Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics

LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 08-12-2006, 11:05 AM   #1 (permalink)
Is Anyone Who Terrorizes Americans, Exempt from being Labeled a Terrorist?

This is America. Is it appropriate for our national leaders to terrorize the public in reaction to an election or primary result that they perceive has gone against them and their agenda?

When they use the influence of their office; a "bully pulpit", to officially proclaim that by voting for a certain candidate, or by questioning or disagreeing with their policies, are our leaders acting like terrorists? Aren't terrorists anyone who engage in an agenda or conspiracy to make us fearful; to behave in ways that benefit those who terrorize us.....in ways other than how we would prefer to behave (i.e. vote), if the "terror tactics" weren't being deployed to control us?

There was a successful attempt in the last thread that I started on this subject, to "shout me down". I believe that I am asking questions about a crisis of leadership in the US. I believe that there is no more important political discussion that I can initiate and engage in, than on the issue of whether it is appropriate for the POTUS, the V.P., the White House press secretary, or candidates running for congress, or members of congress, to react to the outcome of a political contest, by reminding voters that,
August 9, 2006

Interview of the Vice President by Wire Service Reporters
Via Telephone
Jackson, Wyoming

I was -- obviously, we're all interested in this year's election campaign.....And as I look at what happened yesterday, it strikes me that it's a perhaps unfortunate and significant development from the standpoint of the Democratic Party, that what it says about the direction the party appears to be heading in when they, in effect, purge a man like Joe Lieberman, who was just six years ago their nominee for Vice President, is of concern, especially over the issue of Joe's support with respect to national efforts in the global war on terror.

The thing that's partly disturbing about it is the fact that, the standpoint of our adversaries, if you will, in this conflict, and the al Qaeda types, they clearly are betting on the proposition that ultimately they can break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task........

........So it's an unfortunate development, I think, from the standpoint of the Democratic Party to see a man like Lieberman pushed aside because of his willingness to support an aggressive posture in terms of our national security strategy........

........But clearly within the Democratic Party, it would appear to be that there are deep divisions. I think there's a significant body of opinion that wants to go back -- I guess the way I would describe it is sort of the pre-9/11 mind set, in terms of how we deal with the world we live in.......
White House press corps asks questions about the controversy:

.....Q The Democrats are yelling that you're trying to play politics with our security. And I'm just looking at a Harry Reid letter here in which he's pointing out a Dick Cheney comment, <b>that victory would embolden the al Qaeda types.</b>

MR. SNOW: That's true. I don't know how that's politicizing it. It sounds to me like Senator Reid is trying to accuse us of politicizing while he, himself, is politicizing the issue. I think the most important thing to do here is, rather than trying to play politics with it, and to try to see some sort of advantage or try to cast doubts on either the President or members of the other party, let's just ask a simple question: What's the best way to win the war on terror? The goal is to win the war on terror, and what are the consequences of losing. ........
Independent Lieberman kicks off revamped campaign in Waterbury
Associated Press
Published August 10 2006

......... "I'm worried that too many people, both in politics and out, don't appreciate the seriousness of the threat to American security and the evil of the enemy that faces us - more evil or as evil as Nazism and probably more dangerous that the Soviet Communists we fought during the long Cold War," Lieberman said.

"If we just pick up like Ned Lamont wants us to do, get out by a date certain, it will be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England. It will strengthen them and they will strike again."..........
When the following is considered, do the comments of Cheney and Lieberman, presumably, IMO, intended to scare (terrorize) the electorate into voting "their way".....make any fucking sense?
Not Good For War on Terror

........At the core of the administrations’ war on terror are two strategies, neither of which appear to be particularly relevant in this particular case. One is the notion that we can best win the war on the offense — that should “fight them over there so we don’t need to fight them over here.” That’s what the Iraq War, and Bush’s support for Israel’s fight against Hizbollah, are all about.

But as far as we know, the plotters in the UK were homegrown — all were British citizens. Taking the offense in this war — by which the administration means using military force — is worse then useless. For who are you going to bomb? Safe houses in High Wycombe or Birmingham?.......
Written by NYTimes Editorial
Saturday, 12 August 2006

The most frightening thing about the foiled plot to use liquid explosives to blow up airplanes over the Atlantic is that both the government and the aviation industry have been aware of the liquid bomb threat for years but have done little to prepare for it. What saved everyone was apparently superb intelligence work by the British, who apprehended the terrorists before they could carry out their scheme. It is unlikely that any of the scanning machines or screening personnel deployed at airports would have detected the potentially destructive materials before they could be carried aboard.

The plot apparently called for the terrorists to carry explosive ingredients disguised as beverages, and detonators made from common electronic devices like cellphones or music players. One theory is that they planned to use chemicals that are innocuous when carried separately but could be combined into an explosive mixture on board.

Unfortunately, the aviation security system is virtually defenseless against such an attack. The X-ray machines and metal detectors at airports can’t identify liquid explosives. Officials have been fretting over this weakness off and on but have done little to develop and deploy technologies to block the threat. The government has been slow to buy so-called puffer machines that blow air on passengers to look for traces of explosive materials, and it has severely cut its budget for research on new detection methods. A few promising technologies are in the wings, but none seem ready to be rolled out quickly.

<b>It is distressing that, after all the billions of dollars spent on bolstering aviation security, such gaping holes remain. Yet no matter what technologies are deployed, there is always a good chance that future terrorists will find a way to evade detection.

That makes us wonder if aviation authorities may have inadvertently hit on the wisest approach in their stopgap response to this latest plot.</b> The Transportation Security Administration banned virtually all liquids and gels from carry-on luggage. That includes beverages, shampoos, toothpaste and other common items — everything but baby formula and medicines, and those have to be inspected.

Some passengers have complained about the inconvenience, and many more might complain if they were not allowed to keep their iPods, cellphones or laptops with them. <b>But forcing passengers to check most of their items and bring very little aboard with them might be the surest and cheapest route to greater security.</b>
<b>The "War on Terror", was launched in response to the 9/11 attacks which involved the hijacking of domestic airliners by "suicide terrorists", who then flew them into prominent national landmarks and the HQ of the U.S. DOD.

The U.S. response included the invasions and occupations of both Afghanistan and Iraq, two "missions" which have now directly cost over $400 billion, the lives of over 2500 of our sons and daughters serving in the military,
more than 20,000 of the same, wounded, and immeasurable damage to pre-9/11 alliances with other nations, as well as to the worldwide reputation of the U.S., which was at it's zenith on 9/12/2001. I have not even described the casualty counts of innocents in Iraq and Afghanistan, nor the damage to the infrastructure in those countries. Our military is also trapped, with a strong presence in both countries, and no progress in securing those countries "from terrorists", can be credibly claimed, today. Our treasury continues to bleed money and our soldiers' blood in these two places.......

Yet.....the highest "terror alert", issued in the U.S., since 9/11, came this week, at our airports....because the effort, research, funding, and policy focus was never committed to fully minimizing the "gap" in national security that allowed the 9/11 attacks to proceed; the screening of passengers who attempt to board airliners. The risk of explosive liquids being smuggled onto airliners was known by the government for at least ten years, and there was no major funding to develop technology to screen for these substances at airports, and no policy to ban possession of liquids as "carry on" articles.

IMO, the comments above, by Cheney and Lieberman, when it is considered that their goal is to "scare out the vote", taken in the context of what actually should have happened to "fight terrorism" after 9/11....and what our government actually has done, instead.....are "terrorist like" comments, from both of them!</b>

This link has a thorough timeline, with links, concerning the timeframe of the "terror like" propaganda campaign that was disseminated by U.S. government and republican party officials after Joe Lieberman lost the Aug 8 senate primary: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larisa...r_b_27085.html
Updated: 11:40 a.m. ET Aug. 11, 2006
'Countdown with Keith Olbermann' for August 10

.........BUSH: It is a mistake to believe there is no threat to the United States of America.</h3>


OLBERMANN: Now, where would anybody have gotten such an idea? And as the time line of the revelation of the purported liquid explosives airline plot becomes clearer, the political facts are underscored. You can say, without fear of contradiction that there is a political component to all this. <b>The president had the details from London no later than Sunday, so when Republican Committee Chair Ken Mehlman and Vice President Dick Cheney eviscerated Connecticut Democrats for choosing Ned Lamont over Senator Joe Lieberman and brought al Qaeda into the equation they, at minimum, knew a terror act would be breaking shortly.</b> Did the press secretary know it when he threw the president‘s own father under the wheels of the bus of history, last night?


<h3>TONY SNOW, WHITE HOUSE SPOKESMAN: The real question for the American people to ask themselves is: Do you take the war on terror seriously? With all the developments going on around the world, and if so, how do you fight it to win? There seem to be two approaches, and in the Connecticut race one of the approaches is ignore the difficulties and walk away.</h3> Now, when the United States walked away, in the opinion of the—of Osama bin Laden in 1991, bin Laden drew from that the conclusion that Americans were weak and wouldn‘t stay the course and that led to September 11.


OLBERMANN: Not surprisingly, today Mr. Snow was asked off camera, “Did you all know that this was going to break today, yesterday, when there was this massive response to the Connecticut primary, discussion of terrorism, al Qaeda?” A yes or no question. Mr. Snow‘s answer was neither, “I don‘t want to get into operational details. This was not—however, it was not explicit—let me put it this way, I don‘t want to encourage that line of thought. I don‘t think it‘s fully accurate, but I also don‘t want—I know it‘s frustrating, but we really don‘t want to get too much into who knew what, where, when.”

<h3>About a minute later, responding to a nonpolitical question, Mr. Snow let slip that Mr. Bush approved the red-alert status yesterday.</h3> ("host"adds....that would be on Aug. 9...)
August 11, 2006

Press Gaggle by Tony Snow
Crawford Middle School
Crawford, Texas

......Q Tony, could you give us a little more of a tick-tock about the White House's role in monitoring the investigation in Britain? I mean, I know you talked some about the President yesterday, but what about the NSC and some other --

MR. SNOW: I really don't -- I don't think it's appropriate to tick-tock all the things. I think it's safe to say -- and I'll go back to reiterate what I said yesterday, Mike, which is that in terms of detail, you've got to keep in mind, every day the President, as part of the PDB, gets many threat assessments and constantly receives threat assessments. And it's important for security and operational reasons not to go into who knows what, when, where, and why.

But we do feel comfortable in saying that there have been detailed briefings of the President about an impending operation in Great Britain, and those began Friday, continued through the weekend and continued on through the day before yesterday, when, in sort of mid- to late afternoon, the President was advised that the operation was going to move forward.....

....Q How much detail did the Vice President have about the timing of what was going to happen in Britain on Wednesday, when he did that conference call with reporters?

MR. SNOW: He did not know.

Q He didn't know anything? Or he didn't --

MR. SNOW: He did not know that there was an operation that was to take place. There was no anticipation of an operation that day.

It's important to recognize that the comments that were made after the Connecticut primary were in response to the Connecticut primary, and they were not in anticipation of a British action. I can say that with absolute assurance not only with regard to me, but also the Vice President. That's why I mentioned the notifications took place after he had done his phone conference.

Q -- did say that he had been part of the briefings over the weekend.

MR. SNOW: Yes, but the briefings gave nothing about timing. They were general discussions of threat. There were -- well, I don't want to go into it, but let me just say that he had no reason to believe, I don't think -- and this is based on my conversations -- there was no strong reason, at any rate, to believe that something was imminent. And, therefore, that was -- again, for me, it wasn't part of my comments, and I strongly suspect it is the same. The email traffic I've seen with Leanne McBride backs that up, but you may want to call her just to get an accurate readout, because I don't want to put words in her or his mouth.....
Joining us now to help us measure the political element here that we mentioned, Jonathan Alter, NBC political analyst, also of “Newsweek,” also the author of “The Defining Moment: FDR‘s Hundred Days and the Triumph of Hope.”

Jonathan, good evening.


OLBERMANN: <b>Let us start with the strange statement from the president of making the mistake of thinking there‘s no threat against us. Who is he saying made that mistake? And at what point did they make it?</b>

ALTER: Well, it‘s innuendo, you know, he‘s trying to implying that people who disagree with this policy on Iraq are somehow soft on terrorism. That‘s their game. That‘s the only card, politically, that they have to play. They play it extremely well. It did extremely well for them in both the 2002 and 2004 elections and they‘re going to play it again hard this year.....

......OLBERMANN: But, Roger Cressey put this neatly earlier and he‘s far less prone to calling a foul on this than am I. This administration has set the bar so low when it comes to trumpeting its terror arrests, he said, so we have a bit of a credibility gap here. This is the greatest threat since 9/11, the discovery of the recon photos of the financial buildings in New York and D.C. that was the greatest threat since 9/11, the rock-hard evidence of flights from Europe that were to be crashed into Vegas at Christmas time 2003, that was the greatest threat since 9/11. Is there a point at which most people start doubting the idea that no government would ever dream of scaring its own people unnecessarily?

ALTER: Well, you know, you mentioned my FDR book. I mean, I sometimes think the motto that these folks have is the only thing we have to “use” is fear itself. It works well for them. And yes, they do exploit it. You didn‘t even mention all the cases—you had John Ashcroft in Moscow at one point, I believe in 2002, you know, trumping something up from thousands of miles away.

OLBERMANN: The arrest of Padilla, yes.

ALTER: Yeah, so you‘ve got a whole series of events, but you know, in the same way that even paranoids have real enemies, even people who are exploiting things politically are still confronting a serious terrorism threat, and if Democrats don‘t want to be thrown into the briar patch on this issue again, they will be very careful to make sure that they don‘t, in the interest of scoring political points, forget that there are people out there who want to kill us and we‘ve got to keep that in mind.

OLBERMANN: So, let‘s also point one last finger here towards the media, ourselves, buying into the whole thing whole-hog, terror in the skies on the graphics on TV, but the Web sites and the newspapers have not been far behind. What about the role of the media in authenticating that for which we have only the word of two governments and no other evidence of our own?

ALTER: Well, I think at a certain level, the media always has to give the government, in this kind of case, the benefit of the doubt at first, then go back and ask a lot of hard questions, which you‘ve started quite appropriately to do here tonight, but to assume from the get go that the government is lying about security matters I think would be an excessively cynical posture, so that the key thing for the media is to perform that accountability function, so for instance, I don‘t know how many people, you know, know this, but air cargo—in other words, the cargo that‘s beneath everybody when they‘re on a plane is not checked in the united—less than 10 percent of it is checked, so we have these other huge security gaps, and it‘s the media‘s jobs to ask all the tough questions on all these issues.

OLBERMANN: Skeptical, not cynical.

ALTER: Exactly.

OLBERMANN: We‘ll try. Jonathan Alter of “Newsweek” and NBC NEWS, great thanks for your time, sir.

ALTER: Thanks, Keith.
Democrats Go on Offense in Latest Terror Case
Looking to the past for lessons, they respond fast and sharply, saying Bush 'mismanagement' fed the threat and the GOP is playing politics.
By Peter Wallsten, Times Staff Writer
August 12, 2006

........The new strategy, spearheaded largely by the Senate Democratic leadership, is a direct response to <b>surveys showing that Republicans hold only a marginal lead over Democrats when voters are asked whom they trust to keep the country safer.</b>

But Republicans believe episodes like the alleged British terrorism plot play to their favor.

"If the Republican Party thinks that this is going to be a good political issue for them, they're mistaken," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), chairman of the committee that sets Democratic strategy for Senate campaigns. "We are going to answer them immediately."

Schumer's committee issued a blistering memo Friday that, among other things, said Vice President Dick Cheney knew of the alleged terrorism plot when he conducted a rare conference call with reporters Wednesday in which he suggested that "Al Qaeda types" would be emboldened by this week's Connecticut Democratic primary victory by political newcomer Ned Lamont, an opponent of the Iraq war seeking a Senate seat.

The White House said Friday that Cheney was aware of a plot when he made his call but did not know the timing of the impending British arrests.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) called it "disgraceful" that Cheney used such rhetoric while knowing what was about to transpire in Britain.

"There are simply no boundaries for these people," Reid said in an e-mail to supporters and activists.

"In their minds, our national security and their continued hold on power are one and the same. And they will stop at nothing to keep it that way."

Reid's note went on to say he'd had it with the Republicans' "cruel joke" on the politics of terrorism.

"During the 2002 and 2004 elections, Republicans tried to sow fear in the American public by claiming that they were the only ones who could keep America safe," Reid wrote. "This from the same crowd that has driven Iraq to the brink of disaster, left Osama bin Laden on the loose to attack again, and continues to ignore our security needs at home. Ask any foreign policy pro, and they'll tell you we're less safe now than we were five years ago — and that the Bush crowd is largely responsible."

And Schumer criticized a Republican National Committee fundraising appeal from former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani that, coming the same day that the alleged plot dominated the news, declared: "In the middle of a war on terror, we need to remain focused on furthering Republican ideas more than ever before."

The GOP committee called the e-mail a mistake and halted it before it was sent to all recipients.

Democratic strategists said Friday that their party's reaction to the British case reflected a doctrine that had been taking hold over the last few months, starting with some Senate and House races in battleground states.

One example came in Ohio. When Republican Sen. Mike DeWine, following the GOP script, accused his challenger, U.S. Rep. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), of being soft on crime, Brown struck back almost immediately with piercing rhetoric. A television ad by the state Democratic Party accused DeWine of "failing us" as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee when it came to claims that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.

"That's not protecting Ohio," an announcer said.

In some ways, the aggressive response this week reflected Democrats' concern that Lamont's win in Connecticut over Sen. Joe Lieberman, an Iraq war supporter, was giving the White House an easy way to paint Democrats as weak on national defense. That comes as Democrats have been unable to craft a unified message on Iraq, with some calling for a fast drawdown of troops and others taking a more cautious approach.
The preceding article has it wrong.....polls have shown for several months that American opinion has shifted to trusting demcrats more to manage national security, than they trust republicans.

The question of what U.S. officials who linked a vote against Lieberman, with a mindset of being "soft on the War on Terror", knew when they were making those statements, with regard to the impending "code red" terror alert release approved by president Bush, before they made those statements, is an interesting indicator of how far these officials are willing to push their own "terror campaign", which was cemented into the minds of many Americans, when the "official terrorists" used the advantage of the inside information that Bush's "red alert" would be announced while the target audience was still reading the <i>vote against Lieberman, with a mindset of being "soft on the War on Terror"</i>,......is being asked by the white house press. That never would have even happened, in the recent past.

In order to believe that Cheney's Aug. 9, comments to the press, were not part of an integral, politcal terror campaign, you have to support as fact, the scenario that Cheney did not know that Bush had authorized release of the first color code red, terror alert, in the post 9/11 period. IMO, that would be a "fringe" opinion.
Cheney: Kerry Victory Is Risky
Democrats Decry Talk as Scare Tactic

By Dana Milbank and Spencer S. Hsu
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, September 8, 2004; Page A01

COLUMBIA, Mo., Sept. 7 -- Vice President Cheney warned on Tuesday that if John F. Kerry is elected, "the danger is that we'll get hit again" by terrorists, as the Bush campaign escalated a furious assault on the Democratic presidential nominee that has kept Kerry from gaining control of the election debate.

In Des Moines, Cheney went beyond previous restraints to suggest that the country would be more vulnerable to attack under Kerry. "It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on November 2nd, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again," the vice president said, "that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States, and that we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mind-set, if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts and that we are not really at war."......
<b>IMO, the now two year old, terrorize the voters campaign, is a Psy-Op waged against the Amercian people, to compensate for the deficiencies in the way that they officials who are waging the Psy-Op, have waged their "War on Terror". The lack of results these officials are able to show for their "war" efforts.....the Dubai port security fiasco, the still, fatally flawed airport screening policies, and the decent into civil war in Iraq, after the botched occupation/resconstruction, the deterioration of security in Afghanistan, aggravated by no plan to prevent the ressurgence of opium farming there, and the response to Katrina with the exposure of how FEMA was destroyed by cronyism, and the secrecy and avoidance of congressional inquiry by politcal allies, have taken a toll on the ruling party members, in the polls. This make it necessary to make the "terrorism scare message" ever more shrill......hence the first "red alert" ever issued.</b>.....and it's gonna get worse folks, until at least the mid-term election in november.

This Psy-Op would be terrorism, even if those waging it had a successful track record in their "WoT". We wouldn't experience it if that were the case, though....because then they caould win election campaigns on their accomplishments, not by fucking with the voters' emotions.....

Refusal to examine and discuss what happened here, and to "shout down" those who attempt to discuss it, is also "fringe" behavior.

Last edited by host; 08-12-2006 at 11:51 AM..
host is offline  
Old 08-12-2006, 12:43 PM   #2 (permalink)
Deja Moo
Elphaba's Avatar
Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA
The "fear card" has been highly successful in the past and I anticipate it's usage triplefold this election cycle. However, I don't believe political rhetoric such as Cheney's falls within the common definition of "terrorism." Our entire political history is filled with cynical manipulation of the voters. I don't like the motivation behind this tactic, but I think the First Amendment applies to sleezy politicians as well as the rest of us.

I do think that the political manipulation of the crisis level of the country is a form of "terror." We can dismiss political rhetoric if we choose, but as a people we should be able to trust the level of threat as an honest assessment of present danger. Only a minority of the populace continues to believe that the crisis level isn't politically manipulated.

I am also surprised that some members of TFP believe that the US played any part in the "liquid bomb" arrests. The talking heads and a very compliant media imply that the US was involved, but that was simply not the case. I assume that the intention is to mislead the voters into believing that this is "one for our great leader?"

Host, would it be too off topic to remind folks of Bush revealing the capture of a high level A'Q member in 2004? The consequences of that idiocy for political gain really can't be measured.
Elphaba is offline  
Old 08-13-2006, 12:13 AM   #3 (permalink)
hiredgun's Avatar
The answer to the question posed in the thread title depends on whether we're talking about what is true, or what ought to be. As for the latter, I can't answer because I'm still trying to work out what our common definition of the word is. As far as reality is concerned, yes, certain categories of people are, as a matter of fact, not subject to the label of 'terrorist'. It is a highly politicized word with a certain political function.

To more directly answer the OP: I very much agree that the 'security' card is a huge part of the overall Republican strategy and has been for the last several years. I'm not at all surprised that every terror-related incident is seized as an opportunity to remind us that we face a daunting enemy and that only the Republican party and American might can save us.

I don't think it's quite as cynical as the portrait you've painted, though. Politicians will be politicians; that doesn't mean they're always disingenuous (i.e. I'm sure many Republicans sincerely believe that their party's stance on security issues is better for America).
hiredgun is offline  
Old 08-13-2006, 06:45 AM   #4 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
Willravel's Avatar
Yes, we are victims of obvious psy-ops in the current use of the label "terrorist" and "terrorism". I can't really add anything to what Host said, but I sure do agree. Scaring the vote (and shit) out of people is the paramount policy for not only the current administration, but anyone who gets a soundbite on the news even. Christ, last night Iwas watching the news describe an african american male, approximately 5'6" to 6', who shot someone. There were no eye whitnesses. While seemingly unconnected, I do see these as parallel. The idea is simple, and it's as old as mankind: conrol through massive fear, misinformation, and deamonizing of a group.
Willravel is offline  
Old 08-13-2006, 09:19 AM   #5 (permalink)
Darth Papa
ratbastid's Avatar
Location: Yonder
The Terror Alert Levels system is the most cunning tool of terrorism ever devised. Clever manipulation of the color code (well, and the electronic voting machines) kept Bush in office in 2004.

I've got to point at this Libermanism:

......... "I'm worried that too many people, both in politics and out, don't appreciate the seriousness of the threat to American security and the evil of the enemy that faces us - more evil or as evil as Nazism and probably more dangerous that the Soviet Communists we fought during the long Cold War," Lieberman said.

"If we just pick up like Ned Lamont wants us to do, get out by a date certain, it will be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England. It will strengthen them and they will strike again."..........
And why would they do that? Once we give them what they want, they'll just attack us willy-nilly? Oh, that's right: they're not goal-oriented and politically-motivated guerilla fighters, they're Evil Nazi Stalinist Terrorists who Hate Us Because Of Our Freedom.

So our "enemy" is a cartoon character. My only question: which Evil caracture are we talking here? Are they Snidely Whiplash evil? Or Boris Badenoff evil?

Did you know that in the United States, you're vastly more likely to be hit by lightning than involved in a terrorist attack? Even in Israel, vastly more people are killed in traffic accidents than by katyusha rockets. The fact is: on an individual level, we're pretty fucking safe from terrorism doing exactly the same stuff we were on September 10th. Right after 9/11 we were told to keep living our lives--which we absolutely WOULD if these people would quit trying to terrify us.

Last edited by ratbastid; 08-13-2006 at 09:31 AM..
ratbastid is offline  
Old 08-13-2006, 10:02 AM   #6 (permalink)
Seaver's Avatar
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Rat that does not hold up. According to your theory since we're more likely to be killed in traffic accidents than being murdered we shouldn't bother with proper funding of a police force.

All I hear anymore is how terrorism is all in our minds, that it's something made up or vastly exadurated in order to keep us scared. Unfortunately that relies solely on us actually being scared. I've yet to see one person who actively fears terrorism, aside from a few women when they're preparing to fly. Realizing something is a threat and needs to be addressed does not mean you're scared into submission.
Seaver is offline  
Old 08-13-2006, 11:13 AM   #7 (permalink)
Darth Papa
ratbastid's Avatar
Location: Yonder
Originally Posted by Seaver
Rat that does not hold up. According to your theory since we're more likely to be killed in traffic accidents than being murdered we shouldn't bother with proper funding of a police force.
I didn't say that. Don't slippery-slope me.

All I hear anymore is how terrorism is all in our minds, that it's something made up or vastly exadurated in order to keep us scared. Unfortunately that relies solely on us actually being scared. I've yet to see one person who actively fears terrorism, aside from a few women when they're preparing to fly. Realizing something is a threat and needs to be addressed does not mean you're scared into submission.
Pardon? Our nation is in a losing two-front war because we were convinced we needed to be afraid. Go try to get on an airplane and you'll see what fear of terrorism has driven us to. I'm not saying YOU or I are afraid, but as a society, our level of fear is tweaked real REAL high.

It's the increasing gap between how afraid we are and how afraid we're being told we should be that is behind the low approval rating and cynicism about the current situation.

Last edited by ratbastid; 08-13-2006 at 11:17 AM..
ratbastid is offline  
Old 08-13-2006, 11:40 AM   #8 (permalink)
Easy Rider
flstf's Avatar
Location: Moscow on the Ohio
I think terrorism is a term usually reserved for those who actually carry out violent acts against civilians and not those who speculate what they might do.

I do think our polititians go overboard warning us about issues for political gain. This is true of almost all issues that voters are concerned with. Neither party is as bad as the other claims or as good as they claim themselves to be. Negative campaigning seems to work in our elections since so many seem to do it because we respond with our votes.
flstf is offline  
Old 08-13-2006, 11:54 AM   #9 (permalink)
Originally Posted by ratbastid
......The fact is: on an individual level, we're pretty fucking safe from terrorism doing exactly the same stuff we were on September 10th. Right after 9/11 we were told to keep living our lives--which we absolutely WOULD if these people would quit trying to terrify us.
They will stop......as long as they are not experiencing poor polling results, during a campaign season that will culminate in an election that will determine whether they retain the advantage that comes from holding "one party rule", in the era of a long, long, war, against enemies who are identified, labeled, "rendered", interrogated, disappeared, pursued/not pursued <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=whitehouse.gov+spend+much+time+thinking+about+bin+Laden&btnG=Search">(bin Laden)</a>, or allowed to escape, <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=omar+al-faruq&btnG=Google+Search">(Omar Al-Faruq)</a> exclusively according to the political agenda of the leadership of the ruling party. Here is the definition:
What is a terrorist?

A terrorist is one who meets five criteria:

1. Is a member of an association or individual not under the command of a recognized military force or nation/state
2. deliberately targets
3. a civilian population
4. through physical violence and/or the psychological impact of violence
5. so as to obtain by coercion what he/she could not obtain by persuasion.

All five elements must exist for an act to be defined as terrorism. <b>Note that the civilian population need not be the target of the violence, but can instead be the targetted audience of violence.</b>.......

Terrorism is the systematic use or threatened use of violence to intimidate a population or government and thereby effect political, religious, or ideological change.[1][2] Terrorist attacks are designed to influence the broader society to which those killed, injured, or taken hostage belong......

[1]# ^ a b Terrorism. Encyclopćdia Britannica. Retrieved on 2006-08-11.
[2]# ^ Terrorism. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. Retrieved on 2006-08-11.
Originally Posted by Elphaba
.......Host, would it be too off topic to remind folks of Bush revealing the capture of a high level A'Q member in 2004? The consequences of that idiocy for political gain really can't be measured.
If you perceived the intent to be an official effort to communicate an exaggerated threat and then touting/taking credit for.....making "progress" in "combating" it, while in actuality, the threat was much less signifigant, and the "progress" was minor or irrelevant, or determination was clouded because the "progress" (capture) was revealed prematurely for political gain, I think that it is appropriate to examine the incident here......

<b>This is as much about an examination of the contradictions in what the Bush administration and congressional leaders say, compared to what it is, that they do....as it is a discussion of whether what they do is a campaign of "terror". If we as a nation are "supposed to be" responding to the "Pearl Harbor attack" of "our time", and engaged in a "war on terror", as "they" remind us, over and over....what is "with" all their fucking vacations?</b>

All recent protests aside, to the following premise; it is incomprehensible to me, and I'm sure....to many others, that president Bush, after experiencing the criticism that was meted out in the wake of the 9/11 attacks....criticism that he took a month off and went to his ranch, after just 6-1/2 months on the job, in 2001.....that he received and then later tried to block disclosure of the non-classified portions of the contents of that Aug. 6, 2001 terror attack intelligence PDB, while he was on that vacation, and then did nothing in response to that PDB, including not interrupting that vacation.
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A2676-2004Apr10&notFound=true">(Bush Gave No Sign of Worry In August 2001 By Dana Milbank and Mike Allen Washington Post Staff Writers Sunday, April 11, 2004)</a>

Vacationing Bush Poised to Set a Record
With Long Sojourn at Ranch, President on His Way to Surpassing Reagan's Total

By Jim VandeHei and Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, August 3, 2005; Page A04

WACO, Tex., Aug. 2 -- President Bush is getting the kind of break most Americans can only dream of -- nearly five weeks away from the office, loaded with vacation time.

The president departed Tuesday for his longest stretch yet away from the White House, arriving at his Crawford ranch in the evening to clear brush, visit with family and friends, and tend to some outside-the-Beltway politics. By historical standards, it is the longest presidential retreat in at least 36 years.

The August getaway is Bush's 49th trip to his cherished ranch since taking office and Tuesday was the 319th day that Bush has spent, entirely or partially, in Crawford -- roughly 20 percent of his presidency to date, according to Mark Knoller, a CBS Radio reporter known for keeping better records of the president's travel than the White House itself. Weekends and holidays at Camp David or at his parents' compound in Kennebunkport, Maine, bump up the proportion of Bush's time away from Washington even further....

Bush Conscripts Aides in Tireless Pursuit of Clearing Ground
By Lisa Rein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, December 31, 2005; Page A03

CRAWFORD, Tex., Dec. 30 -- <b>On most of the 365 days he has enjoyed at his secluded ranch here,</b> President Bush's idea of paradise is to hop in his white Ford pickup truck in jeans and work boots, drive to a stand of cedars, and whack the trees to the ground
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/30/AR2006073000553.html">The president rarely travels domestically on the weekend and almost never spends the night in a city within easy flying time of Washington.</a>
Just as he was "working from Wyoming, last year, when Bush was playing guitar and delivering a birthday cake to John McCain, while Katrina was destroying New Orleans, Mr. Cheney was again on vacation, at the same time that Mr. Bush was....this year, when the first "red alert" terror warning in post 9/11, US history was issued:
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
August 10, 2006

Press Gaggle by Tony Snow
Aboard Air Force One
En route Green Bay, Wisconsin

9:33 A.M. CDT

.........Q When did the President first learn about this plot and the investigation into it?

MR. SNOW: Again, we're being a little careful on operational details. I think it's safe to say to what I said before, which is he certainly has been extensively briefed over the last few days as the operation that took place became more and more imminent.

Q Was part of that during the teleconference on Sunday?

MR. SNOW: Let's see, what day was Sunday, that was the 6th? Yes. Yes. ....

.........Q Are there details about his talk with Blair overnight, you can give? What time it occurred?

MR. SNOW: There was no overnight. That report is false, so there are no details on the fallacious report.

<h3>Q But the President, himself, approved the red alert?

MR. SNOW: Correct. It was a recommendation by the Homeland Security Council, by Secretary Chertoff and others.

Q When did he approve it?

MR. SNOW: Yesterday..........</h3>

.......Q Can I ask you about timing again -- not to keep harping on this, but yesterday when you talked about raising the white -- you know, saying the Democrats might want to raise the white flag --

MR. SNOW: This was not done in anticipation. It was not said with the knowledge that this was coming.

<b?Q So the Vice President, when he did his incredibly rare conference call with reporters, also didn't know about it at the time?</b>

MR. SNOW: I don't think so. You'll have to ask, but I can say from our point of view at that point we didn't.

Q Can you say anything about the possible al Qaeda connection?


Q Can I ask on a different topic? Can you clarify the Karl Rove call to Joe Lieberman and what that was all about?

MR. SNOW: It was a personal call. Yes, as I sent you -- in fact, I may get Karl back here, if you're interested.

Q Yes.

MR. SNOW: It's probably best to let him describe, because he was in on the call. But this was not a call after the polls closed; it was not a political offer; it was not a political conversation. It was a personal conversation. And, you know, he's expressed some willingness to do it, so maybe I'll just grab him -- yank his tie and make him come back here.

Q That would be great. .......
So....at 10:30 am., EDT, Tony Snow tells the press that Bush made the decision to issue the "red alert", "yesterday"....that would be on Aug. 9th, the day that Cheney was making a rare teleconference from his vacation location in Jackson, Wyoming, sending the message of fear against more voting, that is anything similar to the Connecticut "anti-war" vote agains Joe Lieberman.
<b>When I was writing my new TFP thread, titled, "Huh?", Cheney already knew about the red "terror" alert, but I didn't !</b>

You can read on the "Huh?" thread, the comments that republicans were making....after Bush has already authorized a "red alert", but before the world was told.....

Now, there is this:
Source: U.S., U.K. at odds over timing of arrests
British wanted to continue surveillance on terror suspects, official says

By Aram Roston, Lisa Myers, and the NBC News Investigative Unit
NBC News
Updated: 7:13 p.m. ET Aug 12, 2006

LONDON - NBC News has learned that U.S. and British authorities had a significant disagreement over when to move in on the suspects in the alleged plot to bring down trans-Atlantic airliners bound for the United States.

A senior British official knowledgeable about the case said British police were planning to continue to run surveillance for at least another week to try to obtain more evidence, while American officials pressured them to arrest the suspects sooner. The official spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the case.

In contrast to previous reports, the official suggested an attack was not imminent, saying the suspects had not yet purchased any airline tickets. In fact, some did not even have passports......
We have a phony, domestic terror campaign, IMO, telegraphed by "terrorist",
US leaders, too lazy and disrespectful of the rest of us, to even give up enough of their own vacation time to make the "terror" seem convincing....
host is offline  
Old 08-13-2006, 12:12 PM   #10 (permalink)
is awesome!
Locobot's Avatar
Originally Posted by ratbastid
Pardon? Our nation is in a losing two-front war because we were convinced we needed to be afraid. Go try to get on an airplane and you'll see what fear of terrorism has driven us to. I'm not saying YOU or I are afraid, but as a society, our level of fear is tweaked real REAL high.
Yeah no kidding, it may not be openly spoken of, but fear of terrorism is fairly prevalent. And now we have Bush and Blair taking vacations during a supposed "red alert" which they knew about well in advance.
Locobot is offline  
Old 08-14-2006, 09:00 PM   #11 (permalink)
I posted the following on Oct. 22, 2004:
Two positive comments about Bush:

I lived and worked in Manhattan on 9/11. When I watched the live
TV feed of Bush arriving at ground zero, I was distressed because
his presence at what was still considered a rescue operation, would
interrupt the still frenzied dig and search for trapped victims.

<b>Listening to Bush speak, he transformed my attitude, and I saw him
as our leader, speaking to , and for all of us, simultaneously. He was
briefly interrupting important work, but he was standing in the one place
where he could reassure the country and those who attacked us, that
he was up to the challenge of protecting us from further attacks and
of quickly making those responsible for the attacks answer for their actions.

I think that Bush is working as hard as he possibly can to do his job in
the way that he and his advisors perceive that to be.....</b>
Looking back, and after learning what I have posted on this thread, and on others, I don't know if I am more disappointed than I am angry and frustrated, or more angry and frustrated than I am scared. I fear whatever it is that our leaders, plan to impress us with....next. If their agenda was to protect us, and not to terrorize us, how can "news", like the Dubai management "deal", involving 22 US ports, or the following, ever be explained as earnest or benevolent?
While terror plot unfolded, Bush administration tried to cut funds for explosives detection

WASHINGTON The Bush administration quietly tried to cut six (m) million dollars that earmarked for developing new explosives detection technology even as the British terror plot was unfolding.
Officials wanted to use the money instead on federal building protection. Congressional leaders rejected the idea.

It's one in a series of Homeland Security Department steps that have left lawmakers and some of the department's own experts questioning the administration's commitment to create better anti-terror technologies.

An investigation by The Associated Press shows the department failed to spend 200 (m) million dollars in research and development money from past years, forcing lawmakers this summer to rescind the money.

The Bush administration has also been slow to start testing a new liquid explosives detector that the Japanese government provided to the United States earlier this year. The terrorist plot to blow up trans-Atlantic passenger jets would have involved liquid explosives.

Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
....and....it's not like liquid explosives is a recent threat scenario, either:
Mishap Foils First Plot to Blow Up Jets
Thursday, August 10, 2006
By ROBERT H. REID, Associated Press Writer

A mysterious chemical fire in a seedy Philippine hotel in January 1995 foiled the first plot to blow American airliners out of the sky with liquid bombs _ a grisly scenario allegedly planned by extremists arrested in Britain.

British authorities said Thursday they had thwarted a terrorist plot to simultaneously blow up 10 aircraft heading to the U.S. using explosives smuggled in hand luggage in a plan that police described as"mass murder on an unimaginable scale."

The alleged plot was grimly reminiscent of a plan developed in late 1994 and early 1995 by Ramzi Yousef, who is serving a life sentence without parole in the United States for masterminding the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993.

Yousef planned to blow up a dozen U.S. airliners over the Pacific and even carried out a test bombing in December 1994, smuggling nitroglycerine onto aPhilippine Airlines jet in a contact lens solution bottle.

The explosive detonated near Okinawa, killing a Japanese man after Yousef had gotten off the plane in Cebu, Philippines. The plane managed to land safely in Okinawa.

At the time, however, authorities had no idea of the link between the blast and Yousef. That would come later after an intensive investigation of the strange events that unfolded on the night of Jan. 6, 1995, in Suite 603 of the Dona Josefa apartment-hotel, located near Manila's raucous red-light district.

........Under intensive interrogration over time, Murad gave up a plot _ to kill the pope and blow up American planes. Corraborating evidence was found on a laptop and diskettes found in Suite 603.

Three days after Murad's arrest, the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration issued a security alert for all American airliners flying over the Pacific, including a ban on hand-carried liquids, aerosols and shaving cream.

Yousef slipped out of the country and made his way to Pakistan, where he was arrested a month later and sent to the United States. Murad was extradited to the United States the following April and testified against Yousef.

Both are serving sentences of life without parole at the Florence Super-Max federal prison in Colorado.

Robert H. Reid, correspondent-at-large for The Associated Press, was chief of bureau in Manila in January 1995.
Let's see...the US Justice Dept. has had these fuckers in custody for more than ten years.....and only this past week, after deliberately not funding research to detect the type of terrorist threat that they planned nearly 12 years ago, and killed an airline passenger as they tested their method....have US and UK passengers been banned from carrying liquids and gels onto airliners, and no technology was developed in all that time.....funding was actually blocked recently.....to bring screening machines "on line" at airports.

Well.....I take back everything positive that I posted about president Bush, back on Oct., 22, 2004! He seems more like the "terrorist" "in chief", than he does, the "commander in chief", now that we see what has transpired, in the fullness of time.

By the way....I watched Oliver Stone's new film, "The World Trade Center", at a theater, yesterday. When it was over, I was choked up; my eyes teared up, and I wanted to enlist in the US military.....the last urge passed....not because it is an inapproriate response.....but because the thugs that our are "leaders", in the US and in the UK, did the following to us, after 9/11, and they are still doing it:
Or did they intend to do something else and where are the shades of gray?

.......the umpire gets sand thrown in his eyes. He's trying to figure what happened and somebody blocked their view.
I'm too old to enlist....and, thanks to the Bush administration, and their "poodle" in "Londonstan", I wouldn't know who to attack to "avenge" 9/11, because they keep throwing sand in my eyes, so I can't see the play!

Last edited by host; 08-14-2006 at 09:12 PM..
host is offline  
Old 08-15-2006, 10:01 AM   #12 (permalink)
samcol's Avatar
Location: Indiana
Olbermann covered the politics of terror, aka-fake or over hyped terror threats.

Here's the google video on it: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...ocidfeed&hl=en

In the light of the information in this thread, I think it's safe to question how real these terror threats are.
samcol is offline  
Old 08-26-2006, 08:24 PM   #13 (permalink)
fear....Fear....<b>FEAR</b>....<h3>FEAR !!!!!</h3>
Bringing a prohibited item to a security checkpoint - even accidentally - is illegal.....

What happens if I bring a prohibited item to the security checkpoint?
Prohibited Items

Civil Sanctions
What happens if I bring a prohibited item to the security checkpoint?

If you bring a prohibited item to the checkpoint you may be criminally and/or civilly prosecuted. A security or law enforcement officer will decide how to handle the situation depending on the item and the circumstances.
Isn't the allowance of "discretion" by a "security or law enforcement officer", a contradiction to the <b>"even accidentally"</b> terrorizing of innocent vacation and business travelers? Who would fly or own airline stocks, if they could possibly avoid doing so? Oh....that's right.....all of the US airlines have already filed for, or reorganized from bankruptcy, since 9-11....

If there were a "real" terrorist threat of explosives made from combined "seeminlgly harmless" liquid or gel components, detonated by electronic devices, would the TSA post the following to advise, everyone, including the "fascist islamists", that such "ingredients" are not actually banned....right down to the ounce and to the depth of the screening?

Would it be beyond the "homcide bombers' " abilities....to obtain a prescription or transfer a bomb making liquid to a container that meets the following TSA criteria? We are told that the bogeymen that our government sets us up to fear, are willing to kill themselves, so if this threat is legitimate, wouldn't the risk that some of them would attempt a simultaneous, coordinated boarding of several airliners with their explosive components properly packed, labeled, and prescribed, along with their electronic detonation source, per the TSA guidelines, preclude the publicizing of such trivial, but precise, exemptions? Shouldn't everyone of us be carrying the "KY", all of the time time that we cede control to these domestic terorrists that we've left in charge?
Our Travel Assistant

New Security Procedures

While we can not provide a comprehensive list of items you may be carrying, to ensure the health and welfare of certain air travelers the following items are permittedyou are permitted to bring:

* Small amounts of Baby formula and breast milk if a baby or small child is traveling
* Liquid prescription medicine with a name that matches the passenger’s ticket
* Up to 5 oz. (148ml) of liquid or gel low blood sugar treatment
* Up to 4 oz. of essential non-prescription liquid medications including saline solution, eye care products and KY jelly
* Gel-filled bras and similar prostethics
* Gel-filled wheelchair cushions
* Life support and life sustaining liquids such as bone marrow, blood products, and transplant organs carried for medical reasons

While baby formula, breast milk, and certain medications will be permitted past the screening checkpoint and on board, please be aware that these items will be subject to physical inspection. You will not be required to taste these liquids in the presence of a security officer.

Electronic Devices

Laptop computers, cellular phones, iPods, and other portable electronic devices are allowed on board an aircraft. These items must still be screened at the security checkpoint.....
Even the sheeple should find the bullshit revision above, a tad curious.....
In a GWOT, the TSA backpedaling seems like a cave-in to "whining", at the least, or an exposure of a absurd farce of a domestic terror "Op", brought to you by your own "protectors". In a real "war", everyone would be called upon to sacrifice...fly without lens wetting solution, breast milk, prescribed liquids, gel filled wheel chair cushions, I-pods and laptops, and.....all of us would demand to be taxed at a higher rate to support the long war, and keep the government from wasting precious revenue on interest payments to support the $2 trillion in new treasury debt!

Last edited by host; 08-26-2006 at 08:50 PM..
host is offline  
Old 02-01-2007, 10:19 AM   #14 (permalink)
Paranoia Strikes Deep, into Your Heart it Will Creep - <i>Stephen Stills -1966</i>

The only thing we have to fear is [Bush & Cheney] fear itself...<i>FDR - 1941</i>
So....what say you? Do we "throw the book" at these guerilla marketers? Do we ban freedom of speech and free expression because we have been brainwashed into being too paranoid to "enjoy our freedom", anymore?

Who is terrorizing us in a more alarming fashion? If the choice is between those who Mr. Bush has labelled "islamic facists", and Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney, I am much more concerned about the damage to our psyche and society, wrought by our "leaders" than I am about foreign originated threats.

We get "hit", again and again, but the biggest "hit", is and will continue to be, to our US constitutional guarantees that our "leaders" are focussed on removing permanently.

<center><img src="http://technocrat.net/images/story/14100/BostonSign.jpg"></center>
# There is little excuse for Boston officials who panicked their own city over an advertising stunt. Boston mayor Thomas Menino has been vocal in his outrage, promising to take "any and all legal action against" Turner networks and the advertising agency that hung electronic signs on public structures to promote a silly TV cartoon. But it's time for him to take responsibility for the overreaction and resign.
# The signs are "corporate graffiti", like the stenciled ads on city streets and taggers hired by SONY to spray PlayStation-themed "art". It's vandalism, and the scofflaw corporations that create such pollution should be prosecuted enough to make them desist. But the overreaction in Boston could have a chilling effect on public political speech - a freedom too important to lose, and on many forms of art and performance.

But the worst effect is that a city's arteries were snarled for a day while bomb-squads, nonplussed by what they were called to remove, took the devices away in their bare hands. Similar devices were found in many other cities, all of which had the sense to take them down quietly.

Sure, everyone should keep their eyes open for improvised explosive devices. But it's also important to realize that the bag left alone by some traveler is, millions of times, just a bag. While such things should be dealt with safely, overreaction like that in Boston will make many people reluctant to point out the next object that "doesn't belong there" and interrupt the morning commute of thousands. And then someday when there's a real explosive, citizens will ignore it and reports won't be made.
Calm down, America, "dear leader" isn't worried, why should you be?:
....Mark Knoller of CBS News, whose statistics on presidential trips to Crawford are so comprehensive that the White House refers inquiries to him, said the current visit was Mr. Bush’s 59th trip to his ranch since taking office; as of Saturday, he had spent all or part of 384 days there....
<b>Even the reliable conservative, misinformation organ, "newsmax", could not put enough lipstick on this "pig" of a story to make Mr. Bush look "in charge"...riding his bicycle during a "red alert", in the middle of a week day....</b>
From the NewsMax.com Staff
For the story behind the story...
Saturday, May 21, 2005 11:28 a.m. EDT

Laura Bush: President Not Alerted About Plane

Commenting on last week's errant private plane scare that sent fighter jets scrambling over Washington and forced her to take cover in a bunker, first lady Laura Bush has commented that the president should have been interrupted during a bicycle ride to be told about the threat.

"I think he should have been interrupted, but I'm not going to second-guess the Secret Service that were with him," Laura Bush told reporters during her flight to Jordan to start a five-day visit to the Middle East.

The White House went to red alert on May 11 after a small private plane entered restricted airspace over the executive mansion.

The Secret Service evacuated the vice president to a "secure location" and rushed the first lady and visiting former first lady Nancy Reagan into a bunker.

Despite the red alert, however, neither the White House nor the Secret Service interrupted Bush's bicycle ride in a suburban wildlife center in nearby Maryland to alert him about the threat.

In the end, the Secret Service delayed until the end of his bike ride and some 40 minutes after the "all-clear" was given to brief the president.

The first lady said that the president had not expressed any chagrin over the tardiness of his briefing......
<b>I find it a paradox, that, with all of the fear mongering rhetoric eminating from the mouth of our "war time" president, he's still the ever vigilant, "on point", watchdog he was before 9/11 "changed everything". I predict that someday, the chidren of the folks in Boston, and around America will wonder of their parents, "what were they thinking"?</b>

In Feb., 2001, on day 18 of the new Bush presidency, we are informed that the president was in the private residence area of the white house, at least since 11:22 am, on a weekday, "working out", while the vice president was reported as "working"....
February 7, 2001
Web posted at: 5:57 p.m. EST (2257 GMT)

From CNN White House Correspondent John King

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A 47-year-old man waving a gun at the southwest perimeter of the White House grounds was shot Wednesday morning by the Secret Service after refusing to surrender the weapon, officials said.

Eyewitnesses said the man fired two or three shots, jumped into nearby bushes and remained there for about 15 minutes as agents tried to persuade him to put down his gun. He was then shot in the leg by a Secret Service agent at 11:36 a.m.

The man's presence was reported at 11:22 a.m. to law enforcement agents on scene -- members of the Secret Service and the United States Park Police.

Law enforcement officials identified the wounded man as Robert Pickett of Evansville, Indiana. Secret Service agents said they believe the suspect was the only person involved in the incident.

Speaking to reporters at mid-afternoon, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer read a terse statement that described the late morning events, and said the president was in no danger. The incident took place shortly after Bush held a tax-cut event on the south lawn of the White House.

"At approximately 11:30 this morning, while the Secret Service was on patrol around the White House, agents heard shots fired and proceeded to surround a subject with gun," Fleischer said. "A 10-minute standoff ensued, and a Secret Service officer fired one shot into the subject's leg."

<h3>The president, who was working out in the residential portion of the White House, was never in any danger, Fleischer said.</h3> Vice President Dick Cheney was at work in his White House office and also was not in any danger, Fleischer said.
Good people of Boston, and of the rest of America....take heed of Ari Flesicher's 2001 comments. You were <h3>never in any danger</h3>....it's just your "leaders", continuing to make you think that you are, as they pick your pocket of your bill of rights....

Last edited by host; 02-01-2007 at 10:32 AM..
host is offline  
Old 02-01-2007, 12:04 PM   #15 (permalink)
loquitur's Avatar
Location: NYC
My advice is, always be wary of people who believe their own bullshit.
loquitur is offline  
Old 02-01-2007, 12:19 PM   #16 (permalink)
Originally Posted by loquitur
My advice is, always be wary of people who believe their own bullshit.
yeah....you got it !!
Vice President and Mrs. Cheney's Remarks and Q&A at a Town Hall ...
Because if we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again, that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of ...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0040907-8.html - 65k - Cached -

the vice president said, "that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States, and that we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mind-set, if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts and that we are not really at war."......

....or....were you referring to me ???

Last edited by host; 02-01-2007 at 12:22 PM..
host is offline  
Old 02-01-2007, 03:29 PM   #17 (permalink)
loquitur's Avatar
Location: NYC
I have cautioned my partners who aren't litigators that there are plenty of things I say in court papers that I have a perfectly good basis for and are worth saying, even though I don't think they are going to win - and I do it because you never know what might persuade a judge, and as long it's not frivolous or ridiculous, the argument is worth making.

Knowing when an argument is weighty and when it's just filler is a pretty good judgment to know how to make in most cases. Not being able to make that judgment is called "believing your own bullshit." Even worse than that one is persuading yourself of frivolous arguments. That one is deadly.
loquitur is offline  
Old 02-03-2007, 11:07 AM   #18 (permalink)
Telluride's Avatar
Location: California
I normally don't like making up my own definitions for terms, but I don't think any person or group should be classified as "terrorists" unless there is the use of violence or destruction of property - or at least the threat of violence or destruction of property - in order to achieve some social, political or economic goal. If we don't do this, then even political organizations could be considered "terrorist" since many of them use fear of a possible law/policy to gain new members and/or encourage current members to get politically active.
"I am certain that nothing has done so much to destroy the safeguards of individual freedom as the striving after this mirage of social justice." - Friedrich Hayek
Telluride is offline  

americans, exempt, labeled, terrorist, terrorizes

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:13 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360