Scare Me Once...

Happy New Year Cajun! And Doug, you and your loved one will be deep in my thoughts and foremost in my prayers.

>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.

All time dumbest?? Nah, I can go you one better:

"But all in all, it's been a fabulous year for Laura and me." —George W. Bush, summing up his first year in office, Washington, D.C., Dec. 20, 2001, a little over three months after terrorists destroyed the World Trade Center

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushisms2001.htm

It doesn't get much dumber than that.

RE: The Big Brother

That was a reference to John Ashcroft and the Ministry of Justice. Bloomberg was just fulfilling his duty to the Party.

RE: Alert

This administration has a proven track record of faulty information. Where's the yellow cake from Niger? Where are the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

After the capture of Saddam, Shrubya said the US was now a safer place, then the terror alert gets raised after his capture.

Howard Dean was right even though the conservative media lambasted him for making the statement.

RE: Alert

And, at this point, there is no evidence that the French planes were going to be hijacked...

RE: Alert

I hate to wade into this mess, but aren't you guys the same ones lauding the preview of the report that says 9/11 was potentially "avoidable"? If one of those French jets was used as a missile and flown into some Los Angeles landmark, you guys would be screaming bloody murder that this administration fucked up. I'm happy to see that they are erring on the side of caution, and I'm not sure what big political advantage they gain by crying wolf, if that's what you think they are doing. It makes more sense to me that they would be playing up the fact that we are safer around here, instead of making people worry about the threat of terrorism while they're eating their Christmas turkey. I'll admit that the intelligence lately has been crappy, but if they're going to screw up, I'd rather them make incorrect concerns known instead of ignoring potential warning signs.

And from a politically moderate guy here, I think it's a cheapshot to try and link the "America's not any safer" point with the current increase in the terror alert. In the long run, America is definitely safer without Saddam running free. There may be turmoil in the short term and periods of heightened terrorist activity, but I believe that over time, Americans (and the rest of the world, for that matter), are better off with Saddam gone.

And by the way, I sincerely hope that America doesn't collapse and give way to the Arab world. Call me a Western homer, but I just watched the "World Idol" show, and I'm sorry, I hated the way that Arab chick sang. The rest weren't much better, but damn, I couldn't make it musically in the middle east.:-)

RE: Alert

>I'll admit that the intelligence lately has

>been crappy, but if they're going to screw up, I'd rather them

>make incorrect concerns known instead of ignoring potential

>warning signs.

Agreed, but at what point do they start restoring our faith in the intelligence gathering process? There's been little intelligence to date.

>And from a politically moderate guy here, I think it's a

>cheapshot to try and link the "America's not any safer" point

>with the current increase in the terror alert. In the long

>run, America is definitely safer without Saddam running free.

>There may be turmoil in the short term and periods of

>heightened terrorist activity, but I believe that over time,

>Americans (and the rest of the world, for that matter), are

>better off with Saddam gone.

Better off or safer? Interesting choice of words. We are no safer now than when the iraq war began. Saddam has not posed a threat to the US since the end of Desert Storm. He had no weapons of mass destruction. While his capture is VERY significant to the Iraqi people, and is certainly good for them, his capture has had no impact on the safety of the United States at all. Meanwhile, the mastermind of September 11th goes free. Where's the sense in that?

Howard Dean on 12/17/03:

'The capture of Saddam is a good thing which I hope will help keep our soldiers safer,' he said.

'But the capture of Saddam has not made America safer.'

On 12/23/03, the terror alert was raised to orange, the second highest level. Howard Dean was right.

RE: Alert

>On 12/23/03, the terror alert was raised to orange, the second

>highest level. Howard Dean was right.

>

No. He's not. That's exactly my point. The increase to level orange is temporary and not related to the capture of Saddam. I'll bet my left nut (which I'm pretty damn attached to) that the terror alert will go back down again in the near future, and America will be SAFER because powerful America haters like Saddam are no longer in power and no longer have as much influence to threaten us. I'll also bet we'll find more direct terrorism links to Saddam as events unfold.

In the long run, I believe America is SAFER because Saddam is gone. What happens in the next couple of months is not indicative of that fact.

RE: Alert

>In the long run, I believe America is SAFER because Saddam is

>gone. What happens in the next couple of months is not

>indicative of that fact.

Hell, you could make the claim that America would be safer if a lot of nations disappeared, but does that mean we ought to take them all out? I think not.

The world will be safer, when leaders of nations (ours included) begin to ponder the consequences of their "me first" attitudes, as well as the kind of people and regimes they decide to climb into bed with.

One of the dumbest statements of recent memory is one Bush makes about how people hate us because they "hate freedom". That's a load of simplistic crap. Often they hate us as Americans, because our policies often prevent them from enjoying freedom and prosperity which we take for granted as our God-given right. In America, we feed our pets better food than many people can obtain to eat. Children often work in sweat shop conditions so that we Americans can wear our designer T-shirts. We have a history of supporting dictatorships if those dictators provide ready access to resources we demand to keep our lifestyles intact. I suspect those reasons, rather than some crap about hating freedom, are really at the heart of animosity toward America.

RE: Alert

'Alert' is controlled more by Carl Rove than Tom Ridge. All sorts of Presidents have used 'war' for political gain.

Paranoia will Anoyia, or Destroia.

RE: Alert

> We are no

>safer now than when the iraq war began. Saddam has not posed

>a threat to the US since the end of Desert Storm. He had no

>weapons of mass destruction. While his capture is VERY

>significant to the Iraqi people, and is certainly good for

>them, his capture has had no impact on the safety of the

>United States at all.

In fact there is the argument that, while Iraqis are (or will be) better off without Saddam, the U.S. is materially worse off, because of (1) direct expense of getting rid of him, (2) direct expense of supporting and rebuilding Iraq, (3) squandering of political capital and goodwill in go-it-alone approach, (4) incalculable costs into the future of putting into practice preemptive-first-strike concept.

RE: Alert

"...America will be SAFER because powerful America haters like Saddam are no longer in power and no longer have as much influence to threaten us."

Another example of how people have come to think that Saddam was behind terrorist attacks on the USA. There is no evidence that he was, or that Iraq posed a terrorist threat to the USA. On the contrary, there is evidence that he was despised by groups like al-Qaeda, because he represented a secular threat to their religious view of the future of the Arab world. If Saddam succeeded in dominating the Middle East, there would be no room for al-Qaeda or Osama bin-Laden.

At the time of the invasion of Iraq there was, apparently, good evidence that Saddam was holding weapons of mass destruction to use according to his whim. That posed a real threat to the security of the Middle East, and utlimately to the rest of the world. That threat justified the invasion, in order to protect the Middle East. But the invasion had nothing to do with terrorism, and the attack on Iraq was not connected with the war on terrorism.

Heavens, even the President said so, and I can't think of anybody who had more to gain from linking the Iraqi invasion to the war on terror than George W Bush. If such a link existed, his administration would be the first to trumpet that fact. But there was no such link, and all the senior administration officials have said so.

RE: Alert

>Heavens, even the President said so, and I can't think of

>anybody who had more to gain from linking the Iraqi invasion

>to the war on terror than George W Bush. If such a link

>existed, his administration would be the first to trumpet that

>fact. But there was no such link, and all the senior

>administration officials have said so.

Oh, fuck - not THIS stupidity again. Once a stupid, FACIALLY ILLOGICAL idea gets implanted in your brain, does it stay stuck in there FOREVER??

How many times do I have to point out to you that what the Administration said was that there's no evidence reflecting Saddam Hussein's involvement in the planning and execution of the 9/11 attacks; the Administraiton NEVER said, despite your endless lies to the contrary, that there is no link between the war in Iraq and terrorism. To the contrary, Bush has always said that the war in Iraq is a central front in the war against terrorism.

Why are you incapable of understanding that the following two statements are different:

(A) We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein participated in the 9/11 attacks;

(B) There is no link between the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism.

The Administration only stated (A), but never stated (B). They have said the opposite of (B). Why do you keep coming here and outright lying by saying that the Administraiton acknowledged (B)?

Are you being dishonest (knowing the Administraiton didn't state (B) but saying it did anyway) or stupid (not realizing that there's a difference between (A) and (B))? It can only be one or the other.

RE: Alert

>How many times do I have to point out to you that what the

>Administration said was that there's no evidence reflecting

>Saddam Hussein's involvement in the planning and execution of

>the 9/11 attacks

You are correct. They said that. In his last State of the Union speech, Bush also said: "Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda."

You can see how people might draw the intended inference.

RE: Alert

>>How many times do I have to point out to you that what the

>>Administration said was that there's no evidence reflecting

>>Saddam Hussein's involvement in the planning and execution

>of

>>the 9/11 attacks

>

>You are correct. They said that. In his last State of the

>Union speech, Bush also said: "Saddam Hussein aids and

>protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda."

>

>You can see how people might draw the intended inference.

Only imbeciles would draw that inference. There are A LOT of people who "aid and protect terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda," who nonetheless had absolutely no role in the planning and execution of 9/11.

Al Qaeda has engaged in scores of terrorist attacks across the globe long before 9/11, and has engaged in scores of terrorist attacks since 9/11. It is easily possible: (A) to aid and assist Al Qaeda but (B) have had no role in 9/11. Nobody can fairly accuse someone who claims that ONLY (A) is applicable to a particular person to somehow have "implied" that they had a role in 9/11.

Although Pyell and others are either cognitively incapable or unwilling to recognize that these two statements are different, they are quite different.

All of this aside, it is STILL possible to claim that the war in Iraq is vitally important in the war against terrorism even though you acknowledge that Saddam had no role in 9/11 - the main point Pyell cannot grasp.

If - as the Administration believes - it is true that liberating 25 million Muslims from a brutal dictatorship in the heart of the Middle East and then providing them the opportunity to have a prosperous democracy will decrease the anti-American hatred which pervades the Middle East on which terrorists feed, then this war in Iraq will have been a huge victory in the war against terrorism, even if Saddam played no role in 9/11.

It's certainly legitimate to disagree with the analysis of whether or not that point is true - but is it really so fucking difficult to at least UNDERSTAND this point?

RE: Alerted

We are not providing them the "opportunity to have a prosperous democracy" and you are an idiot, (oops, talking like you now!) if you think so.

There will be no democracy in this Muslim country which is $120 billion in debt and pretty much destroyed after our war of "liberation." Dream on, dougie!

RE: Alert

Meanwhile, the terror alert hits the roof, violence continues against our brave men and women in Iraq, and the Halliburton Corporation gets $87 billion richer.

I feel safer.

RE: Alerted

>We are not providing them the "opportunity to have a

>prosperous democracy" and you are an idiot

How could they not feel prosperous with our $87 billion swirling around them on its blessed way to Halliburton? Ingrates!

RE: Alert

>Al Qaeda has engaged in scores of terrorist attacks across the

>globe long before 9/11, and has engaged in scores of terrorist

>attacks since 9/11. It is easily possible: (A) to aid and

>assist Al Qaeda but (B) have had no role in 9/11. Nobody can

>fairly accuse someone who claims that ONLY (A) is applicable

>to a particular person to somehow have "implied" that they had

>a role in 9/11.

Yes, the Administration has been careful to make the distinctions you note between A and B.

But the fine parsing it takes to absorb that distinction, and the skill with which Bush and others have blurred it, is worthy of Clinton himself. Polls suggest that more than 70% of Americans accepted what they understood to be the Administration's linkage of Saddam directly to 9/11.

Perhaps the finest blurring of this distinction came in Bush's letter to Congress authorizing the invasion of Iraq:

March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President: )

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH