George W. Bush was very foolish and naïve; he didn't realize he was being pushed into this needless conflict by oil interests that wanted to seize Afghanistan to run a pipeline across it." McCain spoke at a campaign rally at the World Trade Center in New York City.

I cannot possibly imagine what the reaction of the German media would have been... Here are some scenarios:

SPIEGEL: Mad Texan Cowboy acts on FBI fantasies

dpa: Arabs target of US witch hunt

stern: America at war with Democracy

tagesschau: More and more Americans against preemptive strikes

Sueddeutsche Zeitung: Bush sets dangerous precedent

Osama bin Laden would probably be the next winner of the Peace Award Of The German Book Trade. Well, it didn't quite work out that way - so Susan Sontag received the honors.

Comments

[Gabi]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,117125,00.html

Sept. 11 Panel Plays Politics, Public, Victims Lose

Wednesday, April 14, 2004

By Liza Porteus

I did not find any article in the German media about this, how they treated Rice like a hostile witness, the problem of playing this blame game, that people applauded. If I am wrong, please tell me. So far I think the German media is only eager to blame Rice and Bush, even DIE ZEIT has no good article about it.

[Klink]

Afghanistan was Taliban - that could have easily been sold to the world and bombing attacks happened before. Arresting 19 men on evidence that they planned something is legal as well. But in general: Alternative history mindgames in hindsight look nice, but open up the gates of pre-emption.

Had Roosevelt known in 1934 from intelligence reports what would be coming from Hitler, would that have justified a uni-lateral beginning of massive bombing of Germany already in 1934?

Had Kennedy known ahead of Soviet missile heads being transported to Cuba some day to be pointed at the US, would that have justified a pre-emptive nuclear strike against USSR before those ships had even set sail?

Had Britain had intelligence reports for an Argentine attack on its soil, would that have justified suddenly attacking Argentina?

Pre-emptiveness in hindsight sounds nice, but is de-facto unjust for the present and only a carte blanche to justify anything. We might as well lock up citizens without trials - this surely will bring the crime-rate eventually down as well.

@Gabi: SPIEGEL headlined Rice's testimony with the nasty word "Inquisition".

[Klink]

And my examples shall not suggest that nothing should be done - but to show that there are many other options one needs to consider first other than the brute force answer with military might.

Especially Cuba might have turned into a WW, had pre-emption been the method of choice alrady then.

[ch.speicher]

gabi wrote "even DIE ZEIT has no good article about it"

my english will get better and better (I know it has to ;|),

cause "die zeit" and even r.herzinger (he didnt publish a link to IRAQ THE MODEL in his wanna-be "blog", but prefers to let "Toronto Star" articles uncommented) also seems to want to follow the zeitgeist now

and what "funny" drawings of GWB they have! :|

screw them!

What about Herzinger? I liked his articles so far very much. Did he change? He was the reason to read DIE ZEIT.

[Gabi]

What about Herzinger? I liked his articles so far very much. Did he change? He was the reason to read DIE ZEIT.

[ch.speicher]

I think he is very lukewarm in his blog when he uses terms like "bushisten" and "besatzungsmacht" that might not be totaly repudiating but tend in such a direction as far as I m concerned

and maybe I m just pissed, cause he didnt publish a (non vulgar! ;)) comment of mine and another in a - I would bet a lot - made up context (ie he gets the "entries" via email then waits a few days and then decides which to publish)

its bad matter to host a blog in such way :| - ALL other "bloggers" I know publish entries instantaneous

maybe its not his fault and "die zeit" just havent give him enough webspace ;)

[WhatDoIKnow]

Slow down, Klink, slow down ! I know the thought of pre-emptive action scares you, but the Cuban example you gave in order to emphasize your point is just ridiculous.

WHY in the world should have Kennedy nuked the USSR, had he known beforehand about the missile deployment ??? Most likely he would have done exactly what he did when he found out, namely blocking naval traffic before reaching Cuba with the first missiles. That's also pre-emptive action, that would have done the job. No need for WW3. Of course, there would have been world-wide indignation at the thought of the US blocking peaceful, commercial naval traffic...

I don't know if you have a real understanding of pre-emption. Of course, you are completely sure you know what you are talking about...

It's only the fanatics that claim that pre-emption (meaning of course Bush-pre-emption) means total distruction regardless of the price, (this is a funny one) the Patriot Act is a way of controlling the American citizen, the CIA is successfully working at thought control .......

It has become clear in time that you are not soooo far away from those ideas, but I didn't know that you really believe this crap. If you didn't you would have come with much more logical arguments to support your belief.

The way you emphasized TWICE your idea with a totally weird, ATTAC-like example shows pretty much where you stand. I am a little bit surprised, but not much... Anyway, I'm sure you'll put a nice spin to it in a future post.

[Kleinmut]

Klink is following the very line of the anti-war crowd. He associates preemption with massive bombings to make it so much harder to go to war again. For the anti-war crowd there is no War Light, but war always seems to mean massive destruction and collateral damage. Never mind that US forces both in Afghanistan and Iraq put their own troops at risk rather than bomb civilian buildings where mujahedeen and fedayeen were hiding.

Just as he notices that his own arguments are too abstract so everyone can grasp them he aims at another cheap target. "We might as well lock up citizens without trials - this surely will bring the crime-rate eventually down as well." Ah, that's something average Joe understands. Governments who are unscrupulous in foreign affairs, like, you know, not seeking consensus with the UN and France, are likely to be unscrupulous when it comes to civil rights. Ok. Makes perfect sense.

[Klink]

Thanks to both of WhatDoIKnow and Kleinmut for very rightly pointing out my absurdities - I had taken the silly idea of "Alternative history" to the max to demonstrate this.

The reader should note how the author played on the safe side by not mentioning Iraq and WMDs, but only "political correct" Afghanistan and WTC as an example. I call that a cowardish argumentation since legitimacy of pre-Iraq was our big problem of the day, not Afghanistan. This text was written in April 2004, yet he sounds as if he wrote it already in April 2002. Why?

Let's look close at the evidence in the text: "on grounds of intelligence reports suggesting" Where "intelligence reports suggesting" can lead to has been shown in instances like "Uranium from Niger" (Or Congo or wherever). No evidence, but only "intelligence reports suggesting" is reason enough for wars?

And I was FOR the Afghanistan war and FOR Gulf War I, as there was evidence well beyond "suggesting" - so lining me up in the "anti-war"-crowd is certainly an interesting new spin. Do the Birkenstock-wearers already know this?

[Gabi]

Debatte: Der Aberglaube an die UNO
Kofi Annan verantwortet Ruanda und Srebrenica - und wurde dennoch UN-Generalsekretär
von Per Ahlmark

Derzeit fordert die Welt - trotz der jüngsten Enthüllungen über Bestechungszahlungen im Zusammenhang des UN-Programms "Öl für Lebensmittel" - lautstark, Annan die Zukunft von mehr als 20 Millionen Irakern, die Saddam Husseins verkommene Diktatur überlebt haben, anzuvertrauen. Der Grund hierfür ist, wer Annan ist und was aus der UNO geworden ist: eine Institution, in der, so scheint es, keine Unzulänglichkeit unbelohnt bleibt.

Per Ahlmark ist ehemaliger stellvertretender Premierminister Schwedens.

© Project Syndicate, Übers. Jan Neumann

Artikel erschienen am 15. April 2004
read more
here

[WhatDoIKnow]

Klink, now you say that you made a claim TWICE just to make a point, but that you didn't mean what you said when you made the point ??? You said something you yourself don't really believe in just to underscore a valid idea ? What ??? How was that ? Boy, isn't this a lame, lame spin ...

Allow me to strongly doubt your sincerity when you say that you gave the Cuban example ONLY to emphasize your idea. But hey, you can say whatever you want, retract and claim you were misunderstood, take a different position to the same issue, get lost in what you like most: words, words words ...

Just please don't expect to be taken seriously (on this forum).

[Klink]

Klink, now you say that you made a claim TWICE just to make a point, but that you didn't mean what you said when you made the point ???

We are talking aside each other - I made quite clear that I find "What if"-games to be fruitless and that my examples were drastically overplayed to show just that. Nothing more and nothing less.

As even the author avoided to use Iraq and WMDs, "intelligence reports suggest" can produce anything as justification. Evidence != "intelligence reports suggesting".

To stay with your favourite example Cuba - Had Russian sources given Kennedy the intelligence information that Russia would start WWIII next week in response to a Naval blockade, would this alone have justified Kennedy to begin launchin nuclear strikes? Certainly NOT. Because: "intelligence reports suggest" can utterly fail. It is that simple, why "What if's" on such basis are invalid.

[Kleinmut]

I wonder if you have followed the Daily Kos case. I guess I'm not the only one in here who sees the parallels.

[Sandy P]

Would you guys in Europe like to tell US how "dual use" items from Iraq are ending up as scrap in Europe????

Like nuclear parts????

Inquiring minds would like to know.

See the Washington Post article via Instapundit. Registration required.

[Sandy P]

Geez, the frogs don't trust you either, from The Wacky World of French Intellectuals, 4/15/04 Front Page Mag. Why do I think they're projecting again?????

...The theme of a war between the Old and the New Worlds recurs often. Pierre-Marie Gallois, a retired general, one of the conceptualizers of de Gaulle’s doctrine of "all points" nuclear deterrence, and a well-known figure in the French defense community, holds that it is U.S. strategy to subvert European sovereignty (désouverainiser). From this alleged intent stems Washington’s desire to place "Europe under German-American military control." The Germans go along with this because "the concept of Europe is an obsession for the Germans," who have always wanted to rule the continent. "In order to build that empire, the nation-states have to be destroyed," Gallois adds, which explains why the United States was set on undermining the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. France should rebuke the Germans and the Americans, and join with "our traditional allies," Russia and Serbia....

[Michael Hiteshew]

Actually, the thing I found most laughable about the 9/11 comission was all the finger pointing by former senators at the FBI and the CIA.

Who's kidding who? For most of the 1990's, there was a drumbeat against 'Big Brother' style information technology and how important it was to construct firewalls between the FBI and the CIA. I distinctly remember congress holding hearings on this subject.

In addition, I remember a law being passed in the late 1990's (by congress!) prohibiting the CIA from using foreign contacts or sources who were known to have committed crimes or were unsavory type characters. I remember career intelligence folks arguing that this was a foolish law. The people who often knew the most were the people previously involved in those nasty businesses.

Finally, the Attorney General's office, under Janet Reno (Clinton Admin), reinforced the 'firewall' prohibitions against information sharing between the CIA and the FBI via internal memos.

I understand their motivation. No one likes the idea of the All Knowing & All Seeing Big Brother government. But for these same folks to sit there and try to point to the FBI and CIA for their 'failures' is absurd. It's nothing more than political theater at its worst. Can we tell it's an election year yet?

[Michael Hiteshew]

Also, on 'preventive warfare' or 'preemptive warfare', whatever you want to call it, the whole subject makes me very queasy. Talk about your slippery slopes. I can hardly think of a more dangerous doctrine.

I think we've already discovered how misleading - or outright wrong - our intel can be. Are we to launch wars based on what we think we know?

What's to keep every state from using unrestricted warfare against their ideological enemies using the preemptive doctrine?

It looks the road to hell to me.

[Stone]

Michael,

'preventive warfare' or 'preemptive warfare'

Actually most states are trying to supress different groups within their own nations. Look back over the last 10 - 15 years and that is what you find. Most of the wars we have seen take the form of civil wars.

Also most nations have the same relative military strength as those nations which they might go to war with. So unless there is a clear power advantage and a feeling that one can win, going to war is not really a very good option.

The final thing that is preventing this is how much the world is paying attention and who each might have as allies.

[Gabi]

Komplizen des Terrors
Erst die Kamera gibt dem gewöhnlichen Verbrechen politische Kraft und macht das Publikum zum Mittäter
von Michael Stürmer

...

Die Bilder entstehen nicht von allein. Zur Verdeutlichung liefern die Täter die Bildunterschrift gratis: "Falludscha, Massengrab der Amerikaner". Was wäre, so darf man hypothetisch fragen, wenn die Fernsehkameras nicht zugegen wären oder die Kameraleute sich weigerten? Die Antwort ist klar: Der Zuschauer ist eingeladen nicht nur als Voyeur, sondern als heimlicher Komplize.

Es gibt kein leichtes Entkommen aus solcher Verstrickung. Es sei denn, Regierungen würden gegen alle Terrorbotschaften erklären, begründen, argumentieren. Dazu brauchten sie Churchillsche Fähigkeiten, die Menschen mitzureißen und zu überzeugen. Fehlt es daran, werden die Schreckensbilder weiterhin ihr Werk tun.

Die Würde des Menschen ist unantastbar - es sei denn doch, zum Beispiel durch öffentliche Bilder von Demütigung, Qual und Tod. Zur Genfer Konvention gehört das doppelte Verbot, Gefangene zu erniedrigen und Bilder solcher Behandlung zu zeigen - ein Verbot, das der Terror nach seiner Logik missachtet und missachten muss: je schlimmer, desto besser. Die Medien in der Demokratie indessen, ob gedruckt oder elektronisch, müssen sich, diesseits von Informationspflicht und Sensationslust, einer zweifachen Gewissensfrage stellen: Wie weit sie das Spiel der Terroristen mitspielen wollen und, noch wichtiger, welche letzte Achtung sie dem erniedrigten Mitmenschen schulden, in Leben und Tod.

Artikel erschienen am 14. April 2004

Lesen Sie den ganzen Artikel hier

[Gabi]

Journalisten als Handlanger der Terroristen? Bush hat eine neue Generation von Terroristen erschaffen? Und Herr Koydl redet sie herbei und gibt ihnen eine Art Rechtfertigung.

Ausland
15.04.2004 18:44 Uhr

Kommentar

Verrat am Frieden

Der Auftritt vor der Presse dauerte kaum 30 Minuten. Aber als er vorüber war, hatte George W. Bush ganze Arbeit geleistet.
Von Wolfgang Koydl


Er hatte die letzten Aussichten für einen Ausgleich im Nahen Osten zerstört und den letzten Rest an Amerikas Glaubwürdigkeit in der Region ruiniert.

Gleichsam im Umdrehen zertrat er das zarte Pflänzchen der Hoffnung, die manche insgeheim an ein Gelingen des Demokratie-Experiments im Irak geknüpft hatten. Und nebenbei schuf er eine neue Generation von Terroristen. Nicht schlecht für eine halbe Stunde Arbeit....

http://www.sueddeutsche.de/ausland/artikel/280/30250/

[ch.speicher]

I didnt find power supply related articles yet, but I found one

about preemptive warfare

[ch.speicher]

another (same author) about

When should we stop supporting Israel

[Klink]

@Gabi
Bush hat eine neue Generation von Terroristen erschaffen? Und Herr Koydl redet sie herbei und gibt ihnen eine Art Rechtfertigung.

Sie verwechseln hier die Nachricht mit dem Überbringer der Nachricht. Die Nachricht kam von Bush, Koydl überbrachte sie uns nur. "Don't shoot the messenger".

So wie auch ich hier im Blog prophezeite, daß wir in künftigen Terrorist-Biographien in einigen Jahren vermutlich nachlesen werden, daß es u.a. die einseitige Art der Vorbereitung des Irak-Kriegs war, die sie einst von der moderaten Moschee zum radikalen Prediger gehen liess. Mark my words.

@ch speicher
Aaaah, Artikel von Victor Davis Hanson - Hinweis für deutsche Leser: Von einer einflussreichen New York Times Kommentatorin als Cheney's War Guru tituliert. SCNR, musste sein. :-)

[kid charlemagne]

Victor Davis Hanson is an excellent writer and a knowledgeable and humane man. I really don't care what a writer in the New York Times (was it Maureen Dowd? Ha! She's a frivolous pipsqueak, a wannabe-trendy know-nothing) has called him, nor should German readers, who would do well to read Hanson. He presents the kind of cogent, conservative American viewpoint which almost never makes its way into the German press.

[ch.speicher]

aaaaaah

klink wants to save poor german readers from awkward argumentation :)

what are you trying here, obstruction?

I dont think it will work, but may Allah be pleased with you! you will make a perfect super-dhimmi ;)

[ch.speicher]

as bonus track I have a safire-article from the NYT itself, but its strictly forbidden! for people as stupid as following "klink"s advices *g*

[WhatDoIKnow]

Klink: von der moderaten Moschee zum radikalen Prediger gehen liess. Mark my words

Tja, nichts persönliches, aber wieder einmal einige 'Weisheiten' a la Klink. Sie können argumentieren wie Sie wollen, aber ein 'moderater' Moslem der durch den Irak Krieg zum Fanatiker wird war nie und nimmer 'moderat'. Der war einfach ein 'schlafender' Fanatiker. Bekannterweise brauchen Fanatiker keine wirklichen Gründe um ihren Hass auszuleben, nur Vorwände.

Wieder sollen übertriebene und unrealistische Beispiele ihre These unterstützen ? Um Sie zu zitieren: 'es wird langweilig'

[Kleinmut]

Putting Dowd's combined Cheney/Hanson smear in bold letters won't make it more credible, Mr. Klink.

"daß es u.a. die einseitige Art der Vorbereitung des Irak-Kriegs war, die sie einst von der moderaten Moschee zum radikalen Prediger gehen liess. Mark my words." Already working on the "Bush spawned terrorism" myth, eh? Oh dear, as pointed out in another thread, the more you write in here, Mr. Klink, the harder it gets to distinguish you from the anti-war crowd.

[Klink]

(reposted here as well - sorry, this is what you get, when you juggle to c&p several comments into one ;-)

@ch speicher schrieb:
klink wants to save poor german readers from awkward argumentation :)....as bonus track I have a safire-article from the NYT itself, but its strictly forbidden! for people as stupid as following "klink"s advices *g*

Nein. Wollte nur klarstellen, in welche Richtung es geht. Hanson schreibt durchaus interessant. (Das konservative Urgestein Safire übrigens ebenso)
Ich halte Victor Davis Hanson sogar für Pflichtlektüre für all jene Deutschen, die mal die US-konservativen Bush-Jünger verstehen wollen und einen Einblick in die Gedankengänge bekommen wollen.

Der Mann ist Militärhistoriker und argumentiert strikt aus dieser Perspektive heraus, was ihn eben so interessant macht für die amerikanische Rightwing-Szene, wo er ja beinahe als eine Art Guru mittlerweile fungiert. Bei ihm dreht sich alles um die Überlegenheit der westlichen Zivilisation in erster Linie aufgrund von militärischer Stärke und militärischer Innovation (und in einem Teilaspekt noch mit Freiheit und Individualismus verknüpft).

Und ja, ich hab "Carnage and Culture" gelesen. Auch den Teil über Hitler, btw. Welche Bücher hast Du von ihm gelesen? (Interessiert mich auch von kid charlemagne)

[Kleinmut]

"Bei ihm dreht sich alles um die Überlegenheit der westlichen Zivilisation in erster Linie aufgrund von militärischer Stärke und militärischer Innovation"

Nein. Bei ihm dreht sich alles um die wenigen entscheidenden Stunden grosser Konflikte, die über Sieg oder Untergang entscheiden. Wenn Sie ihn tatsächlich so gut kennen würden, wie Sie hier schreiben, wäre Ihnen aufgefallen, dass er keineswegs nur über Kriege zwischen "der westlichen Zivilisation" und der "nicht-westlichen" schreibt.

[mike]

klink,
I think you might be missing the point of the article. It is a story describing the cry of outrage that would come from the press, politicians and others if Bush HAD preempted any of these situations. "How could he?" "There was no proof", etc.

The old saying "damned if you do, damned if you don't" applies here. The author suggests that an aggressive and preempitve act to stop 9/11 by destroying the nest of vipers that was planning such an atack, would horrify and be decried by the very same people accusing Bush of NOT actively preempting to stop 9/11.

The author suggests with his story that acting preemptively would have been condemed just as vociferously (and probably by the same people) as the real condemnation has been for NOT acting preemptively.

And I won't go into the interesting obervation that the same people condeming Bush for NOT preemptively stopping Osama's al-queda, are the same people condeming him for preemptive action in Iraq.

[Klink]

Kleinmut schrieb:
Nein. Bei ihm dreht sich alles um die wenigen entscheidenden Stunden grosser Konflikte, die über Sieg oder Untergang entscheiden. Wenn Sie ihn tatsächlich so gut kennen würden, wie Sie hier schreiben, wäre Ihnen aufgefallen, dass er keineswegs nur über Kriege zwischen "der westlichen Zivilisation" und der "nicht-westlichen" schreibt.

ROFL. "Entscheidenden Stunden grosser Konflikte" anstatt einfach ein simples Wort wie "Schlachten" zu sagen.

Ich kenne bis jetzt - ausser seinen Artikeln - nur den Klassiker der rechten Blogs "Carnage and Culture", das eindeutig vom "Rise of Western Power" schreibt und in dem es konkret nicht um Konflikt-Lösung geht, sondern um 9 grosse Schlachten ("Battles"): Von der Schlacht von Salamis bis zur Tet-Offensive. Auch seine anderen Bücher (bis auf letztes Jahr IMO) sind weniger um politische Konflikte, als um Strategien für siegreiche Schlachten. Der Mann ist eben von Beruf Militärhistoriker, nicht Politikwissenschaftler.

[Kleinmut]

ROFL, too. Sie weisen selbst auf die Tet-Offensive hin. Der gesamte Vietnamkonflikt war eben keine Aneinanderreihung von Schlachten, sondern von einigen wenigen Kämpfen nach klassischem Muster, meinetwegen Schlacht ("Battle") genannt, und vielen asymmetrischen Konflikten, auch Guerilla-Krieg/Konflikt/Kampf genannt.

Im Übrigen geht es sehr wohl um Konflikt-Lösung/Bewältigung, auch wenn Sie nicht wahrhaben wollen, dass ein Konflikt auch legitim über Kampfhandlungen gelöst werden kann. Ist Ihnen nicht irgendwann man aufgefallen, dass sogar Europäer lieber von "Kriseneinsatz" als "Krieg" reden? Die KFOR-Truppen nennen sich nicht Soldaten, sondern Kriseneinsatzkräfte.