You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Go to Page...
Thank you for crosschecking our sponsors!
About This Page: This is a discussion on Politics within the LetsGoKings.com forums, at Los Angeles Kings Hockey Fan Forum. Originally Posted by KINGS17
Yes, quickly dealt with as in measures were taken to prevent future attacks of this type and with better security measures to guard the US supply
Yes, quickly dealt with as in measures were taken to prevent future attacks of this type and with better security measures to guard the US supply of anthrax and other toxins.
Uh...link? You can speak as generally as you want, but there's no security measure in place to keep a guy mailing an envelope full of anthrax or from some random guy dropping a glass full of powder in a subway tunnel.
Also, remember the shoe bomber? That would have been disastrous. Good thing he sucked at shoe bombing. Yeah, we check shoes and water bottles at airports now. It's all a part of the fear culture we live in and only occurs because some attempt already occured.
And seriously, if you think that guarding our own supply is the only way a terrorist can get his hands on biological weaponry, you are seriously fooling yourself. There are castor bean plants eeeeverywhere. Put that in your coffee grinder and you have ricin. That's also a federal offense and an automatic long time in prison.
Hell, we just had a salmonella scare with the tomatoes. How hard can it be to harvest that if we're doing it accidentally? Botulism can be found in the soil if you're unlucky enough to get infected that way.
Frankly speaking, there's only so much the government can do. Has Bush's administration "protected" us? I don't know if they've done so much protecting as scare tactics, violation of civil rights (patriot act)...it's not like before Bush we were getting terrorists attacks left and right, either. We've about maintained "terrorist attack" pace under him, with the biggest one in our nation's history coming under it.
Any preventive measure has been a knee jerk one - in other words, we have to experience the attack before we take any measure to defend ourselves against it.
Anyway, before this drastically veers off into further discourse about biological weaponry, my point is that you suggested that the lack of terrorist attacks is some sort of saving grace for the administration. When really, ANY administration would respond with the same or similar preventative measures considering they've all been reactionary ones.
We're only safe until terrorists find a new way to attack civilians. Believe me, there are plenty of ways they can still hit the public that Bush & co. have no way of defending.
Al Gore: Well, the wait is over. I.. decided.. to support.. youuuuu!!
Sen. John Kerry: Gosh, Al, I-I really wish you wouldn't do that. You know, I think I've got a real chance here.
...and it's turned into this.
LOL!
Finally, and this is just a simple GD fact that you can't get around now matter how you spin it . . . THERE IS NO WAY TO KNOW HOW THINGS WOULD HAVE GONE IF GORE WERE PRESIDENT INSTEAD OF BUSH.
__________________ "I would just like to hear the pitter-patter of tiny feet before I die."
"I'll get you a mouse and a . . . piece of sheet metal."
There are a lot of things that the Bush administration has done wrong, but one thing you can't deny:
Number of attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11: ZERO
That was Bush's #1 priority and to date he has been a success. As Mitchrock pointed out who knows what the sore loser would have done.
Glad to hear you admit there are lots of things the Bush administration has done wrong. I've never seen you admit this before. Please delineate them.
There are three things that can't be denied:
1) Condoleeza Rice and Bush ignored a memo and other warnings that tried to alert them to the possibiltiy of an attack by Bin Laden evil doers. Then the attack happened.
2) Bush/Cheney et al proceeded to use the attack as a reason to start an unconnected, unnecessary, very expensive and deadly war of choice on Iraq that has killed more Americans than died on 9/11.
3) No cause-effect relationship can presently be established between the actions Bush has taken since 9/11 and the absence of further attacks on US soil. Thus, he deserves no credit.
__________________
"For if once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination." Thomas DeQuincey, 1700's
Glad to hear you admit there are lots of things the Bush administration has done wrong. I've never seen you admit this before. Please delineate them.
There are three things that can't be denied:
1) Condoleeza Rice and Bush ignored a memo and other warnings that tried to alert them to the possibiltiy of an attack by Bin Laden evil doers. Then the attack happened.
2) Bush/Cheney et al proceeded to use the attack as a reason to start an unconnected, unnecessary, very expensive and deadly war of choice on Iraq that has killed more Americans than died on 9/11.
3) No cause-effect relationship can presently be established between the actions Bush has taken since 9/11 and the absence of further attacks on US soil. Thus, he deserves no credit.
#1 I assume that this memo addressed a threat that suddenly appeared the day Bush was inaugurated in January of 2001.
#2 Bad decision, no doubt. But, the question now is what next.
#3 How the hell would you know what executive orders have been issued to Homeland Security, the FBI, the CIA, etc. You don't, so this is where you lose all credibility.
__________________ Hockey's original bad boy. The "Cowboy" Howie Young
#3 How the hell would you know what executive orders have been issued to Homeland Security, the FBI, the CIA, etc. You don't, so this is where you lose all credibility.
Is this a joke?!??? You cannot argue this. If Leo doesn't know, neither do you. If you are discounting his argument because he doesn't know, you must invalidate your own because of the exact same reason.
What is your formal education? I want to make sure anybody I know doesn't follow your path, it's totally flawed.
#1 I assume that this memo addressed a threat that suddenly appeared the day Bush was inaugurated in January of 2001.
The record shows that the outgoing Clinton nat. security warnings about Bin Laden were explicit and were shined on by Rice and Bush. In any event, once Bush's people took office the question then became (to quote you below in your # 2), "what next?"
Quote:
#2 Bad decision, no doubt. But, the question now is what next.
BAD DECISION???? Wow, yeah, I guess that puts THAT one to rest. Why not just say "**** happens," or, like Cheney, "they volunteered." I'm reminding myself not to actually come up with reasoned arguments for you anymore but to just say, "Yeah, but that's water over the dam so let's not argue about cause and responsibility. What's next?"
Quote:
#3 How the hell would you know what executive orders have been issued to Homeland Security, the FBI, the CIA, etc. You don't, so this is where you lose all credibility.
Yes, I do. They've said, "ignore the Constitution and follow our stupid orders without question." What we don't know for certain is whether whatever they've told the home and away intelligence teams to do has stopped any attacks, or meaningful plans to attack.
One very strong reason for believing they haven't is that if they had the Bush administration would have leaked it to the press with all the relevant details in order to take credit and get political mileage from it because they're nothing if not full time propogandists and political campaigners. Like I said before, no cause-effect chain between their actions and the absence of attacks has been demonstrated and so no credit is due to Bush. None.
Last edited by Leonidas; June 17th, 2008 at 05:27 PM.
I'm just amazed at how many people celebrate the idea that there's been no attacks on "US SOIL." Do you really think terrorists care about the location in which they get to kill Americans? Thankfully, this adminstration did terrorists a great big favor - shipping thousands of Americans over there to make it that much easier for them to get their shots in. And what do you know - we've lost more Americans post 9/11 through terrorists attacks than we did the day the towers came down!
I'm just amazed at how many people celebrate the idea that there's been no attacks on "US SOIL." Do you really think terrorists care about the location in which they get to kill Americans? Thankfully, this adminstration did terrorists a great big favor - shipping thousands of Americans over there to make it that much easier for them to get their shots in. And what do you know - we've lost more Americans post 9/11 through terrorists attacks than we did the day the towers came down!
Great job!
3000 dead Americans on 9/11 - Tragedy
4000 dead Americans in Iraq - Tragedy
250000 dead people from Tsuanmi - Tragedy
1800 dead Americans from Katrina - Tragedy
150000+ dead Iraqis - FREEDOM!!!!
Have any of you thought that maybe, just maybe, the only aim of Bin Laden was to bankrupt America? He started with the financial system in the twin towers and the rest is being carried out by the rest of the Arab world. The price of oil is bankrupting this country one family at a time. Our national debt is tremendous and we're mired down in a war that nobody wins.
I'd say we really don't have to be concerned so much with attacks on American soil as we do with what's happeneing finanacially. Bush has used scare tactics for 7 years to keep Americans afraid of another physical "attack" that we're all forgetting a different kind of attack.
Have any of you thought that maybe, just maybe, the only aim of Bin Laden was to bankrupt America? He started with the financial system in the twin towers and the rest is being carried out by the rest of the Arab world. The price of oil is bankrupting this country one family at a time. Our national debt is tremendous and we're mired down in a war that nobody wins.
Our increase in oil prices is not the fault of Arab countries. It is due to the currency and the commodities markets
The dollar is weak and the housing bubble burst so people invest in gold and oil and their price goes up artificially--it's not a supply and demand deal.
__________________ "If I could lead you into the Promised Land, I would not do it, because someone else would come along and lead you out."
Have any of you thought that maybe, just maybe, the only aim of Bin Laden was to bankrupt America? He started with the financial system in the twin towers and the rest is being carried out by the rest of the Arab world. The price of oil is bankrupting this country one family at a time. Our national debt is tremendous and we're mired down in a war that nobody wins.
I'd say we really don't have to be concerned so much with attacks on American soil as we do with what's happeneing finanacially. Bush has used scare tactics for 7 years to keep Americans afraid of another physical "attack" that we're all forgetting a different kind of attack.
The Bush/Cheney/Neo-con reaction was politically opportunistic and venal and it killed our soldiers and damaged the Constitution severely so the 9/11 attacks worked beyond Bin Laden's wildest dreams. All Bin Laden wanted to do was attack some symbols, slaughter innocent people and throw a general wrench into the works to see what would happen.
I don't think he wanted to wreck the economy. He probably had too much $ tied up in oil stocks, Halliburton, military supplies and American mortgages in order to fund his outfit.
ValleyFan
