Interesting question to Liberals.

[shereads]

Re: Greater threat

George W. Bush is a greater threat to the world than Osama Bin Ladin. Both are religious fanatics who don't care how many people they kill so long as they belong to the other religion. The difference is Osama wishes he had nukes, Bush has thousands.

Bush is a fanatic about one thing: covering his ass. Appointing religious fanatics to positions of power is evidence that he serves a higher power, but it isn't Jesus.

Jesus said to him, "If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me." But when the young man heard this statement, he went away grieving; for he was one who owned much property. And Jesus said to His disciples, "Again I say to you, it is easier for a rope to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

I have to disagree with Dr. Mabeuse about the value of capturing Bin Laden. True, it's too late to undo the damage that was done when Bush played into Osama's hands with the Iraq invasion. Instead of cutting off the head of the snake, we turned the entire middle east into a snake pit by confirming the power of Jihad. But the families of the 9/11 victims deserve to see someone brought to justice, as they were promised. Somehow I don't think the firings of George Tenet and Bill Maher were enough to bring closure.

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

... I don't know about those 7 minutes. Sitting here now, 7 minutes isn't a long time. What information could be had?...

Somebody who actually lived through the time please help me . . .

Wasn't the Ballistic Missile Early Warning System built during the 60's to gain a 30 second advantage on any incoming ICBM's from Russia?

Are you saying that military communications have regressed in the last forty years?

 

[shereads]

Mr. President, a plane has just hit the WTC.

What do we know? Is it an accident, are we under attack?

We're not sure yet sir, information is sketchy at this time.

Get me some information as fast as you can.

Christ, wild. This is what happened:

He knew that one plane had hit the World Trade Center. He had commented on it to a reporter on his way to the photo op at the school, "Now that's a pretty bad pilot."

When the SECOND plane hit, there wasn't a man, woman or child in the U.S. with an IQ above Hamster Level who thought it was an accident.

What else did he know? Let's see. He knew he had had, on his desk, the security briefing that Condoleeza Rice testified about to the 9/11 commission, entitled "Osama Bin Laden Plans Attacks Inside U.S."

He knew that the World Trade Center had been attacked in the 90's by a group associated with Bin Laden.

He had heard Richard Clark express the concern that commercial airlines were vulnerable and might be used as weapons by terrorists.

Seven minutes is a pretty long goddam time when you're the poor bastard at the Federal Aviation Administration who's begging the FBI for help because there are two other planes missing. It's a long time if you're a military pilot who's waiting for the order to shoot down a civilian aircraft.

It's a long time for the man in charge to sit on his delicate ass with an expression of stark terror, which is what you would see if you cared to look at the video.

Jesus Christ, people, READ and FIND OUT WHAT'S GOING ON. None of this is a secret anymore. This kind of selective ignorance is what got the world into this mess to begin with. And I don't just mean George W. Bush's ignorance, god damn it.

Michael Moore didn't turn George W. Bush loose on the world,

YOU DID.

You allowed this to happen out of IGNORANCE of Cheney's Iraq agenda and George W. Bush's proven incapacity to do anything right EVER except bankrupt a company by doing little more than wandering by and asking to use their telephone. In the name of God, Bush voters, stop trying to justify what you did and WAKE UP. I'm sick of seeing the Constitution ravaged and people blown up because you "don't like" someone who hasn't yet indicated a tendency to bring the world to the brink of goddam World War III and fire anybody smart enough to advise against it.

Furthermore, he did NOT "go after terrorists." Holy crap, terrorism gets worse every time this bastard opens his mouth. Do you know there are a total of eight state troopers patrolling the entire coast of Oregon thanks to your boy's tax cuts which transferred the burden of security to the states? While he spends untold billions on his friends' goddam missile defense system, somebody with a sturdy raft and a duffle bag will bring a freaking "nuk=u=ler" weapon ashore and we'll all fry because YOU "DON'T LIKE" JOHN KERRY.

I'm not in love with him either, but so what?!!!!!! What's the worst thing he's going to do to you? Take your gun? NO. He's a hunter. He won't take your goddam gun. Cower in fear in the face of an attack? HELL NO, he's a combat veteran who volunteered while the Lesser of Evils worried how to break it to his Daddy that he couldn't fly anymore because he had weaseled out of the drug test.

Every god damned thing us "liberals" predicted would happen under your president - yes, yours, you elected him - has happened. We were right. You were wrong. We are suffering right along with you for your poor judgement. Now you owe it to us to give somebody - anybody - a chance to undo a fraction of the damage this crew of stooges have done before we get NUKED by the next nut case who accepts Dubya's challenge to "Bring It On."

I'm out of here.

This is the single most frustrating year of my life as an informed citizen of a democracy. Moderate? Please. At this point, anybody who can still be on the fence about George W. Bush's capacity to lead the free world is about as moderate as Ann Coulter.

 

[The Mutt]

Hot Damn, Shereads! You have a beautiful mind. I wish the Democrats would speak with just half that much fire. Prince George is the greatest threat to world peace ever to sit in the White House. There is only one issue in this campaign: Good vs Evil. Bush must go!

 

[shereads]

deleted

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Somebody who actually lived through the time please help me . . .

Wasn't the Ballistic Missile Early Warning System built during the 60's to gain a 30 second advantage on any incoming ICBM's from Russia?

Are you saying that military communications have regressed in the last forty years?

Norad & Sac, had the early warning system, it gave about 30 minutes advance warning of a soviet first strike ICBM launch. Operation Chrome Dome had US, nuclear armed B-52's airborn 24/7 over the pole. It was all part of MAD, Mutually Assured Destruction. And for years it kept us from nuking them & voce versa.

-Colly

 

[Pure]

Hi Wildcard,

Thanks for responding and having patience.

I like that Bush has gone after the terrorists. I hate that he has made some royal fuck ups along the way. Every president since Carter has failed miserably with terrorists. Bush had the right intention going after them where they live, he's just screwed it up royally ever since going into Iraq.

It's true he went after terrorists. But if you've read about the stats, terrorist incidents are 'up'.

I agree Clinton did not have enough of a 'handle' on the problem, and neither does Bush.

Listen, errors or mishaps are to be expected. But dr's have an old adage "first of all, do no harm."

Bush, did not merely err, he exacerbated the problem and provided al qaeda and similar groups with a hundred more class A grievances, *backed up with pictures* (abu ghraib).


PS. As to your stand on some hot button issues. It's pretty clear they are similar to a number of Republicans' and very few Democrats'. Hence: To the extent that they are priorities of yours, you'd best vote for Republicans at all the levels, including for Bush.

 

[Wildcard Ky]

Hi Wildcard,

Thanks for responding and having patience.

I like that Bush has gone after the terrorists. I hate that he has made some royal fuck ups along the way. Every president since Carter has failed miserably with terrorists. Bush had the right intention going after them where they live, he's just screwed it up royally ever since going into Iraq.

It's true he went after terrorists. But if you've read about the stats, terrorist incidents are 'up'.

I agree Clinton did not have enough of a 'handle' on the problem, and neither does Bush.

Listen, errors or mishaps are to be expected. But dr's have an old adage "first of all, do no harm."

Bush, did not merely err, he exacerbated the problem and provided al qaeda and similar groups with a hundred more class A grievances, *backed up with pictures* (abu ghraib).


PS. As to your stand on some hot button issues. It's pretty clear they are similar to a number of Republicans' and very few Democrats'. Hence: To the extent that they are priorities of yours, you'd best vote for Republicans at all the levels, including for Bush.

Yep, terror instances are up, but I don't find that suprising at all. We've taken the fight to them, and they are going to fight back. I've said this to someone before, but I think it's a good analogy. In 1944 we decided to take the fight to the Nazis on their ground. We lost over 5,000 soldiers on D Day alone. The Nazi's fought back hard and a lot of people died. As cold as it sounds, that's what happens when you take a fight to a group or army, they fight back hard. In 1944 we didn't quit, and we wound up beating them. I think we need to do the same with the terrorists. We will be better off in the long run, just like in 1944.

Clinton and Bush aren't the only ones that have messed up with these types, Carter and Reagan did as well. The problem with terrorists isn't systemic to one president or party. It dates back to the hostages in Iran and goes through Beirut, Desert Storm, WTC in 93 and several other events leading up to now. Yes Bush has screwed up pretty badly too. I don't envy them their positions, or hate any of them for their wrong decisions. They've all messed up in their own way.

Thanks for the advice on my hot button issues. I freely admit that I am a slightly right of center moderate. I just do my best to vote for a candidate at any level that most closely matches my beliefs regardless of what party they are. I can proudly say that I have never pulled a straight ticket ballot in my life. I'm an equal opportunity voter.

 

[shereads]

Proclaiming the "War on Terror" and invading the Middle East was exactly what Osama bin Laden wanted from us.

Clinton had some significant successes against terrorism. Reagan encouraged terrorism by rewarding the taking of hostages. Terrorism is no more likely to be eliminated from the planet than rape or murder, but we could at least have used a portion of the money spent in Iraq - and what's being senselessly spent on the missile defense system - to secure our borders.

The Homeland Security Department is symbolic and the War on Terror is a political tool. As proof, you need only ask yourself what point there is in having color-coded alert levels and billions spent each year developing a missile defense system, when your budget leaves hundreds of miles of coastline unguarded by anything at all?

While Bush is "taking the war on terror to them," someone is either planning to bring it aashore in Oregan or already has. There is every reason to believe we're in more danger than we were before Bush declared his War on terror, and there is not one shred of evidence that it's working.

One thing we didn't do during World War II was create millions of new Nazi sympathizers. We understood a European cultural sensibility; we are clueless about Islam, and it was incredibly irresponsible to pretend that Ahmad Chalabi was the key to success.

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

... I've said this to someone before, but I think it's a good analogy. In 1944 we decided to take the fight to the Nazis on their ground. We lost over 5,000 soldiers on D Day alone. The Nazi's fought back hard and a lot of people died. ....

I think it’s a bad analogy.

In fact, World War II has little in common with Bush, the Lesser’s War. For one thing, they were a mirror image of each other. WWII started in ‘39, but Roosevelt couldn’t get past the America Firsters, to join until well after Pearl Harbor.

Even then, Hitler declared war on America first.

In Dubya’s War, America plowed in first, not with the world begging it to join, but in fact, just the opposite.

Hitler’s Incredible Gaffe

Few people realize that the United States did not declare war on Germany at the same time congress approved FDR’s request for a declaration of war on Japan on December 8, 1941. It was not until December 11 that Hitler, entirely on his own and to the astonishment of his closest advisors, declared war on the US

Hitler had urged the Japanese to attack America or its interests in the Pacific. He had even promised to declare war on the US if they launched this attack but he was under no duty to follow through. The Tripartite Pact among Germany, Italy and Japan did not require this action on Germany’s part. Anyway, Hitler was accustomed to violating agreements he had made. So why did he do it?

Pearl Harbor instantly brought America’s outrage to a boiling point…but only against Japan. In the US there still existed significant resistance to joining in the war in Europe.

Which really doesn’t prove anything other than Hitler was nuts and Dubya's War is nothing like World War Two.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Holy shit does this thread go everywhere.

Okay, it is no small surprise that I have no love for Bush. Like all whacked out fundamentalist frat boys, he's fucking things up and not getting hit for it. That's besides the point. Frankly as long as the conservative side of the equation supports rightist candidates and as long as the American people favor lies over truth, there ain't nothing that's going to happen that won't happen for stupid reasons. Bush will either get re-elected or he won't and no amount of wishing on the liberal side will change it. It's sad but true.

As to the original equation, I for one would love to have seen Osama's head on a pike. Most of my family comes from or lives in New York. However, I recognize that we won't get that, especially with this distractionary war in Iraq. I also recognize that Osama's death means little in the short and long runs. The Islamic Fundamentalists have found a tactic that works well against any enemy and Christian Fundamentalists have brought them the Crusade they wanted. It's all just a fucking Islam vs. Christianity boxing match that we've all gotten sucked into.

Furthermore, terrorists are not like Nazis. To stop nazis you invade Germany. By accomplishing this, you remove the central power and all returns to normal. Terrorists are decentralized and don't rely on a clear center for power. An example of this is the Israeli Assassinations which have yet to stop either the target or the number of suicide attacks. It's like the War on Drugs, we're not going to win, we're just going to fight. And we'll fight forever and ever and ever until it no longer matters.

Also, I think the liberal side is going a bit too much on the ultra-defense here at this thread. Yeah, we're in a fucking handbasket and yes we are traveling full speed to Hell, but yelling angrily at moderates like they are neo-cons isn't going to change anything. Yes, I'd love it if the moderates recognized that Kerry is far less extremist than Bush and I'd like it if the traditional conservatives and libertarians threatened to disengage from the party if the republicans continue to pursue a rightist agenda, however these likes are sort of like Amicus's utopia hallucinations: non-material and meaningless.

So, in a roundabout way, to answer your original question. If Bush delivered Osama to the American public, I'd applaud his re-election for doing one good thing.

 

[shereads]

At this point, why would you believe it if they told you they'd killed Osama?

Consider this opportunity, Mr. Vice President: just before an uncomfortably close election, you announce that Osama bin Laden has been killed.

After the election, when the "pretender" on Arab TV turns out to be the real thing, still alive, you have Colin Powell go on Meet the Press to apologize for the bad information.

What's the worst thing that's likely to happen? You lied, it worked, you won. Business as usual.

Am I paranoid because I no longer believe Bush/Cheney?
Or are you in denial because you still give them the benefit of the doubt?

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

I believe I stipulated head on a pike for the method of delivery.

And after this many lies, I wouldn't accept just their word on anything above their first names. Sigh, it's amazing that we've all come to allow lies as if they were family. It's like we've gotten so used to politicians lying to us that even borderline treason doesn't get us to bat an eyelash anymore. Damn majority idjits.

 

[shereads]

For what it's worth, I'm sorry that this is personal. But the reality is, a vote for Bush/Cheney is a vote to inflict the neocon agenda on me.

You don't have to be a neocon to help them remake America to their liking. All you have to do is relect them so they can appoint the next Supreme Court justice; two are up for retirement. Then you won't just have voted for a president and vice president.

You will have given them carte blance to do what no president has ever had the power to do: enact his vision without any opposition in the Legislative or Judicial Branches.

You don't have to be a leftist to imagine what the neocons will do when they are firmly entrenched as the majority in control of all three branches of government. There will be not one, single obstacle to stop them from prohibiting abortion, passing an amendment to ban gay marriage, and eliminating your right to due process under the law. I won't even speculate on what will happen to public lands and air and water. It's taken only a few years to turn back 20 years of hard-won environmental protection.

That doesn't make it personal for you?

Okay, try this: Is it unreasonable to assume that four years from now, we won't have Literotica? Do you think John Ashcroft isn't licking his lips in anticipation of a neocon-controlled Supreme Court so he can make his case against internet porn?

With the Supreme Court at stake, the "lesser of two evils" reasoning simply doesn't make sense no matter what you think of Kerry, for this reason: to enact a liberal agenda, he would have to not only win the White House but also see a dramatic reversal in both houses of Congress. Whereas Bush/Cheney need only one more thing, and then they can spend the next four years changing the world: they need to win the White House again, keep a slight majority or even a close minority in Congress, and await the retirement or death of a Supreme Court justice. Then all bets are off.

The left was right four years ago, and we were helpless to stop this train wreck. With so much more at stake this time, and the evidence of who and what these people are there for the taking, we still can't make a dent.

No amount of "I told you so's" will be satisfying enough to make up for what I lose when you reelect Bush Cheney. That makes it personal.

 

[shereads]

I believe I stipulated head on a pike for the method of delivery.

So if you were shown the head of a white-bearded dead Arab and Colin Powell was assigned to convince you that it was the head of Osama Bin Laden, you would believe him because...?

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

So if you were shown the head of a white-bearded dead Arab and Colin Powell was assigned to convince you that it was the head of Osama Bin Laden, you would believe him because...?

I know what Osama looks like. I'm not some asshole who thinks everyone with a turban is the same person. Whether the rest of America would follow my example...let's just say I'm not bothering to look back.

As far as Colin is concerned....I'm glad he's retiring at the coming election. The Bush administration has done a number on his credibility and failed to utilize his cool head in a crisis.

 

[shereads]

I know what Osama looks like.

Shot in the face?

As far as Colin is concerned....I'm glad he's retiring at the coming election. The Bush administration has done a number on his credibility and failed to utilize his cool head in a crisis.

Oh, I think they've made full use of him. If he didn't have a son in government, maybe he would have let himself be used a bit less.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Shot in the face?

Trickier, I'd have to use my special powers of recognition for that one.

As for the majority of America, Bush could attack Al-abama for having a Muslim name and everyone will cheer for his valliant avenging of 9-11. Morons and racists, the lot of them.

 

[neonlyte]

"This is a great step for Iraqis who will mobilise all their efforts to rid Iraq from those who aspire to destroy the peace and the security in the country."
Mohammed, Baghdad, Iraq.

This is a quote from the BBC web site following the announcement of the hand over of control to the Iraq's. Presumably it is a 'street' quote, no attributation other than 'Mohammed'. I just wonder who Mohammed is talking about, the coalition or the terrorists?

The transparency of the hand over of control should be lost on no one. Blair is reported as being visibly shocked when Bush made the 'suprise' announcement, BBC reporters talk of the Press Conference being delayed to enable Blair to re-write his statement. Clearly Blair is not in the loop on US strategy, no real suprise there.

Having invaded and all but failed, having turned most of the Middle East against the West for decades to come, having created a new cadre of martyr's for extremists to follow, having witnessed the deaths of some 1000 coalition troops and 12000 Iraqis - the coalition hands over control for political expediency.

Now the real trouble begins. Within weeks the coalition will violate Iraq's temporary government's authority and act independently against 'hostiles'. They will have no alternative, terrorists unfortunately are not stupid, they can turn the whole of Iraq, and the Middle East, further away from the West by a single outragious strike that will require response by-passing the Iraqi government. Bush wont care, retaliation will win him votes in November, Blair wont care too much for the same reason.

The rest of us should care. I've said this before and it is worth repeating. What is happening in the Middle East now is small potatoes compared with what is going to happen down the road. China is doubling it's oil requirements annually, and whilst there will be blips in their progress, in 20 years their demand for oil will be as great as the US. The only place this oil can come from is the Middle East, there simply is not enough to go round. In three years time China's annual new vehicle registrations is expected to equal Europes, it will meet the requirements of less than 5% of their population.

 

[cantdog]

Well, in 20 years they just won't be able to have any oil. It is limited, it is dwindling, the peak has passed.

Chasing it is pretty shortsighted and stupid. Particularly if you aren't going to start conserving and scaling back on fossil fuel use. And we repudiated Kyoto in the first few months of Bush's horrifying presidency.

He isn't going to make nice and share it with any Chinese, either.

Do you see any reason in this oil thing to actually elect these people?

 

[neonlyte]

Well, in 20 years they just won't be able to have any oil. It is limited, it is dwindling, the peak has passed.

Chasing it is pretty shortsighted and stupid. Particularly if you aren't going to start conserving and scaling back on fossil fuel use. And we repudiated Kyoto in the first few months of Bush's horrifying presidency.

He isn't going to make nice and share it with any Chinese, either.

Do you see any reason in this oil thing to actually elect these people?

Sorry if I misled. I have no desire at all to see these people re-elected. I have always been willing to give Blair the benefit of doubt, his immediate reaction post 9/11 may have reigned in Bush from more extreme measures at great personal political cost, we wont know for 50 years until the papers are released under British law.

The point of the post is to emphasize that 'we' are missing the point. Control of the Middle East is fundamental to maintaining, temporarily, lifestyles in the US, Europe, Japan and China. No politician is going to get elected on a platform of banning gas-guzzling cars, switching of the ac, and sharing dwindling oil resources. If you can't achieve control 'democratically' you take what you need by force, as history continually confirms.

The Bush clique know what the target is, their ineptitude in manipulating the terrorist threat and actions to political advantage is mind numbing and confirms just how far main stream US has diverged from its path as leader of the free world.

Europe is fully aware of the pending oil situation, major projects in some European countries pour resources into renewable energy, France exports nuclear generated electricity to other EU members. Their reluctance to join the coalition against Iraq is founded on taking a much longer view than the US which continually looks for a politically expedient solution ammenable to corporate America.

 

[shereads]

Bush could attack Al-abama for having a Muslim name and everyone will cheer for his valliant avenging of 9-11.

Al-abama?

 

[shereads]

Well, in 20 years they just won't be able to have any oil. It is limited, it is dwindling, the peak has passed.

Chasing it is pretty shortsighted and stupid. Particularly if you aren't going to start conserving and scaling back on fossil fuel use. And we repudiated Kyoto in the first few months of Bush's horrifying presidency.

He isn't going to make nice and share it with any Chinese, either.

Do you see any reason in this oil thing to actually elect these people?

Dammit, you liberals are always wanting to take away our SUVs. I need to drive a Hummer. Granted, Florida is a flat state and there's not much need for an off-road vehicle, but some of our parking garages have HUGE speed bumps. Have you seen what speed bumps can do to a Honda?

The oil industry will tell you that this "limited supply" business is a myth. Just last week, there was a debate about this on NPR and a spokesman for oil said, "People have been saying for years that we're going to run out of oil, and it hasn't happened yet."

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I thought handing over power a couple of days early was one of the first really intelligent things the administration has done. It really took the wind out of the sails of the insurgents who had promised bloody mayhem right before the "official" transfer of power was to take place.

-Colly

 

[shereads]

Europe is fully aware of the pending oil situation, major projects in some European countries pour resources into renewable energy, France exports nuclear generated electricity to other EU members. Their reluctance to join the coalition against Iraq is founded on taking a much longer view than the US which continually looks for a politically expedient solution ammenable to corporate America.

Europe doesn't have Texas, where an entire economy and culture has been based on oil money. The people who run the oil economy were shrewd enough to determine that oil is like McDonalds' hamburgers: the fastest and surest way to get rich is to get people addicted to a product that's cheap and filling; to produce the same product more responsibly would raise the price to the consumer, who has been gorging himself on cheap fats and starches and gasoline for so many years, that he thinks it's a basic human right. McDonalds will argue that regulating the beef industry (slowing the slaughter process to improve worker safety and assure a clean, disease-free product) will punish the poor. The energy industry makes the same argument against regulations that protect the environment. Both arguments assume that profit margins must remain at or above the current levels so that CEOs can have multimillion-dollar salaries; and both arguments assume that the poor benefit more from a quarter-pound burger with a risk of salmonella poisoning, than they would from a smaller burger that's actually safer, at the same price. (As everyone knows, Americans are underfed and underweight because we're already paying too much for fast food.

Like drug addictions and religious cults, the culture of Cheap & Irresponsible has no long-term benefit to the end user, but is enormously profitable for the people in control.

Gas prices at $2 a gallon have Americans in a panic. Suddenly, the Toyota Prius that American auto makers laughed at a few years ago, has a waiting list of more than a year and Detroit is scrambling to get their own hybrid cars to market, using research they now have to buy from Japan.

Our problems in this country always seem to be based on the short-sightedness and greed to which our economy has become addicted. You might think we'd have learned something from the gas crunch thirty years ago.

And we did: we learned that when gas prices go up, it's Jimmy Carter's fault.