Just what part of war on terror does neo-demos support?

I know I am clearly not understand.

 

It really matters not what we think or what our views are on the war.

The decider has told a war widow today that there was "no point" discussing "pros and cons of the war."

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeeh...the_people_are_not_being_served_with_this_war


Please lock this pointless thread.

 

What does you not understand? They are plain as day.

 

you demofascists are just a bunch of bush hating clinton lovers. even though 9/11 happened (was allowed to happen) during bush/cheney administration, its all clintons fault. there is nothing bush could have done to "prevent" the attacks.

http://www.wanttoknow.info/9-11cover-up10pg
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,52408,00.html
WASHINGTON — Federal aviation authorities were alerted in early 2001 that an Arizona flight school believed one of the eventual Sept. 11 hijackers lacked the English and flying skills necessary for the commercial pilot's license he already held, flight school and government officials say.

A Federal Aviation Administration inspector even sat next to the hijacker, Hani Hanjour, in one of the Arizona classes, checked records to ensure Hanjour's 1999 pilot's license was legitimate but concluded no other action was warranted, FAA officials told The Associated Press.

Hanjour is believed to have piloted the plane that crashed into the Pentagon on Sept. 11.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/terror/articles/visa011212.htm
Three of the hijackers in the September 11 terrorist attacks obtained visas in Saudi Arabia through a brand-new program designed to make it easier for qualified visa applicants to visit the United States, an American government official said tonight.

The Visa Express program, put in place just four months before the attacks, allowed the three hijackers to arrange their visas through a State Department-designated travel agency, the official says. Fifteen of the 19 hijackers obtained their U.S. travel visas in Saudi Arabia.

None of the three men, the American government official says, was ever questioned by U.S. consular officers in Saudi Arabia. Each took his travel papers and passport to a commercial travel agency, which submitted the applications to the State Department.


A Phoenix FBI agent sends a memorandum warning about Middle Eastern men taking flight lessons. He suspects bin Laden's followers and recommends a national program to check visas of suspicious flight-school students. The memo is sent to two FBI counter-terrorism offices, but no action is taken.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/05/19/cheney.terrorism/
Cheney told NBC he opposes a request by Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-South Dakota, for a copy of a memo from an FBI agent in Arizona who warned last July that Middle Eastern students, possibly with links to bin Laden, could be taking flight classes in the United States. That memo should not be released to the media and public, he said.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,53065,00.html
The White House again Friday denied it had advance knowledge that a Sept. 11-style attack was coming, though it acknowledged it knew Usama bin Laden was bent on attacking the United States.
– The Italian government shared "general" information of possible attacks in March 2001 based on bugs in apartments in Milan.

– An Iranian in custody in New York City told local police last May of a plot to attack the World Trade Center.

– German intelligence alerted the Central Intelligence Agency, Britain's MI-6 intelligence service, Israel's Mossad in June 2001 that Middle Eastern terrorists were training for hijackings and targeting American and Israeli interests.

– Pakistanis were taken into custody June 4 in the Cayman Islands after they were overheard discussing hijacking attacks in New York City; they were questioned and released, and the information was forwarded to U.S. intelligence.

– Indian intelligence shared "general" information in July 2001.

– In July and August, British intelligence shared "general" information that it had learned through surveillance of Khalid al-Fawwaz, a Saudi Arabian dissident who has publicly acknowledged being a bin Laden operative. Fawwaz, suspected of participating in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombing in Kenya, was arrested after Sept. 11.

– Based on its own intelligence, the Israeli government provided "general" information to the United States in the second week of August that an Al Qaeda attack was imminent.

– French intelligence echoed the "general" information in the final week of August.

– Russian President Vladimir Putin has said publicly that he ordered his intelligence agencies to alert the United States last summer that suicide pilots were training for attacks on U.S. targets.

– Millennium bomber Ahmad Ressam testified in closed and open court trials relating to his Dec. 1999 arrest for trying to bring bomb-making materials across the Canadian border that attack plans, including hijackings and attacks on New York City targets, were ongoing.

– An Islamic terrorist conspiracy was uncovered in 1996 in the Philippines to hijack a dozen airplanes and fly them into CIA headquarters and other buildings. Among the discoveries was a plot for a "bojinka" – a big bang. The information was discovered on a computer and noted in the 1997 trial of Ramzi Yousef, one of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers.

– U.S. investigators confirmed in October that a 29-year-old Iranian in custody in Germany's Langenhagen prison last year made phone calls to U.S. police from his deportation cell that an attack on the World Trade Center was imminent in "the days before the attack." The warning was considered the threat of a madman.

– In October, U.S. government officials confirmed that India's intelligence agency had information before the attacks that two Islamist radicals with ties to Usama bin Laden were discussing an attack on the White House. India's information was not provided to U.S. intelligence until Sept. 13.

– In February and April of 2001, the world's most extreme Islamic terror groups held meetings in Beirut and Tehran, respectively, to set aside their differences and unite for jihad (holy war) against Israel and the United States. The two unprecedented meetings had over 400 militants in attendance. They called it "the Jerusalem Conference," aimed at uniting behind the Palestinians and winning total Arab control over Jerusalem. Sources say the group agreed on a document and the creation of an actual organization now known as "the Jerusalem Project." The document included the statement: "The only decisive option to achieve this strategy is the option of jihad in all its forms and resistance … America today is a second Israel."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040411.html
(regarding the infamous august 01 pdb entitled "bin laden determined to strike w/in u.s.)
Q Mr. President, could you tell us, did you see the presidential -- the President's Daily Brief from August of '01 as a warning --

THE PRESIDENT: Did I see it? Of course I saw it; I asked for it.

Q No, no, I'm sorry -- did you see it as a warning of hijackers? And how did you respond to that?

THE PRESIDENT: My response was exactly like then as it is today, that I asked for the Central Intelligence Agency to give me an update on any terrorist threats. And the PDB was no indication of a terrorist threat. There was not a time and place of an attack. It said Osama bin Laden had designs on America. Well, I knew that. What I wanted to know was, is there anything specifically going to take place in America that we needed to react to?

Frustrated with lack of response from FBI headquarters about detained suspect Moussaoui, the Minnesota FBI begins working with the CIA. The CIA sends alerts calling him a "suspect 747 airline suicide hijacker." Three days later an FBI Minnesota supervisor says he is trying keep Moussaoui from “taking control of a plane and fly it into the WTC." [Senate Intelligence Committee (Hill #2), 10/17/02] FBI headquarters chastises Minnesota FBI for notifying the CIA. [Time, 5/21/02] FBI Director Mueller will later say "there was nothing the agency could have done to anticipate and prevent the [9/11] attacks." [Senate Intelligence Committee (Witness Breitweiser), 9/18/02, more]
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,249997,00.html
http://intelligence.senate.gov/0209hrg/020918/witness.htm

 

The people who founded the US were the leftists and liberals of their time. In fact they were the radical liberals of their time. A government without a monarchy, separation of powers, a Bill of Rights, among the most radically liberal ideas ever.

 

to those who would criticize clinton for not doing enough, how do you respond to junior's answer that since the PDB entitled "bin laden determined to strike in the u.s." was not specific he could not do anything?

he says the pdb entitled "bin laden determined to strike in the u.s." was "no indication of a terrorist threat", his excuse being there was no indication of a time and place. well, slick never had any indication of a time or place either. so by junior's standards, what could he have done? right? if you want to step up and say bush blew it than i can at least respect your consistency, but if you fail to see a problem with this than you are a hypocrite.

and for the record, i am no fan of clinton, nor did i ever vote for him.

 

So progress is an ever-leftward movement?

 

Seeing as how we've had several years of "ever-rightward" government, I can't imagine what you are complaining about.



Keep D&D Civil.

 

In some ways yes and some ways no. By definition "conservative" means not wanting change and sticking to the status quo while "liberal" and "progressive" means seaking change. In general "Leftists" tends to imply a liberal and progressive political bent while "Rightists" a conservative bent so in a very broad sense one could say that progress is leftward if we consider the movement towards democracy, social justice and individual liberties to be hallmarks of liberalism. Unfortunately Leftists and Rightists are probably the most arbitrary political definitions as the extremes of self-declared left and right governments tend to resemble themselves and supposedly Leftists governments often behave very conservatively.

In terms of though if Leftists are seen as revolutionaries opposed to existing power structures then certainly the American Founders were Leftists. They certainly were radical liberals as the conservatives of the time were Monarchists.

 

Actually, the outgoing Clinton administration tried to warn Bush of the danger Bin Laden presented and recommended a full onslaught against him, but Bush advisors decided to dismiss and put aside the warnings. The Bush team simply decided they didn't give a rat's butt about the previous administration and what they knew. It's this type of arrogance that's led our country to near ruin.

 

I'm not complaining; I'm just trying to get a better understanding of what people mean. There is no doubt that the Founding Fathers were radicals, but I do want to challenge the notion that they were "leftists."

I know that these are ever-evolving definitions, but since we usually associate the Left with bigger government, that would hardly seem to be an appropriate description for what the Founding Fathers had in mind. They were wanting to escape governmental control weren't they? They wanted to put into place a skeletal government which would exert minimal intrusion onto the lives of the citizenry.

 

You must not have read my post because I said nothing about Kumbaya.

Get it straight next time.

 

Oversimplifying the so-called the war on terror into an ego-driven big d!ck contest won't solve anything. Phrases like "cut and run" and "appeasement" are dangerous because they paint us into a corner. We're getting our asses kicked in Iraq, we're not accomplishing our goals, we're breeding more terrorists, and we've never been less secure or more scared. But we keep up appearances because of ego and pride. That's it. We're just making it worse.

This isn't a showdown at the OK Corral. It's a complex situation that demands complex solutions -- such as precise military action AND a concerted effort to win over moderate Arabs and Muslims. If we can win them over, they do most of the work for us. We simply cannot kill every potential terrorist to make us safe. It's impossible.

Instead of jamming more Americans into the Iraqi woodchipper and killing tens of thousands of innocent people, it's time to reevaluate our two current strategies: bomb and bomb again.

Because that crap ain't working. And if something ain't working, mature and logical people try something else. Banging your head on the wall to ease the pain from banging your head on the wall will just make you dumber and dumber.

 

My nephew is supposed to come back to the U.S. in November. He is very much looking forward to it. He has sent me some amazing pictures from over there. Sandstorms that look like hollywood special effects, Helicopters firing machine guns, taken through night vision goggles, and tons of ones with weapons that I am sure you would enjoy.

I've always been fairly close with my nephew, and have sent him care packages, which he loves. I went down to his graduation when finished his initial marine training, near San Diego. He's a really awesome guy, and I was scared that the Marines might change him into some sort of killing machine. But that hasn't happened. He does take his duty very seriously, and talks about the harder side of the Marines as something that is necessary, but it doesn't seem to have taken over him.

 

the masculine Coultergeist has been an embarrassment to those whom the flame-thrower purports to support. A joke.

The Rep / Conservatives can do better w more capable mouth-pieces.

Her slander of the 9/11 widows is just unconsciousnable; her most recent public blunder was, on FoxNews' Hannity & Combs progrm, declaring that "..the War on Iraq has been going on swimmingly..."

to say that the masculine biatch is out of touch w reality would be understating it.

 

The facts about Clinton are that he did more to fight terrorism than any other President prior to 9/11. Was it enough? I think it obviously wasn't. But that doesn't mean that he did less than Bush, or that he was to blame.

Let's talk first about what Reagan ambassador to terrorism said about the Clinton administration and terrorism.

Obviously that was said prior to 9/11.

38 days after Clinton took office the WTC was bombed. What did Clinton do? He captured, tried, convicted, and imprisoned those responsible.

Clinton also thwarted planned attacks against the Pope, blow up 12 U.S. jetliners simultaneously, the UN Headquarters, the FBI building, the ISraeli emassy in Washington, the LA and Boston airports, the Lincoln and Holland tunnels along with the George Washington Bridge, and he also thwarted a truck bomb plot against the US embassy in Albania.

Those are all anti-terrorism accomplishments that Clinton acheived.

He tripeled the counterterrorism budget for the FBI, and doubeled counterterrorism funding overall.(so much for the claim that he cut intel)

He wiped out Al Qaeda cells in more than 20 countries, and created a top level post to coordinate all anti-terrorism security.

His first and second crime bills both contained tough legislation specifically against terrorism. He trained and had drills to get Fed agencies to react swiftly in the even of terrorist attacks. He stockpiled drugs and vaccines to prepare against things such as germ attack by terrorists.

Unfortuantely for Clinton the Republicans were against his measures much of the time.

Orin Hatch said, "The administration would be wise to utilize the resources Congress has laredy provided before it requests additional funding."

Clinton then proposed EXPANDING THE INTEL AGENCIES WIRETAP AUTHORITY in order to combat terrorism. Newt Gingrich(GOP) lead the fight against that measure by Clinton to fight terrorism. He claimed that he didn't want to give the agency "any more power."

As I mentioned before, immediately after the embassy bombings in Africa Clinton issued a Presidential directive authorizing the assassination of OBL.

It was after the USS Cole bombing that Clinton decided to go on the offensive. He put Richard Clarke on the job. Clarke formed a committee that recommended using special forces, cutting off terrorism funding, getting more cooperation from foreign leaders in tracking down the funds, and going after those that funded terrorism, shut down fake charities used in funding, arrest top Al Qaeda leadership, give aid to other govts. having trouble with Al Qaeda to create an alliance. He even proposed putting special forces on the ground in Afghanistan while Clinton was still in office.

Sadly the Cole Bombing was in 2000, and after these plans were formed there was little time left in Clinton's presidency to act on them. So Clinton warned Bush that OBL was the greatest threat to the U.S.

Richard Clarke tried several times to meet with Bush's security team and discuss his proposals. Bush vacationed, and Clarke was turned away time and time again, but Rice, Bush, Cheney, and the rest never took seriously enough to put it on the agenda.

Look at all Clinton did against terrorism, and look what Bush did prior to 9/11. How many plots did Bush's plan thwart? How much increase in funding did Bush propose? Did Bush propose sending forces into afghanistan to go after Bin Laden prior to 9/11? Did Bush do anything at all to stop terrorism prior to that?

After 9/11 Bush then implemented the plans that Clinton's team had suggested all along. That isn't what I would call leadership on Bush's part.

So the next time you want come in here and spout off about how Clinton did nothing about terrorism, and that Bush was more concerned about it, bookmark this post, and save us all the time.

 

so in your mind bush/cheney are leftists, right?

bush/cheney have increased the size of government beyond what any other president has ever done.

bush/cheney have spent more than all previous 42 presidents combined? and they only needed 5 years to do it.

or do you think its conservative to do these things?

 

I think that the labels, like all labeling, are inadequate to be truly representative.

 

I thinks its a mistaken stereotype that joining the military turns someone into a killing machine. Most of the people I know who have been in the military have come out as better people for it. The modern US military emphasizes character development and seeks to create a more well rounded person, especially in the officer corps, than just teaching people to kill and obey orders. A few people I know who've gone into the military as immature kids looking to kick ass have come out as much more thoughtful men.

 

you think that? really?

so next time you throw a label on a group or person can we come back to this post? times like these i wish the search function worked again. ive read enough of your posts to know you have no problem throwing labels around. so again, is bush a liberal in your view?

i agree with you and with this in mind where do you think the founding fathers would stand with bush? they were against government control and intrusion upon the citizenry. how would they feel about his desire to elevate the executive branch above the other 2. i guess everything we learned in high school government about 3 SEPERATE but equal branches goes out the window with the criminals we have running our country right now?

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security." - Benjamin Franklin


you notice how you dont really hear too many bush supporters going on about the founding fathers and "original intent" anymore? even they can see now that he has gone so far beyond what they could have imagined.