Scare Me Once...

Could one of the Roy Cohn guys here tell me just what the Bush administration is trying to do by putting out a warning of increased terrorism risk just in time for Christmas and the other religious hildays? Apparently they have known about the "increased chatter" for over two weeks but didn't see fit to tell us.

Just what is it exactly that people are expected to do to demonstrate increased vigilance?

It just makes me angry when they remind us that they have done nothing to protect us from terrorism since 9-11, except perhaps giving Wyoming as much per capita for security as New York City.

Don't color me orange. I am seeing Red!

Lucky, didn't you know that the President just told us on Monday that we are much safer now that Saddam has been captured? Even though that silly man, Howard Dean, says that we actually aren't safer, please remember what our beloved truth-telling leader told us last week. After all, he wouldn't lie to us.

>Could one of the Roy Cohn guys . . .

Roy Cohn was a closeted gay man who is ashamed of his homosexuality. Do you think that all gay conservatives are closeted - like Andrew Sullivan, for instace? Do you think that all the little liberal homos here are openly gay?

>It just makes me angry when they remind us that they have done

>nothing to protect us from terrorism since 9-11. . . .

This is the all-time dumbest statement in the history of human speech. How many terrorists acts have occurred on U.S. soil in the 2+ years since 9/11, you ungrateful piece of crap.

>Roy Cohn was a closeted gay man who is ashamed of his

>homosexuality. Do you think that all gay conservatives are

>closeted - like Andrew Sullivan, for instace?

See my forthcoming monograph on Sullivan: "The Glass Closet."

>>It just makes me angry when they remind us that they have done

>>nothing to protect us from terrorism since 9-11. . . .

>

>This is the all-time dumbest statement in the history of human

>speech. How many terrorists acts have occurred on U.S. soil

>in the 2+ years since 9/11, you ungrateful piece of crap.

Must be that Elephant Spray...I mean Terrorist Spray!

"This is the all-time dumbest statement in the history of human

speech."

So it's a pretty historical moment then, right here in Hooville. Things must be slow tonight.

>"This is the all-time dumbest statement in the history of

>human

>speech."

>

>So it's a pretty historical moment then, right here in

>Hooville. Things must be slow tonight.

You should feel honored not to have been demoted to the status of a dumb brute.

The West Wing

To be fair, increased chatter has to be considered and filtered as well as analyzed. There are a number of potential targets in this country: it is very large and open, with travel even post 9/11 very easy and convenient.

I would be frankly surprised if anyone living in any area with significant potential targets, would not comtemplate that the holidays and New Year's Eve would be a potentially oportune time for an attack. That said, I think the idea that the country is measurebly safer is circular logic at its most absurd. The proof that nothing has happened since 9/11 is only marginally true: the dirty shoe bomber is one such positive example, but there are very few others. Traditionally and historically, terrorist attacks have not been monthly activites. Anyone who believes that there will not be another terrorist attacks that, both regretably and unfortunately, will be the cause of signiicant damage, is simply engaging in self-deceptive behavior.

This does not mean this administration, or any other administration (Democratic, Republican or otherwise) does not have the defense of the borders or the safety of its people. While we all here may disagree with particular actions taken by any politician, to impute any other motive than safety is highly inappropriate.

The West Wing television show is replete with good examples of how often intelligence is vetted politically, nonetheless, difficult decisions are often made on the basis of what is sincerely believed to be good public policy.

RE: The West Wing is (or at least was) a great show but...

>The West Wing television show is replete with good examples of

>how often intelligence is vetted politically, nonetheless,

>difficult decisions are often made on the basis of what is

>sincerely believed to be good public policy.

On TV. Can't see how that could have been happening in the actual White House, unless they're still snorting coke... Maybe they twisted the old (false--one drive through Flint will fix that in your mind) standard, "What's good for GM is good for the country." into "What's good for Halliburton and energy campaign donors is good for the world.".

RE: The West Wing

>To be fair, increased chatter has to be considered and

>filtered as well as analyzed. There are a number of potential

>targets in this country: it is very large and open, with

>travel even post 9/11 very easy and convenient.

You also have to consider the possibility that al quaeda (sp?) is probing and testing US intelligence. You know they watch CNN closely, and are very aware of the goings on here. Causing the US to go to "code orange" or whatever it is called just before the holidays could be a ruse, etc. If I were al quaeda, I'd give serious thought to discrediting the warnings & striking during the lowest possible setting of the alert. The al quaeda folk seem to have a very, very long term view of the struggle they initiated against the west. Some weight has to be given to the possibility that al quaeda is doing the equivalent of crying wolf. Wearing the public down, etc. They seem capable of this sort of behaviour.

[deletia]

>Traditionally and historically, terrorist attacks have not been >monthly activites. Anyone who believes that there will not be >another terrorist attacks that, both regretably and unfortunately, >will be the cause of signiicant damage, is simply engaging in self->deceptive behavior.

As I noted earlier, one of the reasons is that carrying out a major, coordinated, spectacular terrorist attack is HARD. If it were easy, it would happen more frequently. Or at least attempts would happen more frequently. Didn't more than ten years elapse between WTC 1 and WTC 2? A highly motivated force would seem to want to attack as often as possible.

--EBG

RE: The West Wing

If the government had indications from intelligence sources that an attack was likely during this season, but did not alert the public, and an attack did occurr, the liberals here would screetch their heads off that the government did not alert them. While the alert may not make much difference to us, hopefully airport security personell, the police etc. will be a little more alert.

RE: The Big Brother

...and what did republican mayor Bloomberg mean when he said that we were being watched even when we thought we wren't being watched? Was that meant to be comforting?

Mad Cow

The episode that dealt with a prospective Mad Cow incident in the U.S. seems to track very nicely with what is happening today in the State of Washington and which was disclosed by the Department or Agriculture (not the White House).

I do not want to defend the show, as that was not the point. However, the details and facts of the show were well researched and consultants from both prior Republican and Democratic administrations were used. The only thing Mr. Sorkin wrote while potentially high was award winning dialogue; the circumstances, while fictionalized, were often based on real, albeit compressed and muted incidents.

Alert

While a lot of individuals will go on with their plans this week and next, going to parties, exchanging gifts, etc., many others will be more alert. The point is to simply notice your environment more. If I lived in a small town and I saw something unusual, it would stand out greatly, sufficient to merit being reported. In a larger area, especially one spread out such as Los Angeles, what might be unusual is hard to say. However, making the public at large potentially more vigilant is not a bad thing.

RE: Alert

"However, making the public at large potentially more vigilant is not a bad thing."

It's fear mongering pure and simple.

RE: Alert

>It's fear mongering pure and simple.

One minute, this shrivled old moron from Queens is screaming about how the Bush Administration does nothing to stop terrorism.

Then the next minute, he's whining that announcements by the Bush Administration to increase security and vigilance in response to intelligence indications of heightened risk is "fear mongering pure and simple."

So if the Bush Administration does nothing, then they are reckless and irresponsible.

If they stop all terrorist attacks on U.S. soil for 2+ years after 9/11, that's no big deal, and there's no evidence they did anything worthwhile.

When they make announcements based on the intelligence they gather of heightened risk, then they are engaged in "fear mongering pure and simple."

Don't liberals have the obligation to have their critiques of the Administration at least rise above THIS level?

RE: Alert Me Once

The Clinton Administration stopped all Al-Qaeda attacks without resorting to fear mongering for 8 years! They did not need to resort to some crayola scheme that befuddles everybody.

RE: Alert Me Once

>The Clinton Administration stopped all Al-Qaeda attacks

>without resorting to fear mongering for 8 years!

Ever heard of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing? Or the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, in which hundreds of pepole were killed and injured, including the U.S. Ambassador to Kenya? Or the bombings of our military vessels and bases? How the fuck can you say that "The Clinton Administration stopped all Al-Qaeda attacks" for 8 years? How dumb can you be? I can't believe that there are still people so ignorant that they think that 9/11 was the first Al Qaeda attack on the U.S.

These terrorist acts occurred, one after the next, during the Clinton Administration. During the Clinton Administration, Al Qaeda was permitted to freely take over Afghanistan and transform that previously sovereign country into a training base for anti-U.S. terrorists. And while all this was going, the Clinton Administration did basically nothing to stop it.

Then 9/11 happened and now the U.S. is doing something about it. And all that irrelevant whiners like you do is whine about everything that's being done.

They did not

>need to resort to some crayola scheme that befuddles

>everybody.

If a warning scheme with a grand total of five danger levels "befuddles" you, I'd say that is a much stronger commentary on your cognitive abilities than it is on the warning system.

RE: Alert Me Once

>If a warning scheme with a grand total of five danger levels

>"befuddles" you, I'd say that is a much stronger commentary on

>your cognitive abilities than it is on the warning system.

It befuddles not from complexity but because it is duck-and-cover bullshit for a new generation.

How would heightened alertness by the man in the street have detected men with boxcutters on 9/11? How will you and I use our x-ray vision to see into a Ryder truck before it blows up inside the Lincoln Tunnel or the Big Dig? What do we look for to stop a private plane dive-bombing into a university research reactor and strewing radionucleides?

Ass-covering pure and simple.

RE: Alert Me Once

How about if there is a danger signal, then stay the hell away from obvious targets as much as possible. That is what the danger signals are for. They are not to make us immediately gird our loins and grab our magic swords and swoop through the air to rescue mankind. 300 million swooping would make it a slight air traffic controllers nightmare.

They are there to caution you to be careful and observant. If you choose not to be, so be it. Your choice. It is your right.

RE: Mad Cow

I wasn't attacking the show (I quite liked the first two seasons, been a bit downhill since then...), I was attacking the current "elected" administration... the coke-snorter not the mushroom-eater.

I'm saying it's my opinion that to honestly hold some of their views this administration would have to be 'on' something, though I guess I didn't say that too well the first time.

Heard a great line on the radio today:

"Ashcroft's first act as Attorney General was to cover the breast of the statue in the lobby, it was the last time Justice was exposed in this administration.".

RE: Alert Me Once

>How would heightened alertness by the man in the street have

>detected men with boxcutters on 9/11? How will you and I use

>our x-ray vision to see into a Ryder truck before it blows up

>inside the Lincoln Tunnel or the Big Dig? What do we look for

>to stop a private plane dive-bombing into a university

>research reactor and strewing radionucleides?

First, even assuming for the moment that these warnings have no prevention purpose, don't citizens have the right to know when our intelligence agencies detect a heightened risk of attack? Don't you think people have the right to know about this in case they want to avoid flying, or avoid large gatherings, or do whatever else they decide for themselves and their families they want to do in order to minimize the risk that they will be harmed?

If our government knew that there was a high likelihood of an attack but kept it a secret, don't you think the public would be outraged, justifiably, if an attack occurred and they found out that the Government didn't issue any warnings? I love how liberals suddenly become great fans of government secrecy when it suits them.

Second, use Israel as an example. Many, many terrorist attacks there are thwarted by members of the public spotting something suspicious - a nervous young Arab with a bulky coat lurking outside a cafe - and then alerting law enforcement officers or soldiers who stop the attack. That happens not infrequently.

It is easy to see how intensified public alertness could stop an attack. You may not see inside the Ryder truck, but maybe you will see them loading the truck or the Ryder clerk will detect something suspcious about the way they behave when they rent the truck or a toll booth clerk will see into the truck and see something suspicious.

This warning system is self-evidently and inarguably justified on both a security ground and on the ground that it can aid in stopping attacks. That people criticize this is one of the most potent examples ever that there are lots of people who will find fault with anything the Bush Administration does on one ground only: the Bush Admininistration did it.

Lucky, how can you be so dumb and stupid. After all the prez and his little supporter Mr. 69 here have said we are OK and, surely, neither of them would lie to us:9

the Cajun

>Lucky, how can you be so dumb and stupid. After all the prez

>and his little supporter Mr. 69 here have said we are OK and,

>surely, neither of them would lie to us:9

Actually, as usual, the truth is the opposite of what you just said. The whole purpose of the warning system - and the whole purpose of the President's speeches on this topic - is to make clear that we are NOT "OK" - because we are at war with an extremely dangerous, hateful enemy which wants to destroy our country.

We ignored that war for 8 years under the Clinton Administration, and multiple terrorist attacks culminating in 9/11 was the result which that behavior reaped. And, thankfully, those of you who want to continue to ignore this war and live in a fantasy world and pretend that it doesn't exist are in a small minority.

So keep yapping about Halliburton and how all Republicans are fascists and Nazis. All that accomplishes is to drive more and more people away from your views - that's why Republicans control the White House, both houses of Congress, and most governorships and state houses.

The responsible people in the society - who comprise a majority - will ignore you and ensure that everything that can be done to protect this country will be done. Unfortunately, people like you will benefit from this protection, even though you don't deserve it.

RE: Alert Me Once

> That people criticize this is one of the

>most potent examples ever that there are lots of people who

>will find fault with anything the Bush Administration does on

>one ground only: the Bush Admininistration did it.

You got it.

Simple application of inductive logic.

Oh yes my mighty wizard and know-nothing. Keep running your mouth and perhaps you will finally (more likely accidentally) fall upon the stake of truth. And, that truth is that todaysrepublicans are mostly liars and misfits like you.

Have a Happy New Year!

the Cajun