Thursday, October 05, 2006

Shameless.



I hate to post two of these things in a row, but I heard the Petit Dauphin speak at a fund raiser this morning and he said this,

"We believe strongly that we must take action to prevent attacks from happening in the first place," Bush said. "…. They [the Democrats] view the threats we face like law enforcement, and that is, we respond after we're attacked. And it's a fundamental difference."

OK, this guy obviously knows nothing about law enforcement, particularly how the Feds broke the backs of the organized crime families with solid police work and proactive investigation.

And he's willfully oblivious to the success of British law enforcement in stopping the airplane plot a few weeks ago.

But what caught my hair on fire is that according to so many who were there, this is the incurious, arrogant, short-tempered and incompetent frat boy who did nothing to fight terrorism until AFTER WE HAD BEEN ATTACKED.

Shameless. Just shameless.

7 comments:

Olen Steinhauer said...

Funny you quote this, because some months ago I started to think this police/military split of perspectives might be at the core of what everyone's doing wrong. You go to "war" with nation-states when diplomatic conversations have failed. There's a geographic area with a specific government you can disagree with and attack.

But we're not dealing with nation-states; we're dealing with mafiosi-type criminal organizations that produce self-contained spin-offs. Perhaps if we looked at it that way we might start coming up with better solutions.

Now, it's just a germinating idea, but I haven't run into anything yet that really contradicts it.

Christa M. Miller said...

Oh, come on, Dave. Tell us what you REALLY think!

Olen has a good point, but unfortunately, law enforcement doesn't yet have a real handle on how to deal with the "new" mafiosi - Latin and Asian gangs who just do not operate the way La Cosa Nostra did. Also, they're heading into rural and suburban areas where more savvy agencies don't know how to deal with them, and don't have the resources.

Further, federal law enforcement is just too divided and, well, "big" IMO. The FBI is letting local agencies deal with more bank robberies so it can focus on terrorism, but it's also got this gang thing going on. ICE can't figure out what to do with illegals when locals arrest them. No one wants to share intel. That may be the biggest factor of all - having information could let LE tackle two problems at once, but instead, it's all about jockeying for DHS cash.

At that point, the folks who have had the most anti-gang success have been grassroots organizations like Cease Fire in Chicago - giving options to the kids who might join. Doesn't say anything about those who are already entrenched, though.

In the meantime, my DH's solution: put Samuel L. Jackson, reprising Julius, in charge of the military.

JD Rhoades said...

"We believe strongly that we must take action to prevent attacks from happening in the first place," Bush said.

Too bad he doesn't have the same attitude towards Republican Congressmen sexually harassing pages.

Anonymous said...

OK, this guy obviously knows nothing about law enforcement, particularly how the Feds broke the backs of the organized crime families with solid police work and proactive investigation

Davey, Davey, Davey ... i love you but the only thing law enforcement did to break the back of organized crime was give deals AFTER the murders were committed (and sometimes murders were committed after the deals were made -- Bulger, Scarpa to name two). I hear what you're saying, but trust me on this, law enforcement did squat to break the backs of organized crime. As my dear friend, Rick Marinick put it, "The FBI couldn't catch a cold without a rat."

David Terrenoire said...

Charlie,

I was hoping you'd weigh in on this.

I know, the Feebs get a bad rap, and deservedly in a lot of cases, but the use of RICO did blunt organized crime in a big way, at least according to the crime bosses.

The use of snitches is always a tough call, but as I said over at Barry's place, we've had success using law enforcement against terrorists at a much smaller cost than military, so I hate to see these bastards knock what could be a perfectly good weapon in this war.

I haven't heard any Democrat speak against our military invasion of Afghanistan. Not one. So it's not a case of either or, as Mr. Bush would have us believe, but a smarter use of both.

I think we could all agree on that.

Davey 3x

Anonymous said...

Davey 3x's ... the two biggest crime bosses to flip were Bulger in Boston (11 murders while under FBI protection -- and his handlers went to jail while Whitey continues to be on their (FBI) Ten Most Wanted List) ... and Joe Massino, something I'm very familiar with here in New York ... he flipped while in the joint on his own family (Bonannos) ... but he was brought down by other heavyweights in his crew (captains, etc.) who got passes for multiple murders ...

RICO worked BEST against the catholic church for hiding pedophiles (here the Reps in Congress should, pardon the pun, take it up the ass) and maybe RICO should be applied there ... but organized crime has taken hits for all the wrong reasons. Has nothing to do with the FBI or anything they did investigatively. It was deal after deal after deal and sometimes while murders were being committed.

I do hear you though (on the terror front) ... you might be right there, but the FBI has been HORRIBLE on that front, too ...

Peace

David Terrenoire said...

I bow to your superior knowledge on all things Bonanno, Charlie.