Ardent

The Security Services in America, Britain and across the

world have done an extremely effective Job since 9/11.



There have been very few attacks particuarly when you

consider the ease with which a bomb can be made from

household products and fertiliser. Over 1 Billion Muslims

who could easily make home made bombs!!!!!!!!!!!



A British Fertiliser Security Website for Farmers



http://www.secureyourfertiliser.gov.uk/



The Question is not why we have had terrorist attacks

but how and why have we been so successful in combating

terrorists.



As for winning the war on terror thats crap - terrorism is something

you constantly have to be vigilent against and to be honest I think

the World Wide Securitry Services have done remarkable well.

America has recently prevented attacks on buildings in Miami, Chicago, the New York Subway and numerous other attacks.



As for terrorism the whole spectre of terrorism will never go away the UK has always lived under the threat of terrorism - there were attacks on the Tube in the 18th Century.



The War on Terror is a media term, there is nothing anyone can do against terrorist apart from stay vigilient and have effective security services.



The fact that there have been so few attacks and that so many plots have been uncovered is more of a success than a failure especially given the ease with which bombs can be constructed using household products, gardening products and fertiliser.

ratbastid

Thank you for this talking point regurgitation.

The administration is pumping the line that because there have been no attacks since 9/11 (well, not counting a brief and localized anthrax campaign immediately after 9/11), the counter-terrorist efforts have been successful. I mean just look: nobody has gotten blown up. Hellova job! Re-elect our righty pals in November!

There are several gaping holes in this logic, the main one being the classic flaw of turning correlation into causation. The administration is taking credit for something that they may or may not be the cause of. Look: I have three cats. None of them have been strangled. Congratulations are due to me for defending my cats from all the cat-stranglers out there! Because it'd be so easy for somebody to strangle my cats! I've defended them brilliantly. Re-elect me!

There are still huge holes in our security system. The shipping industry brings in millions of shipping containers a year that go completely unsearched. Commercial freight goes on airliners without any security screening. It would be trivial for someone to get bombs into America through either of those methods. We've know about that for years and nothing is being done. So forgive me if I withhold my accolades on the "hellofa job" DHS is doing.

So why haven't we had more attacks? Maybe because there have been no more attempts.

We've "thwarted" two "plots"--a handful of homeless, possibly mentally ill people in Florida were alledgedly entrapped by the FBI in a Sears Tower bombing "plot". Another bunch were planning to blow up planes between the UK and the US, although UK authorities claim they weren't actually "on the verge" of doing anything like that. I'm not impressed by either of these two "thwarted" "plots".

Our security is ALL for show. Feel safe? Great. It's an illusion, but great, enjoy it.

shakran

Agreed ratbastid. I note that prior to 9/11 it had been 8 years since the last one. Before there, there were none.

Since the country was 225 years old on 9/11, and we've had 2 attacks in those 225 years, it follows that, so far anyway, the terrorists attack us about once every 112 years.

If you want to be generous they now attack us once every 8 years.

Claiming credit for not having been a victim of the law of averages yet is asinine, especially when the last, largest, and most significant attack happened on your watch while you kept reading to children.

Deltona Couple

Not that I am supporting their "patting themselves on their back," but unless you are a member of the security council or congress, or somehow in "the loop" of things, it would be rediculous to believe that they HAVEN'T prevented some attacks. We only know what is released or leaked out by those inside, or what comes out in public news. Your analogy of your cat, though colourful, is by no means even CLOSE to a fair comparison. By your statement I could just as easily say that since there has been no major crimes in my town in the past few years, that we should consider letting a majority of our police department go, since we don't REALLY need them, since crime is at an all time low.

Personally I say let them do their job, and if it even prevents a SINGLE death, then it is worth it!

__________________
"It is not that I have failed, but that I have found 10,000 ways that it DOESN'T work!" --Thomas Edison

roachboy

personally, i would be a happy cowpoke if the only fallacies associated with the "war on terror" were logical....

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

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Willravel

Luckly, because it's all secret we're not burdened with the truth. They'll never tell us how they sent Will Smith and Jeff "Must Go Faster" Goldbloom on a secret mission to blow up the mothership.

If the Bush administration had actually stopped anything, they'd leak it on purpous to try and get the POTUS's numbers back up. My money is on "they haven't done jack s**t, because they're all idiots".

Also, if there were only 2 crimes in our nation's history, then yes, maybe a $500 billion police department is reaching a bit.

ShaniFaye

we are just talking about international terror, not domestic right? And we are just talking attacks inside the united states right?

(just making sure I understand what you're saying before I make further comment)

__________________
I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!

Ustwo

Poor George, by succeeding he fails, after all there were not going to be any attacks!

If there was an attack the same people would be again saying he failed, since there was another attack!

When a big terror plot is uncovered, it wasn't a real threat anyways!

Sure, there was one terror attack and it cost us thousands of lives and 10s of billions of dollars but it was just a fluke, it wouldn't happen again!

__________________
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.

ShaniFaye

Why is it always Bush is to blame? Why dont I ever see people, besides me, put any of the blame on Clinton? Am I just missing those posts somewhere? How is it Bush's fault there were 5 seperate Al-Qaeda successfult bombings in Clintons administration? Why do I always read the people blaming Bush for something that happened by the SAME terrorist group 9 months into his term?

somebody please explain that to me(in simple terms without pages and pages of cut/paste articles...treat my like Im 6 and explain it)....I'd really like to understand

__________________
I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!

ShaniFaye

**I have no idea why that double posted

__________________
I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!

JustJess

There are a variety of reasons, but in my worldview:

1. Yep, previous administrations are also to blame. There's been a thorough fuck up at every level for several decades. Happens when one government wants to plan the governments of several other countries for them. (See previous CIA missions putting dictators in power to get rid of current dictators... who then turn out to be al Quaeda.)

2. Bush is worse in my opinion because he's even stupider, and because he has taken these events as excuses to do what he wants to do. Do I think the previous Iraqi regime sucked? Yep. Do I think they had anything to do with 9-11? Nope. But that doesn't matter. He uses this, and uses all these scary things to TERRORIZE HIS OWN COUNTRY. People are much more sheep-like when they're constantly frightened. All of his "rhetoric" (quotes because he can't speak intelligently) uses classic brainwashing terminology, making it US and THEM and generalizing. And let's not forget how he's been stomping all over our rights as citizens.

3. Previous admins messed up. This admin messed up, lied about it, and then lied some more. Utterly disgusting.

4. Don't forget, most people say "Bush", meaning "Bush and all of his administration".

Just one person's view. There's more, but if I want you to read it...

__________________
My heart knows me better than I know myself, so I'm gonna let it do all the talkin'.

ratbastid

I don't think the Clinton administration is blameless. Not at all. Now, they didn't manipulate post-attack senitiment to launch a massively ill-conceived campaign against a country that had nothing to do with the attack, in the name of national security. Clinton isn't giving speeches right now praising himself for keeping America safe. Al Gore isn't talking about the "hellofa job" he did on national security.

I'm not really talking about blame. I'm not particularly interested in blame. I'm VERY interested in exposing lies and political manipulation, especially when the effect of those manipulations is still out in the future and I can still do something about it. These guys are making a pre-election attempt to parlay their failure into success, and I'm looking to call them out on it.

I don't blame Bush and company for 9/11. That attack might very well have been inevitable--it probably would have happened no matter who the president was. Since that time, though, he's done almost nothing I can approve of, including all the current bluster about homeland security. (I know, you might have examples of things he's done right... that's why I said "almost nothing". Ousting the Taliban was the right move. Keeping them ousted has been an utter failure, but that's another thread.)

As far as I can tell, all that our efforts domestically and overseas have done is to engender a new generation of terrorists, kill thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of non-Americans, and cause two civil wars. We're in for decades of insecurity as a result of those things. And I'm unwilling to ignore the irony that it was all done in the name of security.

ShaniFaye

I am asking that question in isolation of the blame people put on him for 9/11 (not iraq, or Saddam....JUST Bin Laden). Im sorry, but you're going to have a very hard time convincing me that Bush wouldnt have had to deal with that if Clinton had been worried about more than the definition of certain words.

I hated Clinton then, I hate him even more now, I dont deny that....but what I want is a clinton supporter to tell me why he's not villanized for any of the 5 bombings (there were aimed at americans)

__________________
I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!

pan6467

I have severe issues making "the War on Terror" and what our agencies are doing to protect us a partisan thing.

Bush is NOT protecting us any better or worse than any other president has or could. It is bullshit to say "elect GOP or die because the Dems. don't worry about your saftey."

To say or believe that is forgoing any other issue, and promotes a one party government...... and who is to blame if we get attacked under Bush?

Fuck who was responsible for 9/11..... everyone from Truman down was. Every president who gave aid to Isreal, trained Arabs to fight and spy, allowed weapons to be sold to them, kept us addicted to their oil - instead of setting up alternative fuel technology grants and studies and so on. Must I remind you that WE trained Osama, WE trained Saddam, WE kept the tyrannical Shah of Iran in power so that when the people overthrew him, of course we were satan.

It is bullshit to say 9/11 happened because of one president.... they all were f'n responsible.

But we cannot change the past, so we must work on a better future, under this administration we aren't.

We are still addicted to oil, we still support sadistic, tyrants (the royal Saudi family, whom I feel should not be trusted), we still are lax on even trying to understand them, we still allow 10's of 1,000's of illegals to cross over everday.... (how many of them could be terrorists just waiting for the right moment) and we still demand OUR will be done.

Bush has not changed or done anything to shift the attitudes over there.

What has protected us? Luck, the people whose job it is and the fact our country is free. Freedom can change a lot of hate filled minds.

We know AL-Quida makes a fortune off heroin...... yet, the numbers in use among our young increase monthly....

It's just a matter of time before we get hit again. The scary part is we'll allow that hit to destroy us from within.

As partisan as we are making this, this is what will happen:

If attacked under W.

If the Dems. take congress...... it'll be their fault.
If the GOP holds onto power.... it'll be the Dems fault because the GOP had to weaken their stances.

If we are fortunate to not have an attack until after the '08 election and a Dem wins:

See what happens when you elect a Dem.? See how they let our country get attacked?

If in '08 a GOP is elected:

The Dems weakened us during the race, took our focus off terrorism. The War and fighting Terrorism, must come first, above any other issue out there.....

Of course the Dems. will blame Bush and the war in Iraq, the way he didn't even try to develop alternative fuels, the way he kept the Sauds in power, Isreal funded and blah blah blah.

It's time to end the fucking blah blah blah, work on a truly bi-partisan plan and stick to it.

But alas even our safety is political fodder and fear used to get people elected.

__________________
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?"

roachboy

i'll give this a shot, shani....

i do not think that the americans were looking for the group that carried out the attacks--i think the entirety of the group that planned the attacks carried them out--the group was on the planes.

think about it: if you were going to carry out an action like that, how would you do it? you would want to create a new organization made up of people without particular significance (in terms of visible political pasts, say)--you would want it self-contained--and you would want to be very very careful about communications. the logistics would be easy to manage, it seems to me. funding could easily be generated internally, if the planning was long-term enough.

if that scenario is the case, then the attacks themselves could not have been prevented, and another, organized in a similar manner, could not be prevented. no amount of "security" is going to help prevent an action by a group you are not looking for. the state is not omniscient. it is not some all-knowing father-figure. it is a bureacratic apparatus.

if that is true--and i frankly havent seen anything to contradict it that i find in the least persuasive---then there are a series of problems that arise.

1. the bush people had to construct a coherent narrative in order to fashion a response. what i really fault them for are the choices they made in the making of this narrative, the narrative itself and how they have used it.

fundamental to this narrative is the spectre of al qeada.
i think the bin laden group unnecessary if you are looking to explain the attacks.
i think the bin laden group provided the bush squad a convenient signifier around which to fashion a story that is primarily therapeutic rather than factual.

once the bin laden group got introduced into the story, everything about the past that involved the bin laden group changed, became charged with meanings that are in fact the result of the story itself. these meanings have to do with the story itself--in light of this story, clinton made choices that resulted in x or y outcomes--but these outcomes are a function of what happened afterward and were irrelevant at the time they happened. and i think that what happened afterward, insofar as bin laden et al are concerned, is the story that the bush administration chose to elaborate in the period immediately following the attacks.

that is why i do not attribute much significance to the matters that you raise in your post above.

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

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

ShaniFaye

sorry Roachboy...remember I said Im stupid and talk to me like Im a child...I dont understand one single point of your post

I want someone to convince me that 9/11 would still have happened without Bin Laden's backing and money...the planning for that started before bush was elected president.

__________________
I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!

ratbastid

It's really simple. He didn't use them to further his own agenda.

He was wrong to ignore Al Qaeda, no question. But he didn't turn himself into The War President and go off on deeply foolish tangents. He's also not our current president, which tends to limit his visability as a target.

dc_dux

There is absolutely plenty of blame to go around....from Carter's response to the Iran embassy takeover and Reagan's response to the Beiurt marine barracks bombing through Clinton's response following the first WTC bombing.

Why do I hold Bush most accountable. IT HAPPENED ON HIS WATCH and he IGNORED all warnings and recommendations from Clinton's administration regarding the al Queda threat.

I know you dont want links, but look at the urgency in the de-classified memo from the Clinton admin.on Jan 25 2001, only days after Bush took office:

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB...B147/index.htm

And if you look bacK at Bush's foreign policy/national security priorities for the next 9 months leading up to 9/11, THE focus was missile defense, NOT terrorism.

Terrorism in general and al Queda in particular were back burner issue, even with the warnings from Clinton admin. In fact, Condi, as National Security Advisor, was scheduled to give a major foreign policy speech on national priorities on Sept. 12....the focus again was missle defense, with a nod to UN reform. No mention of terrorism. (all records of the speech have since disappeared from the net)

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

ShaniFaye

/foolish tangents about word definitions aside right?

__________________
I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!

ratbastid

I don't think we can know that. Why does it matter?

ShaniFaye

thank you dc_dux that was exactly the kind of response I was looking for (I didnt mean you couldnt post a link lol I meant tons of quoted info in the post itself)

It matters because what is the fault of many is being layed at the feet of one, and I dont think its fair

__________________
I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!

pan6467

You are far from stupid.

Yes, 9/11 or a form there of would have happened without Bin Laden, his money I am sure still would have been there.

The problem I have blaming Clinton is the fact every time he shit, the GOP were after his ass.

WE FUCKING HANDCUFFED A PRESIDENT FROM HIS RESPONSIBILITIES FOR DAMN NEAR 6 YEARS.

And we see how well Bush holds up to simple questions...... imagine how he would react to the 6 years of partisan attacks on family, friends, his private life, every time he shat.......and then be tried for impeachment.

Bush hasn't faced a fraction of what Clinton did.... and I hope to God no other president ever has to.

So if you truly must blame Clinton.... then you also must blame the GOP congress that spent all their time trying to fry the man. They didn't seem to worried about national security at the time either.

__________________
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?"

dc_dux

I will make it easier, you dont have to read the full link

just the first paragraph makes a pretty compelling statement about how seriously Bush/Rice took the al Queda threat:

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

ratbastid

Well, but when you're the boss, you're responsible. You're even responsible for what former bosses did. That's the way it works in the business world. Politicians seem to think that politics is different that way, but it's not--just look at the polls.

Like I've said: I don't blame Bush for the 9/11. I do think 90% of what he's done since then has been a mistake. I definitely think the disaster that Iraq has turned into is the result of his "yee-haw diplomacy". A little foresight there could have saved almost 50,000 lives. And (to get back to what this thread is about) it's been all in the name of national security. AND it's made us less secure.

So: if you're talking about blaming Bush for 9/11, then you're the only one talking about that. I don't blame him for that, and so far nobody else in this thread does.

If you're talking about blaming him for everything since then... Well, nothing since then has really had anything to do with Al Qaeda or anything else that existed pre-Bush, so I don't know who else you'd blame.

Ustwo

Sometimes, someone shows how smart they are when they think they are ignorant.

ShaniFaye you know the answer to your question already.

What the left really hates about 9/11 is that it justified a line of thinking that they don't like. Ratbasid summed it up nicely...

It's really simple. He didn't use them to further his own agenda.

The US had gone from something of a passive to an active player. The left saw 9/11 for the turning point it was, but fails to understand that it wasn't an excuse to further a personal agenda but a reason to focus on it to prevent such incidents in the future. We had 8 years of dodging issues and difficult decisions with Clinton, who seemed to have based his pendency on being personally liked, not on what was best for the long range interests of the country. He still does get a lot of blame for 9/11, thats why he had Lawyers trying to pull some mini-series no one watched last night due to a football game, and no one will watch again tonight, for the same reasons. He might not get blamed by the irrational members of the left, but those types see the biggest tragedy of 9/11 not that we had people die, but that it proved that the world was still a dangerous place and there is still a reason for tanks and guns. This is why we see the wackjob conspiracy theories floating around. This is why some are so upset that this could have happened in such a manner that there just HAD to be an inside job, I mean after all how could something like this happen to help Bush, no way the simple, obvious, witnessed and scientific solutions could be true, I mean it HELPED BUSH!

So to treat you like the child you want to be treated as.

1 - Many on the left doesn't blame Clinton because he was a democrat.
2 - Most of the left hate that 9/11 seemed to help Bush politically.

__________________
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.

ShaniFaye

**I give up lol Im so bad at this politics thing

thank you for not making me feel so dumb Ustwo....it was your post originally that made me decide to post in here the way I did


Oh, and I watched the movie last nite, and will watch part two tonite, I quite enjoyed several portions of it and found it entertaining

__________________
I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!

The_Jazz

To lay the fault for 9/11 solely at the feet of Bush is as ignorant as doing the same with Clinton. I can easily trace the various fuckups back into the Nixon years. Let's remember that there's been an American presence - covert or overt - in Afganistan since 1979. We, specifically the Democrats and more specifically Charlie Wilson (D-TX), funded the mujahideen and kept them in weapons for the better part of 10 years. Wilson basically created US foreign policy after the initial outrage over the Soviet invasion wore off and was the defacto leader of the hawks in Congress. He, more than any one single person, pushed the Reagan administration to arm and equip Muslim irregulars of all ilk.

Once the Soviets had beaten themselves bloody and pulled out, the US basically abandoned Afganistan in the wake of the Cold War. Thank you Messr. Reagan and Bush Sr. All foreign aid to Afganistan dried up and Afganis were left to battle out the successor state amongst themselves. Those non-Afgani mujahideen formed the framework that became Al Qaida and started agitating for regional and then world change. Clearly, Clinton allowed the situation to get worse, but it was a situation already festering by the time he took office.

If you want blame, focus on Congress c. 1982-1994. We had the opportunity to keep the friends and contacts we'd made in the region, but the funding cutbacks killed that opportunity. You can also thank the good people of Lufkin, TX who kicked out the best friend in Congress that the Afganis ever had in 1996. If you ever want a great read on the backstory of US/Afgani relations in the 80's, pick up Charlie Wilson's War by Crile. It's a fascinating read, and I know one guy who's dad shows up at one point. According to my friend (who I'll grant may or may not know), the stuff about his father is pretty accurate.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

ratbastid

The mirror-image is equally true, of course.

Many on the right blame Clinton because he was a democrat.
Most of the right love 9/11 because it helped Bush politically.

The_Jazz

I don't think you can blame Clinton for the passivity of foreign relations in the 90's. In Clinton's defense, George HW Bush was already heading in that direction after Gulf War I. After the victory, the State Department let the anti-Iraq alliance, which included some very key players in the region, evaporate. To his credit, it certainly opened a lot of doors that never would have been opened otherwise (Saudi Arabia, Jordan), but the opportunities open at the end were either never recognized or never seized.

Let's also remember that Congress, specifically the Republican controlled Congress of 1994, was hellbent on cutting government spending with the primary target being military spending. You could even make the arguement that the Republican cries for a balanced budget from the 1970's to the 1990's led to 9/11 because of the funding cuts to reach that balance under Clinton. It's not something that I particularly believe, but I'm sure that the arguement could be successfully made. I'll leave to someone like host to do the research, though.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

roachboy

geez...i was actually saying that i dont particularly hold the bush administration to account for not preventing 9/11/2001.
just goes to show you--folk like ustwo do not read, they only see what they want to see.

i dont think there is any scenario in which they could have done anything.
i dont think there is anything but wishful thinking in imagining there was. people want to imagine the state is like an all-knowing father--the reverse of that is thinking that the world is in fact transparent to the state and that events like 9/11/2001 can therefore be explained by someone fucking up.

within that you have the problem of illusions created by using an event from 2001 to rewrite the history of the previous 15 years.

it seems to me that nothing could have been done to prevent 9/11/2001 and another attack, organized on parallel grounds, could be carried out now.
not only that, but such an attack is always possible.
no amount of hysteria changes that.
no amount of rewriting of the past changes that.
both are more about therapeutic requirements than addressing anything substantial.

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

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

pan6467

Blame is the name of the game.... why change when we can simply keep blaming others in the past for where we are now?

We know we need change, we know we need to get a better, cheaper fuel than Middle East oil, we know that as long as we prop up tyrants (the Royal Saudi family), self righteous governments (Isreal) and we refuse to move forward in positive ways.... that 9/11's will continue to happen.

The problem with all the knowing.... we can blame other parties, other leaders past and present and we can rest easily because we don't have to change anything.

Change is scary, change is hard work and brings about things that may make us look at ourselves and see we may not be as great as we think.

Yet, to work for change and to not blame but to find out what went wrong and make sure it doesn't happen again..... change requires all parties working together for the same goals. But that doesn't seem very likely....

So we'll keep the status quo and keep blaming everyone else that does not share our party's political view.

__________________
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?"

Ustwo

While I blame Clinton for ignoring the issue in order to prevent any boat rocking, I blame Carter for not dealing with Iran when we had both the moral and stratigic reasons to do so, and Reagan for cutting and running in Lebanon. Carter's mistake was the worst of the lot, but as much as it pains me, Reagan's retreat showed them the way. I do give both Carter and Reagan some benifit though, they both had to deal with the cold war, and a few nutjobs in the mideast must have seemed like a small worry.

As for 'loving' 9/11 you may wish to use a different choise of words. I'm damn glad that Bush was president and not Gore at 9/11, we didn't need harsh words and vassilation, but don't lump me or most conservatives with the 'agenda above country' mentality which has infected so much of the left as of late. I would have far rather have had 9/11 not happen (or any later event), as while it justified a world view, I'd have rather not have had reason for the world view. I'd far rather be arguing taxes, welfare, education, and rationed health care...er I mean socialized medicine, than terrorists, nuclear weapons in the hands of extremist terrorist supporting governments, and US military conduct and casualities.

__________________
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.

stevo

/nods in agreement with nothing much more to say

__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

Deltona Couple

What I find particularly interesting is the "armchair presidents" we have. ANYBODY can sit there AFTER the fact and say "Bush shouldn't have done this...." "Clinton shouldn't have done that...." But in all reality, I think they do the best that they can do, with the INFORMATION THEY ARE PROVIDED. Who here KNEW for a FACT that there we no WMD? NOBODY in here can say they knew it for sure.... Who in here can say that a President is not held to a higher standard than anyone else? (I am refering to Clinton and his impeachment/Monica Lewinski scandal) and that when they are President, that EVERYTHING they do will be scrutinized under a microscope?
As far as I am concerned, if you are the President, I expect you to be able to provide answers to your actions, regardless of what your actions are. As President, you are held responsable for everything that happens during your term...even IF it is a direct result of improper information.

I don't support EVERYTHING that Bush is doing, but I believe he did the best he could, and nobody can say anyone else would have done any better in his place...we don't know, and we never will know. Life is cause and circumstance....

I get humour out of this though..

Is "stupider" even a word?...lol..Don't take this as an insult Justjess, It is only meant in humour, but to say someone is stupider, makes the poster look like they failed grammer class ...lol. (PLEASE take this in jest, I am not being mean, or insulting anyone..just always thought that word was funny...not to mention the times I have mispelled or misused a word!)

__________________
"It is not that I have failed, but that I have found 10,000 ways that it DOESN'T work!" --Thomas Edison

ratbastid

Always gotta get your counterpunch in, hunh, Ustwo? You should train a monkey to type "No, YOU!" so you can go outside and get some fresh air.

I chose my words quite deliberately. And I did chose them in part to provoke. Nothing has provided the right with more traction than 9/11. I don't believe they orchestrated it or had anything to do with it, but they have leveraged it HARD for political ends. If it hadn't been for 9/11, there's little question Bush would have been a one-termer. Bush wasn't headed anywhere good--perhaps it was inevitable that his approval would end up where it is--until 9/11 turned everything around for him. Hell, I liked him right after the attacks.

So: do I think that for large segments of the right, the political usefulness of the attack has eclipsed the tragedy of it? I absolutely do.

I'm not talking about you, Ustwo, or any other conservative here at TFP. I actually think that non-politicians of any political leaning largely have their heads on straight about this. I'm talking about the actual people in power, the ones whose jobs are on the line in November, and their political advisors and handlers.

florida0214

I like the fact that you are not a blame-shifting a**hole who simply hates Bush becaue he is a republican. You give credit where credit is due and back it up by, what seems to be, fact. Awesome for you. Now we have to really look at the situation.

1. Instead of simply complaining, offer up idea that can work. I mean they may not listen to us ( IE Bush got re-elected), but you will not then just simply be complaining. Your Ideas mean very little to the government, but you may get the respect within the TFP area.

2. Now you said something about reelecting. Think about this. What would a democrat, in your opinion, Done differantly. I mean what would you have done?

3. Now for my opinion:
There was nothing we could have done to prevent 9/11 from happeneing. Just could not be done. What happened afterwards also could not have been prevented. think about it;
How upset would you have been has Bush not done a single thing. He went to the UN and SAID something needs to be done. Then the UN does what it does best... NOTHING. Then Bush makes a plea to the Terrorist to come and make an attemt to deal with their anger twords America. Of course they would say NO! and then attempt to blow some more shit up. ITs how they work. Thats why they call it terrorism and not happy-funism. Now I am glad that somebody did something. Now he may have gone too far and created an Iraqi civil war, but there has always been a civil war there just below the surface. We are just caught in the middle of it now.
I am all for just letting them kill themselves, but there has to come a point when everything settles down and they realize that they can live in relative peace. That time may never come for Iraq. At least I highly doubt it.
Should we STILL be in Iraq I don't think so. I say let them all kill themselves and then when they ask why we didn't help we look them in the face and then kick them square in the balls and say becuase you didn't want us too. This still won't make them happy. Iraq is a catch 22. We suck if we leave and we suck if we stay.

Now as far as changes go for a post 9/11 world. Yes, there have been more then our fair share of changes. I mean Holy Shit it now takes forever in Line at airports, forget about clipping your nose hairs on the planes and my need to carry a gallon of gas on board no longer matter, because of national security. That seems to be the universal answer for anything that the government can't answer. umm..... The answer to your question is National Security. WOrks everytime.
The fact that there have been no attecks since then can be interpreted a few ways. Who knows why we really have not been attacked. maybe they take a lot of planning. maybe we have prevented a few maybe they just don't wanna attack at the moment. who knows. I know our Government has no idea, but it is a good selling point to average Joe Voter.
Tighter security is generally a good thing until it inconvienances you. As American we need to realize that things have changed since 9/11 and they have changed a few times, in a few differant ways. We as Americans are not particularly proud of our country and even less are willing to stand up for it. you may support the politics, but you are still an American, and I think a lot of people have forgotten about that. Americans are the least loyal of all citizens. I mean look at people who come from other countries to live here and how proud they are of where the came from, even though they sure as hell wouldn't go back. i think I may be babbling now so I will leave it at that.

__________________
"Two men: one thinks he can. One thinks he cannot. They are Both Right."

shakran

Yes, I was referring only to domestic terrorism from foriegn operatives, since that is the scope used by the republicans in their argument.

Poor everyone else - things go normally, as they might have anyway, and George gets to take credit for it, even if he had nothing to do with the situation. Since George took office not one single person in Missouri has died in a volcano, but that doesn't mean George prevented it from happening.


That's right. He would have failed. and y'know what? He already failed, to the tune of

even though advisors tried desperately to get him interested in the terrorist threat before 9/11.


No one is saying it wouldn't or couldn't happen again. We are saying that just because it hasn't happened YET does not mean George's policy is what's preventing it.

If a mosquito bites me, and then I run inside and smear bacon fat and lemon juice on my face, and then I go back outside and I don't get bitten, that doesn't mean I can start a new bacon fat/lemon juice cream product line, claiming it repels the mosquitos while hiding the fact that the mosquitos actually went away while I was inside.

In other words correlation does not equal causation. That's a basic truth.

You do. Clinton should've captured bin Laden after the 93 WTC bombings. Certainly after the USS Cole. Instead he lobbed a few ineffectual cruise missiles over and declared the job done. That was idiotic, and inexcuseable.

The cold hard truth is that getting a COMPETENT president is VERY difficult and rarely happens, especially in the age of television. Everyone wants to elect the guy that has a good image. George would be fun to have a beer with. So would Clinton. Reagan is everybody's grandpa. Bush 1 only got in because of his relationship with Reagan and because his opponent was even more of a dud than he was. You see where I'm going here. Politicians are rarely elected because of their relevant abilities. With such a system, we only get competent people in office by getting very lucky.

So while clinton was a complete dumbass not to get the guy that attacked us, Bush is even worse and I'll tell you why. Not only is he not getting the guy that attacked us, he's busy pissing off a bunch of OTHER people, therefore making it more likely that THEY will want to hurt us. That's asinine.

If you really think Clinton's stupid word definition stunt is as bad as invading under false pretenses a sovereign nation that was not threatening us, and could not threaten us, and causing the deaths of thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians, then quite frankly you need to wake up.

The war in Iraq and the subsequent danger it has placed the United States in happened under Bush's watch, on Bush's orders. The blame is and should be layed solely at his feet.

I don't think anyone who thinks about it for more than 3 seconds will seriously say that Bush is the ONLY one responsible for 9/11. You might wish to find a different argument now.

Now you're asking us to set a very dangerous and idiotic policy. If we can't prove for a FACT that someone isn't going to hurt us, we have to destroy them. Well, OK. I can't prove for a FACT that you or Ustwo or Halx or anyone else on here isn't going to try to hurt me at some point in the murky future. Perhaps I should kill you all? It does mesh with your logic, after all.

Of course he is, and he should be. He's the leader of the damn country. That's somewhat more important and prestigious than the garbage man.

And when the president says "we need to get Iraq because they have weapons of mass destruction" and then fails to produce ONE SHRED of credible evidence that they exist, then we do not have a case for war.

Bull. We had indications all the way back to the Clinton administration that Al Qaeda was plotting an attack. Clinton could have acted on it. Bush could have listened when Clinton's people tried to tell him about it. Bush could have listened when intel services tried to tell him about it.

On the day of the attack we could have reduced its impact significantly. I heard an interesting point on NPR today made by a caller. He pointed out that 15 minutes after Payne Stewart's plane was discovered to be flying off course, it was under fighter escort, ready to shoot it down if it threatened to hit a populated area.

But no fighter escorts were sent to planes that were known to be hijacked. What idiot thought that was a good idea?

What happened afterwards was, frankly, a complete clusterfuck. At first we did the right thing. We looked for bin Laden and when we discovered he was in Afghanistan under the protection of the Taliban, we told them to hand him over. When they refused, we went in and kicked their ass. I supported EVERY ONE of those actions. Bush absolutely did the right thing to go after bin Laden and the taliban. Where I stopped supporting Bush is when he lost interest in the hunt for bin Laden, and instead decided to go after Saddam, who frankly had absolutely nothing to do with it. He trumped up some BS charges on evidence so thin you could see right through it and on that basis invaded a country, and ignored bin Laden, the man who we KNEW, solidly and without a doubt was the one who attacked us, and who in fact had ADMITTED, that he had attacked us. That simply makes absolutely no sense.

Well, actually it does if you look at it this way: As long as bin Laden's on the loose, Bush has a scare tactic to convince us to let him do whatever he wants. And ya know what? It worked like a charm. Bush got his BS war. Bush got to play army. Unfortunately (and this is something that someone who's army experience was limited to a dental chair) Bush's little war game has killed tens of thousands of real people, and permanently maimed many, many more.

And we're STILL not safe.

After all, how can the republicans claim that we're safer now than we used to be, when the terror alert level is still not anywhere near "safe"

host

Shani....I am located no more than a couple of miles from you, and I wonder if your posting of your "hate" for Clinton, comes from the influence of your environment, how much of it is because of the influence on your incoming "information stream", which probably is filtered by the apparatus built by, and during, L. Brent Bozell's 19 year crusade against the "liberal media", a "creature", labelled and designated, outlet by outlet by Bozell, himself, who I posted about, quite frequently, in this forum, over the weekend, and to what degree the politization of "christiandom" in our locale, effects your political POV?

Shani, consider that Mr. Bozell has been funded appreciably, and consistently by Mr. Richard Mellon Scaife and the Sarah Scaife foundation....the same Scaife who funded Paula Jone's legal appeal that could not have unmasked Clinton, without the court decisions that Scaife's money made possible, as an adulterer, as was JFK and Eisenhower (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kay_Summersby">Kay Summersby</a>).

Consider that Mr. Scaife was reported in <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/scaifemain050299.htm">Scaife:Funding Father of the Right</a>, to have changed:
Shani, I have lived in your community for less than five years. It is a "world" where the only talk show hosts on the radio.....every station, are "conservative", or "right wing".....in this "world", <a href="http://www.boortz.com">Neil Boortz</a> seems to be a moderate in comparison to the competition, (of course, he isn't...). Maybe I am more shocked at the political "climate" here, because I came from living in Manhattan for a few years before I moved. Here, it is normal from people to call "the Kimmer" during his afternoon talk radio show on 640 AM, and open with, "Hey Kimmer, I read in the Aljazeera Constituition ( ajc.com )today, that....blah, blah, blah.....", from my POV, Shani, the onesided view down here is "off the wall". In NY, The governor, and the NY City mayor were republicans....there was some balance.

In October, 2004, in our church...a minister subbing for our pastor, opened a sunday sermon with requested that we all pray....on the spot.....out loud, to God....for the re-election of president Bush.

I've posted all this, Shani, because I want you to examine why you post that you "hate Clinton"? How much of your opinion is based on accounts of what he actually did, what was done to interfere with his presidency, and how did his behavior differ from other presidents? Reagan opened his 1980 campaign in Philadelphia, MS, with a speech that centered on his "commitment to state's rights". Reagan was from California. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia,_Mississippi">Philadelphia, MS</a> was a place best known for the murder there, in 1964, or three civil rights workers. Do you think Reagan's decision to open his first presidential campaign in that place, and to make the speech there, that he made, was an act of "unity". Was it even a good thing to do, for a man who's memory is held now in such high regard, by so many?

I am posting to plead with you, Shani, to examine how you came to hate Clinton, and to hold the political views that you hold? How much of what you believe is true, was influenced by Scaife's money, Bozell's "reasearch" and intimidation of the media, and the political action of christian leaders who you hold in high regard, and how much comes from you doing your own fact checking? If you end up believing exactly what you believe today, after you have taken the kind of "inventory" that I'm suggesting, so be it.

I'm biased...everyone is. But the reason my posts are so effing long, is because I qualify nearly every "effing" statement that I post. It's a politics thread. How can you be credibly political...in the eyes of others, if you can't or won't explain how you come to believe what you are saying/posting?

Forgive the "richness" of the following presentation. I look forward to just a couple of reasons to justify your "hatred", that are rooted in excerpts from non-Bozell sources, since....say....1993

Here is why I don't "hate" Clinton or Bush, democrats or republicans. This is a "game", and all we can do is look at where the "playas" end up....just as one could look at the preacher with his own TV network, mercedes, mansion, "gettin" rich" by extolling his faith in Jesus! Ken Starr is living his dream, on Malibu Beach, at a law school endowed by Richard Scaife.......
Please read about Mr. Bush's solicitor general of the United States, in my thread here:
<a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?p=1847163&mode=linear#post1847163"> Are Ted Olson and Al Zarqawi both "Supermen"?</a>

flstf

The Democrats are sore losers and big meanies and try to blame everything on our President because he beat them.

ShaniFaye

host, with all due respect, as I have said many times...one reason I stay out of the politics forum is that some people will not just let a person have a belief without backing it up with pages of quotes from somebody else.....I personally dont find it necessary....if you told me you still believed in the easter bunny I would, as my personality is, accept that without scads of what you call "proof for why you feel that way"

I WILL revise what I said....when I said I "hate clinton" I meant his presidency, his policies, his practices, his politics. When you mention Neal Boortz (god I cant stand Kimmer lol) I will admit, that when he first came on the air here on WSB WAY back in the early 90's I didnt agree with one thing that man said...but I was around 22 and knew nothing of politics (I still dont know much), I am now 38 and agree with a LOT of what he says.

No president is perfect....no ONE man is going to be the end all be all to everyone...if that person shows up I will quite firmly believe he's the anti-christ (oops I mentioned something religious in a politics thread...will I be flogged now?).

I have never said Bush or his administration was perfect....but I see the reason for being in Iraq, and more importantly as was stated in his address to the nation last nite....so do Americans as 1.4 (I think he said 1.4 maybe it was 1.3) million americans have voluntarily joined since 9/11/01.

Call me naive, call me stupid, call me whatever you like....but thats how I FEEL and THINK about things.

now Im going to crawl away from the politics forum because once again you've scared the hell out of me hehehehe

__________________
I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!