« your mission today | Main | 64 Bits of Crazy »

Nelson Muntz on Terror Alerts

For some, this is all a game. All the war, all the terrorism, it's just a game. For instance, in the comments on my post yesterday about Al-Sadr's house being surrounded: bq. Oops, like like y'all spoke too soon. your brave boys were driven away by sadr's guys and the Iraqi police. oops. I imagine that was typed while the commenter was sneering. See, this round of the game goes to him and thus, he gloats. Yes, he gloats that a murderous thug was not caught. That's someone who has lost sight of what's at stake. That's a person who sees everything negative that happens in the war as a "win" for his side. That's sick. Then there are those who woke up today crying "August Surprise!" Ah, the cries of the righteous, the call of the wildly partisan. Quoting Jeff Jarvis: bq. Can't have it both ways, folks: Can't scream they don't tell us what they know -- and then when they tell us what they know, it's not good enough for you. It's what they know. Can't scream that they're not connecting the dots and when they connect some, you scream because you don't like the picture it draws. Can you imagine if the Citicorp building was attacked by a suicide bomber and those warnings had never been issued? BUSH KNEW! would be the headline on a hundred blogs. WHY DID THEY KEEP IT SECRET? would be another. The conspiracy theories would tumble out of their pens and keyboards faster than anyone could defend the decision not to make old data new. I want to say, Bush just can't win, but I won't, because this isn't a game that either side is supposed to be winning or losing. It's a battle we are supposed to be fighting together. The chorus of gotchas and the echoes of laughter I hear this morning are making my head hurt. And it's not just with terror alerts. Lord knows I've had my share of them as well, to the point where I think, why don't we just put the whole damn country on orange alert from now until some undetermined point in the future and be done with it? It's the war. It's the derision from certain quarters when things go wrong in Iraq. It's the told ya so mentality from certain people when soldier die, copters go down, another "insurgent" gets away. It's the so what attitude from people whenever good news comes out of Iraq. It's the way they will take any kind of good news and twist and turn it until it's inside out and the one negative little bug that was crawling around comes scurrying out and they make it out to be a giant, man-eating bug. It's the way they never, ever want to hear something going good for this administration or good news about the war on terrorism or good news about Iraq and Afghanistan. They are all Nelson Muntz, with their snickering laugh and pointing fingers. Even worse, when something is accomplished in the war on terrorism, all they can say is Doh! It's not a game, people. You haven't won a damn thing. So stop gloating.

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Nelson Muntz on Terror Alerts:

» Michele Rips Those Who Whine About Terror Alerts from Just Some Poor Schmuck
A Small Victory - Nelson Muntz on Terror Alerts I want to say, Bush just can't win, but I won't, because this isn't a game that either side is supposed to be winning or losing. It's a battle we are... [Read More]

» More Egg on their Faces from New England Republican
Once again the media and many on the left look like fools for their latest rantings about politically motivated terror warnings. The administration came out last night and released more information to back up their decision. [Read More]

Comments

There are some people who I call political whores. To them, everything is about politics. It consumes their whole life and is their viewport to the world. They really need to get a life.

To me, politics represents the worst of humanity. It may be a necessary evil, but it's an evil just the same.

Being President is much like being a psychic...some people are always looking for the slightest hint that you are wrong and even when you are right there will be some trickery behind it.
When you wanted to say that Bush can't win, I suspect you were really wanting to say that Bush can't do the right thing. He is their target. Their goal is to eliminate him. That being the case, they are constantly maneuvering to trap him in a box. No matter what the action, they find the negative and close the walls in tighter. Objectivity is not an option.

Hell, the man could clean up the mess someone else left, put the seat down, and wash his hands after he pees, and they would bitch because he didn't dry the sink.

The current headlines have me worried. Apparently, this is a false alert based on pre-9/11 information.

I'm pretty hard right-wing, but if this is true, I have to re-evaluate my loyalties.

Bush has some 'splainin' to do.

Just because the information is old doesn't make it less important. The files found on the laptop date back as far as 3 years ago, but if memory serves, didn't we just find this laptop? Didn't al Qaeda just start updating its records on financial targets this past winter?

Honestly, who the hell knows.

I guess I'm not understanding. The gotch mentality you speak of goes on all day long almost everyday here at ASV. People snark eachother up one side and down the other. The Dems chortle when the Bush admin goofs up, and the Repubs snicker when Kerry and Edwards start making out. These things may be impolite and in some cases distasteful, but you can't hate on someone for doing things that you do yourself.

Shank, there's a big difference between snarking about Kerry and Edwards "making out" and thinking that "your team" can score points when a helicopter goes down in Iraq.

shank, my man. The difference is this, Dems rejoice when the war goes badly for the USA. Repubs rejoice when the campaign goes badly for Kerry. See the difference? AMERICAN loses = Democratic victories. Not that I'm calling them unpatriotic or anything.

Have you ever listened to Rush Limbaugh? He is the king of snickering and finger pointing as well as inappropriate comments.

All I hear from Bush supporters is defense of their candidate and negative comments about Kerry supporters, Kerry, his wife the democratic campaign.

Today, I heard Mr. Bush say that even if he knew that there were no WMDs that he still would have invaded Iraq because America is a safer place today.

Do you believe that? Do you believe that after spending almost 100 billion dollars in Iraq and after nearly 1000 men and women have been killed liberating Iraq that America is a safer place?

Be honest with yourself..because if that is what you believe... then the only way America can be safe is to take over the entire world. Terrorist live in Saudi Arabia, and are funded by people in Syria and Iran. So where would you like to go next?

What if... that 100 billion dollars was spent here, upgrading our own security? I know it is hindsite, but what else could we have done with that money?

Craig
Apparently, this is a false alert

False? Why do you call it false? Just because there isn't a smoking crater where Citicorp outta be?

Please do read the news articles again, the Pakistanis demur a direct link between the laptop and the warning, and there are hints that the unnamed person they've had for weeks may actually be the source. The laptop and the Arab 'puter geek look like corroborative evidence.

Those leftists and Democrats that can be described as Bushiephobes are playing a dangerous game of Calvinball.

It's worth remembering that on 9/10/01 the surveillance information regarding the WTC and the Pentagon would have been rather "dated" as well. Planning for the Africa embassy bombings went on for several years. Never mind the fact that the current scoop seems to have been updated as recently as January of this year.

It's probably wrong to knee-jerk on the "convenience" of any terror alert to the President's campaign. But in today's over-charged political atmosphere its perfectly human.

But what the Administration is doing for homeland security isn't beyond rational criticism-- particularly since its partisans will not scruple to place posters of the twin towers as close as they can to the polling places this November. And since the entire basis for the President's campaign appears to be his "toughness" on terror.

He's certainly not running on his record about anything else.

As far as I can see, the rational and reasonable criticism to be made is that what is being done in the name of homeland security is purely reactive rather than proactive. And reactive in the flashiest way possible, whenever possible.

Huge holes in our security waiting for proactive fixes remain: Should we inspect all ship-bourne containers? Should we militarize our borders? Should we make every non-cash financial transaction totally transparent to government scrutiny? And there are many others which a little thought would suggest.

I don't say that I'd answer yes to any of those questions, but I think they ought to be asked, and I don't hear any of the President's men doing it.

Of course, these kind of fixes aren't very glamorous. They don't make you look very "tough on terror".

So I think I might be pardoned for wondering if that's why an Administration--that clearly doesn't work very hard on anything that doesn't pay immediate political dividends--might not be willing to work very hard on them.

Does anyone else remember the reason for the alert system? Because shortly after 9/11, several people in the democratic party demanded to know every time there was an alert to our national security.

So, the alert system was setup for that purpose.

Craig, I'll answer your question if you answer this one...

Does ignoring attacks on us, such as the first Trade Center attack, the USS Cole attack, make you feel safer?

Darleen:

In any event, someone needs to address these claims. It looks really bad.

My guess is, we had old information about this, and then got new information. The news agencies found the old information, and assumed there was no new information. But I don't like to make assumptions.

I have never believed that Bush puts out alerts just to scare us, or for policital reasons. However, there was that alert for 10 people put out a few months ago by an agency whose responsibility was NOT to put out such alerts. That was never addressed. I let it slide.

This one really needs to be addressed. Otherwise, people will start to believe Bush really is "Wagging the Dog."

I believe there probably is a good explanation for this. Just waitin' to hear it.

StumpMan:

Don't argue with me like I'm a liberal. I agree that ignoring threats is folly. We put out these alerts, in general, to give the terrorists cold-feet. It's a sound tactic.

The accusations are that the information was not current. Implying that the alert was basically to rouse up fear. That's a pretty big accusation, of course, coming from news agencies that make huge accusations all the time which tend to be baseless.

All I'm saying is that, someone needs to come out and quickly debunk the accusations. I don't want to be put on full alert over some pre-911 plans.

Kinda makes you wish a suicide bomber had gone off in the "free speech zone" by the Fleet Center, eh?

Laurence Simon:

Nothing ever makes me wish a suicide bomber had gone off anywhere (except maybe back at their base when they were constructing the bomb). Even if it were a lesson to the democrats, no.

Never ever ever support that sort of thing. There would be nothing satisfying about a successful attack on the DNC any more than it would on the RNC. Those are still Americans.

Great post, Michele, and I share your anguish. Some people are just stupid, is how I look at it. Whatcha gonna do?

Stop Digital Brownshirts:
You're an idiot. So it's ok if liberals protest, but no one else can?

Can someone explain to me what a digital brownshirt is? Or a brownshirt for that matter? I'm hearing that a lot lately.

Do you believe that? Do you believe that after spending almost 100 billion dollars in Iraq and after nearly 1000 men and women have been killed liberating Iraq that America is a safer place?

Yes - you're damn right I do. There is no more Saddam Hussein. The flow of funds from the Ba'athists to Hizb'Allah, Hamas, and other terrorist groups is over. Hussein can no longer pose a threat, and the Iraqi people are in charge of their own country.

Since Bush came to office, Osama bin Laden has gone from building a mansion near Kandahar to living in a cave. The Pakistanis are cracking down on terrorism, as are the Saudis. Libya has unilaterally disarmed itself of considerable, chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons equipment. 2/3rds of al-Qaeda's operational heads are in custody, many of them caught at the same time we were supposedly neglecting the fight against al-Qaeda by invading Iraq.

Be honest with yourself..because if that is what you believe... then the only way America can be safe is to take over the entire world. Terrorist live in Saudi Arabia, and are funded by people in Syria and Iran. So where would you like to go next?

This is why the left doesn't have a clue about this war. We didn't "take over" Iraq - the Iraqi people have.

If you mean that the only way to win this war is to see the autocratic regimes toppled and replaced by open, democratic, and more tolerant societies, then you're right. However, the alternative is seeing a couple thousand Americans blown up every few years or worse. An attack with weaponized smallpox would kill well over a million and paralyze our health-care system.

The only way we will win this war is by radically reforming those governments who continue to support and equip terrorists. Thanks to the war in Iraq we've introduced a country that can embolden pro-democracy forces in the Middle East to spread reforms elsewhere.

Like heat, freedom spreads to those places that are free to those that are less free. If we even get a nominally sane government in Iraq it will have an effect that will transform the region and ensure that groups like al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hizb'Allah and others no longer have safe haven and funding in the Middle East.

Craig, you've already heard it. You seem to be deliberately misunderstanding.

I doubt you are weak-minded enough to take your news from headlines.

Even the the NYT reports on additional recent info combining with the laptop reconaissance recently obtained and being sifted for fresh clues
combining to increased security and a raised terror alert.

Malkin updates with parts of the story you might have missed.

Yeah, I just got to those. Thanks for, you know, being polite and understanding. It's a good thing you didn't start your response with a rude insult or anything that might make me bitter. Cuz, you know, that would be rude.

God I hate uppidty bitches. The right is getting as bad as the left.

FYI, I read my blogs alphabetically. Since this is called "A small victory" it's the first on my list. Therefore, I wouldn't have gotten to Michelle for a good 25 minutes.

I always start with Drudge though. So replace weak-minded with "haven't read all the blogs/news sources yet" and you have a less condescending and more accurate statement.

Be honest with yourself..because if that is what you believe... then the only way America can be safe is to take over the entire world. Terrorist live in Saudi Arabia, and are funded by people in Syria and Iran. So where would you like to go next?

What if... that 100 billion dollars was spent here, upgrading our own security? I know it is hindsite, but what else could we have done with that money?

The last time I checked, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran did not incorporate the 'entire world'. In fact, they're a very poorly defended, very unpopular (except for the friends they buy), very small part of the world.

If 100 billion dollars was spent here, upgrading our own security, that security system would still have holes. Even if we turned our country into a giant version of the Panic Room, we wouldn't be safe. In fact, instead of punishing & imprisoning terrorists, we'd be punishing and imprisoning ourselves.

"What if... that 100 billion dollars was spent here, upgrading our own security? I know it is hindsite, but what else could we have done with that money?"

100b goes a lot farther when you're killing your enemies, then when you're waiting for them to come and kill you.

19 guys with box cutters took down the towers. No amount of money could have prevented that. If we'd killed them with a cruise missle 6 months prior, that sure would have prevented it.

People just aren't reading these articles about that computer find carefully. MOST of the information was pre 9/11. Not ALL, but MOST. Parts of it were recent, so indicative that it was still an active plan.

For example, a quote from the Washington Post, "One piece of information on one building, which intelligence officials would not name, appears to have been updated in a computer file as late as January 2004, according to a senior intelligence official." One piece doesn't mean that it was the only piece, only that it was given as an example. Additionally, we don't know how they used this information in conjunction with other sources.

We know that 9/11 was in planning for some years prior to the event itself. Knowing this, is it so outside imagination that an older plan being kept updated with current data might be a legitimate immediate threat?

Can you imagine the outrage AFTER an incident if we discovered that this information was in the hands of our government and they didn't act upon it?

Just from the small amount of press pillow talk citing "unnamed officials" who may or may not be privy to the details, I have to judge that it's appropriate to act on this information. It's better to prepare for an attack that doesn't come than be attacked while unprepared. As my daughter would say, "duh!"

"Kinda makes you wish a suicide bomber had gone off in the "free speech zone" by the Fleet Center, eh?"

This must be the "Kinder, Gentler" side of the readership putting their two cents in.

Laurence: NO.

For the past two decades Islamofascists have formulated thousands of plans designed to attack and kill Americans and American interests. I would not consider any Islamofascist plan to be "false".

For those who wish to believe Islamofascist terrorism is a game please go watch your MTV and STFU.

"Can someone explain to me what a digital brownshirt is?"

Any garment worn by anybody to the right of Chomsky, apparently.

Oi, let me guess ... it's a nazi reference.

It's an Al Gore thing.

The current headlines have me worried. Apparently, this is a false alert based on pre-9/11 information.
</blockquote.
With new information about the old information added.
Do you believe that? Do you believe that after spending almost 100 billion dollars in Iraq and after nearly 1000 men and women have been killed liberating Iraq that America is a safer place?
Yes.
Be honest with yourself..because if that is what you believe... then the only way America can be safe is to take over the entire world. Terrorist live in Saudi Arabia, and are funded by people in Syria and Iran. So where would you like to go next?
Why do you jump to this conclusion that "logically" we must take over the world? We removed a despot whose "containment" via sanctions was going to collapse within 2 years (if we were lucky). And after having grown in popularity for defying and outlasting 3 American Presidents, (channeling Castro), he'd also have no sanctions to prevent him from pursuing a nuclear bomb that AQ Khan likely would've assisted him under our noses & we'd be unable to do anything about it.

Woops, I butchered the blockquotes there. Sorry...

They lied, and they didn't care.

"One of the key pillars of the Iraq-al Qaeda myth was a White House-backed story claiming 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta met with an Iraqi spy in April 2001. The tale originally came from a lone Czech informant who said he saw the terrorist in Prague at the time. White House hawks, eager to link al Qaeda with Saddam, did not wait to verify the story, and instead immediately used it to punch up arguments for a preemptive attack on Iraq. On November 14, 2001, Cheney claimed Atta was “in Prague in April of this year, as well as earlier.” On December 9, 2001, he went further, claiming without proof that the Atta meeting was “pretty well confirmed.”

Nine days later, the Czech government reported there was no evidence that Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague. Czech Police Chief Jiri Kolar said there were no documents showing Atta had been in Prague that entire year, and Czech officials told Newsweek that the uncorroborated witness who perpetuated the story should have been viewed with more skepticism.

By the spring of 2002, major news publications such as the Washington Post, the New York Times, Newsweek and Time were running stories calling the “Prague connection” an “embarrassing” mistake and stating that, according to European officials, the intelligence supporting the claim was “somewhere between ‘slim’ and ‘none’.” The stories also quoted administration officials and CIA and FBI analysts saying that on closer scrutiny, “there was no evidence Atta left or returned to the United State at the time he was supposed to be in Prague.” Even FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III, a Bush political appointee, admitted in April 2002, “We ran down literally hundreds of thousands of leads and checked every record we could get our hands on, from flight reservations to car rentals to bank accounts,” but found nothing.

But that was not good enough for the administration, which instead of letting the story go, began trying to manipulate intelligence to turn fantasy into reality. In August 2002, when FBI case officers told Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz that there was no Atta meeting, Newsweek reported Wolfowitz “vigorously challenged them.” Wolfowitz wanted the FBI to endorse claims that Atta and the Iraqi spy had met. FBI counterterrorism chief Pat D’Amuro refused.

In September 2002, the CIA handed Cheney a classified intelligence assessment that cast specific, serious doubt on whether the Atta meeting ever occurred. Yet, that same month, Richard Perle, then chairman of the Bush’s Defense Policy Board, said, “Muhammad Atta met [a secret collaborator of Saddam Hussein] prior to September 11. We have proof of that, and we are sure he wasn’t just there for a holiday.” In the same breath, Perle openly admitted, “The meeting is one of the motives for an American attack on Iraq.”

By the winter of 2002, even America’s allies were telling the administration to relent: In November, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said he had seen no evidence of a meeting in Prague between Atta and an Iraqi intelligence agent.

But it did not stop. In September 2003, on “Meet the Press,” Cheney dredged up the story again, saying, “With respect to 9/11, of course, we’ve had the story that’s been public out there. The Czechs alleged that Mohammed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack.” He provided no new evidence, opted not to mention that the Czechs long ago had withdrawn the allegations, and ignored new evidence that showed the story was likely untrue.

Even today, with all of the intelligence firmly against him, Cheney remains unrepentant. Asked in June about whether the meeting had occurred, he admitted, “That’s never been proven.” Then he added, “It’s never been refuted.” When CNBC’s Gloria Borger asked about his initial claim that the meeting was “pretty well confirmed,” Cheney snapped, “No, I never said that. I never said that. Absolutely not.”

His actual words in December 2001: “It’s been pretty well confirmed that [Atta] did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service.”

In other words, Cheney hit a new low. He resorted not only to lying about the story, but lying about lying about the story."

TJ,
The NYT did a front page piece claiming that the the Czech president had told them that the Atta meeting had not happened. In fact, within hours, Havel's spokesman said that the NYT piece was "a fabrication."

The Czech intelligence agency stands behinds the Atta-Prague claim.

See http://edwardjayepstein.com/2002question/prague.htm for a little more detail on the events.

Also see http://www.ukconservatism.freeuk.com/news-2004-05-30.html

The president of the Czech Republic is on the record as saying that the NYT lied. Chew on that.

TJ: And if you'd actually done your homework rather than regurgitating someone else's talking points you'd note that Czech Prime Minister Milos Zeman confirmed the story as well.

On December 17, 2001, the AP noted:

Interior Minister Stanislav Gross, responding to the report, said he stood by his original statement that Atta and Al-Ani met at least once in Prague and said it was based on a reputable account from BIS, the Czech counterintelligence agency.

Furthermore, former Deputy Foreign Minister Hynek Kmonicek has confirmed that the BIS did and still does believe that al-Ani met with Atta. al-Ani was expelled from the Czech Republic for espionage and returned to Baghdad. He's currently in US custody but is reportedly uncooperative.

We know that A:) Atta withdrew several thousand dollars in cash shortly before the reports of his meeting in Prague and that B:) the only records that tie Atta to the US during that time are cell phone records. No one has shown an confirmed sighting of Atta in Florida between April 4 and April 11, 2001 - yet plenty of people saw the other hijackers living with him at the time.

We also know that Atta had been in Prague before, including one time where he stayed in the airport (for 6 hours in a place where there were no surveillance cameras) because he didn't have a valid visa. If that isn't suspicious, I fail to see what is. (The FBI confirms the earlier trips to Prague.)

So either Atta $8,000 in cash just for fun, or he did something. But don't try to sell the line that this story has somehow been disproven - it hasn't except for those who want to wish it away.

I think the government is being careful here. I think it's being stupid (politically) to cite such old intelligence information as the stated reason for the heightened security, but I can't complain in any way about the heightened security.

Sure, there'll be snarky snipes along the lines of "They only care because their convention is coming," but it's not as if terrorists haven't ever targeted New York City.

What's maddening is that someone see the need for justifications to be made. Just make us more secure, and we won't complain. But give us reasons, and the reasons get examined (and questioned, and doubted, and re-examined, and re-re-examined, and justified, and re-justified, and attacked, and the name-calling gets really rolling, and blah blah blah).

I'd like to see a Cabinet official (or a group of them) on a civilian airliner than another damn press conference assuring us that everything is being carefully monitored.

"Can you imagine if the Citicorp building was attacked by a suicide bomber and those warnings had never been issued?" I can imagine being dead and thinking, "Well thank God I was warned". Although such warnings do provide political cover, though I am not so cynical as Howard Dean, (who, in a fit of pique, I once liked), to say they are directly using these warnings for political reasons. I'm just not sure if they are all that useful, unless they call for permanent improved security. We keep using idealistic solutions for problems that require materialistic thinking.

Amen!

We are supposed to be fighting the war on terrorists, not each other.

Aren't we all Americans?

I would gladly fight to the death for a fellow American, whether they be on the left side of the aisle or the right.

The terrorists are the real enemy here.

Jerry
We keep using idealistic solutions for problems that require materialistic thinking.
Can you elaborate? I hope I'm wrong that you think Kerry's "reach out" to the Islamists is the viable course.
kdeweb
The terrorists are the real enemy here.
That depends on if you believe who is responsible for the Islamist hatred of America.

Islamists or Americans.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usterr033916365aug03,0,7205652.story?coll=ny-homepage-big-pix

Dang, that's a long link. In any case, the money shot:

"The operative, described as "credible" by British intelligence, told his debriefers that the attack would take place "60 days before the presidential election" on Nov. 2, according to a former senior National Security Council official. On Sept. 2 President George W. Bush is expected to address the Republican National Convention at Madison Square Garden."

So NEW INFORMATION, combined with JUST-CAPTURED INFORMATION of old surveillance and planning, is what's behind the warning.

I think a bunch of NYT anonymous sources just got egg all over their faces. What a pity we don't know who they are, so they could be held accountable.

So what's the new information? Big bad boogeyman Al Quaida wants to get us! Boy, we never knew that; that's really new. And before September 11, 2001, some Pakistani had a lot of stuff about US office buildings on his laptop. (That might have been important to know in August, 2001, but Bush was too busy anyway. All that brush to clear, you know.)

So the new information is that Al Quaida wants to get us -- that means when, exactly? Today? Tomorrow? Last year? Next year? Will we be on terror alert forever?

So why a terror alert today? Well, people were starting to realize that Kerry might be the guy who could actually deal with the terrorism problem. So something had to be done. Right away. That's a terror alert for Republicans.

Thanks for your droppings, David in NY. Unfortunately, you wasted your whole recess on a bathroom break. Now go line up and teacher will take you back to class.

My, aren't we sassy today!

Wow, David. Way to ignore facts that don't go your way!

Britain is CURRENTLY interrogating someone who says AQ is CURRENTLY running an operation that will result in an attack somewhere between September and the election.

This CURRENT plan involves attacks on financial targets, and we know -- from the information that was recovered in July -- that they've been scouting those locations as recently as this January.

Darleen,

That depends on if you believe who is responsible for the Islamist hatred of America.

Islamists or Americans.

I will always be pro-American over pro-Islamist every single time.

Hey Craig, nice way to be a misogynistic asshole. By the way it's spelled "uppity".

Like heat, freedom spreads to those places that are free to those that are less free. If we even get a nominally sane government in Iraq it will have an effect that will transform the region and ensure that groups like al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hizb'Allah and others no longer have safe haven and funding in the Middle East.

Bullshit!

Really? Do you really understand the Middle East? This is one of the most foolish arguements that I hear from the Bush right.. as if it's the early 80s again and the Middle East is the Eastern block.

This is not the communist block here, we are talking about a group of very well funded dictators that rule thier countries with swords and iron fists and they throw in religion to fuel the fire of hatred towards the west. Do you really think that the rest of Middle East sees Iraq as free NOW? Or... do they believe that the U.S. acted in Iraq to save Isreal from Saddam?

Are the terrrorists running scared right now? Or, are they recruiting like never before?

For those of you that think all the blood and money that has been spent in Iraq has made you feel more safe.. made you sleep better at night, please explain why. I want to know why you feel safer today.

I don't feel safer. I believe that radical groups in the Middle East now have more fodder to recruit more radical terrorists to their ranks. I believe that we have turned away most of our alliances in the world. I believe that if there isn't a change in this upcoming election and George Bush is re elected that we will lose all of our allies.

You may think that it doesn't matter, becuase we are the big bad United States.. but you know what? We aren't even that United anymore.

We don't even believe that our government is being honest about terrorist threats.

I believe that we have turned away most of our alliances in the world.

What alliances? Name them. Name one country.

"Be honest with yourself..because if that is what you believe... then the only way America can be safe is to take over the entire world." - chris

Works for me.

Okay by me, if you'll drop that silly DMCA thing and do something about sugar tariffs...

No, wait. If Australia is part of the U.S. then the sugar tariffs won't apply. Where do we sign?

good luck Ironbear.

we can't even take over Iraq

Unfortunately, if, God forbid, there IS a terrorist attack, instead of people saying "Oh good, at least they warned us" We're going to get complaints of "Look, they even knew where the attack was going to come and they couldn't stop it."

Maybe we'd be better off without the warning system. I don't know. I know just after 9-11, a LOT of people wanted "something" Maybe if Clinton was president, I'd be thinking the same thing about the warning. Except... right now I'm working for FEMA, in a government building. In a non-orange area. And I see how they have tightened up security. We're running at "elevated yellow" as they call it now. Because they are one of the first responders. And I DO know that their security measures would prevent any NEW terrorist from getting through (but not prevent a known "safe" person who really knows the system from bringing in a bomb or something. Though they do try. We go through metal detectors every day. But certainly if I can figure out a way through it, the terrorists could... and if terrorists could plan multi-yearas for things, then they could get jobs in the target place and then just lay low, biding their time...)

And, after all, those snipers in the DC area were captured because of a plain everyday trucker noticing them at the rest stop. And the fellow who wanted to bomb LA airport was caught at the border stop by a border guard doing his job up these parts.

And by knowing (esp now with it being specific places) maybe people who work there will have their eyes open to "weird things' happening. And maybe the mere fact they are being watched will make the terrorists decide to switch targets, do something different. At which point they have to start over on plans, etc.

I DO believe we will be hit by terrorists again. On our soil. All we can do is make it as difficult as possible. But Israel gets hit every day sometimes and they have very tight strictures.

chris - We're not trying to take over Iraq.

http://members.cox.net/classicweb/Heroes/heroes.htm
worthwhile to look at, lest we forget. Be sure to read the info click on the page...

I was sent something not long ago...
It is those soldiers in Iraq and around the world, past and present, who fought bravely for all of us, to sleep in peaceful slumber, to have the things we do enjoy and often take for granted, but most of all...to enjoy the absolute freedom to act just as you please and say what you will when disagreeing with anyone.
Try to remember that...
Along with that freedom comes responsibility...another thing a whole lot of people have forgotten or arent courageous enough to accept. This back and forth is getting quite embarrassing...why cant we debate facts instead of resorting to name calling? Or indicting the whole of America. I am very proud to be an American...and will do whatever I can to protect what she represents. Including supporting my adult son's choice to go to Iraq. For those that want it both ways...calling Bush to task for the 9/11 hearings...then complaining about the validity of terror alerts? What is it exactly that you want? I cant figure it out.
As for not enough information...when a local police department is investigating a crime or gets a tip ..they dont broadcast it...to do so would jeopardize their case or even their ability to catch the "bad guy". With the information highway the way it is today...oh yeah ...lets tell the terrorists exactly what we know and expect...thats real intelligent.