CHENEY THREATENS VOTERS WITH TERRORIST REPRISALS
 

If anyone here is still in doubt about the character of the men who are currently running our country, I give you the following from the L.A. TIMES:

US Vice-President Dick Cheney has warned that electing the Democratic presidential ticket would make America more vulnerable to terrorist attack.
Mr Cheney's comments came on a day when President George Bush increased efforts to paint Senator John Kerry as wobbly on the war in Iraq and the Democratic challenger accused the President of executing a war that has cost the US dearly.
The Vice-President's aides later said he was referring to the terrorist threat that faces any administration elected in November. But his remarks were taken as an inflammatory charge that overshadowed the day's exchanges on the campaign trail.
As the number of deaths of US soldiers in Iraq reached 1000, Mr Cheney sought to question how the Democrats would handle national security.
During a question-and-answer session with supporters at a Des Moines hotel, he said it was imperative that the nation made the "right choice" in November, adding that decisions made by the next administration would have an impact over the next 30 or 40 years. "If we make the wrong choice, then the danger is we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that'll be devastating from the standpoint of the United States, and we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mind-set that these terrorist attacks are criminal attacks and we're not really at war," Mr Cheney told about 200 people assembled in the hotel ballroom.

"I think that would be a terrible mistake for us."
Democratic vice-presidential candidate John Edwards immediately fired back, accusing his opponent of trying to frighten voters.

"Dick Cheney's scare tactics crossed the line today, showing once again that he and George Bush will do anything and say anything to save their jobs," the North Carolina senator said.
"Protecting America from vicious terrorists is not a Democratic or Republican issue, it's an American issue and Dick Cheney and George Bush should know that. John Kerry and I will keep America safe, and we will not divide the American people to do it."
Hours after Mr Cheney's words caused a stir on news wires and cable news programs, his spokeswoman told reporters that he stood by his statements, but she sought to explain them.
As the Vice-President flew back to Washington, DC, on Tuesday evening, from a campaign stop in Manchester, New Hampshire, campaign press secretary Anne Womack said: "What the Vice-President was saying is, 'whoever is elected, we face the prospect of a terrible attack.' But the issue at hand is whether you have the right policies in place to prevent an attack."
Asked whether Mr Cheney meant to imply that a Kerry presidency would result in a terrorist attack, Ms Womack replied: "The Vice-President is saying that we need to ensure that we have the right politics in place to protect Americans. The campaign stands by and the Vice-President stands by my explanation of his statement."
- Los Angeles Times

Sounds like mafia tactics to me. "Vote for my guy or you'll be wearing concrete shoes."

I gave that statement a lot of thought ... I and I think it is accurate. The character of the presidency and the willingness to seek out those who would commit terrorist acts against this nation DOES have a lot to do with the relative safety of the United States. I several times have reflected with fear upon what might have happened had Gore been president on 9/11/01.

I have several times asked the question why we (the US) have not become subject to a suicide-boming-a-day like in Israel, or faced multiple other terrorist incidents out of the Al-Quaeda playbook?

Like it or not, my personal belief is that the answer is Bush.

When you look at the litany of terrorist acts against the US during the Clinton years (including WTC truck bomb, OKC, Khobar Towers, etc.) you gotta wonder ...

and we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mind-set that these terrorist attacks are criminal attacks and we're not really at war

Cheney's statement was horrible and I hope they take the time to at least re-state it to emphasize the above part. The danger is that an administration decides to approach the problem as a law enforcement problem and not a bubbling international war. But the point is moot because the public wouldn't stand for it to be treated as a law-enforcement problem anyway.

The same thing that happened with Bush as president, except with less My Pet Goat, and fewer advisors running around the Oval Office screaming "IRAQ! IRAQ! IRAQ!"

What happened _after_ the reprisals against Afghanistan would have been different.

At least Gore has the decency to LOOK like an animatronic puppet.

This is how they will win in the end
 

Cheney's statements just underline the basic premise of the entire Bush election effort in 2004, I've said it before and I'll say it again, fear. It's as simple as that. I think Kerry can restructure and do pretty well at hammering at GW's character and his record as president, even admist Kerry's as Senator. I think with current revelations about Bush and the debates I think Kerry can comeback again and make this election damn close, in a vacum, but this is post 9/11. As I've said in a new thread I started today (see Ben Barnes) I believe that inveitably people will vote on the fact that you don't change presidents in a time of war, especially this "war on terror". The Bush campaign can hammer this home with the threat of a terrorist attack with a change in guard, especially a weakling like John Kerry, or so they say, how they're able to pose somebody how volunteered to go to war as weak is beyond me. This fact only proves my point more.

It's pretty powerful stuff if you ask me, I mean how many worse than Watergate scandals can you have and still be in office? Well I think this president takes the cake. Judging by the silence of many of the moderates in Congress, and I mean Republicans here, and alot of the moderate intelligensia of this country, I can pretty much say that it's working. People are scared to death, and many believe that fighting over someplace else, ie. Iraq, is a hell of a lot better then fighting here, even if it has in reality distracted us from other threats, and can very well be a bunch of hogwash.

In the end Cheney and the rest of the team are playing this right. Even if Bush's personal credbility dries up between now and Novemeber, this senond prong will win it for them. People will still see people like Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld as more secure, they'll still vote on the Republican mindset, and policy and not the man GW Bush.

-Walrus

I think they will win in the end by having a 527 create a 30-second ad that shows Kerry actually stating all his different views on Iraq, followed by an "October surprise" of either the discovery of WMD in Iran or Syria, or a terrorist attack in the US. If I'm right I want credit for having said it here first.

if you are involved in either scenario, i don't think you can get credit for the statement.

Regardless, the capability is the real issue
 

No matter what it is, whether it be the threat of a another small terrorist entity, trumped up, or raising the specter of an attack here, the terror switch is there to use. That's the crux of it, the details are almost irrelevant at this point, backdrop really. They'll do an assessment and decide then what their best option at creating a rallying point will be at that time, end of story. I'm curious to see what it will be, but it's the tactic that can be utilized that I'm more concerned with.

-Walrus

I'm pretty sure I already said the exact same thing back in the middle of July. But that post was lost in the crash.

The irony is that is I was Osama, with his objectives and methods, nothing could possibly be more beneficial than re-electing Bush. Who would have thought it would take half a mil and 13 lives to start the US on the slippery slope, truly evil but brilliant, he worked this shit out, how Bush would react, how a public that can only ingest soundbites would react, it was perfectly planned. All he had to do was light the fuse, Bush did the rest, most terrorists can't achieve something that effective in decade-long campaigns. When the reconvene the Count of unAmerican Activities I won't even bat an eyelid.

Just think about it, he hit so many themes in the American psyche, it's....scary. Our society can't deal with full-scale asymmetric warfare without ceasing to exist as we know it, the waging of this 'war' creates the next generation of fighters and they're distributed so widely, they have no history and profiling can only backfire. We can only win this war, a war of force, by losing our own freedom. That's what I call well thought out. He found a weakness in the system and inserted the right trigger, from there it'll implode all by itself. We're fucked.

Sorry that was a little offtopic.

Hrm...about OKC. Homegrown terrorism, anyone? Who's looking out after them?

Teens plead guilty in cross-burning case
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/09/03/cross.burning.ap/

This worries me personally more than anything, because that could easily be MY lawn they burn a cross on. :mad2:

It was so well thought-out that he lost his host country and 3/4ths of his buddies.

It doesn't fit with previous attacks and it doesn't fit with what bin Laden was saying in the late 90s about the nature of the US's approaches to similar attacks. In 1997-98 he was pointing to the attacks in Beirut and Somalia and Khobar and telling people that the US was a paper tiger who can't stand getting hit and will always quietly withdraw. Even the response to the Cole was tiny and finished without being effective. For several decades that was exactly our response to every act of terror, just scurry away. He was convinced that would be our response again, but doubled and without US interests / presence holding up people like the Sauds, he would have a chance to be a bigger power broker.

What he lost is nothing compared to what he gained. Some of the killings just before the attacks on enemies in Afghanistan suggests he knew well enough what would happen. Al Queda may no longer itself be a functinonal group but does it need to be? It's message has spread far and wide, from the growing civial war in Saudi Arabia to the embassy attack today in Indonesia, Al Queda itself is no longer needed. The next big attack will come from another unknown group which the media will no doubt 'link to Al Queda'. In sense, by voting for bush, the terrorists have won, it's game set match as freedom dies in the face of hatred and fear.

Slightly offtopic once again and aimed more at aussie voters but I'm sure some people here will find it amusing. A different 3rd party

That conclusion flies contrary to basic facts. Yes it will be detailed because when I say that is SO incorrect as to be a lie, then the reasons come with details. Details one better damn well know before saying this president makes America safer. George Jr made America so unsafe from terrorist attacks that some could even conclude it was done so intentionally. Reality says otherwise. But first we examine how real anti-terrorism works.

Under Clinton, when a terrrorist act was suspected, then the entire government went on the alert and therefore stopped terrorist actions. Back then, the Counterterrorism Security Group was considered so important as to have 'principals' access. How many terrorist attacks must one prevent before they are said to do their job. Numerous Millennium terrorist attacks averted because top administration people took the threat so serious as to empower the little people. So serious as to make the CSG a principles office directly part of the National Security Council. It worked only because top administration officials took terrorism seriously. Viewed anti-terrorism as an operational organization - not a 'foreign policy' or ideological organization.

IOW what is more important - a political agenda or getting hand dirty empowering the workers? There is a fundamental difference between Clinton and George Jr. The former recognized danger. He empowered the people when danger was detected. He therefore stifled numerous terrorist attacks planned for the Millennium by empowering the workers. Terrorism became more difficult under Clinton who even eliminated embassies that could not be protected. Terrorist attacks against at least two American embassies (Albania and Uganda) were averted which included arrests in Azerbaijan, Italy, and Britain. Also discovered was the al Qaeda forgery operation in Albania. This is what happens when a problem is taken seriously by top management - especially the president.

Now we come to the mental midget president who is accused repeated from non-partisan and Republican authors of not even reading his own memos. How can a president make America safe if he does not even know the basic facts. The 9/11 Commission Report makes it bluntly obvious. He was told on 6 Aug that an attack was immenent involving buildings and planes. When the planes began striking the WTC and when the president is told, "America is under attack", then what does he do. He sits there for seven minutes without even asking if anyone is in control.

We know know the military desperately needed Administration orders to defend America - and yet George Jr just sat there for seven minutes. Those pilots never got permission to defend America - from a president that Wolf trusts? Wolf. Do you read before you make conclusions? He just sat there. He did not even ask one question.

And as so many who have worked with him now suspect - George Jr does not make decisions. He does not have sufficient knowledge to make decisions. He sat there for seven minutes waiting for someone to tell him what to do.

He could not even testify before the 9/11 Commission without help. Cheney had to be there to answer the real questions. This is a leader we can trust?

So now we ask what George Jr did to maintain the protection provided by Clinton. Wechsler is credited with discovering how Muslim Brotherhood organizations finance their operations - the hawala system. He also demonstrated that bin Laden was not financing his own al Qaeda network; that is was a major international financing system. All these investigations came to an immediate halt with George Jr - the man who makes America safe from terrorists.

When al Qaeda had just recently earned respect as more than a financing network, instead George Bush and Dick Cheney discussed the antiballistic missile treaty and Iraq as if they were the terrorist threats. IOW they could not be bothered to learn how the world had changed in 10 years. Their ideology does not permit them to learn new concepts until forced to by earthquake events. Again lets go back to George Jr sitting their for seven minutes in a FL school room waiting for someone to tell him what action to take. One of those persons who does that is Condi Rice. Same person who decided terrorism was not a major problem. Even after two simultaneous embassy bombings, Khobar Towers, etc, this administration is too driven by ideology and policy to see the operational facts? Yes. These are the people who tell George Jr what to think.

Don't believe me? Even his cabinet meetings are preceeded by memos telling each cabinet secretary what he will say, when he will say it, and how much time he is permitted to say it. Who issued these memos? Karl Rove and the president's political staff.

We know this president had a memo written by two CIA agents so concerned about the immenent attack on the US that they boldly and intentionally entitled it "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US." Unlike Clinton, George Jr did nothing - just as the thinking of Rice demonstrates. Had George Jr done what Clinton did, then FBI agents on the trail of 11 September attackers - in AZ, IL, MN, and now we have learn about two lady agents in NY - would have been empowered to follow up their investigations and uncover the 11 September attack. Instead George Jr built an antimissile defense system to protect us from terrrorists launching missiles.

This is the intelligence and attitude that Wolf says makes America safer? She must not read beyond the Daily News to come to that conclusion.

How are your sources of information. If you are using propaganda, then you actually think Iraq is getting better. Dexter Filkin in an interview with Charlie Rose last night. Charlie said his feelings were that things are getting a little worse every day every where. Dexter confirmed this citing his recent interview with a Sunni cleric who hates American. Even Sadre City is still open to Americans, but Dexter said he expects that to change in the next few months. Elections will not be possible at all in the Sunni Triangle. Electricity is still less than when Sadam was in power. It was suggested that the Saddam trial may be pushed up from January for reasons that include the 7,000 mile screwdriver. Decisions made for political reasons in the White House rather than operational reasons in Iraq.

IOW even both Iraq and Afghanistan are slowly falling apart. What George Jr calls terrorist - and what are really nationalists - now control most every town north and west of Baghdad including the desert all the way to Jordan. Yes, the US Army could take control. But then we have VietNam all over again - we must burn the village to save it.

How can anyone think America is safer under George Jr - except if brainwashed by lies - half truths - from Rush Limbaugh. This mental midget president cannot even complete the two wars he has started. He cannot even read the PDBs that warn of terrorist attacks. He cannot even ask questions when both questions and answers were desperately needed - as the US was attacked while fighter pilots remained without orders to defend America. To say that America is safer under George Jr is to say the poster is easily brainwashed by ideologues.

It is impossible to be intelligent and say George Jr makes America safer. Because George Jr's actions, it is not safe or advisable to announce you are American even among some of America's closest allies. Best to let them believe you are Canadian because George Jr has so perverted American safety all over the world. Stop listening to lies from Rush Limbaugh. This president is not just bankrupting America (because as Cheney said in the meeting, "Reagan proved that deficiets don't matter). He is also making America a target of Muslim Brotherhood (al Qaeda being only one example).

Yes plenty of details. And I provide more. Those who like the mental midget as president either found much of this to be new information or will not read it because they too are ideologues - facts and operational knowledge be damned.

How safe will you be when this mental midget president attackes Iran on or after 2006?

Just so everyone undersands what that PDB really said. It did not say that terrorist are going to grab some planes and fly them into buildings. It did not say when anything about timing. It did say that 70+ investigations were underway on various possible Bin Laden schemes.

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 Ladin wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the
release of "Blind Shaykh" 'Umar 'Abd aI-Rahman and other US-held
extremists.

- Nevenheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of
suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for
hijackings or other types of aNacks, including recent surveillance of
federal buildings in New York.
The FBI is conducting approximately 70 luillieid investigations
throughout the US that it considers Bin ladin-related. CIA and the
FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in the UAE in May saying
that a group or Bin ladir1 supporters was in the US planning at1acks
with explosives.


should the bush team have know that in one month al quaeda was going to hi jack 4 planes and fly them into buildings? i don't know. i don't know what the PDBs said everyday for the 6 months before this one. I do know that it isn't completely honest to say that Bush knew about imminent hijackings and planes flying into buildings.


PDB 6 AUG 2001

Clinton: investigate, prosecute, and punish the perpetrators.
Bush: Kill someone else.

the difference is that one president viewed these as crimes for the courts to deal with. the other views them as acts of war. the difference between the views explains the different approach in dealing with them.

One went after the people responsible for the acts.
The other lied to us to go to war with an uninvolved country. (Or are we still looking for those wmds?)

- Pie

we didn't go to iraq because of al quaeda. much of america supported the war because of the information about WMD.

That's not accurately expressed. Clinton viewed terrorism as a major threat. bin Laden had not been clearly identified as a threat until the bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. Clinton would not put feet on the ground (to invade) because we did not have the smoking gun. But he did everything else he could to attack those who threatened Americans. That included driving bin Laden out of Sudan AND responding to every 'real' threat. 'Real' as in the threat truly exists as opposed to any silly little rumor that causes another orange alert (that was until Tom Ridge finally stopped issuing orange alerts and Ashcroft got mad).

Clinton had no authority to make war. That authority only existed when a smoking gun existed - 11 September. So who does George Jr attack? Saddam. George Jr lets bin Laden go free. What kind of war is that? One fought for reason of ideology rather than reasons operational. Not one single American battalion was ever sent to get bin Laden. We should be talking about impeachment here for dereliction of duty. Or do we excuse him only because they did not tell him to attack the right nation?

Remember what George Jr said to Richard Clarke. He wanted Saddam blamed for the WTC attack. Ideology is more important that reality. He let bin Laden go free. He did not even attack the real American enemy. At least Clinton took every effort to attack when he could. But then we are talking about a president who could make decisions.

A careful review of the actual quotes show that Bush never said Iraq was behind 9/11 but he and other top officials in his administration mentioned both in the same sentence on numerous occasions. They intentionally attempted to link the two in people's minds.

The official reason was that Saddam had WMDs and was an imminent threat to the USA. That, of course, turned out to be a lie.

I still don't understand why we actually went to war. It wasn't 9/11. It wasn't the threat of Saddam. It wasn't the oil. Was it just so the US would have a military base in the Middle East? I think that's the most logical reason. Bush was hoping that we would be embraced with open arms and Iraq would become another Germany for US bases.

http://denbeste.nu/essays/strategic_overview.shtml

1. To directly reduce support for terrorist groups by eliminating one government which had been providing such support.

2. To place us in a physical and logistical position to be able to apply substantial pressure on the rest of the major governments of the region.

3. To convince the governments and other leaders of the region that it was no longer fashionable to blame us for their failure, so that they would stop using us as scapegoats.

4. To make clear to everyone in the world that reform is coming, whether they like it or not, and that the old policy of stability-for-the-sake-of-stability is dead. To make clear to local leaders that they may only choose between reforming voluntarily or having reform forced on them.

5. To make a significant long term change in the psychology of the "Arab Street"

6. To "nation build". After making the "Arab Street" truly face its own failure, to show the "Arab Street" a better way by creating a secularized, liberated, cosmopolitan society in a core Arab nation. To create a place where Arabs were free, safe, unafraid, happy and successful. To show that this could be done without dictators or monarchs. (I've been referring to this as being the pilot project for "Arab Civilization 2.0".)

7. Not confirmed: It may have been hoped that the conquered nation would serve as a honey-pot to attract militants from the region, causing them to fight against our troops instead of planning attacks against civilians. (This was described by David Warren as the flypaper strategy.) It seems to have worked out that way, but it's not known if this was a deliberate part of the plan. Many of the defenders who died in the war were not actually Iraqis.

Also the entire memo is not provided in the 9/11 Commission Report. But interviews with the two CIA agents who wrote the report said they wanted to convey that attacks were imminent. Therefore they started the report with:Lets not forget where all George Jr's knowledge comes from - a 1.5 year indoctrination by Wolfowich and Rice. Rice apparently did not even know of al Qaeda. So how could this memo really be historical in nature. George Jr never once convened a principals meeting on terrorism. Not one. al Qaeda and terrorism was that irrelevant. The information was that new to him.

The memo says highjacking planes and survellience of buildings. So when the second plane strikes the WTC and Geroge Jr is told America is under attack, then what does he do. He had sufficient information to conclude this was the attack. Instead he just sat there and asked no questions. Not one question for seven minutes. Instead he picked up and read a children's book. When he receieved this PDB, he did not do as Clinton did - output a warning - empower the little people. George Jr did not even convene one meeting on this "historical" threat.

We have just too much good reason to believe George Jr did not even read the PDB. Tenant always gave the briefing verbally - a waste of valuable manpower. Yes, there is substantial evidence that George Jr did not even read the PDB which is why he really could not "put the dots together" during the attack or convene a meeting before the attack.

Is George Jr qualified to be a leader - or is he really just another Dan Quayle. Did he do anything wrong - the embarrassing two minutes where he could not even answer that question on national TV. Classic leadership abilities. He could not even run a successful company - having been excellent at drilling dry well but getting rich in the process.

This is presidential material - a man who does not even read his own memos? He did not see the serious danger specifically stated in that 6 August PDB. George Jr did nothing to stop terrorism - except build an antimissile defense system and read a childs book in a FL classroom.

Pre-9-11, Clinton did a lot, and provided advice and data to the incoming Bush team. He made surgical strikes, and was accused of "wagging the dog".

Pre-9-11, Bush did nothing. Nothing on terrorism. Pre-9-11, Bush didn't consider terrorism to be even worth investigating as criminal activity.

Post-9-11, we only have one data point on how the different parties react to terrorism. Bush makes a feint towards Afghanistan, then returns to a war from a decade ago, which he had been promoting even before 9-11. Afghanistan starts falling back under Taleban control.

No President, Democrat or Republian, will treat terrorism in the same way post-9-11 as they did pre-9-11. When you compare records pre-9-11, Democrats are far ahead.

If it was just that, we already had Kuwait. There were certainly multiple reasons, but I think a large one was Saddam's shot at G.H.W.B.

tw, it is obvious that neither of us will ever convince the other or anything, but let's be clear. that statement was already discredited, because Rice referred to al quaeda by name in a speech in 2000. i will have to search for the reference on that, but i have heard the speech.

All of this says we must be the world's policeman. We must impose our value systems on those other regions. It assumes that all terrorists today are the same people yesterday - ignoring the fact that large groups of terrorists are created by foreign interventions. To nation build - which once was called taboo by the Republicans. To nation build those who don't want or need nation building.

To make clear to everyone in the world that reform is coming is a blantant declaration that we will save the world from itself. That is the mantra of the Religous Right Extremists. We will impose democracy because they cannot? Are they living in the real world? The only reforms that work are ones a nation itself imposes - and only after they have killed or sweated enough to appreciate the value of those reforms.

A policeman cannot reform anyone or any nation. Only the naive with a political agenda would try to do in the Middle East what this administration is doing. But then it was called the Project for a New Ameircan Century based upon a memo that even called for unilateral (Pearl Harbor type) attacks on India, Russia, and Germany. These are honest and trusted leaders in the White House? People we can trust to save the world from itself?

We are discussing the future safety of Americans. It only get worse when America decides to impose its will on all countries in another region. Anyone, but a mental midget president, can see that. Leave them alone and they will fight among themselves - a domestic dispute. Eventually they will learn from and correct their mistakes. Try to impose reform on the whole bunch - and they all turn on us - even more aggressively. What this president does will make the world much less safe for Americans.

Same president who was so stupid as to even disban the Iraqi Army and police. You trust this same uneducated man to save the Middle East from itself?

Those particular surgical strikes were on which country involved in terrorism?

It would have been nice if Bush actually mentioned this stuff when pushing for war instead of saying it was all about an imminent threat to the USA.
I've heard the allegation that Iraq paid widows of suicide bombers in Israel. That's the only evidence I've heard of such terrorist support. I've read and seen much more to point out that Saddam would have nothing to do with people like OBL because they were religious and opposed Saddam. I'm very doubtful that Iraq was much of a factor in terrorism.

So far, it's not working out that way. We kind of have our hands full in Iraq. In fairness, I understand events don't always work out the way you plan.

This seems to have backfired. Maybe the news is only showing the negative stuff, but I hear condemnations of the US on a regular basis.

Well, the message has been sent. I think everyone got it loud and clear. It's possible that Libya fell into line as a result of Iraq. Or maybe it's more like Reagan taking credit for all the work Gorby did to tear down the wall. Either way, Libya is shaping up. That's a good thing, regardless of where the credit belongs.

Too soon to make a call on long term changes. Short term changes don't look so good.

I pray this works. It looks like the only way we can solve the situation in Iraq now. It's not looking so good though. Aid workers are talking seriously about pulling out entirely.

That would be awesome if it worked out that way.

These are all interesting reasons for the war. Hindsight is 20/20 of course, but it seems to be failing on most counts so far. We have a long road in front of us, and maybe things will improve.

I wonder if Bush and Co. ever admit to themselves as they lie awake in bed at night that it was an amazingly stupid idea and they wish they could turn back the clock?

Sudan and Afghanistan.

Those weren't the ones that were called Wag the Dog.

Because Rice gives a speech after she is taught about al Qaeda by Richard Clarke does not discredit anything I had posted. Keep your timeline straight. Again. What is George Jr's entire knowledge of the world from? From Wolfowich and Rice - who spent 1.5 years teaching Bush before 2000. We have an administration that was totally ignorant of current events - ie al Qaeda - when they took office. Why? They had already decided their political agenda - reality be damned.

Rice may have given a speech about al Qaeda. But if she really understood what al Qaeda was, then why did she demonte the CSG to a positions where action required months of low level review? She did it because even after the speech, she still had no idea what al Qaeda really was. The CSG was removed from Principals level because Condi Rice and the Project for a New American Century promoted their political agenda rather than learn how the world had changed. Again, the George Jr administration was in Cold War mentality even almost one year later. They saw the world in terms of confronting China and antimissile systems. For some rediculous reason, a country with a military larger that the next top five combined was still too small (which should scare every patriotic American). The reality of Oslo Accords, Muslim Brotherhood attacks on the US, separation of church and state, advancement of science, etc was completely foreign to those extremists who automatically assumed everything of Clinton was evil.

Oslo Accords were of Clinton. Therefore the Oslo Accords had to be killed. Thank you George Jr and Condi Rice for doing just that.

These are facts. The George Jr administration never even had one Principals meeting on terrorism because they had already decided that Saddam was the danger. Reality be damned - which his what an American says who votes for Geroge Jr. Now they have Americans foolishly thinking that a war in Iraq is about terrorism. Only a fool or someone who never reads the news thinks we are in Iraq to attack terrorists. They have Americans foolishly assuming all terrorism has its roots in al Qaeda. Welcome to the Muslim Brotherhood - that exists longer than the United States. They have Americans foolishly thinking that Afghansitan has been civilized or solved.

All this time, Americans who once could go most anywhere and be warmly welcome must now maintain a low profile - hope others assume they are Canadians. This because Condi Rice, et al had no idea about worldwide realities or about al Qaeda. Instead these extremists see everything in black and white; good and evil. It took 11 September to get Condi Rice is even hear what Richard Clarke was really saying and John O'Neill kept loudly warning - because she promoted ideology of the Project for New American Century. Now we will fix the world? Already the world is less safe for all Americans due to those extremist American values. Why? Because righteous extreme right Americans know what is better for the world? This is nothing but dangerous thinking once promoted by Colonial Powers.

Rice had little idea of al Qaeda until after 11 September even though she knew what the world required. Now the solution is to fix the world at the useless expense of American lives? 8000 causulties and that number will only increase. This is the same mentality that created VietNam. Ignorance at the highest levels of government created by ideology rather than by realities. We have met the enemy and he is now us.

Correct. It is obvious we will not agree because I bring to this discussion far more knowledge AND have lived through the same right wing extremist mentality when Nixon was president. Furthermore, I am not satisified with just reading the news. I am an engineer which means I cannot get enough details and other facts; must learn the why. (Remember the Iraqi invasion - when I was starved for more news coverage?)

What is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan is not new. It is classic Condi Rice or Richard Nixon trying to fix the world where the world does not want to be fixed. She did not even know what al Qaeda was when she taught George Jr about the world. No wonder America is now disliked in so many places where we once had friends. Deja Vue all over again.

no the reason that we will never agree is not about knowledge or individual facts that one or the other of us holds - it is that we have basic philosophical differences. we approach the world from different starting points so when we absorb the same information we will focus on different areas and come up with different solutions. this doesn't make one right and the other wrong. it makes us different. the fact that we have different views and the freedom to express them is what has lent america its strength over the last 200 years.

Yes they were.

As a result of bombings on the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, Clinton deperately sought 1) proof of who did it, and 2) an appropriate response. Item one is not disputed. This was the event that demonstrated al Qaeda was something more than a financing group for terrorism; the first time that the al Qaeda branch of Muslim Brotherhood was considered a serious threat. Furthermore, this was not the only time Clinton had attempted military strikes on al Qaeda. This particular strike, of course, was easily predicted by Pakistan who saw numerous US destroyer conjugating. The Pakistan Navy told their government in advance AND the US had to inform Pakistan in advance so that Pakistan would not assume an Indian surprise attack. All this probably alerted al Qaeda who quickly abandoned the targeted camps. Which begs the question of who really is the American ally? The one who warns al Qaeda and promotes nuclear proliferation?

But yes, the Sudan and Afghanistan reprisals were unjustified accusations of Clinton doing Wag the Dog. Since right wing extremist commentators don't accuse George Jr of same, then many of us don't accuse George of playing the same game. Yes, it begs the question - what are your sources of information? Based upon facts or based upon political agenda spin - ie Rush Limbaugh?

A valid point that was also demonstrated in the Philosophy discussion group in a thread entitled "logistical logistics".

I think you make a very interesting point here, Lookout. We all look at the world through our own individual filters. I think that's why it's good that people can come together in places such as The Cellar and state our points of view and debate the differences. Believe it or not, some of your posts have allowed me to widen my own field of perception and catch a glimpse of things I had never thought about before. I mean like once or twice maybe, in a funny sort of way. I'm still not going to be your new best friend, but I kind of respect you when you're not calling me names. ;)

No, that's for people that are not doing God's work. ;)

Funny quote from Josh Marshall:And the Iraqi civilians are the patients.

Here's a depressing article on Rove's tactics in elections.