jump to navigation

Cowboy Is As Cowboy Does November 29, 2016

Posted by geoff in News.

I’m sure you’ll see this everywhere in the dextrosphere over the next couple of days, but here’s an excerpt from a WaPo review of James E. Mitchell’s new memoir (James E. Mitchell developed enhanced interrogation techniques for the CIA):

Far from trying to draw us in, KSM said that al-Qaeda expected the United States to respond to 9/11 as we had the 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut — when, KSM told Mitchell, the United States ‘turned tail and ran.’

‘Then he looked at me and said, ‘How was I supposed to know that cowboy George Bush would announce he wanted us ‘dead or alive’ and then invade Afghanistan to hunt us down?’’ Mitchell writes. ‘KSM explained that if the United States had treated 9/11 like a law enforcement matter, he would have had time to launch a second wave of attacks.’ He was not able to do so because al-Qaeda was stunned ‘by the ferocity and swiftness of George W. Bush’s response.’

Via The Federalist (read the whole thing).


1. Jimbro - November 29, 2016

I can picture Trump in a cowboy hat more readily than Obama

2. OBF - November 29, 2016

I just had a nasty vision of Obama’s ears sticking out from underneath a cowboy hat. Ugly!

Only thing worse would be him wearing the girl jeans he sports from time to time while wearing a cowboy hat.

3. Mark in NJ - November 29, 2016

So the implication is, post-KSM terrorists were emboldened because they knew Obama was the kinda guy who’d never wear a cowboy hat

And now we have hopalong Trump, from Queens NY, totally credible in a cowboy hat

Hey, sounds good to me.

4. geoff - November 29, 2016

…Obama was the kinda guy who’d never wear a cowboy hat

Well, he could have worn one, but then he would have been all-hat/no-cattle.

As the saying goes.

5. geoff - November 29, 2016

But more to the point, the Bush strategy which set Al Qaeda back on its heels was the very same strategy that you thought was excessive back in the day. We can’t really know whether it was an optimal strategy, but you can certainly say that it wasn’t meritless.

Which, of course, the liberal contingent claimed it to be.

6. Sobek - December 1, 2016

Unless KSM was lying to the interrogators, which he was known to do.

I clicked that link thinking “I will agree with this because it confirms my worldview!” But a little skepticism might be in order. I’m not saying it’s impossible – I didn’t read the book, so I don’t know how much effort the author puts into dealing with credibility.

7. geoff - December 1, 2016

But if he was lying to the interrogators, wouldn’t he be encouraging the administration to continue hammering on Al Qaeda? Seems like that would be counterproductive for his cause. I’d expect him to say something more like, “Chasing us down only makes us stronger!”

8. lauraw - December 1, 2016

Hah! Only journalists are stupid enough to say that and believe it.

9. lauraw - December 1, 2016

Say, geoff…https://is.gd/NXprwm

Earnest went further, saying that the roughly 800,000 jobs he cited were new jobs created under Obama’s watch. He said the president protected “more than a million” additional manufacturing jobs in the Midwest with his bailout of the auto industry.

10. geoff - December 1, 2016

What a tool. Those are only “new jobs” if you ignore the jobs lost during the recession. And Obama promised 1.5 million manufacturing jobs (he made the 1 million promise after 500K jobs were recovered). What a tool.

11. digitalbrownshirt - December 2, 2016

We had two more big manufacturing companies announce closing here in OKC this week. One of them is where my son used to work until he moved to WA. Six months ago there were rumors they were going to close and he asked them point blank about the rumors which they swore were untrue. The company had a brand new plant manager that just moved here in the last 3 months and just bought a house, even he didn’t know they were closing.

I’m frustrated at this crappy economy, but I’m angry with companies that treat their employees like things instead of like human beings. Yes, it’s convenient to keep employees in the dark. No, it’s not ok to encourage them to buy homes because the company isn’t going anywhere when it actually is.


12. geoff - December 2, 2016

I kind of think MBAs take all the heart out of business. Most businesses start with entrepreneurs who care about their product and their employees, but then they get large enough to hire professional executive management, who care about neither. It’s just widgets & units to those guys.

The University of Denver has an MBA program that emphasizes the ethics of business. It’s a sad statement that they thought they needed to do that.

13. Mark in NJ - December 2, 2016

I can totally see how the free market “decides” it’s good business to not tell recently-relocated employees that their jobs will soon be gone – and if someone in the company happens to say, “don’t buy that house yet,” that’s an individual acting decently; ie, a deviation from the free market.

And you’d like to think that if the free market really works, there’d be a backlash from all the screwed-over victims, expensive enough to cause companies to behave differently next time. But do you think that’s gonna happen where DBS’s son works? I don’t.

14. geoff - December 2, 2016

The free market doesn’t really influence that sort of decision unless consistently abusive employer practices cause employees to leave. The free market isn’t really good at responding quickly to injustice, or responding to “small” problems like the behavior of one company. This is why Keynes thought that government intervention could prevent a lot of misery, responding more quickly (by increasing spending during lean times) and on a finer scale (by regulations and unemployment/welfare programs) than the free market. But he never realized that those programs would become organisms unto themselves, and that his “save when times are good, spend when times are bad” would be perverted into “increase long-term government commitments and spend more when times are good, spend more when times are bad.”

IANAL, but it seems to me that the redress that the plant manager has is through a lawsuit. His letter of employment, signed by both the company representative and himself, is a contractual agreement. The company violated the faith of the contract by changing the place of employment immediately (in corporate time) and with no warning. He can show bad faith and harm (via the house purchase), so the company should at least offer to settle.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: