pan6467

I wish I could find the article (I'm sure someone can) where when asked about Bin Laden Bush laughed him off.

I wish Bush had truly been chasing this guy for the past 4 1/2 years and not so Goddamned worried about Iraq and WMDs that never existed.

I wish Bush would do something to protect our borders from illegals, where the next terrorists are crossing over.... if they haven't already.

Ah, but nothing I wish for above came from this president, nor will it. And so when his numbers are down, now that Bin Laden has appeared again, I have a feeling he will use Bin Laden to boost his poll #'s.

I do wonder what the Bushies will say when the next terrorist attack happens and it proves that it came from an illegal who crossed the border unchecked. I wonder what they will say about the phone taps and the illegal detentions and the Pentagon spying and so on, when none of that will have stopped the next terrorist attack.

To say one isn't coming is foolish. To say that because I asked those questions, I want one to happen is idiotic and self serving because we all need to ask those questions.

We need to trust the president is doing the best job to protect ALL OF US and not just business interests. But I personally do not believe he gives a damn about the people.

So I will continue to ask...... and pray I will continue to ask in the future tense and not in the present or past for many many years to come.......

What scares me most is the Dems seem to be willing to rewrite laws for Bush now....... and claim to want to crack down in the war on terror......... and yet, I don't see a single one demanding our borders protected better. I expect that from the blindly folling GOP congressmen but I had hoped the Dems would at least demand better border protection before telling Bush they are willing to change laws to take away our rights..... all in the name of defending us against the terrorists they are allowing to come over our borders unchecked.


link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060126/...E0BHNlYwN0bWE-

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

samcol

Borders are the number one issue for me that demonstrate how all of the other anti-terrorism stuff is a fraud. Why the domestic crack down on US citizens when al qaida could easily be swarming across the border daily. The neo-cons know it too, but they continue to support Bush. There's zero logic there. It's simple stop asking us to support torture, enemy combantant camps, wiretapping, and patriot act type legislation until you fix the borders. You have ZERO ground to stand on regarding national security. It's all built on no foundation.

politicophile

There is a clear difference in strategy between Bush (perhaps representing the Republicans in general) and the Democrats. The Dems seem to view terrorism as a problem that can be solve by working within the legal system: terrorism is seen as a criminal act, a legal problem. The Republicans, on the other hand, don't seem very concerned about violating certain laws (and the civil liberties of their constituents) if doing so will help prevent another attack. Personally, the thought of the NSA listening in on my phone conversations doesn't frighten me... especially when I think about the possibility that their spying could prevent another major terrorist attack on my homeland.

__________________
The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

snowy

Well, there has been some insistence to beef up border security on the northern border; first the Department of Homeland Security was going to require passports (they still will for those returning to US by ship or plane) but now they've settled on a mere ID card.

Personally, I don't think either is enough, but what can we really do without increasing lines at border crossings? The wait at Blaine is already up to over an HOUR at peak times. And honestly, if you read the papers from Seattle on north, the border patrols ARE catching lots of things, all the time. The problem is this: if the terrorists want to find a way into our country, they're going to find it. Beefing up our borders will really only do so much.

The Canadians are already planning on stepping it up a notch: seems they've got plans to arm their guards. Personally, I think it'd probably be an improvement if they actually checked my ID at the border next time instead of just waving me in.

__________________
If I am not better, at least I am different. --Jean-Jacques Rousseau

roachboy

manipulating paranoia is the only argument the bushpeople have to justify their actions. in the case of the nsa spying programs, the administation clearly ignored the law and so finds itself confronting a problem, which it has this week been trying to address in a way that is perfectly consistent with the above...so for the right, violations of law are political matters (when they themselves are doing the violating): legal restrictions are apparently to be understood as not applying to them substantively because they see a state of emergency that requires a Response from a Leader who is not encumbered by pesky things like democratic process or law.

so it is not surprising at all to see that most dysfunctional of codependent couples--bush and bin laden--at it again: it is as if both are trapped in an endless rerun of a honeymooners sequence and the conflict between them is over who gets to be ralph. each wants to be the one to say the best line:

"to the moon, alice..."

each deriving maximum publicity benefits from the other, each using the other to legitimate themselves....following this logic, you would expect to see another attack on american soil if the administration finds itself in intractable legal trouble for its incompetent arrogance...and--to my horror-this does not at all seem farfetched: think about it--last week, rove surfaces at an rnc meeting to fill in the leading brownshirts that the "message" in the midterm elections should be VOTE DEMOCRAT AND DIE.

there are basic problems with how the bushpeople understand and/or market the hobbyhorse they call the "war on terror": for actions like tightened border controls to even make sense requires that the "war on terror" be assimilated into a conventional war paradigm, one that involves nation-states and continuous conflict--something that the bushpeople can recognize and think about--a "war" with "terrorists" would be by definition irregular--sporadic conflict, irregular targets, etc.: you cant really defend against that as if it was a conventional war. it is not even an aspect of conventional war--it is something wholly other than that. whence the functionality of the bush-bin laden codependency--its media manifestations are regular enough, the threats repeated enough that, marketed properly, the videos and audio tapes can serve to enable the bushsquad to assimilate this "war" into a frame that they understand and can use to legitimate themselves. those who support the administration find this slide to be compelling, for whatever psychological reasons: those who oppose the administration do not find it to be compelling enough to justify its actions.

i have had no luck here trying to get folk from the right to explain to me why they find this paranoia compelling--that is to outline how they see this "war on terror" thing--what makes them imagine it to be something like a regular war that would legitimate authoritarian responses from the executive branch that not only violate individual laws but also the whole constitutional seperation of powers. i see it as entirely different from a regular war and so as nothing that justifies going outside the law. i see no contradiction between trying to adopt come defensive positions and respect for law.

nor have i had any luck trying to get folk from teh right to square this: in matters of economic policy, most on the right buy the absurd line that the state is nothing other than a source of irrationality, but when it comes to the "war on terror" they are most docile with reference to the state--they kinda like an authoritarian state. i dont get it. i figure it must be the appeal of boys in uniform. but how can the state be wholly irrational in one sphere and to be trusted in the other? it either is irrational or it is not.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Ustwo

roachy do you really have a problem with this? If so you understand the right far less than I thought. We are not anti-government, but we do think the government has very specific roles where it is needed. The key being national security. Its quite simple really, protect us from enemies but don't steal our money to gain votes in your district.

This is where the right differs from a libertarian of course, and perhaps why I'll never be a true libertarian, they are very weak on national defense, but the rest of the package is quite nice.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

politicophile

I'm sorry, but this discussion is going over my head. Can we move back a few steps for my sake?

The first thing I would like to know is how you all know that Bush is violating the law.

Specifically:

What law is George Bush violating through his anti-terror policies?

I would just hate to continue assuming our commander-in-chief is a criminal without having seen a copy of the statute he is violating...

__________________
The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

roachboy

well, politicophile, the administration was/is required to seek warrants before engaging in wiretapping....the process appears to be a kind of creampuff court visit, but it is there. the administration did not follow the law with its domestic spying programs. they effectively concede that they did not, and are responding by advancing arguments about the "state of emergency" etc....which in their view (based on the legal opinion of mr. john yoo) justifies their actions.

i am in a hurry at the moment,: the specifics on the above requires no effort whatsoever to locate--even a conservative could manage it, were they so inclined.

personally, i look forward to the legal fight over this matter.

ustwo: yes yes but the arguments from the right center on the notion of state bureaucracy as irrational. i have never found these claims compelling, or even interesting, because they are predicated on no understanding whatsoever of the history of the modern nation-state. the contradiction unfolds at this level.

gots to run: a husky awaits me.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

politicophile

I want to see the appropriate statute.

__________________
The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

pan6467

Spying on domestic phone calls without warrants, trying to use records from Google, the Pentagon spying on innocents who are just protesting a private company..... etc.

Maybe if Bush were to show me that he truly was worried about terrorism by beefing up security on the border, by actually arresting the illegals and by demanding that Mexico and Canada tighten their border patrols, it would show me that Bush takes terrorism seriously.

You haven't answered the questions I put forth above. Instead, you are trying to turn this into another "what is Bush doing illegally" thread.

The topic of this thread is my belief that Bush blows off Bin Laden until he needs him to whip up fear and the way one can prove that is by his lax securing of the borders and allowing illegals to cross without any problems. That the next terroristic act will be performed by an illegal.

So again I put forth and await a legitimate non topic changing answer from Bush supporters.............

Why is it one must change the topic and not answer the true question put forth?

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

pan6467

BTW if you want to believe the phone taps, the detentions, the Pentagon spying etc.... are legal fine.

They're legal for this discussion.

Now answer the question.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

politicophile

Your argument seems to be predicated on the assumption that wiretapping and related efforts are not contributing to our safety. While I certainly agree with you that our borders are insufficiently guarded and that this fact increases our risk of being attacked by terrorists again, I hasten to add that I firmly believe the President's spying program is making us safer.

My previous line of questioning was in response to your statement that:

What scares you the most is that the Democrats are allowing the President to violate the laws (I think that's what you meant by "rewriting"). My question, then, was addressing this claim.

I'll finish by saying that Bush's domestic spying program is very compelling evidence that he "truly is worried" about another terrorist attack. Are you insinuating that he's just spying on people for the fun of it?

__________________
The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

roachboy

and so there we have it, folks: in post 12, the recapitulation of the core conservative committment that shapes such support as still exists for the bush administration's "war on terror" charade: here is how the right's critiques of state bureaucracy, with all its internal inconsistencies, converge with manufacturing consent for the various modes of bushwar....the state is understood in rightwingland as essentially a bureaucracy which is irrational by its nature---well, why?--apparently because the state is public, not private, and so does not operate around motives of profit, and because right ideology reduces all human action to p&l calculations, it follows, somehow, that the state is irrational. the conduct of the bushpeople in the context of its "war on terror" charade is perhaps a strong demonstration of the irrationality of a certain segment of state bureaucracy.

the military can only really operate in a war context if it refigures its adversary into a mirror image of itself. in the context of the "war on terror" this refiguring of the Adversary results in nothing but irrationality. as i have said before, the closest parallel to the situation this creates for the americans is that of france in the context of the algerian war, which is more instructive to think about than the other obvious parallel of vietnam (the same error in both cases, but with different results---the french experience in the algerian war tracks the "war on terror" in general, and the lovely party that the americans are throwing in iraq as well.

look it up.

that military bureaucracy is irrational is not news--catch 22 anyone?--it is also a common feature in accounts of the experience of those who, for whatever reason, join the military.

the effect of this critique of public bureaucracy--curiously private corporations, which are just as bureaucratic and--following the right's boy hayek--every bit as irrational as the state (particularly in a monopoly context)--are outside this critique of bureaucracy---go figure----the effect has been curious: its result appears to be a curious focus on the Person of the Leader: so state actions and the questions of legality that attend them are reduced immediately to questions of the personal motivations of the Leader. the ultimate criterion for evaluating state actions lay in speculations about the inward state of affairs in the brain of george w. bush.

think i am joking? read politicophile's post above: that's it's argument.

grotesquely distorted "intelligence" operating as grounds for the invasion of another country? george w bush did not believe he was lying. it is not his fault.

since the mind of george w bush--or anyone else--is not accessible to those of us who do not also circulate within the circuitry of his skull, attributions of motivations--or even contents--to george w bush is an arbitrary exercise. most conservatives are not stupid people, and they know this from their everyday experience: but when it comes to defending this administration, all judgement goes out the window,and george w. bush becomes a kind of father figure, a benevolent signifier which is continually adjusted to correspond to some kind of collective delusion of benevolence and concern. the Big Paterfamilias. the Big Guy who means well even if he fucks up alot, who is looking out for "us" in some coherent way, trying to protect his Children from Harm--who "we" should trust like a father--and in that context, so what if a few pesky laws get ignored or violated? it is all for our own good....besides, these pesky laws are promulgated by the legislative branch, which is also, curiously, kinda irrational, part of the Bureaucracy somehow, and so. and if the people resist? well, those who do so are not among the children of this particular Father, not one of "us"--so they must be one of "them"--you know, the enemy, the adversary, Satan blah blah blah--and so they are naturally suspect and should not be surprised if Dad, who worries about his children, tries to keep tabs on them.

just trying to make that which is inconsistent about rightwingland consistent folks.
it works fairly well: the outcomes of it are authoritarian, if you think about it, but i am sure this will not worry the nice Children of george w. bush, who gloss over the matter of implications of adminstration policies and actions by assuring themselves that He Means Well.

and so you get an outline of the bizarre notion of "trust"---folk from the right choose to "trust" this administration---i dont see how else that trust could be either formulated or implemented.

it is idiotic when you say it out loud.
it apparently is compelling for conservatives who continue to support this administration.
i do not understand the appeal.
but i am not a nice child.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

alpha phi

To answer your question directly
I'm quite sure they allready have a "plan" for border security
Only, if anyone were to read it today;
they would be horrorfied with the details.
The consequences on our civil liberties.
Just like the patriot act was sitting on a shelf,
waiting.....hoping...(planning?)...for 911
When, NOT if ...the attack comes from across the border,
the new border security mesures will be unveiled.
The new border will make the Berlin wall,
look like a nice picket fence.

__________________

connyosis

Bush in March 2002:
"And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him [Bin Laden]."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0020313-8.html

Bush in January 2005:
"When he says he's going to hurt the American people again, or try to, he means it," Bush told reporters after visiting the top-secret National Security Agency where the surveillance program is based. "I take it seriously, and the people of NSA take it seriously."

Hmm, well what a good thing he didn't care about Bin Laden in 2002 because how would he otherwise be able to defend this surveillance program?

__________________
If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Elphaba

This would answer my question as to why the terror alert was raised yesterday. I have yet to find any specifics for it.

pan6467

I should have said politically because that is what I meant.

Besides you did NOT quote all of that did you? Again as so much the case you quoted only what you wanted to and disregarded the rest so you could control the argument......

The WHOLE quote and I have stated in many threads if you quote me quote the whole part so you can not put YOUR meaning behind what I said.

(This "YOU" and "YOUR" is meant as a blanket of the many Right posters who do this continuously.... not just you Politico)

I have been shouting about the borders for how long now? And every time the Right on this board says.... "Oh yeah those ...... well we're wiretapping and we have this that and we're doing this.... but fuck the borders."

So are you saying, "well if the terrorists come across the borders we'll worry about that AFTERWARD?"

I have even said screw all the other wiretappings, the pentagon spyings, etc. let's say they are all legal for this debate.

What about the illegals coming across our borders?

Please don't give another answer...... "I worry about the borders BUt the spying and blah blah blah."

That's the problem NOONE in the Federal government is focussed truly on the borders.

How can you even say you are protecting the nation when you allow 10's of 1000's of illegals cross our borders DAILY???????

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

pan6467

Thank you Conny, I knew someone would have that.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

pan6467

You are exactly right about this. Bush and company aren't saying shit about the borders because that's their out.

They only know it is a question of time and soon a terroristic act will be pointed at the illegals. Then the people will scream for protection of the borders and Bush will really clamp down...... BUT IT WILL BE TOO FUCKING LATE. How many lives will be lost because of this plan?

How can you expect anyone to take anything Bush says seriously about protecting this nation when 10's of 1000's cross daily, and everyone turns a blind eye?

Why do we have to wait until something happens before we do something to protect our borders?

Is it because of the greed and the big money people who use these illegals for cheap labor, that we don't clamp down?

Is it so Bush has a "legitimate excuse" to say "we did our best we wiretapped, we allowed pentagon spying but ....... who would have thought those illegals would be terrorists?"

If not then why are we not clamping down?

Do you honestly believe the American people are going to praise Bush or believe a word he says about protecting us, when the terrorists come from across the border?

I hope not, I hope to God instead of giving him a pass (even the partisans wake up) and demand to know why he left our borders open like that.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

pan6467

Roach,

very interesting post.

And I beg to differ, you maybe are not the nicest but you are a good, decent and intelligent kid.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

alpha phi

Only it won't happen while bush is in office.
(maybe right before he leaves)
This is a "softball" to the next adminstration
A "I told you so" for the early days of the next president
He/She will unveil the border control plan
That way only the small handfull of remaining bush supporters
will be screaming "this is bad"
The bush haters in the majority will say "about time"
with out taking the time to realize what they are losing.

__________________

politicophile

I had hoped this would not deteriorate into another "you conservatives" thread. The last time this happened, I left this community for two months.

I am done with this thread.

__________________
The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

pan6467

That's up to you.

I do respect you Politico and always have because you are fair.

But I was trying to point out how you took part of my post added to it your own meaning and blew off the rest.

And yes, if you are defending Bush's policy on border protection then it is a difference in philosophies.

Mine is that you cannot claim that you are doing everything possible to protect the country if you leave the borders wide open.

I firmly believe that it puts everything else you are doing as window dressing and BS.

You're tapping the phones, the pentagon is spying on us and we are expected to give up rights and freedoms...... but we'll leave the borders alone and keep allowing 10's of thousands to come over illegally.....

Does that make any sense to you or to any Bush supporter whatsoever? Because that philosophy and whatever you deem it makes no sense to me.

When the attack comes and it is deemed an illegal..... are you still going to believe that Bush did all he could? Knowing that he left our borders wide open?

I don't see how anyone can. And I would like explained to me how you can.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Marvelous Marv

1. There is no present or former member of the coalition, and most likely no member of Congress, who would agree with your wild notion that WMDs never existed. Certainly, the Kurds who were gassed to death with WMDs wouldn't agree. Neither does David Kay, whom I recently quoted as saying they had been moved to Syria. It would be "interesting," to say the least, to see you try to back up your statement.

2. If Clinton, whom so many on the left consider to be such a genius, was unable to protect our borders, why are your expectations for Bush, whom you consider to be a moron, so much higher? At least Bush hasn't refused to accept bin Laden (twice) when another country tried to give him up.

3. If you have not figured out yet that the root problem is not bin Laden, but the radical faction of Islam that spawned him, you are not ready for a serious discussion of this issue.

__________________
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."
Margaret Thatcher

pan6467

They weren't there when we started the war, the Administration has flipped flopped on the issue so many times and conceded that there were no WMDs that we went in for.... (what is the latest excuse for it? the answers changed so often, hard to keep track of.)

And I have replied in that thread I don't believe they are there. I think this is just another try to justify the war. And if they did get transported there, where was our intelligence community to show this when it happened? Why hasn't Syria used them? Why didn't the sattelites we had on these weapons pick up the movement? Why has it been 4 1/2 years to bring this out, wouldn't have anything to do with the fact Syria is aligning itself with Iran now would it?

You forget the fact Saddam was not well liked by any of his neighbors including Syria.

That's true Bush hasn't even tried to go after Bin Laden, he's been to busy trying to sell us on the war in Iraq.

As for Clinton protecting the borders.... all the 9/11 terrorists were legally in this country and we hadn't had this "War on Terror" yet.

But I guess when the next terrorist attack happens and it is caused by illegal aliens that came across the Mexican or canadian border, it will have been Clinton's fault also. I mean Bush is doing all he can to protect our borders from illegals...... right?

ah yes, attack me personally got to love it.

Yeah, we don't need to worry about Bin Laden or Al Quida do we?

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Cynthetiq

IMO this is no different than demanding a stop light/traffic signal that will stop people from getting run over. Queens Blvd was reconfigured ONLY after 8 people were run over and killed. I lived there for 4 years and NEVER would cross the road because I felt unsafe to cross the street even with stop lights.

It's always a tragedy that gets things in motion.

roach, IMO this "war on terror" is no different than the "Cold War". We're just setting it up the foundations now. Keep the people paranoid over some foreign group who will invade and change your way of life. How do we know if the NSA didn't secretly wiretap without warrants back in the Cold War days?

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Marvelous Marv

We have been in a continuing shooting war with Iraq since 1991. I had hoped you knew that.



I'm always amused when people who watch too much TV assume that nothing can escape the knowledge of our intelligence community.


Well, now we've established that you know nothing of our continuing ops in Pakistan/Afghanistan.

Yes, they all entered about the time Clinton and Gore let in over half a million people without the inconvenience of a background check, in order to try to get more votes for Democrats in a close race.




You're absolutely right. If we can kill or capture bin Laden, all of our terrorism problems are solved.

__________________
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."
Margaret Thatcher

connyosis

Well it sure would solve some of them don't you think?

__________________
If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.

pan6467

I wouldn't say it was a shooting war. There were heated moments and we would drop a bomb or make threats but I can't recall any true shooting war.... You do have proof right?


This is an attack not discussion, and not worth my time.


Again, you have proof of this? Where are yourt links???? And if they did where are the terrorists you say crossed????

So if and when an act of terrorism is committed and it turns out it was an illegal that came over just months before you're going to blame Clinton and not Bush?????? That is the stupidest most partisan most full of hate thing I have ever heard.

And if we get to 2009 and no illegal has committed a terroristic act, I am willing to admit I was wrong. To be honest I hope I do have to admit in 2009 I was wrong, but I have a feeling I won't be saying it.


Did I say that? No, the war on terrorism is like the war on drugs, an expensive fight that could be won in other ways.

But capturing Bin Laden sure would be nice, after all is he not the true mastermind of 9/11?????

First Bush condemned him, then said he didn't worry, then in my OP he says:

And yet he refuses to go after him, instead he worries about Iraq, a country that was of no threat to us.

Just a question, since you are sooooo much smarter than I. How come Al Jazeera can get in tapes of the man and yet the U.S. "the most powerful nation ever on Earth" can't find him?

My guess is Bush doesn't want to. Bush likes using him too much. When things start going bad.... bring out a Bin Laden tape to show how he is still around wanting to destroy us.... but don't worry about him.


Finally:

I don't mind you attacking my philosophies but then you attack me personally, show disrespect and insult my intelligence in 2 consecutive posts???? Where are the Mods that are supposed to warn and keep this crap to a minimum?

Maybe you can show me where I have treated you personally in the same manner. Or maybe you can show where I have shown nothing but respect towards you personally but have attacked your views?

You want to debate me, show me respect, you want to attack me, talk down to me..... go screw yourself.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Marvelous Marv

Not only no, but HELL no. He's all but neutralized right now, and if he's captured, all that will happen is more kidnappings with demands to release him.

If he's killed, he's a martyr.

We have to battle radical Islam, and we'll be doing it for a long time.

__________________
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."
Margaret Thatcher

Marvelous Marv

Google "no fly zone."




Nope. It's pointing out a very embarrassing statement on your part.


Nineteen or so are dead from the plane crashes. If I knew where the rest were, they wouldn't be there, now would they?


This makes no sense whatsover. It's the opposite of what I said.

No, it wouldn't, as I explained in another post.

I don't know about smarter, but since you didn't know we're still in Afghanistan, it's safe to say I'm much more knowledgeable. And once again, I have to remind you that our military, while very good, and very courageous, is not all-powerful.




I don't respect ANYONE who makes inaccurate posts because they have not educated themselves on the subject. Pointing out that you didn't know we're still in Afghanistan is not an attack on you OR your philosophies. Pointing out your misstatement that "WMDs never existed," however embarrassing it may be to you, is not an attack on you or your philosophies. Now if you want to see an attack, review the red text below:


Maybe you can show me where I've said "go screw yourself" to you, or anyone else. Including Elphaba, who has insulted me repeatedly with no repercussions, when she was unable to refute my facts.

Looks like we're done here.

__________________
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."
Margaret Thatcher

connyosis

Oh, I see. So it's a good thing he is free now? But wait, why did Bush want to capture him before? Was it a good thing then but a bad thing now? I'm slightly confused, maybe you can enlighten me?

Maybe all countries should just release every single bad guy since apparently that would lower the rate of kidnappings?

__________________
If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.

tecoyah

OK....I just read this thread twice....and Marv....you are out of line.

Opinion is expected....insult...is not

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

pan6467

Shooting war and "no fly zone are totally different. you want me to believe that Saddam was actually firing on the troops we had there?

Occasionally he shot at our planes and we dropped a bomb or 2.... but then Clinton was always blamed for trying to get attention off his "scandals" whenever he did do anything.....

But show me where we had a true shooting war over there, between where we invaded and after the Gulf War.

You can't so we were "in a shooting war" nor was Saddam a threat.



I'm not embarassed by anything I say. You prove me wrong, I'll admit I was wrong. But you attack me as you did above and you get that response.


If you are alluding to the terrorists of 9/11 they were all here legally. So to imply ANY of them were here illegally is false and you know it.

If you are alluding to otherwise, I am not following because I was talking about Bush and his lack of protecting us from illegal aliens that I believe contain terrorist cells. I don't believe in a "War on Terror" that leaves our borders wide open to illegal, undocumented aliens coming over by the 1000's.

To me leaving the borders open, like Bush does, and then using "the War on Terror" as an excuse to tap phones illegally and open mail illegally, or have a WH legal spokesman say the president has the right to execute suspected terrorists (as reported in Newsweek link here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11180519/site/newsweek) .... is an excuse and a smokescreen to get away with whatever the Hell he wants to do.


So you agree Bush should protect the borders better and go after illegals? Not what it sounded like.



Where? Give me a link.



You're the one who brought Afghanistan into it. Where did I ever deny we were there? Nor have I ever stated anything but glowing remarks for our boys.... for you to insinuate otherwise is a filthy attack where you are throwing fake made up bullshit and hoping something sticks......

And yes it has yielded results but Bin Laden is still free is he not?

The topic of this is how Bush has flipped flopped on his stance on Bin Laden. 9/11 he wanted to get Bin Laden, promised he would bring to justice those responsible....... then flipped flopped as pointed out above that he didn't care where Bin Laden was........ then flipped flopped again recently saying Bin Laden was still a threat....... sooooo if that is the case why does he not go afte him?

You still have not answered if Al Jazeera can get tapes from this man why can we not find him? You hid that in trying to accuse me of ignoring or not knowing about Afghanistan..... yet never answered.


Yes, Marv it does look like we are done..... you have your beliefs and I have mine.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"