You can reach my Home page at: LYDIA CORNELL
And to discuss SPIRITUAL SOLUTIONS to the world crises, along with some amazing prayer miracles in the next few weeks, please check out RADICAL PRAYER at my other blog THE PEACEMAKERS * LIGHT OF TRUTH
When I went on the USO tour of Beirut to visit the Marines, terrorism was in its infancy. This was right before the first major "truck bomb suicide attack" against U.S. Peacekeeping Forces. US Magazine published my "Beirut Diary" when I returned, and I did Good Morning America. We visited aircraft carriers USS INCHON, USS SUMTER AND USS SHREVEPORT.
Ambassador Joe Wilson, ex-CIA agent Larry Johnson, me and Jack Carter at Doug Basham's Progressive Talk fundraiser in Vegas. (June 2006.) Hi Everyone. You can now leave comments here; we are experimenting with new websites, so please forgive the confusion. I am still on a spiritual retreat. This blog is back up and I will check in periodically.
GEORGE W. BUSH OUT-TRICKS RICHARD NIXON!
The BRAD BLOG congratulates George W. Bush for outlasting former President Richard M. Nixon in office!
It has been no easy feat to out-slick Tricky Dick, but with the help of a compliant rubber-stamp congress and a castrated roll-over media, Bush has managed to get away with a contempt for his country in a way that Nixon could only have dreamt of. As the legendary and mysterious Freeway Blogger has previously pointed out, we're all wearing the blue dress now...
BRADBLOG.com
Gibson Converts to Judaism: Changes Name to Mel Gibstein
Reuters - In his boldest bid yet to apologize to the Jewish community, actor Mel Gibson today announced that he had converted to Judaism.
The news took many Jews aback, since conversion to Judaism is a demanding process that can take months or even years of study, and Mr. Gibson accomplished the feat in a record time of forty-five minutes.
But a spokesman for the "Lethal Weapon" star explained how Mr. Gibson pulled off his lightning-fast conversion: "This is Hollywood -- a lot of things can be done by special effects."
Moments after his conversion to Judaism, Mr. Gibson paid a visit to the registrar's office in Los Angeles County and had his name legally changed to "Mel Gibstein" in a show of commitment to his new chosen faith.
Then it was off to Malibu, where the 50-year old actor was bar mitzvahed on the beach in a small, private ceremony.
"Today, I am a man," Mr. Gibstein said before a gathering of friends and well-wishers from the local watering hole Moonshadows. "A Jew man!"
Mr. Gibstein, whose Lexus LS sedan now sports a license plate reading "LCHAIM," said that he was "thoroughly enjoying being a Jew" and vowed to only shop wholesale from now on.
The actor added he would begin production of a new film, "Mad Matzoh Beyond Thundershalom," as soon as he kicks his drinking problem.
"I am really committed to reheeb," he said. "I mean rehab." (story sent by my friend Michael Levy)
Open thread. Please comment on the Mideast Crisis and on LIEBERMAN LOSING THE PRIMARY!
Lieberman losing is a good sign for peace lovers everywhere. We are not going to let them get away with endless war.
Every great statesman and spiritual leader knows that you can't fight fire with fire. Fighting our enemies embodies them with power, attention and new life. Withdraw forces, trust that the Iraqi people will find their way much faster than they will if we stay in Iraq attracting suicide attacks! Why are (bush-cheney-rove) such control freaks? Why are they playing God? They don't trust the Iraqi people to manage their own country? There is a higher power and everyone has access to it. It is not helping anyone to keep our troops in Iraq. In fact, OUR VERY PRESENCE IS CAUSING HELL TO BREAK LOOSE!
We need to understand our enemy. We need face-to-face dialogue with the "Other." Bush and Condi have to let down their macho pride and sweet talk Syria. We should be charming our enemies, getting to know them and doing everything in our power to prevent more children from being killed.
The more I obsess over a problem, the more I bring it into my life (because I’m thinking about it all day long.) The very thing I don't want is attached to me like a ball and a chain simply because I can't let it go. The less I diet, the more weight I lose. The less I nag my husband, the more agreeable he is. We give our enemies life, we empower them, validate and give them "body" by fighting them! That's why Christ said, "Resist NOT evil." Whatever you strike out at, only hits you back harder. When I expect the best in people and see the good in them, the good is all I see. (They rise to the occasion.)
Here is the commercial-free unedited version of the radio show I did in June for Doug Basham's Progressive Talk in Vegas. Doug is one of my favorite people and a fantastic, brilliant host!
LOVE & PEACE! xo, Lydia
Getty Images
HOW TRUE. I love what BRADBLOG has up on his front banner: "The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people
who count the votes decide everything." - Joseph Stalin
Joe lost...so it seems average americans are not all for an optional unecessary war after all....
ReplyDeleteAnd with NEY resigning for his illegal activities...and Delay being forced back on the ballet. Even though he said he will support a write in canidate, looks like Roves stragety has a few flats...
ReplyDeleteBut if Lieberman continues in his head-up-his-ass, moves he would make a perfect choice to replace dumsfeld after the dems take the house and hold hearings like congress is supposed to do, unlike the "K Street" repugs do not do, except to give their clients...er I mean campaign supporters a mouth piece to advocate what they already paid for...laws their lawyers wrote for them
ReplyDeleteBTW McKinney also lost....two wins for the progressive movement.....which believes the congress is supposed to represent the people....not enrich them selves and grab power....while ignoring the law they expect the rest of us to uphold.
ReplyDeleteBTW here is what Pat Lang thinks about how well Hezbollah was doing. This does not mean he agrees with their motives. He is just making a comment about their strategy and tactics;
ReplyDeleteAn End To Militias
We have tended to think of Hizbullah in terms of mobs of men marching around Beirut in odd looking uniforms carrying yellow flags. We are now learning that reality is more like this fellow on the left. The big war in the south of Lebanon is not over yet. We have yet to see a really serious Israeli ground effort there, but based on what has happened so far, I think we have to rate the Hizbullah army as a serious ground force. It is said that the Hizbullah army was trained by the Iranians but, I think that in a more profound sense they were trained by the Israel Defense Force. Clausewitz maintained that the best school of war is war itself. This is a variant of the old saw that claims that "whatever does not kill you makes you stronger." The Hizbullah army fought the IDF for many years. Throughout that time the Hizbullahis (or Hizbalians according to POTUS) observed the methods and "style" of the IDF. Israeli soldiers returned from Lebanon express surprise that the guerrillas look and dress like them. They should not be surprised. It is a kind of compliment.
On the other hand you have these guys, seen here observing a demonstration. The Lebanese Army is a force of "asphalt soldiers." They have never really fought anyone and their governments have carefully avoided putting them to that test. They are a mixed group in confessional terms, although the command of the force has always been entrusted to a Maronite Christian under the terms of the National Accord.
Israel has said that it is one of its war aims to have this force move to the south where it would occupy the border country and "control" the Hizbullah army after disarming it with the "assistance" of an international or possibly interplanetary force from outside Lebanon.
The Lebanese government has now offered to send 15,000 of these perhaps fierce, but certainly untested, tigers to accomplish this stated Israeli desideratum in return for Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon. The Israelis no longer seem as charmed by the prospect.
Why?
1- The Hizbullah army command does not seem concerned at the prospect of 15,000 Lebanese Army troops in their area.
2- What will be the re-action of these 15,000 soldiers when confronted with the idea of actually fighting their own countrymen who are in arms against a common foe?
3- The most frequently heard suggestion for consolidating armed force under the Lebanese government has been the incorporation of the militias (read Hizbullah) into the Lebanese Army. The Lebanese Army has nicer uniforms, and the survivors of the fights in Bint J'bail and Aita al-Sha''b will look good in them.
That will take care of the Israelis' problems?
Pat Lang
And another article where he rates them against other middle east "guerrilla's"
ReplyDelete"An Arab Guerrilla Army"
"Hizbullah is proving to be something altogether new, an Arab guerrilla army with sophisticated weaponry and remarkable discipline. Its soldiers have the jihadist rhetoric of fighting to the death, but wear body armor and use satcoms to coordinate their attacks. Their tactics may be from Che, but their arms are from Iran, and not just AK-47s and RPGs. They've reportedly destroyed three of Israel's advanced Merkava tanks with wire-guided missiles and powerful mines, crippled an Israeli warship with a surface-to-sea missile, sent up drones on reconnaissance missions, implanted listening devices along the border and set up their ambushes using night-vision goggles.
NEWSWEEK has learned from a source briefed in recent weeks by Israel's top leaders and military brass that Hizbullah even managed to eavesdrop successfully on Israel's military communications as its Lebanese incursion began." Newsweek
---------------------------------------------------------------------
There have been Arab guerrilla armies before. The "Arab Revolt" against the Turks in WW1 was in part a campaign fought by Beduin guerrilla forces and in part a conventional war fought by "regular" units of infantry, cavalry, etc. led by former Ottoman officers of Arab extraction and advised by the British and French.
In the Iraq of the '20s and the Syria and Palestine of the '30s Arab guerrillas fought colonial and Zionist forces for years. In the end they all were defeated by the application of technology, western methods of warfare, and police methods imported by the colonial powers from such places as India and Ireland.
The Lebanese Hizbullah "Arab Guerrilla Army" is something different. What Newsweek describes is a force in transition, a force becoming a real army. Vo Nguyen Giap wrote in "People's War, People's Army" that a national resistance movement's armed force must "evolve" from political agitprop activities to guerrilla war and eventually to the status and capability of regular armed forces if it is to succeed in defeating its enemies and seizing " a place at the table" in its country's future.
Some will say that Hizbullah's army is not a "national force." They will say that it is merely a cats-paw of the Iranians and the Syrians. They will say that the money and the equipment are Iranian. This is all true, but the polling today in Lebanon indicates that the Lebanese (both Christian and Muslim) believe Hizbullah's army to be a national force. I would welcome comments in regard to that polling.
I think that the Lebanese/Israeli war is pounding the "arch" of Lebanese society with a hammer, driving the "keystone" into the arch and tightening the fabric of cohesive national resistance to Israel. That keystone is now painted with a yellow flag.
Pat Lang
The website Sic Semper Tyrannis 2006, has very good non-partisan analysis of the situation in the Mideast. They also have good articles about the military and intel matters in general, having spent they majority of their lives in those realms
Chris Matthews said "we have a winner....Ted Lamont"
ReplyDeleteToo bad..Soo sad..for Lieberman
ReplyDeleteNaa Naa Naa naa good bye
Naa Naa Naa naa good bye
Joe don't let the door hit you where you speak from....
Al Gore has a movie called "Inconvenient Truth" which is about the causes of Global Warming and the problems that result from it. There is a parallel in the situation we now find our country in. This is our aiding Israel in it's actions in response to Hezbollah. The results of this situation might be something we can call "inconvenient consequences". By this I mean situations we could find ourselves in, because we did not stop to think about the fallout of aiding Israels military action and blocking a cease fire it .
ReplyDeleteOne situation has already started, the insurgency in Iraq is growing again. They have been aided in their recruiting because young Iraqi men are more willing to join the insurgency to fight Americans. This is because the American Government is supplying the Israelis the bombs that they drop on Muslims in Lebanon. So we can expect the violence against American military forces to escalate in the near future. Thus the longer the combat stretches on, the more dangerous duty in Iraq becomes. From both the Sunni insurgents and the Shite militias, who would come to see that attacking an ally of Israel is their contribution to the forces fighting Israel.
And it does not just involve danger to soldiers in a combat zone. The raised tensions are spilling on to the Arab street. In Cairo, Riyadh, Islamabad, Ankara, Muslims are venting their anger against the actions of Israel, and the US support of Israel. These cities are the capitals of countries which we consider our friends in the region. But given the anger the leaders must balance their streets again our foreign aid. The rulers must allow the masses to vent their anger, but in a controlled way. Otherwise the anger for Israel and the US could spill out on to their own countries. This could result in mass actions where the people demand their rulers side with Lebanon,(and Hezbollah) which would put them at odds with us.
If this mass action begins in those Muslim countries, one of the the inconvenient consequences, could come in the form of Egypt who tears up their peace treaty with Israel. This would change the situation in the north because Israel would have to position forces in case Egypt decides to attack. The Gaza strip would become much more volatile because the Hamas would accept open support from Egypt, which would destroy the blockade Israel has attempted to encircle Gaza with to keep more weapons out. Egypt could give Hamas, aid support both militarily and economically. They could become a safe haven from which Hamas would have a much larger stage from which to launch attacks upon the country of Israel. The entire southwest border of Israel from the Red Sea, to the Mediterranean would become much hotter for Israel and would require more guards, and monitoring. However Israel has dealt with a very antagonistic Egypt before, so this would not be a disaster.
Turkey quiting NATO and becoming a true thorn in the side of Europe, and demanding both NATO and US bases close down and their forces evacuate the country. This would deny the US an airbase we have used for decades, and create a much larger problem in Iraq if Turkey were to decide to attack the Kurds who use Iraq as a safe haven in Hezbollah style attacks on Turkey. As bad as Turkey turning toward the more radical trend in Islamic states would create severe problems for the US but like the loss of Iran in 1979, the loss of Turkey as an ally could be overcome.
The fall of the house of Saud in Saudi Arabia could be debilitating for allies of Israel. The new rulers of the kingdom of Saudi Arabia could decide to change who they are willing to sell oil to. They also could decide to use the Euro or some other currency to price oil in, thus undercutting the dollar on the world market. the effects of this would ripple through out the worlds economy. This is the first scenario which could be called a disaster, because there exists no replacement for the oil the Saudis put on the world stage everyday. thus the loss of the kingdom to radical extremists would undermine the worlds economy, and create many tensions, along with the realignment of who accepts the Saudis demands, and those who do not.
Each of these scenarios are bad, real bad for the US and Israel. However bad these scenarios might be, they pale in comparison to the scenario that could play out in Pakistan. Pakistan is an unstable country which makes it the most dangerous for several reasons. Pakistan has the Taliban and their supporters holding control over significant portions of its territory. The intelligence agency actively supports the Taliban and has been accused by Armed Karzai of actively training the Taliban while the Taliban makes a resurgence in the war in Afghanistan. If the street turns on Musharraf, he would have a dangerous choice to make. One that has far ranging consequences for the US.
If Musharraf turns to actively supporting the enemies of Israel, thus supporting Hezbollah, Hamas, but most important the Taliban, and Osama Bin Laden, we would find our situation in Afghanistan very precarious. We would lose their support in fighting elements when they cross the border. Pakistan would become an OPEN safe haven for the Taliban just as it did in the Soviet invasion. They would have a place to retreat to, recover, resupply, and re-attack. if that was all he or those who overthrow him do, we might be able to overcome that situation. IT would be much harder if our forces in Iraq are trying to fight to hold their bases, or fight their way out of Iraq. However our military has always been able to improvise, adapt and overcome many dire situations.
the real danger that Pakistan would pose if it flip allegiance to the Taliban ET AL would be the very fact the possess nuclear weapons, and missiles. The Nuclear weapons are thought to include some made of plutonium, which is the more desired warhead for deployment on a missile. The longer range missile could reach Israel, and their uranium based bombs could be air delivered, or smuggled into Israel or even the US. A militant Pakistan which would automatically posses nuclear weapons upon the militants taking over, would be the most disastrous result of this fallout of the ripples that the war between Israel and Hezbollah has begun. Just as a disturbance off the coast of Africa can become a raging hurricane upon crossing the Atlantic, if the conditions are right. The disturbances in each country caused by the masses reactions to the situation between Israel and Hezbollah, could become a raging storm which leads to changes in internal leadership, and the resulting change in alliances outside the country. And Pakistan is the worst "hurricane" we could face from this ripple that is spreading through out the region.
The longer the situation between Israel vs Hamas and Hezbollah(and by association Lebanon) remains as explosive as it is right now, these scenarios have a chance to become reality. The questionable gains the neo-cons desire from Israel's destruction of Hezbollah are doubtful without much more massive destruction of the areas that Hezbollah operate in Lebanon. The desire of the neo-cons to enlarge the conflict to get Syria and, or Iran involved, raises the possibility of a mass uprising of the Muslim peoples against Israel, the US and those governments that the US props up in the region. Both these desires raises the possibility of an inconvenient scenario, which would have devastating consequences for the US in the region of the middle east, let alone our homeland.
Hey what happened to the Freedom Blog? Is this the "All clif all the time blog"? Please more cut-and-paste; I must have more massive cut-and-pastes.
ReplyDeleteOkay Joe Lieberman lost. He was the last decent democrat since Patrick Moynihan. Now you folks have only loonie leftists like chuckie rangel, barbara boxer, and robert byrd.
ReplyDeleteThis is an outrage! I blame Diebold.
BTW foole, I only added two posts from Pat Lang. But do continue to be dishonest and distort reality to your liking, repugs are Soooo good at that.
ReplyDeleteFantasy Foole said...
ReplyDeleteHey what happened to the Freedom Blog?
Do not know.
Is this the "All clif all the time blog"?
No fooles are allowed...otherwise you would not be here.
Please more cut-and-paste; I must have more massive cut-and-pastes.
Wait...TT will be here soon with the Iowa chicken hawk, or Mann the anorexic Nazi, or some reichwingnut bloviation which was about 1/2 of his posts....
Or dolt can cut and paste from the website we debunked here as not entirely accurate or honest, seems they are about as much about cut and paste as you claim I am.
Fantasy Foole said...
ReplyDeleteOkay Joe Lieberman lost.
RIGHT couldn't happen to a better backstabbing candidate
He was the last decent democrat since Patrick Moynihan.
Far from it son, Paul Wellstone was a very good democrat, so is Russ Feingold and so was Bob Kerrey among others but in your delusional fantasy world anybody who does not goose step in line with you is no good right son?
Now you folks have only loonie leftists like chuckie rangel, barbara boxer, and robert byrd.
Only loonie to a reichwingnut...like the foole
This is an outrage!
Not to the voters of Connecticut
I blame Diebold.
blame who you choose, but the voters of Connecticut have expressed their choice...too bad for you wingnuts they didn't drink the kool aid you want them to.
Ahhh... good to be back on eBlogger.
ReplyDeleteI think if we (including me) keep things civil, Lydia might leave it here.
I have a couple of thoughts on the MidEast and the CT elections, and I'll post them tomorrow night if this blog is still up.
Bernard Lewis thinks MAD may not work with Ahmadinejad
ReplyDeleteBernard Lewis is said to be the greatest living Western scholar of Islam, someone with deep sympathy for the Muslim world, without forgetting its dark side. Writing in the Wall Street Journal online edition today, Lewis now expresses deep concern over an apocalyptic Iran armed with nukes.
It seems increasingly likely that the Iranians either have or very soon will have nuclear weapons at their disposal … The language used by Iranian President Ahmadinejad would seem to indicate the reality and indeed the imminence of this threat.
Would … the … fear of mutual assured destruction, restrain a nuclear-armed Iran from using such weapons against the U.S. or against Israel?
...The phrase “Allah will know his own” is usually used to explain such apparently callous unconcern; it means that while infidel, i.e., non-Muslim, victims will go to a well-deserved punishment in hell, Muslims will be sent straight to heaven. ... the threat of direct retaliation on Iran—- is … already weakened by the suicide or martyrdom complex that plagues parts of the Islamic world today…
... Mr. Ahmadinejad and his followers clearly believe that this time is now, and that the terminal struggle has already begun and is indeed well advanced. It may even have a date, indicated by several references by the Iranian president to giving his final answer to the U.S. about nuclear development by Aug. 22.
What is the significance of Aug. 22? ... This, by tradition, is the night when many Muslims commemorate the night flight of the prophet Muhammad on the winged horse Buraq, first to “the farthest mosque,” usually identified with Jerusalem, and then to heaven and back (c.f., Koran XVII.1). This might well be deemed an appropriate date for the apocalyptic ending of Israel and if necessary of the world.
It is far from certain that Mr. Ahmadinejad plans any such cataclysmic events precisely for Aug. 22. But it would be wise to bear the possibility in mind.
This is alarming. It seems clear that other nations should be ready for some kind of Iranian strike on August 22. The best current guess is that Iran does not yet have a nuclear device, based on the public record, although Tehran could have the ingredients of a dirty bomb. Iran’s neighbors, like the Saudis, are beginning to arm themselves with anti-missile systems. They should put themselves on high alert very soon.
It is even possible that Iran may send a team of suiciders with a dirty radioactive device to Lebanon, to place in the path of Israeli troops. There is no foolproof defense against such a move – they could simply load up a small ship or plane with a simple device. However, there is no evidence in the public record that the Iranians have actually tested a radioactive device, though they could have exploded a mockup. If there is any Iranian attempt to strike at Israel or US forces, it would be a nuclear asus belli . The Iranian regime would be rapidly destroyed, and achieve its eagerly-sought martyrdom, taking along innocent bystanders.
Ahmadinejad may be mad, but he’s cleverly mad. Today’s Iranian proxy war on Israel was cleverly designed, both strategically and tactically. The mullahs may therefore wait a few years until they have their nukes all lined up. August 22 comes once a year, and 2006 may not be the time they choose. Or they might fire their long-range missiles at Tel Aviv or even Jerusalem on August 22. GPS-guided missiles could be devastating. However, no doubt Israel has make it unmistakably clear what kind of action would trigger massive retaliation. The Syrians at least are not eager for martyrdom.
Hitler overreached when he attacked Russia. Ahmadinejad may also overreach. It fits his malevolent paranoid style. The big question today is how many people he will take with him if he does overreach.
If the Bush doctrine of nuclear preemption is ever justified, it would be in cases like this. But there are no easy answers. We are just lucky to have a tough-minded administration in Washington, and not the flabby thinkers of the Carter and Clinton years.
James Lewis 8 08 06
americanthinker.com
/comments.php?
comments_id=5795
Looks like Lieberman lost last night, that says that Americans are fed up with Bush and his war and corrupt policies and want a change.
ReplyDeleteBTW anyone see Donny Deutche, last night, he said that 1/3 of Americans belive the Bush Administration might have been behind 9/11 and that 2/3 of our country has completely lost faith in our government.Looks like the writing is on the wall for you repugs, america has woken up and is sick and tired of you guys and is ready for a change.
TT said I think if we (including me) keep things civil, Lydia might leave it here."
ReplyDeleteI think being civil is a good plan TT, but I have to ask, why were you so afraid to come over to the other Blog,, Volt wasnt?, I just dont get it.
Not much to say about Lieberman the incumbant repug chickenhawk losing i see or the fact that 1/3 of Americans belive the Bush Administration might have been behind 9/11 and that 2/3 of our country has completely lost faith in our government?
ReplyDeleteGood to see Tiny inTellect is back to HIS cut and pastey boy routine.....
ReplyDeleteAnd about Mr Lewis. NOT every one see's him as a sage...but instead an appologist for western imperialism inh the middle east, which has happened since the end of WW1
As these quotes from an article about lewis shows....neo-con repug appologists are still just that...appologising and attempting to legitmise western imperialist adventures in the middle east....
Some thing they would decry if the tables were reversed....
It would appear from the fulsome praise heaped by mainstream reviewers on Bernard Lewis's most recent and well-timed book, What Went Wrong? Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response (Oxford University Press, 2002), that the demand for Orientalism has reached a new peak. America's search for new enemies that began soon after the end of the Cold War very quickly resurrected the ghost of an old, though now decrepit, enemy, Islam. Slowly but surely, this revived the sagging fort1unes of Orientalism, so that it speaks again with the treble voice of authority.
The mainstream reviewers describe Bernard Lewis as "the doyen of Middle Eastern studies," the "father" of Islamic studies, "[a]rguably the West's most distinguished scholar on the Middle East," and "[a] Sage for the Age." It would appear that Lewis is still the reigning monarch of Orientalism, as he was some twenty-five years back when Edward Said, in his Orientalism, dissected and exposed the intentions, modalities, deceptions, and imperialist connections of this ideological enterprise. This Orientalist tiger has not changed his stripes over the fifty-odd years that he has been honing his skills. Now at the end of his long career-only coincidentally, also the peak-he presents the summation, the quintessence of his scholarship and wisdom on Islam and the Middle East, gathered, compressed in the pages of this slim book that sets out to explain what went wrong with Islamic history, and that has so mesmerized reviewers on the right.
Lewis's scholarly mask slips off rather abruptly when he appears on television, a feat that he accomplishes with predictable regularity. Once he is on the air, his polemical self, the Orientalist crouching tiger, takes over, all his sermons about objectivity forgotten, and then he does not shrink from displaying his sneering contempt for the Arabs and Muslims more generally, his blind partisanship for Israel, or his bristling hostility toward Iran. One recent example will suffice here. In a PBS interview broadcast on 16 April 2002, hosted by Charlie Rose, he offered this gem: "Asking Arafat to give up terrorism would be like asking Tiger to give up golf." That is a statement whose malicious intent and vindictive meanness might have been excusable if it came from an official Israeli spokesman.
http://www.counterpunch.org/alam06282003.html
And the american thinker is another reichwingnut propoganda site....
ReplyDeleteBTW Tiny inTellect if you want to be CIVIL on a blog...discuss the topic of the BLOG..and don't cut and paste opposition propoganda like you do REGULARILY...otherwise you another STUPID troll trying to diosrupt the BLOG for political reasons...
ReplyDeletehey genius you are capable of reading arent you? it is 1/3 of all Americans that think The Bush Administration were somehow involved in 9/11, and it wasnt me that said it it was Donny Deutche, 1/3 of Americans, thats 100,000,000 people that think these guys are so corrupt that they could actually be involved I dont think thats a code pink Genius, and thats not even taking into account the 2/3 of all Americans who have completely lost faith in our government, thats 200,000,000 in case you arent smart enough to figure it out that are sick and tired of you clowns and your corrupt self serving policies and evil agenda's and that was clearly evidenced by Lieberman losing last night which is only the first of many the Country is sick and tired of the Neo Cons and your time is just about up, your reign of evil is almost over.
ReplyDelete...the Country is sick and tired of the Neo Cons and your time is just about up, your reign of evil is almost over.
ReplyDelete-mikey
Perhaps, synaptically-challenged one, you forget that Carl Rove controls Diebold and Diebold decides who gets elected. Bwahahaha.
Clif, when Lydia appoints you as the board moderator, let me know.
ReplyDeleteShe did write that A) this was an open thread, and B) that she invited comments on the Middle East. So what's your beef?
The article I posted was about the Middle East, and you are the last person to complain about cut and pastes. You are the king of those.
FF, I checked and the expiration is not until August of 2008. Maybe she renewed today.
ReplyDeleteTT said "FF, I checked and the expiration is not until August of 2008. Maybe she renewed today."
ReplyDeletewhat is that supposed to mean Troll Tex, were you going to buy it and pull the plug on the site.......I thought you like it here so much?????
Mike, I was responding to FF on another forum.
ReplyDeleteI know exactly what you were refering to Troll Tex, Lydia's Domain Name........and like usual you didnt answer my question, so i'll ask it again:
ReplyDeletewhat is that supposed to mean Troll Tex, were you going to buy it and pull the plug on the site.......I thought you like it here so much?????
...and no, Mike, I wouldn't do such a thing. It was a lighthearted exchange.
ReplyDeleteEven if I wanted to, which I don't, I would be in the wrong legally.
Take it easy pal.
Looks like someone beat you to the punch with buying that Domain Name Slick!!
ReplyDeleteLOL :D
So you say TT, I guess I have no choice but to take you at your word.
ReplyDeleteMike, the name "Lydia Cornell" has trademark protection since she is a public figure. Lighten up.
ReplyDeleteone thing TT buy someone's domain name out from under them on the sly wouldnt make you in the wrong legally, it would make you morally wrong, something many repugs dont seem to have much of a problem with.
ReplyDeletei'll be back later tonight, as for lightening up, I think i've done that considering I almost died a few days ago, that changes your whole outlook on life and makes you realize how precious it is.
ReplyDeleteMike said
ReplyDelete"I almost died a few days ago,"
Mikey
Consuming 13 bags of Cheezies, 4 Whoppers, 107 Gummie Bears, a carton of Joe Loui's, 2 garlic pizza's, 7 chocolate milkshakes, 28 pickled eggs, 3 fish burgers, 15 jelly donuts, bucket o chicken, 3 sacks of onion rings, and 9 Jamaican Patties, would most certainly bring me closer to God as well......my condolences!
Seems Lydia just cant get enough of Johnny Moo Moo.
ReplyDeleteBTW Lyd, you forgot to mention my name on Doug Basham.....Im a little sad as I thought I was your favourite Atheist?
Maybe next time?
Mooooooooooooo!!
ReplyDeletewhat did she say on Basham johnny, I heard the beginning and they were both great, but it kept cutting out on me, I think my dial up connection was too slow.
ReplyDeleteHey Mike,
ReplyDeleteGood to count you among the living. Tell us about it when you feel up to it.
Yeah Carl Rove pulled up in a Wonder Bread truck and wanted to buy Ms. Cornell's site, but I talked him outta it.
Where's wharf? Still making rhymes and eating worms perhaps?
Thanks FF, thats actually pretty decent of you on all counts, btw I didnt know you and Karl were so tight.
ReplyDeleteas for the accident, I got hit from behind on my motorcycle by a drunk in a car, I flipped over the handle bars and the bike was flipping through the air and gonna land on me till I twisted my body and flipped to the side, I struck my back on the spoiler of a car flipped over that car and hit my back and head on the car in front of that and landed under the second or would that be the fourth car.
luckily for me I hit the second car with my head (i'm pretty hard headed) and lucily for me i'm a tough person to hurt as well.
as for Worf I have no idea where he is at the moment, but he did make it very clear he would never post on this blog again.
BTW FF, any idea why both sites went down the past two days, do you think the domain name expiring had something to do with it, what happens to a site when the domain name expires?
Volt, you made a good point that it is party loyalists that vote in primaries, but your second point that if you dont support the war you hate your country is a bunch of BS.
ReplyDeleteI am strongly against the war in iraq, not the war on terrorism, and I love my country and strong on national defense and securing our borders and ports.
Dolty boy the party which put politics ahead of the country IS the repugs where they HAD delay who earned his nickname by squeezing every repug to VOTE the party line or facerecriminations, something he was called before the ethics committee in congress.
ReplyDeleteAnd I wonder why 13,000 people registered to vote in the primary in conneticut if ti was JUST hardliners?
BTW today in 1974 the crook Nixon had to resign...HAPPY GET RID OF REPUG CROOKS DAY
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteVolt said "Aw mikey, "hate" is such a strong word.
ReplyDeleteI guess a better way of saying it is that dems put partisan politics and their agendas BEFORE their country."
agreed, hate is a strong word, but if your being honest with me, then it really must be a matter of perspective, because from my point of view it is the repugs that put partisan politics and their agenda's before their country, I feel that with every fiber of my being and i'm the farthest thing from a partisan or political person.
I am all for keeping us safe and Bush has done nothing to do that, he has practicly abandoned Afghanistan, the war on terrorism and the search for Osama (the guy that attacked us) to invade an oil rich country that had nothing to do with the terrorists who attacked us for his self serving reasons. He has done nothing to secure our borders and ports in the 6 or so years he has been in office despite every other word out of his mouth being that he is out to protect us and keep us safe.
in fact he has not only not done anything with our ports but he sold port security to a middle eastern country not the wisest thing to do particularly from people claiming muslims should be converted or exterminated.
Lastly not only has Bush DONE NOTHING TO KEEP US SAFE, but he has circumvented defied and and and trampled on the Constitution all in the name of keeping us safe while in fact we are much LESS SAFE due to his foolish policies.
And dolty boy, joe the traitor has an uphill climb in his attempt to ignore the VOTERS. The democratic senators and house members will stand with the PEOPLE and the choice they make at the ballot box. You do remember the PEOPLE are the ones who are supposed to make choices as to who actually gets to serve...With 60% of the American electorate against the war Joe has a built in handicap
ReplyDeleteGuess Coulterguist is not just a plagerist, but some of IT's footnotes are as full of BULLSH*T as IT is
ReplyDeleteBut as they say in the repug world..bullsh*t in bullsh*t out, the stupid minions will eat it up anyway....
ReplyDeleteHell look at the ones we got here for example who still defend the lying plagerist
See dolty boy,
ReplyDeletewith comments like this..it is going to be harder to spin the fringe elements...60 % is a majority....bigger than bush ever got too.
With new polls that show that 60% of Americans are against the war, no longer can Karl Rove, Mehlman and the Repuglican talking heads label the anti-war Democrats as "fringe" candidates who represent their party's "extreme wing." Not only do these candidates like Lamont speak for most of their party, but they speak for most of America as well. Polls now prove that to be against the war is to be firmly in America's mainstream. It is war-mongers like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Rove and Mehlman who are statistically out of touch with mainstream America.
Also dolty one...don't think Joe has solid support if Lamont can carry Joe's hometown...
ReplyDeleteLamont rolled up lopsided margins in the Farmington Valley, Litchfield County, the lower Connecticut River Valley and scattered suburbs around the state. He won Hartford and Lieberman's hometown of New Haven, which first elected Lieberman to the state Senate in 1970.
Clif said "it is going to be harder to spin the fringe elements...60 % is a majority....bigger than bush ever got too.
ReplyDeleteWith new polls that show that 60% of Americans are against the war, no longer can Karl Rove, Mehlman and the Repuglican talking heads label the anti-war Democrats as "fringe" candidates who represent their party's "extreme wing." Not only do these candidates like Lamont speak for most of their party, but they speak for most of America as well. Polls now prove that to be against the war is to be firmly in America's mainstream. It is war-mongers like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Rove and Mehlman who are statistically out of touch with mainstream America."
great points Clif, thats exactly what I said last night when I reposted what Donny deutche said.
Just checking in.
ReplyDeleteDid anyone hear Bill O'Reilly today going on and on about dems smearing Lieberman, after O'Reilly did the same thing to every other dem?
I happened to sneak a minute of radio time against my teacher's wishes.
Love later,
Lyd
No Lydia..if I have a choice between root canal with no anesthetic and listening to Bill O'Liely, well I'll have to think on that one for a while...
ReplyDeletethat's funny Clif. I'd rather have root canal too.
ReplyDeleteDon't know if Bush knows about it...but at least they are doing ONE thing right...
ReplyDeleteNuclear specialists move uranium
U.S. and international officials completed a covert operation yesterday to remove 90 pounds of easy-to-handle uranium from a research facility in Poland that was vulnerable to theft by terrorists, according to Bush administration officials.
"We are in a race against time in preventing terrorists from getting their hands on this kind of material," said Bryan Wilkes, a spokesman for the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), who took part in the uranium-removal operation.
"There is more to be done, and our people are working around the world to help secure this material," he said in a telephone interview from Warsaw.
"The defeat of Hezbollah would be a huge loss for Iran, both psychologically and strategically. Iran would lose its foothold in Lebanon. It would lose its major means to destabilize and inject itself into the heart of the Middle East. It would be shown to have vastly overreached in trying to establish itself as the regional superpower. The United States has gone far out on a limb to allow Israel to win and for all this to happen. It has counted on Israel's ability to do the job. It has been disappointed. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has provided unsteady and uncertain leadership.... His search for victory on the cheap has jeopardized not just the Lebanon operation but America's confidence in Israel as well."
ReplyDeleteCharles Krauthammer, Washington Post, August 4, 2006
"But the administration now has to admit what anyone -- including myself -- who believed in the importance of getting Iraq right has to admit: Whether for Bush reasons or Arab reasons, it is not happening, and we can't throw more good lives after good lives.... But second best is leaving Iraq. Because the worst option -- the one Iran loves -- is for us to stay in Iraq, bleeding, and in easy range to be hit by Iran if we strike its nukes.... We need to deal with Iran and Syria, but from a position of strength -- and that requires a broad coalition. The longer we maintain a unilateral failing strategy in Iraq, the harder it will be to build such a coalition, and the stronger the enemies of freedom will become."
ReplyDeleteThomas Friedman, New York Times, August 4, 2006
Looks like two more traitorous rats have jumped off the sinking ship USS Neo-con commanded by George the Dumb and navigated by The Dumsfeld
ReplyDeleteBTW both Kuwait and Kurdish Iraq have had large anti Israel-American rallies decrying, Israel's bombing of many civilian areas..and the US government tacit support both by delaying a cease fire..and resupplying of bombs,
ReplyDeleteThis is the same Kuwait where I was greeted as a hero and they shook our hands and said god bless America, god bless George(HW) Bush, now they decry his son and GWB's actions...
If we are losing the Kuwaiti street and Kurds...we are going to find it harder to achieve much in the region, because up to the middle of July they were our strongest allies, and supporters.
as for the accident, I got hit from behind on my motorcycle by a drunk in a car, I flipped over the handle bars and the bike was flipping through the air and gonna land on me till I twisted my body and flipped to the side, I struck my back on the spoiler of a car flipped over that car and hit my back and head on the car in front of that and landed under the second or would that be the fourth car.
ReplyDeleteluckily for me I hit the second car with my head (i'm pretty hard headed) and lucily for me i'm a tough person to hurt as well.
-Mike
Jaysus, Mike. You must be a tough guy. Tough and lucky. You're still smartin I'm certain.
The Lord must have had plans and decided to keep you around. Maybe he wants you to become a Republican.
Republicans [in a 2004 poll] agreed that America is generally fair and decent, 83 percent to 7 percent. Eighty-one percent agreed that the world would be a better place if more countries were like the United States.
ReplyDeleteBy contrast, Democrats were nearly split, with only 46 percent agreeing that America is generally a fair and decent country, and with 37 percent saying America is not a generally fair and decent country. Only 48 percent of Democrats said they thought that the world would be a better place if more countries were like the United States.
Democrats constantly complain that the nation has never been so divided, but consider that half of them think the statement that America is a good country is a divisive remark.
So remember: When you vote Democratic, you're saying NO to mindless patriotism. This country isn't so great!
The free world, which is rapidly boiling down to us and Israel, is under savage attack. Treason is rampant in the country. True, Democrats hate Bush, but they would hate anybody who fights the war on terrorism. It is a hostile world, and there is now a real question about the will of the American people to survive.
-Ann Coulter
So it appears that I was being a bit unfair: There is actually a slim majority of liberals who love their country.
Mike said
ReplyDelete"what did she say on Basham johnny,"
Ludia and Doug were chuckling about doing it "doggy style" with Ann Coulter.
She did mention the story about the young man who had a choice between going to jail or going to Iraq; I forget who told that story?
And she kept barking "choose love not fear" stuff and how this alone will save the world.
Pretty much all the usual rhetoric we discuss on the blog.
.........
BTW, sounds like your pain and suffering could be worth a cool fifty thousand.......party time!
I cant stand tail-gaters.
Never fear Lieberman lovers:
ReplyDeleteThe Republican party and its multi-billionaires will have plenty of money to pay for Liebermans Democratic spoiler attempt.
Lieberman has been on all the shows crying about he is trying to "save" America from partisan politics.
If Lieberman is so concerned about partisan politics, why did he spend 18 years doing nothing?
Did the problem arise the day he lost election?
Lieberman fired all his campaign staff as if it were their fault he was hugging around Bush every chance he had.
Now the day after Lieberman loses, we are suddenly hit with a " major terror alert".
How convenient to scare Americans who are against the war and voted a candidate in the primary with the same belief.
How elaborate that many officials say this one is the "Real Deal".
Maybe that is because all the other "terror alerts" were phony?
Only in Bush's world do we see fear used to control elections.
This is Bush's America.
Larry said "How convenient to scare Americans who are against the war and voted a candidate in the primary with the same belief."
ReplyDeleteThis is proof that you are insane. If they wanted to help Lieberman, they would have done this on Monday.
TalllTexan,
ReplyDeleteThis photo, taken by an unbiased "freelance Lebanese" journalist, is begging for a caption.
I'm thinking:
"The Quiet Woman"
"The Perfect Liberal"
"Nice Day For A...White Wedding"
Fantasy Foole quoting a plagerist and dishonest author as proof only shows how desperate you are...coulterguist is not believed except by the backwash any more
ReplyDeleteLarry I do accept the "plan" was real. The majority of the planners arrested in England..and PAKISTAN were Pakistanis, just as the majority of the 9-11 hijackers were Saudis, seems the citizens who live inside "allies" of the US seem to be very interested in doing severe damage to the US and Great Britain.
ReplyDeleteNO Iranians were arrested either today or in connection with 9-11, no Iraqi's...but the implications of who is trying to attack the US is LOST on the NEO-CON fooles and their babbling minions.
Al Qaeda is a Sunni Fundamentalist terror organisation. They do not recruit Shites who they see as being heretics. They recruit in Saudi Arabia...Pakistan..Egypt..Jordan...Kuwait
Afghanistan...among other SUNNI dominated places.
The WAR in Iraq was a diversion from the war on Sunni fundamentalist terrorism...and as the arrest of PAKISTANI terrorists shows, Iraq is taking personal, equipment and money from the true war against Al Qaeda....
Saddam was not working for or aiding Al Qaeda. Yes he was a despot who killed many people but he was NO worse than the SHAH of Iran......
So the spin and lies which sent us into Iraq...as a front against the terrorists of 9-11 was wrong, FACTUALLY and militarily. This means it took from the war on 9-11 terror...
And is a severe strain today because ..the invasion opened a NEW front for the terrorists to exploit, something they have done very well. Now instead of facing the full brunt of the US military...they were able to hide in Pakistan recoup from their 2001 losses...and have returned to that battlefield...but also have been GIVEN a larger training ground in Iraq from which they can recruit...train...and bog the US military down.
From Juan Cole's Blog, who studies the region,
ReplyDelete"A String of attacks that will continue and become stronger"
The failure of the Bush administration to take the threat of Bin Laden and Zawahiri seriously and to capture them continues to leave Americans and others at risk.
British authorities have arrested 21 members of a terror cell, apparently British-born or British-bred persons of Pakistani or South Asian origin. They were planning to hijack 6 to 10 American planes at Heathrow Airport in London, and to bring on board liquid-based explosives that they would mix while sitting in their seats.
Regular readers know that I believe that Ayman al-Zawahiri has been recruiting terrorists in Britain, using al-Qaeda-affiliated radical Pakistani groups such as Lashkar-e Tayyiba or Jaish Muhammad. Al-Zawahiri had in his possession the suicide statement tapes of Mohammad Sidique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer. Many UK Muslims of South Asian origin are from Mirpur in Kashmir, so these Kashmir-oriented affiliates of al-Qaeda have special appeal to them. (South Asian Muslims tend to feel that Kashmir was illegitimately grabbed by India and is being oppressed by a Hindu state.) Why did al-Zawahiri have these tapes in his possession, and why was he commenting on them?
Seems that both the London subway bombings and today's plot have very direct and strong links to Pakistan....you know the country who is building a reactor to MAKE plutonium....
think if the terrorists who have bases in Pakistan got their hands on the plutonium...or worse a bomb made from it could be a problem?
Clippy who cares...your diverting FROMN the FACT that the TERRORISTS are PAKISTANI"S
ReplyDeleteHell we don't complain when georgie brings in Jeff Gannon....
Lieberman LOST get over it.
ReplyDeleteDusty seems you a wee bit deluded...about IRAQ and the optional war started by the GrOPer, Dead Eye and Dumsfeld....
ReplyDeleteso I'll let Mark Smitt who wrote an excellent article about this speak for me as I agree with his analysis;
Vietnam Analogies Everywhere!
The Vietnam War was a long one, so those devoted to finding exact historical parallels can usually find something to fit into their proof that the nomination of Ned Lamont is a disaster for Democrats.
Jacob Weisberg mines 1972, as usual: "In 1972, the Democrats repudiated their flawed Cold Warriors and chose as their standard-bearer a naive and honorable anti-war idealist...In a similar way, the 2006 Connecticut primary points to the growing influence within the party of leftists unmoved by the fight against global jihad."
section break
(Earlier in the piece, Weisberg makes clear that the Cold Warrior "repudiated" in 1972 was Senator Henry M. "Scoop" Jackson. I’m going to make it my special mission to knock this one down as often as I have to: Scoop Jackson wasn’t "repudiated" or robbed of something legitimately his. He just, like dozens of Senatorial would-be-presidents before and since simply Didn’t Get Any Votes. He’s not a martyr, just a guy who No One Voted For. A lot like Joe Lieberman in fact, although Saint Scoop’s performance in 1972 fell short even of Joe’s famous "three-way tie for third place." -- more conventionally known as "fifth place.")
Like McGovern’s naively isolationist supporters, who didn’t appreciate the actual Communist threat, Weisberg says that Lamont supporters and other anti-war Dems "see Iraq purely as a symptom of a cynical and politicized right-wing response to Sept. 11, as opposed to a tragic misstep in a bigger conflict."
I think it’s fair to call Vietnam a "tragic misstep" within a larger Cold War conflict, and probably fair to say that some McGovernites let the tragedy of Vietnam blind them to the obligations of American strength in the postwar conflict.
But is Iraq really a "tragic misstep in a bigger conflict"? As opposed to "a cynical and politicized right-wing response to Sept. 11"? Read the history of Vietnam, and it’s hard not to be somewhat sympathetic -- within the limits of what men like McNamara knew and assumed, you can see how each little step made sense to them at the moment, and before you know it, you’ve got 50,000 dead and no way out. But Iraq is not a "misstep" in the same way, or series of missteps. It was a very considered, aggressively sold choice to pursue a war that had little to with "the fight against global jihad," for reasons that we may never fully understand. It is a perfectly reasonable position to support ending the U.S. involvement in Iraq as quickly as possible, while strongly advocating the sort of engagement in Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere that would be part of "the fight against global jihad," if you want to put it that way. As Kevin Drum pointed outthe other day, General Clark’s proposal on this from a couple years ago was good, so are any number of others, including Peter Beinart’s. Yes, we should make full use of American power -- economic, cultural, military, and the power of example.
The Wall Street Journal, on the other hand, did a wonderful thing this morning: They realized that the history of Dems and Vietnam is not reducible to 1972. The Lamont victory is not the McGovern nomination, but "arguably the most important victory for the American left since the Watergate rout of 1974." YES! That’s the metaphor we’re looking for: 75 new Democrats elected to the House, many of them from Republican districts which they held for many years, a group of serious, hard-working non-extremists like John Murtha, George Miller, and Chris Dodd.
Ah but that’s where all the trouble began: "If Democrats retake Congress, we will be back where we were in Vietnam circa 1975. Early that year the Congressional left blocked funds for our allies in the government of South Vietnam...within weeks... the last American helicopters were leaving Saigon [and] the Soviet Union was clearly emboldened to assert itself via proxies from Afghanistan to Central America."
The stab-in-the-back theory! Ah, if only we had just stuck it out for a few more years in Vietnam.
But I think the Journal is right. This is more like 1974 than 1972. And 2008 will be even more so. In 1974/75, everyone understood that U.S. involvement in Vietnam, a decade after Tonkin, had to end. That’s where we are with Iraq, and the only people who don’t seem ready to be part of figuring out how to end it are George Bush, Joe Lieberman and the Wall Street Journal editorial page. But folks like Weisberg, who see everything as 1972 all over again, aren’t making it any easier to get to that point.
and unlike clippy I do post the links
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/aug/10/vietnam_analogies_everywhere
Besides except for Lamont's stance on Iraq..he is probably as much a moderate democrat as Loserman is, but instead of hanging out in DC for the last two decades...he was working in the private sector...
BTW dusty, since the terrorists were basically Pakistani, or British citizens of Pakistani decent...Iraq is a red Herring here...because it is the wrong country...the terrorists are not coming from there...and our tactics in Iraq (or Israel's in Lebanon)would be frowned upon in London.
ReplyDeletethe citizens of London would proly not like an air assault on a row of town houses because a terrorist lived in ONE flat...
That is complete BS that liberals or Dems are weak on defense that is the partisan spin Rove uses to deceive the masses and Bubba in SC to vote repug, everyone here is for weeding out the true terrorists and securing our borders and ports and saying anything different is a dishonest lie.
ReplyDeleteI am all for keeping us safe and Bush has done nothing to do that, he has practicly abandoned Afghanistan, the war on terrorism and the search for Osama (the guy that attacked us) to invade an oil rich country that had nothing to do with the terrorists who attacked us for his self serving reasons. He has done nothing to secure our borders and ports in the 6 or so years he has been in office despite every other word out of his mouth being that he is out to protect us and keep us safe.
in fact he has not only not done anything with our ports but he sold port security to a middle eastern country not the wisest thing to do particularly from people claiming muslims should be converted or exterminated.
Lastly not only has Bush DONE NOTHING TO KEEP US SAFE, but he has circumvented defied and and and trampled on the Constitution all in the name of keeping us safe while in fact we are much LESS SAFE due to his foolish policies.
saying that rpugs are strong on national security is an utter joke, Bush has done absolutely nothing to make our country safer, Katrina has shown that our country is woefully unprepared for a disaster, natural or otherwise. Also in close to 6 years in office Bush has done absolutely nothing to secure our borders and ports.
ReplyDeleteWell dusty If you clowns were SO strong on security ..why did the foole who claims to be the decider...decide NOT to raise the threat assessment after HE was briefed that Osama was determined to attack the US...instead of telling the CIA briefer he"covered his ass"
ReplyDeleteIf he had done HIS job in Aug 2001. we might have caught one or more of the hijackers...as the British did TODAY
You mean the panel Dumsfeld and the DOD decieved?
ReplyDeleteLater Mike and dusty dinner calls...
ReplyDeleteFrom the LA Times:
ReplyDeleteDecember 5, 2001
Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize
Sudan offered up the terrorist and data on his network. The then-president and his advisors didn't respond.
By MANSOOR IJAZ
President Clinton and his national security team ignored several opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and his terrorist associates, including one as late as last year.
I know because I negotiated more than one of the opportunities.
From 1996 to 1998, I opened unofficial channels between Sudan and the Clinton administration. I met with officials in both countries, including Clinton, U.S. National Security Advisor Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger and Sudan's president and intelligence chief. President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, who wanted terrorism sanctions against Sudan lifted, offered the arrest and extradition of Bin Laden and detailed intelligence data about the global networks constructed by Egypt's Islamic Jihad, Iran's Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas.
Among those in the networks were the two hijackers who piloted commercial airliners into the World Trade Center.
The silence of the Clinton administration in responding to these offers was deafening.
As an American Muslim and a political supporter of Clinton, I feel now, as I argued with Clinton and Berger then, that their counter-terrorism policies fueled the rise of Bin Laden from an ordinary man to a Hydra-like monster.
Realizing the growing problem with Bin Laden, Bashir sent key intelligence officials to the U.S. in February 1996.
The Sudanese offered to arrest Bin Laden and extradite him to Saudi Arabia or, barring that, to "baby-sit" him--monitoring all his activities and associates.
But Saudi officials didn't want their home-grown terrorist back where he might plot to overthrow them.
In May 1996, the Sudanese capitulated to U.S. pressure and asked Bin Laden to leave, despite their feeling that he could be monitored better in Sudan than elsewhere.
Bin Laden left for Afghanistan, taking with him Ayman Zawahiri, considered by the U.S. to be the chief planner of the Sept. 11 attacks; Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, who traveled frequently to Germany to obtain electronic equipment for Al Qaeda; Wadih El-Hage, Bin Laden's personal secretary and roving emissary, now serving a life sentence in the U.S. for his role in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya; and Fazul Abdullah Mohammed and Saif Adel, also accused of carrying out the embassy attacks.
Some of these men are now among the FBI's 22 most-wanted terrorists.
The two men who allegedly piloted the planes into the twin towers, Mohamed Atta and Marwan Al-Shehhi, prayed in the same Hamburg mosque as did Salim and Mamoun Darkazanli, a Syrian trader who managed Salim's bank accounts and whose assets are frozen.
Important data on each had been compiled by the Sudanese.
But U.S. authorities repeatedly turned the data away, first in February 1996; then again that August, when at my suggestion Sudan's religious ideologue, Hassan Turabi, wrote directly to Clinton; then again in April 1997, when I persuaded Bashir to invite the FBI to come to Sudan and view the data; and finally in February 1998, when Sudan's intelligence chief, Gutbi al-Mahdi, wrote directly to the FBI.
Gutbi had shown me some of Sudan's data during a three-hour meeting in Khartoum in October 1996. When I returned to Washington, I told Berger and his specialist for East Africa, Susan Rice, about the data available. They said they'd get back to me. They never did. Neither did they respond when Bashir made the offer directly. I believe they never had any intention to engage Muslim countries--ally or not. Radical Islam, for the administration, was a convenient national security threat.
And that was not the end of it. In July 2000--three months before the deadly attack on the destroyer Cole in Yemen--I brought the White House another plausible offer to deal with Bin Laden, by then known to be involved in the embassy bombings. A senior counter-terrorism official from one of the United States' closest Arab allies--an ally whose name I am not free to divulge--approached me with the proposal after telling me he was fed up with the antics and arrogance of U.S. counter-terrorism officials.
The offer, which would have brought Bin Laden to the Arab country as the first step of an extradition process that would eventually deliver him to the U.S., required only that Clinton make a state visit there to personally request Bin Laden's extradition. But senior Clinton officials sabotaged the offer, letting it get caught up in internal politics within the ruling family--Clintonian diplomacy at its best.
Clinton's failure to grasp the opportunity to unravel increasingly organized extremists, coupled with Berger's assessments of their potential to directly threaten the U.S., represents one of the most serious foreign policy failures in American history.
*
Mansoor Ijaz, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, is chairman of a New York-based investment company.
http://www.infowars.com/
saved%20pages/
Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let
_bin_laden.htm
How convenient, Rusty, that Cliffy, suddenly decides to have dinner in the middle of the afternoon.
ReplyDeleteWell, if anyone wants the real lowdown, the real deal, as it were, tune into the John Batchelor [radio] Show tonight at 10 PM ET, AND 9 PM ET on XM channel 124.
ReplyDeleteThere are also links to his audio feed which I'll provide upon request.
Rusty said "Mike you are woefully ignorant.Maybe I missed it but have we had another terror attack on our soil since 9-11? And was'nt the gov and mayor as much responsible as Bush was in New Orleans?To this day I still dont know how anyone can stop a hurricane,hell maybe Howard Dean can.And please tell two freedoms that YOU personnaly have been denied since 9-11,I mean you."
ReplyDeletewell Dusty, we havent had a major hurricaine since strike the USA since last year also can Bush claim credit for that, as for Katrina, the Governor and Mayor were not EQUALLY responsible, that is the federal governments job, namely FEMA who were woefully unprepaired.
You do however have a point that there is plenty of blame to go around and the governor and mayor were at fault as well.
My point is that in Florida a state with much more wealthy citizens and the Bush's brother Jeb is governor of, I heard they declared it a disaster and sent aid before
the Hurricaine even hi, whereas with Katrina there was no urgency to help at all, Bush did not even postpone his vacation or photo ops or fund raising or cake eating to help or even show a modicum of interest or pretend that he cared and that was blatently obvious.
Dusty said "Why the hell cant you people face the fact that the average american and the mideast do view you libs as weaklings.It may not be true but perception is everything and its a perception you guys have nurtured through the years and have done nothing to change it.You libs have never met a war you could'nt find a reason to run from,and like it or not these extremist in the mideast know that."
ReplyDeleteNo Dusty it is Bush that has cut and run from the war on terror, Lydia, Worf, Clif, Larry, and myself have all stated we wanted to see the true terrorists exterminated, and what does Bush do, he pulls the majority of our military out of Afghanistan and disbands the CIA unit whose job it was to capture Osama and invades an oil rich country for self serving reasons that had absolutely nothing to do with attacking us.
you repugs have never addressed the fact that it was Bush that abandoned the war on terror either or that he has done nothing to secure our borders or ports.
NOW WHO IS WEAK ON NATIONAL DEFENSE, since you guys control all 3 branches of government I can confidently say it is the repugs who are weak on national defense.
TT since you want to QUOTE from Mansoor Ijaz, here is his MOST recient article, kind of fits what I have been saying don't ya thunk?
ReplyDeletePLUTONIUM OVER GROWTH IS DANGEROUS
by Mansoor Ijaz
Financial Times
August 1, 2006
Nuclear terrorism is perhaps the most important threat the world faces today. Few countries carry greater risks of allowing terrorists to get their hands on illicit nuclear materials than India and Pakistan, notwithstanding the safety records of these south Asian nuclear powers. Pakistan's case is particularly troubling.
In a poor country of 166m, there is not enough money to build schools for educating Pakistan's largely illiterate population or feeding its undernourished children. But there is enough, it seems, to build a modern plutonium reactor that will churn out 15 to 20 times more plutonium for bomb-making than the country can ever use.
The danger for the rest of the world lies in radical Islamists – of which there are many in Pakistan – getting hold of a growing and readily available source of radioactive materials that can be easily transported and shaped into less detectable, miniaturised configurations. To maintain Pakistan's support in its war on terror, the Bush administration has looked the other way while this dangerous nuclear development took place. That its man in Islamabad, Pervez Musharraf, was an assassin's bullet away from handing Pakistan's future to the very radicals the US is trying to eradicate does not seem to have mattered much in Washington.
Satellite photos show that a new 1,000 megawatt plutonium reactor is being built adjacent to the existing 50 megawatt Khushab district reactor that will produce enough plutonium (about 200kg) for 40-45 weapons per year, or about 15 to 20 times what is produced today. Construction on the reactor appears to have begun in 2000. It is still a few years from completion, hindered by the dismantling of the illicit black-market nuclear network run by Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan, Pakistan's atomic father, several years ago.
The drive for nuclear cores that can be more easily fashioned into complex warhead designs may be Pakistan's overarching military objective, but it brings with it a plethora of dangerous scenarios that brittle governments, such as Gen Musharraf's, are ill-equipped to handle. The most troubling is one in which Islamabad's political manoeuvring to keep its neighbour, Afghanistan, in check by supporting a resurgent Taliban spirals out of its control. Afghan warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, Taliban commander Jalaluddin Haqqani and others who hopscotch across the Afghan-Pakistan border are as capable of transporting processed plutonium into the wrong hands as they are of running guns and heroin.
Pakistan has successfully walked the anti-terror tightrope since September 11 2001 because Gen Musharraf has sought to be all things to all people. But what if he is gone tomorrow? Who insures the world against Islamists wresting control of a nuclear programme that is populated with some of the brightest, most radicalised minds in the Muslim world who still deeply resent the US dethroning of A.Q. Khan?
The new reactor also raises serious questions about the underlying motivations of the US-India civilian nuclear arms pact – passed by the US House of Representatives last week – that will bring American nuclear technology to India's atomic power industry. Improving India's civilian nuclear safety standards and transparency of operations is a laudable goal in providing for that country's energy needs and renovating its decrepit reactors. But if Washington thinks giving India nuclear technology is appropriate compensation for looking the other way while Islamabad builds its mega-plutonium plant – enabling India to build 40-50 nuclear weapons a year to match Pakistan – it risks dangerously escalating a regional arms race and destroying economic growth in the process.
If his army hawks insist on finishing Khushab II, Gen Musharraf can at least ensure that it starts up operations with full international safeguards in place that match those agreed to by New Delhi under the US-India nuclear pact. These include inspections that ensure fissile materials are safeguarded and accounted for at all times. He can change the dynamics of south Asia's arms race by championing a new fissile materials cut-off treaty – forbidding the production of weapons-grade uranium and plutonium – and prodding George W. Bush and Manmohan Singh, India's prime minister, to do the same.
Pakistan's erroneous decision to build Khushab II – and the US plan to fuel India's nuclear power plants as a counterbalance – should not be permitted to put the rest of the world at risk at the hands of extremists.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Mansoor_Ijaz
Tiny inTellect said;
ReplyDeleteHow convenient, Rusty, that Cliffy, suddenly decides to have dinner in the middle of the afternoon.
hey when a couple of brothers ride up and offer to buy you a meal, you go,
The war on terror was in Afghanistan, those were the people who attacked us, Iraq had nothing to do with attacking us, the invasion of Iraq and the push to invade Iran is about nothing more than overthrowing USA hostile governments so American energy companies and the elite can make fortunes developing their vast oil and natural gas reserves and break the back of OPEC by increasing the supply of oil and permanently lowering the price which would be great for our economy.
ReplyDeleteAnd just because there hasnt been a terrorist attack doesnt mean Bush can take credit for that, we havent had an attack in our entire 200 year history, by your standards Clinton deserves credit for no attack as well, Bush's policies of occupying Iraq and Saudi Arabia have created more hate and caused more moderate Muslims to hate us and have made us less safe regardless of weather there has been a terrorist attack.
dusty said;
ReplyDelete.Has there been an attack on American soil since 9-11
ANTHRAX son,
but of course they never solved that one ... and that perpetrator escaped also
dusty IT HAS BEEN PROVEN TORTURE DOES NOT WORK so I would leave it to the British who seem to be better than the neo-con idiots AT PREVENTING terrorism
ReplyDeleteOh and BTW dusty I live in middle America and the little black "W" squares have dissappeared here, and a lot of people scowl if you mention the GrOPer's name.
ReplyDeleteThey realise they were SOLD a bill of goods, and unfortunately they bought it.
Dusty said;
ReplyDeleteThe Brits have arrested,I think,24 people involved in the plot to blow up these planes.Now just hypothetically suppose one of these people that were arrested has suspected information about another terror attack about to happen.
hopefully the British will do better than Dumsfeld and Dead eye did with Chalibi...and HIS great but false intell both dead eye and dumsfeld bought HOOK, LINE and SINKER.
LONDON -- British authorities said Thursday they thwarted a terrorist plot to simultaneously blow up several aircraft heading to the U.S. using explosives smuggled in hand luggage.
ReplyDelete-clippy
Okay, now I'm confused because mikey moore clearly told us that "there is no terrorist threat...It's a lie". I say we take his word for it and immediately halt all terror countermeasures in airports and elsewhere.
But if this really was a terror attack, I suspect George Dubya Bush; this has Carl Rove's fingerprints all over it.
Dusty, i'll answer both questions in about 20 minutes or so I have to meet with the insurance adjuster about the accident right now,
ReplyDeletedusty said;
ReplyDeleteI would think if Bush and the boys have forgotten about terror something would have gone boom over here.
Well they had a plan up, in operation, and almost finished. Fortunately for both sides of the Atlantic, Bush and his CIA and FBI were not in the lead otherwise the first clue would have been thereports of Planes missing over the Atlantic....
Like after Bush was given a daily brief titled ""Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US,"
and HERE is the transcript of that brief;
The following is a transcript of the August 6, 2001, presidential daily briefing entitled Bin Laden determined to strike in US. Parts of the original document were not made public by the White House for security reasons.
Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate bin Laden since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US. Bin Laden implied in U.S. television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and "bring the fighting to America."
After U.S. missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, bin Laden told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington, according to a -- -- service.
An Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) operative told - - service at the same time that bin Laden was planning to exploit the operative's access to the U.S. to mount a terrorist strike.
The millennium plotting in Canada in 1999 may have been part of bin Laden's first serious attempt to implement a terrorist strike in the U.S.
Convicted plotter Ahmed Ressam has told the FBI that he conceived the idea to attack Los Angeles International Airport himself, but that in ---, Laden lieutenant Abu Zubaydah encouraged him and helped facilitate the operation. Ressam also said that in 1998 Abu Zubaydah was planning his own U.S. attack.
Ressam says bin Laden was aware of the Los Angeles operation. Although Bin Laden has not succeeded, his attacks against the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 demonstrate that he prepares operations years in advance and is not deterred by setbacks. Bin Laden associates surveyed our embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam as early as 1993, and some members of the Nairobi cell planning the bombings were arrested and deported in 1997.
Al Qaeda members -- including some who are U.S. citizens -- have resided in or traveled to the U.S. for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks.
Two al-Qaeda members found guilty in the conspiracy to bomb our embassies in East Africa were U.S. citizens, and a senior EIJ member lived in California in the mid-1990s.
A clandestine source said in 1998 that a bin Laden cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks.
We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a ---- service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdel Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists.
Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.
The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full-field investigations throughout the U.S. that it considers bin Laden-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group or bin Laden supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/
After Bush got the briefing, did he ask the FBI what they knew?...the CIA?
No here is what Bush did;
Ron Suskind's "The One Percent Doctrine" is out this week, and the Washington Post's Barton Gellman says it's full of "jaw-dropping stories" about the Bush administration's war on terror.
Or lack thereof.
We've known for years now that George W. Bush received a presidential daily briefing on Aug. 6, 2001, in which he was warned: "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." We've known for almost as long that Bush went fishing afterward.
What we didn't know is what happened in between the briefing and the fishing, and now Suskind is here to tell us. Bush listened to the briefing, Suskind says, then told the CIA briefer: "All right. You've covered your ass, now."
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/viewtopic.php?topic=66124&forum=19
See in August 2001 they Administration was trying to think of ways to revive star wars, for the benefit of some of their campaign contributors...who made a bundle off of it during Reagans stay at 1600 Pennsylvania avenue...but never GOT IT TO WORK!
Seems they were more about star wars and not stopping Terrorism, and we know georgie was all about the terrorist brush on his ranch...he spends so much time attacking brush there it MUST be connected to his war on terra
dusty, in stead of chicken hawk techniques, which have been proven NOT to work, as those you listed...I would prefer the British use the techniques they KNOW do work.... since they are holding the suspects...and interrorgating them.
ReplyDeleteand they do seem quite capable
Well fantasy foole, since Micheal Moore does NOT post here why don't ya go ask HIM instead of asking us to channel him?
ReplyDeleteFantasy Foole said;
ReplyDeleteBut if this really was a terror attack, I suspect George Dubya Bush; this has Carl Rove's fingerprints all over it.
NO son, it was not INside the US, however if it was inside they proly would have ignored the signs like they did in AUGUST 2001
I do wonder if the idiots in charge are going to call for the resurection of the CIA section ...DEDICATED to catching Osama..............NOW?
ReplyDeleteBTW dusty here is a good answer to you STUPID question about torture techniques....
ReplyDeleteAlthough the details of the UK plot to take down 10 U.S.-bound jumbo jets are still sketchy, the administration and its supporters are sure to point to it as more proof that America and the world need to stay the course in their global war on terror. But, of course, it proves no such thing.
At the core of the administrations’ war on terror are two strategies, neither of which appear to be particularly relevant in this particular case. One is the notion that we can best win the war on the offense — that should “fight them over there so we don’t need to fight them over here.” That’s what the Iraq War, and Bush’s support for Israel’s fight against Hizbollah, are all about.
But as far as we know, the plotters in the UK were homegrown — all were British citizens. Taking the offense in this war — by which the administration means using military force — is worse then useless. For who are you going to bomb? Safe houses in High Wycombe or Birmingham?
What appears to have cracked this case is not a war strategy or military offensive, but good intelligence, skilled detective work, and months of careful surveillance — the kind of traditional law enforcement strategies and defensive measures that Bush and his administration have always shunned.
This apparent success also undermines the second core element of the administration’s war on terror — the notion that effective counter-terrorism action requires ignoring established procedures and the rule of law. As the Brits have shown, there is no need to subvert the law, or civic liberties, to conduct effective counter-terrorism operations. And when the UK government found that some laws (e.g., on the duration of detention) might interfere with effective investigations and actions, it has sought to change the law through established parliamentary procedures rather than to ignore it as Bush has been wont to do.
We still live in a very dangerous world, where evil men concoct evil plots aiming to inflict “mass murder on an unimaginable scale.” But that reality should not be mistaken for justifying the ill-conceived strategies Bush has touted to deal with this danger over the past 5 years.
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/americaabroad/2006/aug/10/not_good_for_war_on_terror
Seems the work the british did do worked, and it did not intail techniques the US used in Iraq,, before that country collapsed into a civil war.....
As for freedoms we have lost Dusty I would say the the right to assemble and express your self as evidenced by Cindy Sheehan being arrested, as well as the right to privacy since everything we do from phone calls to the Internet to financial tranaction are being monitored, which to me is akin to soldiers or government officials invading or home since talking on the phone or computer is usually done in the privacy of ones home.
ReplyDeletebut the real point Dusty is not the freedoms wehave lost as of right now, but it is where this could lead and what this information COULD BE USED FOR DOWN THE ROAD, it could be used to get dirt on political enemies, to sway elections, to set people up, learn voting preferences, to convict people with out evidence etc....
and lastly all these freedoms we have given up and all the possible future threats to freedom have not resulted in one conviction on terorism.
GWB said the terrorists hate us for our freedom and yet he is willing to give up those very freedoms that make us special and surender and let the terrorists win. I for one am not willing to give up my freedom or privacy to let uncle government protect me, What happened to
"Give me liberty or give me death"
Patrick Henry
or
"those that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety"
Ben Franklin
Now Dusty regarding torture, that is a slippery slope, the Bush Administration is saying the same thing regarding circumventing the Geneva Convention and torture as they are saying regarding their defiance and trampling on the Constitution and personal freedoms and that is basically "Trust us, we are trying to protect you and have your best interests at heart"
ReplyDeleteyet they have not given anyone a reason as to why we should trust them and how what they are doing protects us.
There are 3 branches of government, not one that is a sole dictatorship, and there needs to be oversight, torture is a slippery slope and in general we should never condone torture, leaving it up to one branch to subjectively decide if it is warranted is a dangerous practice, if however there were some form of oversight where the executive branch presented clear and conclusive evidence to a judge and or congressional committe that a specific person is a terrorist and that numerous lives could be saved by relaxing the interogation standards somewhat only with authorization, then it might be warranted for a specific person or specific group of people, but to issue a blank check and say that the Geneva Convention does not apply and torture is ok and can be used at will is immoral and illegal and a dangerous practice.
But as I said before there would have to be clear and conclusive evidence presented and there would have to be authorization only for a specific incident and for a specific person and it would need to be clear what is reasonable and what is not during the interogation.
No one answered my post about Clinton giving up Osama in Sudan. Changing the subject, perhaps?
ReplyDeleteClif said: "After Bush got the briefing, did he ask the FBI what they knew?...the CIA?"
From pure memory, I know that he had the FBI launch 47 full-field investigations. What more did you want him to do? What he asked other three-letter agenecies to do is classified. What did you want him to do, go there himself and make any investigation impossible because of the massive security that surrounds him.
BTW, Clif, what you conveniently omited from that the PDB to which you refer suggested hijackings in the traditional sense, as in, "Take me to Cuba," or "Release these prisoners." You forgot about that, didn't you?
Massive attacks since 9/11 were not prevented in Madrid nor in London, but there has been no massive terrorist attack since 9/11 in the United States.
No, Clif, since you are so fond of the phrase "Attack the messenger," why don't you refute the points made by Ijaz in the article I posted instead of posting another one of his that had nothing to do with the subject.
Tiny inTellect the PDB I posted was a transcript of the actual briefing.....
ReplyDeleteIt was NOT my words...but the ones BUSH heard...before dismissing the briefer...caustically and basically ignoring it...because if he had asked the CIA and FBI to bring everything TOGETHER to him, somebody might have figgered it out...instead HE JUST CUT BRUSH...
NICE try at spinning the actual document as my words, not the real briefing he heard
BTW Clinton was offered Osama if Sudan could expell him to his HOMECOUNTRY...Saudi Arabia, but the Saudi's refused to take him....
ReplyDeleteThat is the ONLY verified offer Clinton ever got...spin by limpballs..and repug idiots not withstanding
No TT he did not have to go in, but REQUEST a full top down scrubbing of information, which would have brought the flight school intel foward, above the middle level managers who ignored it in the FBI...and Bush could have had Richard Clark become the point man for everyone to give all info on Osama and any terrorist related material...
ReplyDeleteThere is a hell of a lot he could have done IF HE HAD BEEN INTERESTED.....
But as usual he WAS NOT.
Tiny inTellect said;
ReplyDeleteNo, Clif, since you are so fond of the phrase "Attack the messenger," why don't you refute the points made by Ijaz in the article I posted instead of posting another one of his that had nothing to do with the subject.
I did not attack the messenger...instead I brought an article which is REVEALANT to today...right now with the problems of nuclear proliferation we have TODAY......your the one that KEEPS GOING back to ..."BLAME CLINTON" the only thing the repugs have...given the fiasco Bush ET AL have made....
Tiny inTellect you missed this relevant paragraph from the PDB of AUGUST 6 2001....
ReplyDeleteThe FBI is conducting approximately 70 full-field investigations throughout the U.S. that it considers bin Laden-related.
And Bush does not ask for a briefing...
CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group or bin Laden supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives.
think Georgie boy might have asked them to get their Intel to somebody like Richard Clark and see if they really had something?
No the IDIOT wanted to CUT brush and RUN every day, while he was on his 30+ day vacation...instead of doing the job he WAS hired to do.
Give it uup...he had been given a briefing about an attack that was planned by somebody who had attacked the US in the past...and HE DID NOTHING.
until 9-11-2001...when he read "My Pet Goat"
See Tiny inTellect your such an GOP operative you can't stand the fact that bush BLEW it, (and I don't mean Jeff Gannon there), he screwed up about 9-11 as bad as he has in Iraq.....
ReplyDeleteBut do continue to attempt to spin it as Clinton's fault...since that has been one reichwingnut mantra for ALL of Bush's numerous failures....
ReplyDeleteSee if Clinton hadn't have gotten his blowjob...the repugs wopuldn't have been forced to ignore their congressional responsibility of investigation of threats and oversight of the Executive Branch on how well they were defending the country instead of drooling over the daily spin of Ken Starr...
And if Clinton had not gotten a blowjob..they would not have had to keep a dead investigation going until he actually got a blowjob....
And they would have had to do their jobs in congress...instead of posing for TV cameras..outraged, people like Gingrich...who was as guilty as Clinton, and Livingstone of LA. who lost his bid for speaker because he was guilty as Clinton...Or Hyde ..who had an adulterous affair....seems not only are they MIA in homeland security in the 90's...but HYPOCRITS to boot
Just posted a shocking article about mel gibson on the blog.
ReplyDelete(once a day I check email but I'm not supposed to be blogging during this ministry class.)
Tiny inTellect said;
ReplyDelete.....one of the most serious foreign policy failures in American history.
clif said;
IRAQ 2003-present
See Tiny inTellect...what Clinton did or did not do...does NOT change the fact Bush was given a briefing...dismissed the briefer rudely...and basically ignored the briefing's contents...until it interrupted his reading assignment on 9-11-2001, and then he persistantly stuck to the book for SEVEN minutes.....after he was told about the SECOND attack in NYC.
ReplyDeleteI think it would be safe to say that both Clinton and Bush are gulity of negligence regarding terrorists and ignored intelligence.
ReplyDeleteAs for the cowardly civilian killers who were caught today, Im all for red hot pins under their fingernails and eyelids.
And Mike, I have never heard Lydia approve of exterminating terrorists.
Cliff
I dont know man, maybe Pakistan should not be allowed to produce plutonium after todays fiasco? Also, I believe Canada should send at least 3 divisions to Afghanistan instead of a couple of battalions.
I have never understood small battle groups. Im a firm believer in full scale, well prepared assault with plenty of reserves......complete the objective as quickly as possible and get out.
Good job today Rusty and TT....
ReplyDeleteSeems Lieberman had a hacker at his site.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2298417
Maybe Lydia really did have a hacker? A sad attempt to stifle freedom of speech on this blog is nothing more than someones warped desire to take away our right to express our thoughts......a communist?
Not always a communist...Johnny,...hitler and goebbels made sure their speech was heard..and not their opponants....
ReplyDeleteAnd Hitler was as much an anti-communist as anybody in the 20th century
Joe Lieberman's site wasn't hacked. Joe Lieberman spent $15.00 on a website whose server was shared between 73 other websites and in the wee hours of the morning of the election the server crashed. Instead of frantically trying to get his website up to accomodate his constituents......Joe officially because a Rovian Manipulator by using the down website as a REASON TO ACCUSE THE LAMONT TEAM! Typical tactics of a republican for sure.
ReplyDeleteIt backfired on him. He lost.
Funny how Karl Rove called Lieberman to tell him after the election that he's there for him. The right wingers are saying this call never happened. Uh huh.
The fact that Joe Lieberman is more loved by the GOP than the republican running for the republican ticket for Connecticut in November IS THE REASON WHY DEMOCRATS AND LIBERALS DON'T WANT JOE AROUND!
If Joe wants to be a republican, he can......JUST CHANGE THE LETTER AFTER HIS NAME.
Johnny you would have to study the complexities of battling insurgents in their HOMELAND...like the Germans attempted to do against the French resistance...or Tito and the Yugoslav resistance, during WW2...More troops would have done little to aid the Germans...because they did not have enough to watch everyone all the time, and the insurgents WAIT until they are not being watched to strike, The Resistance did it in WW2 and almost every insurgent movement since has followed a similar scenario.
ReplyDeletein Iraq we have 135,000 soldiers watching 35,000,000 people
California has about the same number of people 33,871,648(200 census){wiki}but...about
708,000 (as of 2000)sworn law enforcement personnel.....
• As of June 2000, nearly 18,000 State
and local agencies employed the
equivalent of at least 1 full-time sworn
officer with general arrest powers.
These agencies had more than 1
million full-time employees.
• State and local agencies had
708,022 full-time sworn personnel and
311,474 full-time civilian employees
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/csllea00.pdf
counting Iraqi military personnel and police forces...they are behind the level we maintain in this country
Wonder why California is a bit more stable than Iraq?
And remember Johnny, as soon as anything, like what is happening in Baghdad, breaks out here...Like the LA riots of 1992...they call out the National Guard...upping the number of people, dedicated to security on the street, until they gain the upper hand...
ReplyDeleteIf you are not going to put enough people in for security, until you have control of the situation...
ReplyDeleteyou by defualt ceed the situation to those who desire anarchy..
which was what happened in Iraq in 2003 after "Mission Acomplished" was declared...
but NO security provided(except for the MINISTRY of OIL).
Report: CIA unit that hunted bin Laden closed
ReplyDeleteN.Y Times says officials don't see al-Qaida as hierarchical as it once was
July 5, 2006
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13699308/
Terror plot appears linked to al-Qaida, Pakistan
London plotters had made martyrdom videos to be aired after attacks
August 10, 2006
Incompetence?
Looks like it to ME
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14292276/
Cliff
ReplyDeleteI cant dispute Hitlers massive problems with the partisan movement between 42-45 ,( especially with Tito) but German forces were far too stretched to combat this problem effectively....Iraq is much smaller!
And remember Cliff, the Germans were very effective in squashing Polish resistance......not counting Stalins comical aid.
Long, drawn out wars, dont make sense to me; neither does Chamberlain!
Actually Cliff, a fellow Canadian recently indicated to me that we should stop immigrating Muslims as they are being bred here for terrorist purposes.
ReplyDeleteDo we expell all for the wrong actions of a few?
Johnny look at the stats I posted about California vs Iraq.....they did not even attempt security thus they left a vacuum which the insurgents and shite militias filled real quick..which was the first step toward what we have today...BTW I never mention Poland because the Germans were ruthless about security there, (probably because of Polands location vis a vis Germany)
ReplyDeleteJohnny that is one of the BIG questions
ReplyDeleteDo we throw Paula Abdul and John Zogby out of the country...because they are Muslims?
Do we disown OUR ambassador to Iraq because he is a Muslim?
Time is reporting that it was the NSA that gave the Brits the initial tip off about the budding terrorist operation. Way to go!
ReplyDeleteMIKE -- I can't believe that accident you were in, in which you almost died!
ReplyDeletePlease send me an essay and I'll post it on the spiritual blog. I'd like to hear what happened.
God Bless you,
Lydia
MIKE -- I can't believe that accident you were in, in which you almost died!
ReplyDeletePlease send me an essay and I'll post it on the spiritual blog. I'd like to hear what happened.
God Bless you,
Lydia
Johnny, Hitler problems with Tito should have warned them before they invaded..what problems they would encounter...and they should have planned for them, Just as Gen Shensiki tried to warn congress when he stated we would need 300,000 or more soldiers for stability...
ReplyDeleteYea Mike us progressives MUST live right, as we both have had rather bad accidents...AND GOD kept us around...
ReplyDeleteTT
ReplyDeleteNo Sh@t!?
Cliff said
ReplyDelete"Just as Gen Shensiki tried to warn congress when he stated we would need 300,000 or more soldiers for stability..."
At least Cliff!
However, the problem with partisans on the Eastern Front was Hitlers numbskull decision to label them sub-humans, thus murder them despite their overwhelming approval of Nazi occupation.
Hey I just heard an interview on talk radio by Al Rantel with Walid Shoebat, a former Muslim and active PLO terrorist, who became a Christian.
ReplyDeleteThe Islamists have placed a $10 million bounty on his head for the crime of writing this book:
Why I Left Jihad: The Root of Terrorism and the Return of Radical Islam
The reviews are excellent. Here's an excerpt from one:
It is difficult to remain unmoved when confronted with the account of how, from childhood, the hatred of Jews is described as having been his "education" and how he grew up believing that it was a righteous thing to hate and kill Jews.
The book describes how Walid's life was turned upside down, when through his studies, he discovered that "..everything that he had been taught about the Jews was a lie..."
The context surrounding this profound change of heart/mind, and what is cited as an "addiction of hate", presents the reader with a series of events encompassing Walid's attempt to convert his wife to Islam.
The book narrates how his wife refused to accept the validity of Walid's virulent hatred of the Jews and how he recounts her saying "show me in the Bible the bad things the Jews did". To accommodate her he then began to diligently study the Bible, factual history and other sources in order to substantiate his indoctrinated hatred.
What transpired becomes the platform for this excellent study, which is not only an autobiographical account of Walid, but also a detailed investigation into anti-Semitism, the Middle East, Christianity and Islam itself.
As the book progresses the writer declares that "...I am no longer a terrorist. I am a Christian, dedicated to peace and truth..."
Indeed, the entire message of this book cited as being written with the declared intent of bringing love and truth to anyone who is prepared to listen.
The brutal yet gripping honesty of the writer's involvement in terrorism, hatred of the Jews, and his uncompromising look at almost all the fundamental tenets of Islam is often quite disturbing.
Well Tiny inTellect since the terror plot was hatched by people LIVING in Britain and Pakistan...the NSA by law has the responsibility to track their conservations...especially the ones coming out of Pakistan..where Al Qaeda and the Taliban seem to be based right now.....
ReplyDeleteso hopefully the Bush administration is focused on Osama AGAIN(and Bush has time to think about catching him),, and Bush will instruct the CIA to open back up their section which tracked him and his lieutenants, which could aid in finding other plans like this...
Cliff
ReplyDeleteMay I ask your solution to the Iraq problem prior to invasion?
Johnny said;
ReplyDeleteHowever, the problem with partisans on the Eastern Front was Hitlers numbskull decision to label them sub-humans, thus murder them despite their overwhelming approval of Nazi occupation.
seems what Bush, Dead eye and Dumsfeld did in Iraq....by ignoring the Geneva convention for innocent civilians...and throwing them into Abu Ghraib, where they went in innocent civilians, and came out Particins who no longer likes the US
Johnny working closer with INTERNAL opposition parties(like we did with the Kurds), tighting the screws on Saddam..like a country wide NO FLY zone(until he lived up to every UN requirement)....and telling him that is the good news.
ReplyDeleteListening top people like Gen Zinni who had much expierence with Saddam..and closing the noose but not so quick that a true opposition could not arise which we could aid, both openly and covertly. And when the opposition arose offer them support of logistics, Special Forces..and funding
Dusty Simpleton said...
ReplyDeleteIt's been verified by both the americans and brits that it was indeed the NSA call monitoring that initally spotted this terror attack.What do the bleeding hearts have to say about that.I'm guessing they feel these poor people's rights were trampled on.Another sign of left wingers being weaklings when it come sto protecting the average citizen.
6:29 PM
YO stupid read my 6:23 post..and you would not look so DUMB
Johnny, the Time article can be found here.
ReplyDeleteLONDON --British police said Thursday they thwarted a terrorist plot, possibly just days away, to blow up U.S.-bound jetliners over the Atlantic and kill thousands. Chilling accounts leaked by investigators described a plan on the scale of 9/11 that would use liquid explosives concealed as sports drink bottles and common electronic devices to bring down as many as 10 planes in a nearly simultaneous strike.
ReplyDelete-British: Thwarted plot involved 10 jets
There is no terrorist threat...It's a lie.
-michael moore, lib hero
Thank God the British, like most folks realize mik al moore is a fool at best, or an evil traitor who roots for our enemies at worst. Hmmm, also I haven't heard from that quisling george galloway lately.
Otherwise several thousand innocent British and Americans would have just been blown into little bits over the ocean.
Meanwhile in America, the libs are intent on punishing any Democrat like Lieberman with the balls to fight back against the vicious Islamofascists.
Dusty Simpleton said...
ReplyDeleteThank god conservatives have the balls to protect american citizens.Cant you see a guy like Kerry being president,there would be things blowing up every other day.Weaklings when it comes to the security of america.
Pure repug BULL, what he eats and the extrudes from his mind
Sh*t in Sh*t out
TT if the NSA is listening on calls OUTSIDE the US they are doing their JOB as intended by congress....
ReplyDeleteBritain's MI-5 intelligence service and Scotland Yard had been tracking the plot for several months, but only in the past two weeks had the plotters' planning begun to crystallize, senior U.S. officials tell TIME. In the two or three days before the arrests, the cell was going operational, and authorities were pressed into action. MI5 and Scotland Yard agents tracked the plotters from the ground, while a knowledgeable American official says U.S. intelligence provided London authorities with intercepts of the group's communications.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1225453,00.html
TT the relevant paragraph which shows the NSA was tracking suspected terrorists in foriegn countries...what they are supposed to DO
Bull Stupid they were listening between england and pakistan where they terrorists were traveling
ReplyDeleteAnd your toe idiotic gutless chicken hawk, because you want them to WASTE valuable resources checking out billions of calls here which they do not have enough resources to do...just because you think thta is what Rove wants
ReplyDeleteRusty said "Cliffy,you're the idiot,it was you a month ago crying about the NSA infringing on american rights.Here they are helping save thousands.You are a quisling.Weak,really weak."
ReplyDeleteYou show me how spying on Americans has saved lives no less foiled a terrrist plot in Britain, i'm all ears smart guy?
Only weak to those TOO GUTLESS to actually sign up themselves
ReplyDeleteSo your willing top accept anything even if ti DOPES not work in reality because of the enormity of the task...and resources required.
ReplyDeleteHell you neo-cons didn't want to even secure Iraq AND LOOK AT THAT MESS
But continue to show HOW stupid you are as to how things do work..
ReplyDeleteDid you EVER have a top secret clearance...
Have you ever been trained in counter intelligence..
Have you ever even left the trailor park?
BTW Dusty you never addressed my post on how Bush is weak on terrorism as he has done NOTHING to catch the real terrorist vwho attacked us and has done nothing to secure our borders or ports against terrorists in the approximately 6 years he has been it office, it is an utter joke to say Bush and the repugs are tough on terrorism, thats like a cop walking into a house of innocent people and gunning them down and then claiming he is protecting the public from criminals and fighting crime and is tough on crime, its laughable.
ReplyDeleteJohnny, I posted a response to you but it got deleted, i'll try to repost it.
ReplyDeleteSo, Dusty, let’s see if you can keep up here, and answer a few questions in a way that’s both logical and positive for the draft-dodging, budget-busting ChickenHawk with Delusions of Grandeur, President Jr
ReplyDeleteHow is W keeping us safer from another al-Qaeda attack by shutting down the CIA unit devoted to capturing or killing Usama bin Laden? Also, if the Dems wish to give the GOP all sorts of fits and starts, every dem running for office needs to challenge their GOP opponents to pledge to get that CIA unit up and operating again
Just how did deposing a secular tyrant in Iraq, and replacing him with religious fanatics eager to develop closer ties to their clerical brethren in Iran, keeping us safer from “Islamofascists”?
The really funny thing here is that by election day-AKA The GOP’s Day Of Reckoning-this little stunt by the Administration will be a hazy memory for most people, kind of like all that taunting and gloating from the now rapidly dwindling number of starry eyed True W Believers
Looks like the Brits have learned that “fighting them over there so as not to fight them over here” doesn’t do much to protect London from terrorist attacks, both attempted and successful
And meanwhile, the carnage in Iraq continues unabated, and that’s not going to get any better for W because of this situation
Come to think of it, neither is your trolling going to win anybody back to Dear Leader’s side, no matter how fervently you desire otherwise
And really, doesn’t it just suck knowing you do NOT represent the political or social mainstream in this country, and that the overwhelming majority of the US public disapproves of W’s job performance?
And the closer to the November elections we get, the more anything terrorist related is going to be seen as the Karl Rove BS strategy it obviously is
And because W’s overextended the military in his Iraq quagmire, he has NO troops to spare for an Iran and Syria invasion & occupation. Not that Russia and China would let him do so under any circumstances anyways, and especially because there’s no way the US public would back expanding this “catastrophic success” from Iraq into a broader conflict
And there’s an easy way to bear this out-Lets just start asking the public if they’d back such an idea
And my goodness, I thought when he wasn’t indicted for deliberately outing Valerie Plame in a hissy fit of political pique, that Karl Rove would be able to pursue his permanent one party rule with nothing holding him back from trouncing us liberals with the National Security card
Looks like Rove’s unable to right the rapidly sinking USS GOP since his nonindictment, and appeals about banning gay marriages aren’t fooling anyone this time, not when it doesn’t put money in peoples pockets, a roof over their heads or food on their table
And, of course, there’s that point I mentioned at the start, how it’s going to be impossible for the GOP to use terrorism as an electoral motivator considering how W shut down the CIA unit devoted to catching or killing Usama bin Laden
Yeah, good luck to spinning that into a positive come November
And while you’re irrationally buoyed for W because of today’s latest terrorist BS, just remember how quickly those feelings dissipated after
Udai & Qusay Hussein were killed
Saddam Hussein was deposed
Saddam Hussein was captured
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed
Sorry Dustyt, the GOP’s got NO more cards to play military wise, or in terms of keeping the US safe from another bin-Laden approved attack, the numerous ethical scandals and legal problems hitting the GOP at the state & national levels and putting future generations of US taxpayers in debt to raid the US treasury on behalf of its corrupt campaign contributors & corporations
And NONE of those situations is going to get better leading into the November elections
That’s the reality Karl Rove’s got to deal with, and he’s about to get a major, and LONG overdue Karmic BitchSlap
And that is not with standing the unfolding corruption in Ohio, and Kentucky as well as the Harris debacle in Florida
ReplyDeleteOr the problems faced By Sanitaruim, in PA, Dewine in Ohio, Talent in Missouri, Burns in Montana, among others
ReplyDeleteOr the problems which are befalling the repug K street project especially those who sucked up to Abramoff...like Delay and Ney, or Cunningham and those who followed his lead....that ain't going away..the voters remember crooked people
ReplyDeleteLooks like dusty ran away with his tail between his legs because he didnt have any reaql answers, just rhetoric and spin.
ReplyDeleteLike I said Mike he eats repug spin which is basically the Bullsh*t they think the red states will swallow, thus he can only extrude from his mind what he puts in
ReplyDeleteSh*t in Sh*t out
Cliff said
ReplyDelete"Johnny working closer with INTERNAL opposition parties(like we did with the Kurds), tighting the screws on Saddam..like a country wide NO FLY zone(until he lived up to every UN requirement)....and telling him that is the good news."
Perhaps Cliff. I have suggested similiar ideas ( particularly a C.I.A backed coup), however ten years is a long time and Saddam simply scoffed at the U.N requirements....not to mention it's weak standing!
How many more wasted Iraqi lives are acceptable before the time period of your suggestion becomes a reality?
Jophnny we did little in those ten years to actually foster a true insurrection against Saddam...we could have used Kuwait to stage from...and really supported real opposition, not players like Chalibi who was under inditement when he was selling dead eye his Bill of goods,
ReplyDeletein fact NOW Chalibi is being investigated by the FBI for the possibilkity of being an Iranian agent ALL ALONG
Which means he wanted the hard line Shites to take over after we knocked Saddam off, and it looks like he is gonna get what he wanted...a shite dominated Iraq with peoiple like sistani and al sadar calling the shots
Cliff
ReplyDeleteDo you remember General Dirlewenger? He was so brutal on partisans that even Hitler was disgusted; eventually he was court martialed.
I probably spelled the name wrong as I am working from sponge memory.
See johnny, Chalibi was convicted in abstensia in Jordan for some kind of Bank fraud, seems that dead eye should have checked Chalibi out a bit more...
ReplyDeleteCliff said
ReplyDelete"Jophnny we did little in those ten years to actually foster a true insurrection against Saddam"
Ive heard this many times and it does trouble me.
Why did God have to make me a moderate? Couldnt he have made me a simple millionaire instead.....
Oskar Dirlewanger, johnny is that the man?
ReplyDeleteFrom what I knew he was not court martialed but had to fight on the russian front and against the polish uprising, he was killed by either fellow prisoners, or polish guards after being captured by the allies in Germany
ReplyDeleteI am interested in your deleted post Mike.....stop pressing the wrong buttons will ya...lol.
ReplyDeleteJohnny said;
ReplyDeleteWhy did God have to make me a moderate? Couldnt he have made me a simple millionaire instead.....
Johnny he made all of us simple...the millionaire part he left up to us
Exactly Cliff, he fought the Polish uprising, but I forget how he died? One thing for sure he was an ex-crimial and very brutal.
ReplyDeleteHow would you know this Cliff?
ReplyDeleteJohnny he was a criminal before he got in the SS, in fact he got some old friend to get him out of a consecration camp, and into the SS,
ReplyDeleteMy old ROTC Professor of Military science, had us research him and a few others as examples of what an officer was NOT
Your good Cliff....no doubt!
ReplyDeleteI do know " The Forgotten Soldier" used to be required reading at West Point.
Johnny the only reason I remember him was because he was so bad, and he was that way long before the SS, but he was something the higher ups saw as useful
ReplyDeleteWell, only useful because there was a shortage of men so the SS started looking into the bottom of the barrel.
ReplyDeleteIm Toast!
ReplyDeleteSleep well.
And FF, I didnt miss your post on the Islam dude turned christian.....good stuff!
dusty simpleton said;
ReplyDeleteMike and Cliffy,its amazing the way you two lemmings follow the liberal talking points.
No talking points son, but expressing my views...
Dont you at all feel just a bit weak doing that?
Not at all, because I do not see upholding the constitution or calling for an EFFECTIVE strategy for going after the terrorists of 9-11, not detours into places like IRAQ
Here's the fact since 9-11 there has'nt been another attack on our soil.
Except for the anthrax attacks after 9-11 remember them?
Lucky?I think not.
More lucky than anything because Al qaeda focused on places like Bali, Spain London
You two cry and bitch about everything but have nothing to offer as a solution.
Seems to be YOUR modus operandi, as you spew insults and bring little to the conservation
Why is England a hotbed of terror? Because both India,Iraq and Pakistan were once colonies and the people could come to England at will.
Iraq was NEVER a true colony but a protectorate which rejected Britons attempts at colonization, like Afghanistan also did. india and pakistan were one major colony which broke apart along sectarian lines sort of what Iraq is doing right now...but Iraq is no more our colony (even if dead eye wishes it was)than it ever was a British colony.
They now have second and third generation Muslim's more true to their faith then their country.
Kind of like MOST truely religious people, what Jesus asked his followers to be....
Kind of like you guys.
this is funny coming from an admitted chicken hawk to a combat veteran, you claim to have the answers which have failed historically both in the European expierence, when they attempted to control their Empires as they fell apart. And from our expierence..in Vietnam and seems lost on those who HID from serving there.
But continue in your very slanted views of what constitutes being a true American, even if the MAJORITY of this country does not agree with you, and your repug neo-con views.
Just give me two points that the dems have to better protect this country.
ReplyDelete1 actually FIGHT the terrorists in the countries they reside in instead of attacking a country they were not in until WE left the borders unsecured and LET them in, sort of Bush's policy for homeland insecutiry
2 actually pay your bills as you GO so as not to leave a huge debt to be inherited by the children and grand children..which undermines our ability to fund our defense...just as SOON as we can no longer borrow any money.
Dusty Simpleton said;
ReplyDeleteForget about Iraq,
I would except for the 130,000 soldiers who are serving there.
the issue is world wide terror
Which Bush left the fight in Afghanistan to invade Iraq,
and like it or not you people are viewed as really weak on protecting america.
Not really especially with Bush's fiascos, Iraq, katrina, the budget, border security...you think NOBODY notices?
You libs are seen as women hiding in the closet when trouble comes calling.
ReplyDeleteNo that would be the Chicken hawks like these guys and a few gals;
Republicans
* Dennis Hastert: did not serve.
* Tom Delay: did not serve.
* Roy Blunt: did not serve.
* Bill Frist: did not serve.
* Mitch McConnell: did not serve.
* Rick Santorum: did not serve.
* Trent Lott: did not serve.
* Dick Cheney: did not serve. Five deferments. “I had other priorities in the ’60s other than military service,” Cheney told a reporter in 1989.
* John Ashcroft: did not serve. Seven deferments to teach business.
* Jeb Bush: did not serve.
* Karl Rove: did not serve.
* Saxby Chambliss: did not serve. “Bad knee.” The man who attacked Max Cleland’s patriotism.
* Paul Wolfowitz: did not serve.
* Vin Weber: did not serve.
* Richard Perle: did not serve.
* Douglas Feith: did not serve.
* Eliot Abrams: did not serve.
* Richard Shelby: did not serve.
* Jon Kyl: did not serve.
* Tim Hutchison: did not serve.
* Christopher Cox: did not serve.
* Newt Gingrich: did not serve.
* George W. Bush: failed to complete his six-year Air National Guard tour of duty; asked for and received an assignment to Alabama so he could campaign for family friend running for U.S. Senate; failed to show up for required medical exam, disappeared from duty.
* Ronald Reagan: due to poor eyesight, served in a non-combat role making movies.
* “B-1” Bob Dornan: Consciously enlisted after fighting was over in Korea.
* Phil Gramm: did not serve.
* Dana Rohrabacher: did not serve.
* John M. McHugh: did not serve.
* JC Watts: did not serve.
* Jack Kemp: did not serve. “Knee problem,” although continued playing in the NFL for 8 years.
* Rudy Giuliani: did not serve.
* George Pataki: did not serve.
* Spencer Abraham: did not serve.
* John Engler: did not serve.
* Arnold Schwarzenegger: AWOL from Austrian army base.
Pundits & Preachers
* Sean Hannity: did not serve.
* Rush Limbaugh: did not serve (4-F with a ‘pilonidal cyst.’)
* Bill O’Reilly: did not serve.
* Michael Savage: did not serve.
* George Will: did not serve.
* Chris Matthews: did not serve.
* Paul Gigot: did not serve.
* Bill Bennett: did not serve.
* Pat Buchanan: did not serve.
* John Wayne: did not serve.
* Bill Kristol: did not serve.
* Kenneth Starr: did not serve.
* Antonin Scalia: did not serve.
* Clarence Thomas: did not serve.
* Ralph Reed: did not serve.
* Michael Medved: did not serve.
* Charlie Daniels: did not serve.
* Ted Nugent: did not serve. (He only shoots at things that don’t shoot back.)
* Ann Coulter did not serve ...she just slanders those that do
Remember the old peanut farmer,there was a real strong guy.
This guy?
* Jimmy Carter: Seven years in the Navy. Graduate of Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD
Thats the idea america has of you.
or these guys?
Democrats
* Richard Gephardt: Air National Guard, 1965-71
* David Bonior: Staff Sgt., Air Force 1968-72
* Tom Daschle: 1st Lt., Air Force SAC 1969-72.
* Al Gore: enlisted Aug. 1969; sent to Vietnam Jan. 1971 as an army journalist in 20th Engineer Brigade.
* Bob Kerrey: Lt. j.g. Navy 1966-69; Medal of Honor, Vietnam.
* Daniel Inouye: Army 1943-47; Medal of Honor, WWII.
* John Kerry: Lt., Navy 1966-70; Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat V, Purple Hearts.
* Charles Rangel: Staff Sgt., Army 1948-52; Bronze Star, Korea.
* Max Cleland: Captain, Army 1965-68; Silver Star & Bronze Star, Vietnam. Lost both legs and one arm attempting to pick up a grenade dropped by another soldier.
* Ted Kennedy: Army, 1951-53.
* Tom Harkin: Lt., Navy, 1962-67; Naval Reserve,1968-74.
* Jack Reed: Army Ranger, 1971-1979; Captain, Army Reserve 1979-91.
* Fritz Hollings: Army officer in WWII; Bronze Star and seven campaign ribbons.
* Leonard Boswell: Lt. Col., Army 1956-76; Vietnam, DFCs, Bronze Stars, and Soldier’s Medal.
* Pete Peterson: Air Force Captain, POW. Purple Heart, Silver Star and Legion of Merit.
* Mike Thompson: Staff sergeant, 173rd Airborne, Purple Heart.
* Bill McBride: Candidate for Fla. Governor. Marine in Vietnam; Bronze Star with Combat V.
* Gray Davis: Army Captain in Vietnam, Bronze Star.
* Pete Stark: Air Force 1955-57
* Chuck Robb: Vietnam
* Howell Heflin: Silver Star
* George McGovern: Silver Star & DFC during WWII.
* Bill Clinton: Did not serve. Student deferments. Entered draft but received #311.
* Jimmy Carter: Seven years in the Navy. Graduate of Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD.
* Walter Mondale: Army 1951-1953
* John Glenn: WWII and Korea; six DFCs and Air Medal with 18 Clusters.
* Tom Lantos: Served in Hungarian underground in WWII.
that is the view your repug operatives keep trying to HIDE,
the fact that the neo-con chicken hawk fooles who claimed to have the answers, have created the Fiasco in Iraq, and broke the military with not enough funding for repairs and spare parts, training for non deployed units...lower standards for enlistees because repug chicken hawks keep hiding in their mama's basement. their supposed , answer for the middle east taking down Saddam backfired and now they are caught in a trap they created with no real clue how to get out.
Johnny said "I think it would be safe to say that both Clinton and Bush are gulity of negligence regarding terrorists and ignored intelligence.
ReplyDeleteAs for the cowardly civilian killers who were caught today, Im all for red hot pins under their fingernails and eyelids.
And Mike, I have never heard Lydia approve of exterminating terrorists."
Johnny Clinton and all the presidents before 9/11 probably did underestimate the terrororism threat, but they are not equally guilty of negligence, after 9/11 Bush pulled the majority of our military assets out of Afghanistan and instead of searching for the real terrorists, he invaded a oil rich country that had absolutely nothing to do with terrorism or attacking us, he then disbanded the CIA untit whose job it was to capture Osama and in the approximately 6 years in office did absolutely nothing to secure our borders or ports, despite every other word out of his mouth being that he is protecting us from terrorists.
Pulling our military assets out of the country where the real terrorists who attacked us are and disbanding that CIA unit trying to capture Bin Laden while claiming to be keeping us safe and protecting us from terrorists is akin to a cop walking into a house of innocent people and gunning them down and then claiming he is protecting the public from criminals and fighting crime and is tough on crime, its laughable.
BTW Johnny Lydia stated in some of the early blogs that she is for weeding out the real terrorists, not any arab or muslim the administration labels a terrorist for its self serving agenda, Clif commented on this as well, a better strategy would have been to win over the hearts, minds and trust of the moderate good muslims and try to get them to work with our intelligence to capture or overthrow the real terrorists, but instead the Bush Administrations corrupt and unjust war has served to turn moderate good muslims into real terrorists that hate us and wish to do us harm, it has increased the threat of terrorism by increasing the number of people who hate us, as well as letting the real terrorists who attacked us remain free.
Clif stated in an earlier post that when they liberated kuwait in the gulf war the Kuwaiti's welcomed them and said God Bless America, but Iraq is very different, Saddam was a bad person but that doesnt mean the average citizen wants a foreign power occupying their country particularly one that accidentally or not bombs innocent civillians kills children, invades peoples homes and causes violence and death due to various militia's and warlords both fighting them and fighting each other for power, a CIA sponsored coup with help from one of the factions as Lydia said would have been a far better and cleaner way to depose Saddam, and yes Clinton missed the opportunity with this, but Bush didnt even consider this because his objective was twofold
1) to capture or kill the guy that tried to kill his father
and
2) to install a SSA friendly government so American energy companies and the elite could make fortunes developing Iraq's vast oil deposits, thats the same reason for the push to overthrow Iran's government even though they say it is for nuclear weapons, Iran has the second largest natural gas reserves in the world as well as large relatively untapped
oil reserves that American companies can make fortunes developing.thats why you never hear a push to take away North korea's nukes or overthrow the dictators in poor african countries that dont have oil.
Remember Bush co pulled the old bait and switch the original reasons for the invasion were to take away saddam's WMD then when they got caught lying and cherrypicking intelligence they pulled the bait and switch and claimed it was to liberate the poor oppressed Iraqi's from an evil dictator.
Dusty Simpleton said;
ReplyDeleteOh damn,remember that picture of Dukakis in the tank with that oversized helmet on? What a solid candidate that pussie was.
beats the idiot we got now.
at least Dukakis and carter and clinton were interested in a book bigger than "My Pet Goat"
and they did not expect more vacation time than any pResident in history especially during what HE calls a Global War on Terra, and none of them ever called the constituton a "goddamned piece of paper"...
Or claimed they were "the deciders"
Ignoring the constitution, until SLAPPED down by the Supreme Court, which the constitution gives them the right to do...
Kind of funny Karma there eh son?
Bush: Failed terror plot a reminder that everybody should stop complaining about how bad I screwed up Iraq.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/009391.php
Is that why you keep turning away from discussing Iraq dusty?
No wonder they Vote for Bush;
ReplyDeleteSeptember 11 -- what year? 30 percent of Americans don't know
Some 30 percent of Americans cannot say in what year the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks against New York's World Trade Center and the
Pentagon in Washington took place, according to a poll published in the Washington Post newspaper
While the country is preparing to commemorate the fifth anniversary of the attacks that claimed nearly 3,000 lives and shocked the world, 95 percent of Americans questioned in the poll were able to remember the month and the day of the attacks, according to Wednesday's edition of the newspaper.
But when asked what year, 30 percent could not give a correct answer.
Of that group, six percent gave an earlier year, eight percent gave a later year, and 16 percent admitted they had no idea whatsoever
http://rawstory.com/showarticle.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.yahoo.com%2Fs%2Fafp%2F20060809%2Fod_afp%2Fusattackspolloffbeat_060809145351%26printer%3D1%3B_ylt%3DAvXft8pUOEM.mfkLi8xEj3OhOrgF%3B_ylu%3DX3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-
At least we NOW know why bush seems to Bottom out at 30% in the polls....
Dusty Simpleton said;
ReplyDeleteSo Cliffy,let me get this straight.You're saying Jimmy Carter was a great president
No son, Kennedy both Roosevelts and Lincoln were great presidents
and Dukakis was an excellent candidate who just happened to get his ass handed to him?
No not what I said, just better than what we got now, so Dukakis would not have to be much to qualify as BETTER than Bush
I'm I correct here,is that what you're saying?
understand or do I have to reduce it to the reading Level of 'My Pet Goat' like they do for Bush, which is why they make the DVD's not moving pictures does keep his attention longer than words on a page....
dusty simpleton said;
ReplyDeleteIf thats a fact its no wonder you guys are viewed as quislings.
by an active members of the 102nd fighting keyboard commando chicken hawk brigade...well that is not something that really impresses me, but then again, not much reichwingnuts do impresses me.
but then again being part of the backwash you wouldn't understand that right dusty?
A second charged was added for the two Dearborn men who were arrested in Ohio and charged money laundering to support terrorism. Thursday, prosecutors charged 20-year-old Ali Houssaiky and 20-year-old Osma Sabhi Abulhassan with soliciting or providing support for an act of terrorism. Police said the men initially lied, but then under interrogation admitted to buying 600 untraceable cell phones. Authorities are concerned that if shipped to the Middle East, the chips from the phones may be used to remotely detonate car bombs.
ReplyDelete-Michelle Malkin, Conservative babe
Dearborn is home to 30,000 Arab-Americans, the second largest Arab population within the United States. (New York City has nearly 70,000, out of a total population of over 8 million.) Dearborn's population is about 30 percent Arab, as are more than half the kids in its public schools.
-Wikipedia
There is no terrorist threat...It's a lie.
-michael moore, lib uber hero
Fantasy Foole, why don't you go visit Micheal Moore? Since you seem so infatuated with him, and are talking to him SOO much. As for those on this Blog, we ARE calling FOR going after the true terrorists, Osama, (you know the GUY BUSH FORGOT).
ReplyDeleteAnd his organisation which seems to be in the borderlands of Pakistan and Afghanistan. you know the guys behind 9-11, the Spain Bombings, London subway bombings, and the airline plot just foiled...
instead Bush got the Military bogged down in Iraq, and wasted over 350,00,000 dollars there SO far, and has a civil war to show for it, with the best outcome NOW being the radical shite faction controlling the south, the Kurds controlling their Iraqi provinces, and the Sunni's having the worst of the country which could become a second base for Osama ( you know the guy bush forgot) and his terror net work which were the guys behind 9-11, and Spain, and London and the airline plot today,
And NOW instead of actually going after Osama(you know the guy bush forgot) Bush, Dead eye and Dumsfeld want to go after Iran, for questionable intel about a WMD possibility (deja vu all over again) but seems quite alright with Pakistan, remember them they are the country where Osama(you know the guy bush forgot) is hiding, going ahead with building a reactor which will allow they to enrich enough plutonium for about 50 bombs a year,(which means they will have more than Israel in 5-7 years) and Pakistan is teeming with Fundamental Islamists not just Osama(you know the guy bush forgot)but other home grown Islamists who would to have a few or those nuclear weapons the Pakistan's are building to deliver to us, and Osama (you know the guy bush forgot) would also be very open to attempting getting a few for the US and Saudis.
So see Fantasy foole we do accept that terrorism is very real just Bush forgot who they really are, and where they are hiding.
Every great statesman and spiritual leader knows that you can't fight fire with fire…We need to understand our enemy. We need face-to-face dialogue…We should be charming our enemies, getting to know them…We give our enemies life, we empower them, validate and give them "body" by fighting them!
ReplyDelete-Lydia Cornell
So contrary to popular belief, using combat troops to fight our enemies does not actually kill and maim them, but rather gives them life and strength. Good to know.
This elusive fact would have proved handy for the Allies during World War II when hitler was incinerating millions of Jews and trying to cleanse the world of all the riff raff, while striving to ensure that only pure white aryan nazis could inhabit planet earth.
Hey it also means that we can save a lot of money by dismantling our entire military, destroying all our weaponry, and studying how to become more “charming” like the Fwench, whose asses we saved from tyranny twice in the last century.
It is heartening to realize that our Islamo-fascist enemies will not foolishly mistake our weakness for…well weakness. Obviously they will not exploit our weakness, but rather they will quickly realize their folly and scrap their silly plans to have the entire world become an Islamic caliphate ruled under shariah law by brutal imams and mullahs.
Say while we’re at it, let’s also get rid of our police force, confiscate and destroy all firearms, and let all our criminals out of jail. Let’s just sit down with our child rapists, serial killers, and airline bombers and attempt to simply charm them out of their evil ways.
Apparently the liberal advice when confronted with vicious barbarians who fanatically seek the demise of Western civilization is: Surrender Immediately! There is no terrorist threat; it’s a lie. Think only pleasant thoughts, ignore evil, and all the homicidal monsters will simply evaporate. War is never the answer.
/Note to self: Never vote for a woman for President (unless of course her name is Maggie Thatcher or Ayn Rand).
BTW fantasy foole NOT all THE suicide bombers in Lebanon were muslim terrorists; read this...it is called research with FACTS;
ReplyDeleteWhat we still don't understand about Hizbollah
This week, world terrorism expert Robert Pape will share with the FBI the findings of his remarkable study of 462 suicide bombings. He concludes that such acts have little to do with religious extremism and that the West must engage politically to halt the relentless slaughter
Sunday August 6, 2006
The Observer
Israel has finally conceded that air power alone will not defeat Hizbollah. Over the coming weeks, it will learn that ground power won't work either. The problem is not that the Israelis have insufficient military might, but that they misunderstand the nature of the enemy.
In terms of structure and hierarchy, it is less comparable with, say, a religious cult such as the Taliban than to the multi-dimensional American civil rights movement of the 1960s. What made its rise so rapid, and will make it impossible to defeat militarily, was not its international support but the fact that it evolved from a reorientation of pre-existing Lebanese social groups.
Evidence of the broad nature of Hizbollah's resistance to Israeli occupation can be seen in the identity of its suicide attackers. Hizbollah conducted a broad campaign of suicide bombings against American, French and Israeli targets from 1982 to 1986. Altogether, these attacks, which included the infamous bombing of the marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, involved 41 suicide terrorists.
Researching my book, which covered all 462 suicide bombings around the globe, I had colleagues scour Lebanese sources to collect martyr videos, pictures and testimonials and biographies of the Hizbollah bombers. Of the 41, we identified the names, birth places and other personal data for 38. We were shocked to find that only eight were Islamic fundamentalists; 27 were from leftist political groups such as the Lebanese Communist Party and the Arab Socialist Union; three were Christians, including a female secondary school teacher with a college degree. All were born in Lebanon.
What these suicide attackers - and their heirs today - shared was not a religious or political ideology but simply a commitment to resisting a foreign occupation. Nearly two decades of Israeli military presence did not root out Hizbollah. The only thing that has proven to end suicide attacks, in Lebanon and elsewhere, is withdrawal by the occupying force.
Previous analyses of suicide terrorism have not had the benefit of a complete survey of all suicide terrorist attacks worldwide. The lack of complete data, together with the fact that many such attacks, including all those against Americans, have been committed by Muslims, has led many in the US to assume that Islamic fundamentalism must be the underlying main cause. This, in turn, has fuelled a belief that anti-American terrorism can be stopped only by wholesale transformation of Muslim societies, which helped create public support of the invasion of Iraq. But study of the phenomenon of suicide terrorism shows that the presumed connection to Islamic fundamentalism is misleading.
There is not the close connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism that many people think. Rather, what nearly all suicide terrorist campaigns have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland.
Religion is rarely the root cause, although it is often used as a tool by terrorist organisations in recruiting and in other efforts in service of the broader strategic objective. Most often, it is a response to foreign occupation.
Understanding that suicide terrorism is not a product of Islamic fundamentalism has important implications for how the US and its allies should conduct the war on terrorism. Spreading democracy across the Persian Gulf is not likely to be a panacea as long as foreign troops remain on the Arabian peninsula. The obvious solution might well be simply to abandon the region altogether. Isolationism, however, is not possible; America needs a new strategy that pursues its vital interest in oil but does not stimulate the rise of a new generation of suicide terrorists. The same is true of Israel now.
The new Israeli land offensive may take ground and destroy weapons, but it has little chance of destroying Hizbollah. In fact, in the wake of the bombings of civilians, the incursion will probably aid Hizbollah's recruiting.
Equally important, Israel's incursion is also squandering the goodwill it had initially earned from so-called moderate Arab states such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia. The countries are the court of opinion that matters because, while Israel cannot crush Hizbollah, it could achieve a more limited goal: ending Hizbollah's acquisition of more missiles through Syria.
Given Syria's total control of its border with Lebanon, stemming the flow of weapons is a job for diplomacy, not force. Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan, Sunni-led nations that want stability in the region, are motivated to stop the rise of Hizbollah. Under the right conditions, the US might be able to help assemble an ad hoc coalition of Syria's neighbours to entice and bully it to prevent Iranian, Chinese or other foreign missiles from entering Lebanon. It could also offer to begin talks over the future of the Golan Heights.
But Israel must take the initiative. Unless it calls off the offensive and accepts a genuine ceasefire, there are likely to be many, many dead Israelis in the coming weeks - and a much stronger Hizbollah.
So see there is MUCH more to do with the war hezbollah is fighting against Israel than Muslims hate Jews, which is the reichwingnut neo-con explination which actually explains little...
And the terrorists are not coming from wherer Bush claims to be fighting them,m but instead from our supposed allies in the region;
ReplyDeleteWars have a way of making unlikely bedfellows, and the Global War on Terror is apparently no different.
Asked to name the country that has produced the largest number of global terrorists, the index’s foreign-policy experts pointed to Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan—three of America’s marquee allies in the Muslim world. Nearly two thirds (62 percent) identified Saudi Arabia as the leading culprit. Thirteen percent pointed to Egypt, and 11 percent said Pakistan produces the most terrorists. “The jihadist movement,” says index participant and Sarah Lawrence College Professor Fawaz Gerges, “was born in Egypt in the late 1960s. After September 11, however, Saudi Arabia has emerged as the leading theater of jihadist-Salafist thought and action.”
Although these three states may be widely believed to be incubating terrorists, the cooperation they have offered the United States in fighting terrorism presents a more mixed picture. Approximately two thirds of the experts say that U.S. cooperation with Egypt and Pakistan has been effective. The experts are more divided as to whether Saudi Arabia is doing what it can to counter the terrorist threat.
These perceptions cut to the heart of some of the dilemmas facing the United States. Egypt, for instance, has received more than $50 billion in U.S. military and economic assistance since 1979, yet it resisted recent U.S. efforts to promote political reform. America designated Pakistan a major non-NATO ally in 2004, despite allegations that it has not done enough to capture bin Laden. Saudi Arabia has helped crack down on financial support flowing to terrorist groups, but Saudi leaders have been slow to move against radical elements within their own population. Is the United States doing a poor job of choosing its friends? Maybe. Then again, it may just be keeping its friends close, and its enemies closer.
http://web1.foreignpolicy.com/issue_julyaug_2006/TI-index/friends.html
See FF in the war on terra it helps to actually look to see where they are coming from if you want to go after the root of terrorism, and not just fight the symptoms...
And the terrorists can definately hurt us REAL bad by just attacking the Saudis and their oil production...
ReplyDeleteEnergy’s Highest Price
If you could make something a higher priority in fighting the war on terror, what would it be? A little more than one third of the index’s experts said killing or capturing terrorist leaders such as Osama bin Laden. About the same number favored promoting democracy in the Muslim world. More than two thirds said stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons to rogue states. But devising a more aggressive energy policy?
It may surprise, but the index’s experts said that ending America’s dependence on foreign oil may be the U.S. government’s single most pressing priority in winning the war on terror. Eighty-two percent of the experts said that policymakers should make ending America’s dependence on foreign oil a higher priority. And nearly two thirds said that current U.S. energy policies are actually making matters worse, not better. “We borrow a billion dollars every working day to import oil, an increasing share of it coming from the Middle East,” says index participant and former CIA director James Woolsey. “[F]or example in Saudi Arabia, billions are transferred to the Wahhabis and like-minded groups who then indoctrinate young people to hate Shiites, Sufis, Jews, Christians, and democracy, and to oppress women horribly.”
If U.S. policymakers don’t take this vulnerability seriously, terrorists do. Ayman al-Zawahiri, al Qaeda’s No. 2, has labeled the global energy infrastructure a key strategic target for terrorists. In February, Saudi Arabia’s government foiled an al Qaeda plot to attack the Abqaiq oil facility, the country’s largest. Some 30,000 security forces are now guarding the country’s oil fields. Global oil markets are so tight that even the threat of a supply disruption can cause a spike in price. These tight markets are partially responsible for the higher prices Americans will pay at the pump this summer. But the index suggests that there may be a greater price for our energy policy: losing the war on terror.
http://web1.foreignpolicy.com/issue_julyaug_2006/TI-index/energypolicy.html
Oh and BTW Anwar is a band aid(and a small one at that), not a cure. Neither is trying to take Iran because it would END up like Iraq...a fiasco for the US, even though they would not have a civil war, they would fight the US like the Afghans fought the Russians, and the Vietnamese fought to force the Japanese, then the French then the US for their country. As an energy source Oil is becoming a limited resource, which will lose it's dominance because there will be less and less to go around when the world wants more and more, thus something else must be found as a source for energy in the Industrial world, the sooner the smoother the transition, and lower the pain of the change over...
Great article, "Americans WIll Die for Liberty," written by an Englishman:
ReplyDeleteExcerpt:
"Americans are more old-fashioned than us, and what is equally admirable, they are not ashamed of being old-fashioned. They know Churchill was a great man, so they put his house on the map. There is a kind of Englishman to whom this sort of behaviour seems painfully unsophisticated.
"We are inclined, in our snobbish way, to dismiss the Americans as a new and vulgar people, whose civilisation has hardly risen above the level of cowboys and Indians. Yet the United States of America is actually the oldest republic in the world, with a constitution that is one of the noblest works of man. When one strips away the distracting symbols of modernity - motor cars, skyscrapers, space rockets, microchips, junk food - one finds an essentially 18th-century country. While Europe has engaged in the headlong and frankly rather immature pursuit of novelty - how many constitutions have the nations of Europe been through in this time? - the Americans have held to the ideals enunciated more than 200 years ago by their founding fathers.
"The sense of entering an older country, and one with a sterner sense of purpose than is found among the flippant and inconstant Europeans, can be enjoyed even before one gets off the plane. On the immigration forms that one has to fill in, one is asked: "Have you ever been arrested or convicted for an offence or crime involving moral turpitude?" Who now would dare to pose such a question in Europe? The very word "turpitude" brings a smile, almost a sneer, to our lips.
"The quiet solicitude that Americans show for the comfort of their visitors, and the tact with which they make one feel at home, can only be described as gentlemanly. These graceful manners, so often overlooked by brash European tourists, whisper the last enchantments of an earlier and more dignified age, when liberty was not confused with licence."
Full article:
Americans Will Die for Liberty.
In the wake of the foiled plot to blow up as many as ten airliners, carriers in the U.S. and Europe suddenly banned shampoos, creams, gels, beverages, and other liquid from carry-on luggage.
ReplyDelete"This is a huge area of vulnerability," says Clark Kent Ervin, former inspector general at the Department of Homeland Security. Terrorists, he says, "are learning, adapting. They develop countermeasures to our countermeasures. We are reactive, and they are proactive".
-WSJ August 11, 2006
Hmmm...interesting, superduperman. Sounds like what we need is an organization which will proactively anticipate what the terrorists might plan, in order to proactively foil their attacks. This organization could brainstorm, and role-play as terrorists, in order to anticipate that terrorists might try to say...make bombs from liquids or attack levees of Western cities with elevations below sea level.
I know! We could call this organization the "U.S. Department of Homeland Security".
The department of homeland security was established in 2002. It currently has almost 200,000 bureaucrats and a budget of nearly 40 billion dollars per year. They are very busy doing something to keep us safe from terrorists, but no one is quite sure what it is that they do exactly.
Wikipedia
Terrorists plotting to blow up nine passenger jets in mid-air were just days away from launching their mission to commit "mass murder on an unimaginable scale", security sources claimed last night.
ReplyDeleteTen planes targeted in mass murder bomb plot
British authorities arrested 24 people Thursday based partly on intelligence from Pakistan. The suspects were believed to be mainly British Muslims, at least some of Pakistani ancestry.
-Two British Nationals Arrested in Pakistan Before Terror Plot Busted
There is no terrorist threat...It's a lie.
-michael moore, lib hero
We need to understand our enemy. We need face-to-face dialogue…We should be charming our enemies, getting to know them…We give our enemies life, we empower them, validate and give them "body" by fighting them!
-Lydia Cornell
Here in the US there is more "christians" who commit acts of violence every day than muslims ...remember we are here...not there FOOLE
-clif, insane moonbat who fears Presbyterians and Amish far more than any silly IslamoFascist
Bush Approval Rating:
ReplyDeleteAn AP-Ipsos poll found that Bush's approval rating had dropped to 33% which matches his low point in May.
Bush's handling of every issue, from Iraq to foreign policy contributed to the decline, EVEN IN THE REPUBLICAN FRIENDLY SOUTH.
In the Republican leaning south, Bush's approval ratings fell from 43% last month to 34% today.
55% Of voters say they will back the Democrats 55% to 37% who say they will choose Republicans.
57% of Republican voters say they disapprove of the job Bush is doing.
This is all in response to the effects of " Bush's America."
Tiny inTellect said;
ReplyDeleteYet the United States of America is actually the oldest republic in the world, with a constitution that is one of the noblest works of man.
Then why does George W Bush..DISRESPECT IT SO?
From the NY Post:
ReplyDeleteHOLLYWOOD MORONS SUDDENLY CLAM UP
By ANDREA PEYSER
August 11, 2006 -- A STRANGE and unfamiliar sound emanated from Hollywood yesterday - total silence.
It now looks as if the 9/11 attacks were just meant to be a tepid dress rehearsal for the big show. The atrocities that were narrowly averted yesterday - planes bound for our shores, to be blown up in midair by men who hate - prove one thing beyond doubt:
If we care to watch our children grow up, get old enough to retire to Florida, or simply live to see another dawn, we must be vigilant. We cannot relax.
The bullet we dodged whizzed by frighteningly close. That the thousands, perhaps more, that were targeted for death are alive today is testament to the success of governments in Britain and the United States. The ones so viciously maligned by the lefty set who, if allowed to dictate policy, would destroy this nation in a matter of hours.
So it was stunning not to hear the nasal voice of Barbra Streisand, slamming the president in a time of war. Just this past January, Babs was in her usual form in her incoherent blog. She wrote:
"Is this the America we have been fighting for? The Bush administration has failed once more in their [sic] mission to make American safer.
"There is an increasing anti-American sentiment in the Middle East."
John Murtha of Pennsylvania, the House's chief voice of enemy-appeasement - he's called for an unconditional cease-fire in Lebanon and said U.S. Marines "killed innocent civilians in cold blood" in Haditha - was also not in a talkative mood.
Nor was Susan Sarandon, who declared, at a peace rally in Washington after the war in Iraq commenced, that "terrorism cannot be fought with violence."
Damn, Susan. How would you fight it?
We have been reminded in violent fashion that losing our edge is tantamount to mass suicide. In Britain, a recent poll commissioned by TV documentarians discovered that nearly a third of young Muslim men agreed that the deadly bombings in England's subway and bus system in July 2005 "were justified because of British support for the war on terror."
Bloody hell.
Another survey, by The Times of London, found that 13 percent of Muslims of any age - the great majority of them of Pakistani origin - felt the bombers were "martyrs." We're talking 200,000 people, many of them British citizens, bent on the destruction of the West.
There is a war on, don't be eased into complacency. But Michael Moore was too busy gloating about pro-war Sen. Joe Lieberman's defeat in the Connecticut primary to make anti-American statements yesterday. Ditto Howard Dean.
And Alec Baldwin. And the Dixie Chicks.
But they've got time.
Don't listen.
andrea.peyser@nypost.com
Nice try at SPIN foole but there are more people who were born into christian heritage families who commit crime in this country.... and your STUPID attempts to spin it any other why ignores that fact.
ReplyDeleteThat does not change the fact that some British born Muslims of Pakistani ancestry were planning an operation which was on the scale of (-11, but in terms of TOTAL crimes and total number of victims the christian born criminals are more numerous HERE and the Muslim born criminals are more numerous in majority Muslim population countries, or are you SUCH a bigot that you can not admit that simple FACT.
BTW stupid, I never said the following...insane moonbat who fears Presbyterians and Amish far more than any silly IslamoFascist
THAT is your dishonest spin...and I said that I have more to fear from the criminals who are by a vast majority christian born people who commit CRIME where I live....but since I went to Desert Storm I did face a few Muslims who wanted to do me harm at that time....unlike the barking chicken hawk brigade...
See son, I can admit if I was traveling by plane daily or weekly I might have more to fear personally...but statistically the US population have a better chance of being attack whether by design or neglect by another christian born human than by any, how did you put it?....silly IslamoFascist
Well I do not find them silly...but then again I do not lead my debate with my HATE.
Bush Protects Himself:
ReplyDeleteThe Bush administration has drafted amendments to the War Crimes Act, that would retroactively protect policy makers from possible criminal charges, for authorizing humiliating and degrading treatment of detainees.
The White House says the bill will apply to to any conduct, before or after the law is enacted.
Clif, as usual, minimizing the threat of terrorism.
ReplyDeleteI see Tiny inTellect is back to HIS cut and paste of reichwingnut appologists, who have a lot of SPIN but little real facts...in the latest post Tiny one puts up a post where the barking dingbat cries because she does not have NEW qwuotes from Hollywood to attack in HER stupid reichwingnut based columns...most important veiw he can find I suppose, since that is OBvciously where he gets his own opinions from....reichwingnut bloviators who KNOW the time of the reich wing hate mongers is coming to an end...and they are fighting a LOSING battle this election cycle.
ReplyDeleteI do have to give it to you tiny minded one...your a true GOP operative to the end...
BTW the paper you "columnist" s employed by is the New York Poist another Rupert Murdoch news corp operation...sort of a Fox news in print.
ReplyDeleteFox News endorsed Kerry in '04.
ReplyDelete