Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

Foiled Terror Attacks...sm

Posted By: Democrat on 2006-08-10
In Reply to:

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/britain-thwarts-plot-to-bomb-us-bound/20060810015209990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001



LINK/URL: Foiled US Air-bound airliner attacks


Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

Bush speech on terror, followed by *surprise* terror alert. Whaaaaaaaaat?

Bush took to TV cameras again to try to sell his Brooklyn Bridge of a war, this time tossing around buzz words like *communism* and *fascism.*  (Yawn)


But wait!!


Within a couple hours, during a televised news conference with Mayor Bloomberg, it was announced that evidence of a bomb threat specific to place, time and method had been received and that the source was very credible. (First thought: *But I thought were were fighting them there so we don't have to fight them HERE.*  Second thought: *This is bad.  We've been warned in advance of this.  Look what happened when we were warned in advance about Katrina?!*)


Yikes!


But wait!


Shortly following that news conference with Mayor Bloomberg, the powers that be in Washington issued a statement that the  threat has doubtful credibility.


Oh.


Okay.  Just another terror warning in America......or not.



There've been alot of foiled attempts. So far,
With Bush (& hopefully the current republican candidates) out of the White House, the risk of terrorist attacks against the US should start to become less.
The war on terror is a war without end
It can never be "won," and will not be effective without drastic revamping that will involve global cooperation among many countries, not some "bring 'em on" cowboy mentality.

If we want to regain ANY of the respect we have lost over these last 8 years, we must start with walking the walk and talking the talk...with consistency. Without that, there will be no credibility.
War on terror --

Am I the only one to find this statement absurd:


  • Terror: Asked in a TV interview why he hasn"t used the oft-repeated "war on terror" phrase coined by the Bush administration, President Barack Obama said he believes the United States can win over moderate Muslims if he chooses his words carefully.

  • He wants to make friends with people who have taken the lives of so many Americans without conscience? 


    I'm not pro-McCain or pro-Bush and I'm not pro-Obama.  I'm pro-American.  I can't believe this guy thinks we should be trying to "win over" terrorists. 


    War on terror
    I agree 100%. You can't make friends with these people. They are committed to killing all of us. That is part of their religion.
    May God help us all if we get another terror attack.

    This president has ignored every single thing ever suggested to him, even as it regards terrorism.  I wonder what the terrorists will be planning for us in the future and how much information and knowledge they've learned from this about our weak spots.  They must see American frustration with Bush's incompetence, and they must really be enjoying that.  This is AMERICA.  We're supposed to have our act together.


    Yes, they have acknowledged the war on terror,
    but the world has not declared war on terror.  Terror isn't coming from Iran alone.  I think the president is premature in even mentioning a world war.  I am fairly convinced that the most of the middle eastern countries, whether friendly to the US or not, already have the knowledge for building nuclear weapons, it just a matter of getting the material, which sounds like they may get from Russia before the end of Putin's term.
    terror is an emotion

    How do you have a war against an emotion.  We have a discrete group of enemies we need to contain - not "fight a war on terror."  Slogans are for advertising, not world relations.


     


    Or another terror attack. Or a

    biological attack.  Or a flu pandemic.  Lots of scenarios available for his use. 


    I share your fears 100%.


    Wish I could move out of terror country
    Sweetheart, if I knew I could move to another country and get a job, even minimum wage, live in peace without knowing I live in the major terrorist country of the world with the most low IQ dufus president America  has ever had..you bet I would be out of here in a NY heart beat..
    Wounded Knee/Reign of Terror

     I think you are confusing The Siege at Wounded Knee beginning in February 1973 with the Reign of Terror as it was called by the indians the following three years. During those 3 years 64 tribal members were unsolved murders, 300 harassed and beaten and 562 arrests made of which only 15 were convicted. The seige ended after 71 days. In 1975 the FBI was following a red pickup truck to the Jumping Bull ranch where many AIM members as well as nonmembers were present..AIM having been asked there by the family for protection. What ensued ended in the death of 2 Federal Agents and 1 indian man. The red pickup truck was never seen nor heard of again. What happened is sketchy at best. Three indian men were tried in the deaths of the Feds. Two were acquitted and Leonard Peltier has been in prison for 27 years, although there is little evidence to support his incarceration...or I guess I should say, there was evidence at the time of the trial but at least 4 of the witnesses have recanted their testimonies. They state they testified out of fear. If nothing else, Peltier deserves a new trial and that has been proven and reproven, yet he does not get it.  During the 1973 Wounded Knee, 2 AIM members were killed and 12 others disappeared. There is quite a bit of information on this topic available for your perusal. Aho.


     


    P.S. The reason indians (traditional) would rather be called indians than Native Americans is because the land we lived on was not America until the white man came. Indians called this place Turtle Island. The Native Americans were, in fact, the first Europeans to arrive and name this place America, ergo, they were the first or Native Americans. We are the indigenous peoples, the indians.


    Admin...we have someone codoning terror on this board


    US attack on Iran may prompt terror













      MSNBC.com

    U.S. attack on Iran may prompt terror
    Experts say strikes on nuclear facilities could spark worldwide retaliation


    By Dana Priest


    Updated: 12:16 a.m. ET April 2, 2006



    As tensions increase between the United States and Iran, U.S. intelligence and terrorism experts say they believe Iran would respond to U.S. military strikes on its nuclear sites by deploying its intelligence operatives and Hezbollah teams to carry out terrorist attacks worldwide.


    Iran would mount attacks against U.S. targets inside Iraq, where Iranian intelligence agents are already plentiful, predicted these experts. There is also a growing consensus that Iran's agents would target civilians in the United States, Europe and elsewhere, they said.


    U.S. officials would not discuss what evidence they have indicating Iran would undertake terrorist action, but the matter is consuming a lot of time throughout the U.S. intelligence apparatus, one senior official said. It's a huge issue, another said.


    Citing prohibitions against discussing classified information, U.S. intelligence officials declined to say whether they have detected preparatory measures, such as increased surveillance, counter-surveillance or message traffic, on the part of Iran's foreign-based intelligence operatives.


    Bigger threat than al-Qaeda?
    But terrorism experts considered Iranian-backed or controlled groups -- namely the country's Ministry of Intelligence and Security operatives, its Revolutionary Guards and the Lebanon-based Hezbollah -- to be better organized, trained and equipped than the al-Qaeda network that carried out the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.


    The Iranian government views the Islamic Jihad, the name of Hezbollah's terrorist organization, as an extension of their state. . . . operational teams could be deployed without a long period of preparation, said Ambassador Henry A. Crumpton, the State Department's coordinator for counterterrorism.



    The possibility of a military confrontation has been raised only obliquely in recent months by President Bush and Iran's government. Bush says he is pursuing a diplomatic solution to the crisis, but he has added that all options are on the table for stopping Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons.


    Speaking in Vienna last month, Javad Vaeedi, a senior Iranian nuclear negotiator, warned the United States that it may have the power to cause harm and pain, but it is also susceptible to harm and pain. So if the United States wants to pursue that path, let the ball roll, although he did not specify what type of harm he was talking about.


    Rise in tension raises stakes
    Government officials said their interest in Iran's intelligence services is not an indication that a military confrontation is imminent or likely, but rather a reflection of a decades-long adversarial relationship in which Iran's agents have worked secretly against U.S. interests, most recently in Iraq and Pakistan. As confrontation over Iran's nuclear program has escalated, so has the effort to assess the threat from Iran's covert operatives.


    U.N. Security Council members continue to debate how best to pressure Iran to prove that its nuclear program is not meant for weapons. The United States, Britain and France want the Security Council to threaten Iran with economic sanctions if it does not end its uranium enrichment activities. Russia and China, however, have declined to endorse such action and insist on continued negotiations. Security Council diplomats are meeting this weekend to try to break the impasse. Iran says it seeks nuclear power but not nuclear weapons.


    Former CIA terrorism analyst Paul R. Pillar said that any U.S. or Israeli airstrike on Iranian territory would be regarded as an act of war by Tehran, and that Iran would strike back with its terrorist groups. There's no doubt in my mind about that. . . . Whether it's overseas at the hands of Hezbollah, in Iraq or possibly Europe, within the regime there would be pressure to take violent action.


    History of reprisals
    Before Sept. 11, the armed wing of Hezbollah, often working on behalf of Iran, was responsible for more American deaths than in any other terrorist attacks. In 1983 Hezbollah truck-bombed the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, killing 241, and in 1996 truck-bombed Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, killing 19 U.S. service members.


    Iran's intelligence service, operating out of its embassies around the world, assassinated dozens of monarchists and political dissidents in Europe, Pakistan, Turkey and the Middle East in the two decades after the 1979 Iranian revolution, which brought to power a religious Shiite government. Argentine officials also believe Iranian agents bombed a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires in 1994, killing 86 people. Iran has denied involvement in that attack.


    Iran's intelligence services are well trained, fairly sophisticated and have been doing this for decades, said Crumpton, a former deputy of operations at the CIA's Counterterrorist Center. They are still very capable. I don't see their capabilities as having diminished.


    Both sides have increased their activities against the other. The Bush administration is spending $75 million to step up pressure on the Iranian government, including funding non-governmental organizations and alternative media broadcasts. Iran's parliament then approved $13.6 million to counter what it calls plots and acts of meddling by the United States.


    Given the uptick in interest in Iran on the part of the United States, it would be a very logical assumption that we have both ratcheted up [intelligence] collection, absolutely, said Fred Barton, a former counterterrorism official who is now vice president of counterterrorism for Stratfor, a security consulting and forecasting firm. It would be a more fevered pitch on the Iranian side because they have fewer options.



    Agencies mum on true threat
    The office of the director of national intelligence, which recently began to manage the U.S. intelligence agencies, declined to allow its analysts to discuss their assessment of Iran's intelligence services and Hezbollah and their capabilities to retaliate against U.S. interests.


    We are unable to address your questions in an unclassified manner, a spokesman for the office, Carl Kropf, wrote in response to a Washington Post query.


    The current state of Iran's intelligence apparatus is the subject of debate among experts. Some experts who spent their careers tracking the intelligence ministry's operatives describe them as deployed worldwide and easier to monitor than Hezbollah cells because they operate out of embassies and behave more like a traditional spy service such as the Soviet KGB.


    Other experts believe the Iranian service has become bogged down in intense, regional concerns: attacks on Shiites in Pakistan, the Iraq war and efforts to combat drug trafficking in Iran.


    As a result, said Bahman Baktiari, an Iran expert at the University of Maine, the intelligence service has downsized its operations in Europe and the United States. But, said Baktiari, I think the U.S. government doesn't have a handle on this.


    Facilities make difficult targets
    Because Iran's nuclear facilities are scattered around the country, some military specialists doubt a strike could effectively end the program and would require hundreds of strikes beforehand to disable Iran's vast air defenses. They say airstrikes would most likely inflame the Muslim world, alienate reformers within Iran and could serve to unite Hezbollah and al-Qaeda, which have only limited contact currently.


    A report by the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks cited al-Qaeda's long-standing cooperation with the Iranian-back Hezbollah on certain operations and said Osama bin Laden may have had a previously undisclosed role in the Khobar attack. Several al-Qaeda figures are reportedly under house arrest in Iran.


    Others in the law enforcement and intelligence circles have been more dubious about cooperation between al-Qaeda and Hezbollah, largely because of the rivalries between Shiite and Sunni Muslims. Al-Qaeda adherents are Sunni Muslims; Hezbollah's are Shiites.


    Iran certainly wants to remind governments that they can create a lot of difficulty if strikes were to occur, said a senior European counterterrorism official interviewed recently. That they might react with all means, Hezbollah inside Lebanon and outside Lebanon, this is certain. Al-Qaeda could become a tactical alliance.


    Researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.


    © 2006 The Washington Post Company




    src=http://c.msn.com/c.gif?NC=1255&NA=1154&PS=69717&PI=7329&DI=305&TP=http%3a%2f%2fmsnbc.msn.com%2fid%2f12114512%2f

    src=http://msnbcom.112.2o7.net/b/ss/msnbcom/1/G.9-Pd-R/s53651515372730?[AQB]&ndh=1&t=2/3/2006%2011%3A47%3A43%200%20360&pageName=Story%7CWorld%20News%7Cwashington%7C12114512%7CU.S.%20attack%20on%20Iran%20may%20prompt%20terror%7C&g=http%3A//www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12114512/from/ET/print/1/displaymode/1098/&ch=World%20News&v1=12114512%7Cfrom%7CET&c3=Dana%20Priest&c4=World%20News&c5=washingtonpost.com%20Highlights&v5=12114512%7Cfrom%7CET&c7=handheld&c8=N&c15=12114512&c16=Story&c18=00&c20=12114512%7Cfrom%7CET&c24=12114512%7Cfrom%7CET&c39=ON&pid=Story%7CWorld%20News%7Cwashington%7C12114512%7CU.S.%20attack%20on%20Iran%20may%20prompt%20terror%7Cp1&pidt=1&oid=javascript%3AprintThis%28%2712114512%27%29&ot=A&oi=631&s=1024x768&c=32&j=1.3&v=Y&k=Y&bw=644&bh=484&ct=lan&hp=N&[AQE]

    © 2006 MSNBC.com




    URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12114512/from/ET/


    Time.com: Toying with Terror Alerts .... sm
    http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1211369,00.html
    More from the British media on the terror alerts...sm
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/15/world_trade_center/

    I wonder if Bush and Blair Force One are reading any of this. Would love it if Stewart and Colbert join in.
    Don't close Guantanamo until terror war ends
    We DO NOT want to give terrorists the same rights as American citizens......


    Excerpt from this article:

    "Once you go out and capture a bunch of terrorists, as we did in Afghanistan and elsewhere, then you've got to have some place to put them," he said. "If you bring them here to the U.S. and put them in our local court system, then they are entitled to all kinds of rights that we extend only to American citizens. Remember, these are unlawful combatants.



    http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE4BE6T120081215
    They lie to perpetuate the war on false terror, and control with fear.nm
    z
    He wants to talk to Ahmadinejad....state sponsor of terror.
    He said so. Has he changed his mind?
    need more attacks
    More liberals need to start attacking back at the neocons.  For too long we have remained quiet while the republicans have been in full attack mode, especially during last year's election, smearing a true Vietnam hero, Kerry, whereas Bush never even finished his National Guard duty and Cheney and Rumsfield never went into the military but they find it is quite alright to send our sons and daughters to war for nothing.  We need more liberals to start screaming out about the terrible people in the WH. 
    No Attacks?
    Anthrax.
    No need for attacks
    he got what he wanted which was the Iraq War and taking out Sudam.  Show me bin Laden and maybe I'll be willing to give Bush some credit.  Something mighty strange that we with the mightiest miliary in the world can't get him.  But I guess Cheney would say, "SO??????"  What a couple of crooks!
    British Government Says Mothers With Babies New Terror Threat sm
    British Government Says Mothers With Babies New Terror Threat
    You're either with us, or you're with the babies.

    British government security advisors and the national media are doing their level best to strike rampant irrational paranoid terror into the hearts of UK citizens by identifying the latest targets of the war on terror as pregnant women and toddlers.

    Absurd delirious fearmongering continues in the British media with the Sun tabloid, Britain's most braindead and unfortunately also most popular newspaper screaming, HATE-filled mums willing to sacrifice themselves and their BABIES are being hunted in the war on terror.

    Yes that's right you haven't slipped into an upside down parallel universe - pregnant women and mothers with young babies are the new Al-Qaeda.

    The evidence?

    The nightmare is that mums carrying tiny tots would provide “very good cover” and not raise suspicions among even the most alert security guards.

    The Sun cited a senior Government security adviser as their source.

    So let's ignore that guy with the turban who looks like Mohammed Atta and instead focus our magic screening wand on Mrs. Smith and her newborn infant.

    Extra pat downs for young mums and making toddlers take their shoes off - boy do I feel safer now.

    What's the next threat? Barney the purple dinosaur?

    Of course we know what this is all designed to accomplish - it's about broadening the terrorist definition to the point where everyone's a suspect and everybody's behavior is under preposterous and suffocating scrutiny.

    The implication that the most benign, harmless and innocent members of our society could in actuality be terrorist suicide bombers is a sick ploy crafted to ensure that absolutely no one is allowed to escape the self-regulating stench of being under suspicion.

    It is also intended to brainwash the population that terrorists are potentially hiding under their beds, that they are everywhere and that only by a system of reporting suspicious behavior and unquestionably trusting the government will they too avoid the accusing finger.

    This is classic Cold War style behavioral conditioning and the Neo-Fascist architects know exactly what they're doing.

    Despite the status of alert returning to previous levels in both the US and the UK, ridiculous restrictions on travelers remain in place. Every time a new bout of fearmongering washes over a stupefied public, they are more pliable to new ways of being shoved around by government enforcers, even after the alleged plot has been foiled.

    The fearmongering never subsides, it is always ratcheted up another peg in anticipation for future manufactured threats.
    The future of airport security?

    Why don't they just ban any luggage, clothing or personal accessories whatsoever and have done with it? Better yet - why not strap every passenger into a straight jacket from the moment they enter the airport?

    In Knoxville, TSA officials are testing a biometric scanner device which interrogates passengers about their 'hostile intent' by asking a barrage of questions. If you thought the current delays and blanket 'everybody's a criminal terrorist' attitude were annoying enough, you ain't seen nothing yet.

    In a similar example to the mothers and babies mindlessness, the London Guardian reports that located in the tranquil and peaceful rural surroundings of the British Lake District and Yorkshire Dales are terrorist training camps where Al-Qaeda devotees are preparing for their next big attack.

    What's next? Bomb making factories under the Atlantic Ocean? Islamo Fascist brainwashing schools at the North Pole?

    The sheer stupidity implicit in the Guardian article is bewildering. If the police haven't even questioned the alleged terrorists, allowing them to gather evidence of terrorist activity, because they're conducting covert surveillance of the group then why in God's name have they told a national newspaper, who in turn have splashed the story all over their front page?

    If these supposed terrorists didn't know they were under surveillance before then they sure do now!

    I live on the edge of the Peak District nearby the kind of areas being fingered as terrorist training areas. The closest thing to Al-Qaeda like activity up here is when a discourteous rambler leaves a farm gate open.

    Again, it's about people who live in the country being smothered with the same raving paranoia and cockamamie fearmongering city-dwellers are subjected to. Woe betide anyone living in a converted barn house in the middle of miles and miles of wilderness think they can escape the war on terror - it applies to anything!

    Baby formula, lip gloss, mothers and toddlers included.




    How many terrorists attacks have we had since 911
    nm
    Thx - the attacks are really getting out of hand
    Reminds me of that line in the movie where the guy says "I'm mad as he!! and I'm not going to take it anymore". Really though, I've read back through all the posts and not one post about something positive about Obama's plans. Just attacks to the other side and other posters. I feel if I'm going to get this I might as well just turn on MSNBC, and now I get my MIL who has such hatred for Bush is coming out saying that today market failure (whatever you call it- that 300 or so point drop) she's saying that is McCain and Palin' fault. I don't even get into political arguments with her anymore. It's just mind numbing how closed their minds are. Glad you liked my post.
    we don;t need personal attacks.

    nm


     


    personal attacks are

    not allowed on this board. Stop immediately.


     


    personal attacks are

    not allowed on this board.  Stop attacking me personally with your imagining what I have or don't have in my work area.  Stick to the issues.


     


    Why the personal attacks?

    This has nothing to do with this conversation.  What this person makes and why they make that is none of our business.  The point was that she didn't live beyond her means and doesn't want a handout and that right there makes her a heck of a lot better than a lot of people. 


    Let's talk about attacks....
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeVBaM2lQsg

    http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=28656#continueA

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2008/09/12/conn-paper-tired-attacking-palin-attacks-angry-town-wasilla-inst

    http://fredshelm.wordpress.com/2008/08/31/debunking-the-moonbat-attacks-against-palin-part-1/

    There are plenty more, those are just a few.
    It is called more attacks like the one we went through
    Do you actually believe the govt is telling us about each and every plot they help dismantle to make the country safer. Oooh- can I be in your fantasy movie.

    People may hate GW - You know our "President of the United States", but Americans (the patriotic ones that is) are grateful for the policies that have been put in place that enable them to find out when things are happening so we will not endure another 911. Sorry you don't like the fact, but that's what they are.

    I for one am very grateful we have not been attacked again.

    "And I'm proud to be an American where at least I know I'm free. And I won't forget the men who died who gave that right to me. And I'll gladly stand up next to you and defend her still today. Cos there ain't no doubt I love this land. God bless the USA!"
    The attacks didn't happen here

    they happened in London, England and you don't see people London whining and acting like the world is coming to the end.  They got up and got on those darned buses and trains.  These terrorists made very little headway at all yesterday. 


    You all don't get the point do you?   You really don't.  No matter where we are in the world you're going to find fault with it as long as it is done under conservative leadership.


    I think I understood every word you said loud and clear. 


    and the personal attacks continue

    Occurs to me there's no basis in any of your attacks.
    Name one thing I made up and we'll see what the truth is. Go ahead, poser - explain what you mean.
    Fox Attacks Barack Obama..sm
    (see link)
    We were told by moderator -no more attacks on
    nm
    And now we revert to personal attacks
    on posters when you can't them to agree with you.  What a waste.
    Stop the personal attacks. SM

    Stop with personal attacks, the vile name-calling, grammar policing and foul language.


    Debate the issues.  Respect opinions. 


    I'm not moderating for niceness but there is some troll behavior going on and it has to go. 


    Moderator


     


    Of course it's the fault of the terrorists for carrying out attacks.

    And it's the fault of this president for obsessing about Saddam Hussein (since he's been doing since the early 1990s) and not doing enough to protect his own people from future attacks.


    The terrorists have all the power here.  They're holding all the cards.  They once again managed to scare a large part of the world.  They also know something that American soldiers DON'T know.  The know what the outcome of their plan is going to be.  They use the element of surprise, and when they wake up in the morning, they don't wonder if they're still going to be alive the next day.  They already KNOW they won't be because they've planned it that way.  They control their own fate, as well as the fate of everyone who gets in their way.


    Our soldiers have to deal with that every single day.  A car bomb here.  A suicide bomber there.  Every single day is 9/11 for them.  It sounds real nice to pretend to respect and honor them when participating in a photo op on an aircraft carrier.  Why doesn't he care enough about their lives to provide adequate body armor and Humvees for them?  He has no problem giving big tax breaks to his rich base (and YES, they are his REAL base, not the Christian right; just wait till he betrays you all with his moderate Supreme Court nominees). He has no problem giving free healthcare to all Iraqis. Forget about the American people for a minute. Why can't he care about our troops -- our CHILDREN -- enough to supply them with adequate equipment?  Of course, he personally would not know what constitutes adequate equipment because HE WAS TOO MUCH OF A COWARD TO EVER SERVE IN COMBAT.


    As far as giving this President too much credit, you obviously didn't comprehend one word of my post.


    HELLO!


    can we just debate and stop with the personal attacks?
    I know, Democrat, I know, and if I come across as harsh sometimes, that is just me..however, the post below that I condone terrorism really cut me..I have never condoned terrorism..to protest, of course, that is part of America, long live protests, but to say I condone terrorism..OMG..I have tried to debate logically, of course, not what conservatives believe but that is what debating is all about..two different ideas..I have not attacked personally  yet these neocons continue to post on the liberal board and attack the liberals for what they have posted and they have attacked me non stop..I thought a few weeks ago we made a deal that we would post respectfully  but the minute I started posting once again, there has been nothing but attacks, not logical insightful debate..If a neocon does not agree with me that Chavez is a good man or that I agree with protesting in Argentina (not breaking the law, just protesting), well then lets debate it..dont attack me and call me a terrorist..which I take very seriously and it is an affront to me, it is like cursing at me..Oh geez..I do have to say, Democrat, you have always posted above and beyond board..I have always enjoyed reading your posts..
    Reminder: Watch the personal attacks. sm

    Debate opinions, argue conflicting viewpoints.  Steer clear of personal attacks.


    Thanks,


    Moderator


     


    It may be hard to credit Bush with no attacks when there is...sm
    nothing tangible to show for it, right?


    But then, that's the whole point.


    No attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11.


    There's the proof.


    I'll be a believer and give President Bush the credit for this one.
    Draft Dodger Cheney attacks War Hero
    The words President Murtha are sounding pretty good!

     

    DERRICK Z. JACKSON

    White House plays chicken with a war hero



    THE WHITE House is so deluded, it actually believes it can turn a soaring hawk into a scrounging chicken. Stung by the call by US Representative John Murtha of Pennsylvania to pull out of Iraq, Scott McClellan, President Bush's press secretary, said this week, ''It is baffling that he is endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic Party.


    Talk about playing the chicken-hawk card. A White House where most of the architects of war avoided combat in their own lives dared to associate two people who are worlds apart in world views. Moore made the anti-Bush ''Fahrenheit 9/11, which infuriated the right wing by breaking box office records for a documentary film. Moore was booed at the 2004 Republican National Convention.


    Murtha is the 73-year-old recipient of two Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star for combat duty in Vietnam. He is a Democrat whose three decades in office are marked by support of President Reagan's policies in Nicaragua and El Salvador. Murtha was a top Democratic supporter of the 1991 Gulf War. He wants a constitutional ban on burning the American flag.


    In a 2002 press briefing, former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz termed the support of politicians like Murtha for the Pentagon as ''wonderful. In the 2004 vice presidential debate, incumbent Dick Cheney said, ''One of my strongest allies in Congress when I was secretary of defense was Jack Murtha.


    For all those shows of patriotism, Murtha was skeptical about the rush to invade Iraq in 2003 of Iraq even though he voted to give President Bush the authorization to go to war. He publicly said Bush beat the war drums before building an international coalition. Murtha said he had not seen anything in intelligence reports that indicated an imminent threat. Murtha said Bush ''has put the country in such a box. He can say, 'You'll undercut me if you don't vote for this resolution.'


    One month after the invasion, when no weapons of mass destruction had yet been found, Murtha warned that American credibility was at risk. By the September, the absence of weapons of mass destruction made him join the much more liberal House minority leader, Nancy Pelosi, in calling for Bush to fire the planners of the invasion. Despite the proclamation that ''we achieved a marvelous military victory, Murtha became increasingly frustrated with the chaos of the occupation. This summer, Murtha said administration officials were ''not honest in their assessment that they were winning the ongoing battle.


    Finally, this week, Murtha unleased a scathing attack on Bush's Iraq policy. He called it ''a flawed policy wrapped in illusion. He said he believed military officials when he visited Kuwait just before the war and they showed him where American forces would be attacked by weapons of mass destruction when they approach Baghdad. But now, with no end to the killing in sight, he said, ''The US cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It's time to bring the troops home. . .They have become the enemy.


    Murtha talked about soldier after soldier he has visited in hospitals, wounded and maimed by the invasion. Yet, there's more terrorism now than there ever was and it's because of what? Is it because of our policy? I would say it's a big part.


    In perhaps the most humble admission of his press conference, Murtha said, ''The American public is way ahead of the members of Congress.


    This came the day after Cheney threw mud in the direction of critics who gave Bush his war authorization. Cheney accused them of making ''irresponsible comments. He accused them issuing ''cynical and pernicious falsehoods to make ''a play for political advantage.


    He said, ''The President and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their memory -- or their backbone.


    This was the same Cheney who gave us some of the greatest falsehoods of this generation with ''There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction . . . We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons, and that we would be ''welcomed as liberators.


    Murtha clobbered Cheney's words the next day, saying, ''I like guys who got five deferments and never been there and send people to war and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done.


    This hawk still soars, above the scrounging chicken hawks.


    Derrick Z. Jackson's e-mail address is jackson@globe.com.  src=http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/File-Based_Image_Resource/dingbat_story_end_icon.gif



    src=http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/File-Based_Image_Resource/spacer.gif
    © Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
     












    No, I didn't....it was in response to all the attacks about unwed mothers..
    but i guess you feel that is okay, right?
    Senior moments on the trail: Mc attacks O ties to

    For the slur that was dead on arrival, go here:


    http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/the-khalidi-gam.html


     


    Missile attacks targeted Al Qaeda strongholds.
    President Obama is targeting the terrorists who are responsible for 9/11 and who may be planning future terrorist attacks against the United States. That is what he said he would do before he was elected, and that is exactly what he has done during his first week in office. President Obama has already done more to keep our country safe in the past 4 days than Georgie Porgie did in the past 8 years.
    Shocking personal attacks after you just called people empty headed?
    the hypocrisy is mind boggling and humorous at the same time.
    Evil constant attacks on Palin are about to bring the biggest backlash
    I believe you may have cost yourselves the election with the horrendous extent this was taken to.
    But, the war on terror concerns all countries. Other countries
    acknowledge the war on terror as concerning the world, so it is essentially a World War.