Don't forget to mention the attack on our Constitution and Civil Rights. Go start a war with Saddam, and start the hyper- surveillance of American Citizens. Let's build new schools and highways over there, and watch ours fall apart here! Don't forget the whole damn thing is done with borrowed money! A lot of it borrowed from Communist China! Of course that has nothing to do with the rapid transfer of our jobs and livelihoods to them does it? They give the fat cats a big tax break and (take all) the workers will ever own! Who recently retired as the head of the U.S.- China Chamber of Commerce? Do you really want to start connecting the dots here? It could be too much of a wake up call. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2002/02/19/usat-prescott-bush.htm
Nobody wants to face up to the ruthless strip- mining of America by political interests tied at the waist with corporations. It's as real as the glazed look in the eyes of most couch potatoes, as they talk about where they ate, and what they watch on T.V. Get ready America, for the greatest swindle in American History. Let's just call it "Winner Take All"!
http://www.usccc.org/Current/mem-b.htm
Sadly to say, this country is beginning to resemble nothing so much as a run down Amusement Park! And soon the supposedly "Capitalist" Communists will simply buy out everything and make slaves of us all. Don't worry however. The poison is being fed to us slowly. It's called a culture of "comfort". The lean and the hungry are banging at the door, and there are those in power more than happy to take a pay-off to let them in.
Does anyone remember the news story that came out on September 10th 2001? Yes. The missing 2.3 trillion dollars? Where is the outrage about that? Excuse me, if I think that's a lot of money!
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/29/eveningnews/main325985.shtml
I believe it's time to clean house, and take care of America first. Elect politicians who will hold the interests of the average American above their own need for campaign cash.
posted by Bbcmjeep43 at 12:01 A.M. EST on Tue Dec 06, 2005 #
Wow! Imagine that! Government can't get its shit together!
posted by MemyselfandI at 07:34 A.M. EST on Tue Dec 06, 2005 #
I'm not sure if going to Iraq was the best idea. It's a done deal now, so we have to find a way to stabilize that country.The possibility exists that we may not be able to stabilize Iraq. Then what? I'm not sure if leaving now is any solution. Hurry up and get them trained to control their own country. What about Saudi Arabia? Isn't that where most of the hijackers came from? Let's take care of our own country while we are spending billions over there. Just don't come and tell me our jobs are being shipped overseas in the name of globalization. This is one sure fire way to make me very angry. I'll fight against this every day of the week.
posted by Bbcmjeep43 at 01:55 P.M. EST on Tue Dec 06, 2005 #
THat's why there hasn't been a terror attack at all during the Bush Presidency, wheras Clinton has a whopping five, arguably 6 to his name.
Btw, what exactly does the 9/11 "we don't follow up every question" commission compare against, in order to come up with this pass/fail grade system?
posted by WhiteAfricanAmerican at 03:48 P.M. EST on Tue Dec 06, 2005 #
America retains significant infrastructural freedoms that allow any "terrorist attack" to take place. According to Bush, Cheney and the rest of that pack of animals, the Democrats conduct terrorist attacks in the Congress nearly daily.
As long as you are "liberal" (har har) in your definition of "terrorist attack", then such an attack occurs daily. Afghani opium derivatives (thanks now to the American invasion of that nation destabilising the local governments) flow into America, producing a "terrorist attack" when some junkie has to mug or burgle to support his habit.
But even getting away from such broad definitions, any schmoe with a reasonable amount of funding and a strong desire to die in the act, can steal a tanker truck of dangerous chemicals, strap a bomb to it, and drive it to a populated area ... Ka-BOOM! At best, heightened police activity would force said suicide bomber to adapt a careful schedule in order to minimize the chances of getting stopped before the tanker pops in the right area.
Part of my point -- which I made during my Thanksgiving dinner when the delusions being spouted grew too much to bear -- is that although America's openness can provide many so-called terrorist opportunities, it's just not worth getting all worked up over. Literally (to continue my Thanksgiving rant) Condi could get on all radio channels in America, voice a-quiverin' wit' emotion, to Warn Us All about some rogue airlner spearing its way towards some state capital ... and I wouldn't even pause in eating my dinner (except to rant if necessary). America's simply too big to ever conquer or even scare (assuming we have largely reasonable men as citizens -- a bad assumption, right?) with these "terrorist attacks". It barely matters, if at all.
Yes, to the dead from such attacks, it will matter. To their families, even more so. But changing all of America to make it "invulnerable" from such attacks can only mean transforming us into an outright Fascist state where all movements of people and equipment are authorized, then monitored, then "enforced" (and quite brutally when so). Is a Fascist hypersurveillance state worth price? What a question. The answer is a rhetorical but very strong "NO".
The law enforcement entities in the USA had long been hampered in even performing their duties, pre-911. FBI whistleblowers have long shown us (well, those of us who bother to listen) that internal monitoring of actual violent fringe groups is very political. During the 1990s in particular, an FBI plant in a fringe group could get in serious trouble if he tried to monitor Arab groups. PETA? That was OK. White supremacists? Shore, bud, go right 'head. Christian fundies? Praise Jesus, put on your robe and get in there!
But when FBI undercovers proposed trying to infiltrate Arab groups, they largely found that their bosses were more than reluctant to authorize such operations.
Why? Well, according to my view of the universe, it's difficult just by looking at a swarthy Middle Easterner to tell if they are Arab ... or Jewish. Jews are a remarkably hot-button issue in America, where the phrase "anti-Semite" can stop any line of discussion cold. So that alone can explain much of the reluctance of the FBI bosses.
But another issue involves Saudi Arabia. SA owns a lot of America. Ostensibly, they are "allies" (despite being a primary producer of learned terrorist leadership in the Middle East). So any investigation into Arabs in America will take the signifcant risk of crossing the Saudis. And we all know (don't we?) about the secret flights of Saudis out of the USA in the days after 911. Those flights alone prove my point.
America is vulnerable. We share the largest unsecured national border in the world. But our vast size is also a great resistance to attacks ... kind of like resistance to terrorist infection. This vulnerability ultimately means little if anything. The difference is largely being made by domestic elements, as we are steadily choosing to live in fear and loathing, and are allowing such to erode the only national security that we ever had: general economic prosperity.
P.S. WAA, what about the terrorist attacks (as defined by the State Dept.) in the rest of the world after 911? Or course, your answer can only be imprecise, since your Beloved Neo-Con Leaders had chosen to stop taking such measurements. But of course, perhaps you're only making the point that the USA is not the world. But the US military is in 2 countries in the Middle East, which are now absolutely riddled with terrorist attacks. Surely there's some correlation? How can there be MORE terrorism where the US military is? "Mission Accomplished", you say? What "mission" was that, precisely?
posted by GuestZero at 08:24 P.M. EST on Tue Dec 06, 2005 #
Thought-provoking, GuestZero. I will have to digest this and post thoughts later.
posted by historymike at 11:15 P.M. EST on Tue Dec 06, 2005 #
America retains significant infrastructural freedoms that allow any "terrorist attack" to take place. According to Bush, Cheney and the rest of that pack of animals, the Democrats conduct terrorist attacks in the Congress nearly daily.
Half of that is true, half is plain stupid. I'd rather deal with reality if you please GZ.
As long as you are "liberal" (har har) in your definition of "terrorist attack", then such an attack occurs daily. Afghani opium derivatives (thanks now to the American invasion of that nation destabilising the local governments) flow into America, producing a "terrorist attack" when some junkie has to mug or burgle to support his habit.
Uhmmm, at the risk of sounding cold. It's highly unlikely that anyone FORCED said junkie to be come so dependant on dope that he finds it necessary to take the actions you describe, It's possible, but unlikely.
You can take your definition of 'terrorism' here, and apply it any violent crime.
The difference between violent crime and terrorism, is that typically, the citizenry is involved in violent crime for the sake of indiviual gain, whereas the same cannot be said for terrorism.
The drug problem is as much a 'supply and demand' problem as it is a federal problem. Were there not as many (or any) recreational users, the poppy fields of A'stan would not exist. So I hope you level some of your disdain at your average Joe Schmo that likes to get high, as you do to the Govt.
But then if your a Lib, personal accountability doesn't rank very high on your list of priorities.
But even getting away from such broad definitions, any schmoe with a reasonable amount of funding and a strong desire to die in the act, can steal a tanker truck of dangerous chemicals, strap a bomb to it, and drive it to a populated area ... Ka-BOOM! At best, heightened police activity would force said suicide bomber to adapt a careful schedule in order to minimize the chances of getting stopped before the tanker pops in the right area.
Which is why I'm of the opinion, that National Security is a deterrant at best, it is not a guarantee at all.
And before you spout off about my comparision between Bush and Clinton, keep in mind that you and your's are the one's foaming at the mouth about how GW has made the US more insecure. Anyone taking the position of Ted Kennedy, demonstrates that they have no intention of dealing with the issue, and are content only to throw mud, in the hope that some of it will stick.
Part of my point -- which I made during my Thanksgiving dinner when the delusions being spouted grew too much to bear -- is that although America's openness can provide many so-called terrorist opportunities, it's just not worth getting all worked up over..........
So why then do people like Kennedy and his party, CONSTANTLY warn people about how unsafe this country is, of course thanks to GW?
You're right. You stand a better chance of being killed by a car than you do by a terror attack.
If this is a non-issue why then do left wing crackheads like Limedrops make comments like:
‘Terrorists will strike again,’ says former commission chairman
Imagine that, will ya! It's been 4 years now and our nation gets failing grades on preparedness for another terrorist attack. Neither congress nor the Bush Administration have moved the agenda forward as the 9/11 Commission has suggested.
I take it he's not on of the 'reasonable' people you were referring to?
Yes, to the dead from such attacks, it will matter. To their families, even more so. But changing all of America to make it "invulnerable" from such attacks can only mean transforming us into an outright Fascist state where all movements of people and equipment are authorized, then monitored, then "enforced" (and quite brutally when so). Is a Fascist hypersurveillance state worth price? What a question. The answer is a rhetorical but very strong "NO".
Do you have any clue what a facist state is? IF this country were ever to become a facist state, it would not happen in this century, by then all the players you are so fearful of will be long gone.
Even suggesting that this county has facist tendancies is an insult of the worst sort to every person that has been persecuted, murdered or oppressed under the boot of the facist.
Despite your paranoia of a 'hyper surveillance' state, the ratio of Federal agents to citizens is something like 1:60 000. Those odds make it impossibile for the FEDS to pull off what you're talking about.
The law enforcement entities in the USA had long been hampered in even performing their duties, pre-911. FBI whistleblowers have long shown us (well, those of us who bother to listen) that internal monitoring of actual violent fringe groups is very political.....
You were doing good there GZ, until you blew it with the Michael Moore-esque b/s about the secret Saudi Flights that were allegedly allowed out during the grounding of all US flights.
That lie has been debunked so many times, just like it's originator, it's almost comical. As such I won't waste my time on it.
America is vulnerable. We share the largest unsecured national border in the world. But our vast size is also a great resistance to attacks ... kind of like resistance to terrorist infection......
Whooaaaa slow down there GZ.
Terrorism is not a viable para-military attack. It has only one objective and that is to instill fear. Period. Therefore it relies on being as spectacular as possible.
Recall that reaction of the stock market after 9/11, that coupled with the Tech Bubble burst created, according to Kerry, the worst economic environment since the Great Depression. All of which btw was GW's fault.
Those attacks were successful in that they caused the economy to tail spin, thanks to the political haymakers. Gives a new meaning to the concept of the puppet master and his puppets, willing or not.
That is all they really achieved.
WAA, what about the terrorist attacks (as defined by the State Dept.) in the rest of the world after 911? Or course, your answer can only be imprecise, since your Beloved Neo-Con Leaders had chosen to stop taking such measurements.
Let's see,
WTC v1.0
OKC (That was a terror attack, a home grown one, but a terror attack non the less)
WTC v2.0
Three attacks on US soil, between 1993 and 2001
Since then, none.
Now what was your point again.
But of course, perhaps you're only making the point that the USA is not the world.
I was making the point that it seemed to be open season on US interests here and abroad during Clinton's tenure, and that does not seem to be the case since then now does it. Not that I expect you to agree with that.
But the US military is in 2 countries in the Middle East, which are now absolutely riddled with terrorist attacks. Surely there's some correlation? How can there be MORE terrorism where the US military is?
You're kidding right, you seriously don't know the answer to this?
"Mission Accomplished", you say? What "mission" was that, precisely?
Ermm when did I say that?
If you're referring to what GW said, then Mission Accomplised refers to the removal of Saddam from power.
Funny that you have no trouble with the Allies making the same statement after the fall of Berlin in WWII, despite the fact that there was an ongoing terror campaign after the fall.
You should look up a group known as 'The Werewolves', and see how common, what is going on in Iraq is.
posted by WhiteAfricanAmerican at 02:22 P.M. EST on Wed Dec 07, 2005 #
Syndicate ToledoTalk
