Attacks Foiled on West Coast-More Info Today

[j2mirish]

I didn't say YOUR argument, I said THE argument.

Forest for the trees!


Cal

uh...yea you did!

forest for the trees

 

[calus_3]

...your argument is much like THE...THE....THE argument.....

Drawing straws while the rest of the world is drawing blood.

Cal

 

[j2mirish]

...your argument is much like THE...THE....THE argument.....

Drawing straws while the rest of the world is drawing blood.

Cal

its a shame you have assumed so much about me....that is my argument. and I am done with it--:doh:

 

[IdahoMom]

The GOOD NEWS is that an LA attack was prevented, and who knows how many more? Kudos to the Bush administration!

 

[PrayersForMaura]

Does anyone know what the democrats plan for national security is? :waitasec:
Seriously? I don't follow too much. I'm not being a smart alec.

 

[IdahoMom]

This is the building they thought it would be cool to fly a plane into :slap: :


Al Qaeda's West Coast Target at a Glance

From Associated Press

Details of the downtown Los Angeles skyscraper targeted in a terror plot revealed by President Bush:

• Stands 1,017 feet high with 73 floors and has more than 1.3 million square feet of office and retail space.

• Built by a commercial real estate developer in 1989, it was named Library Tower because of its proximity to the Los Angeles Central Library. It was renamed First Interstate Tower but later reverted to its original name when the bank merged with Wells Fargo. Renamed US Bank Tower in 2003 after that bank signed a 12-year lease for $53 million.

• Tallest office building in the United States west of the Mississippi River.

• Designed to withstand a magnitute-8.3 earthquake.

• Cinematically destroyed by alien invaders in the 1996 movie "Independence Day."

 

[DEPUTYDAWG]

Does anyone know what the democrats plan for national security is? :waitasec:
Seriously? I don't follow too much. I'm not being a smart alec.

Ya know, I don't know either...and I'm not being a smart alec either. What did Kerry say when he was running in '04? I'm sure it came up and he'd have to answer, but I also don't recall any plans....

ETA: I think your question is a very good question, BTW.

 

[scandi]

Hi Calus,

Well Well, I finally get to meet you when you're talking politics! And now I know why everyone enjoys you when you give you opinions on the sticky viewpoints of politics. LOL You have a nice sense of humor that sets a good tone.

Personally I think the announcing of the foiled attack/s was done for Bush's political gain this morning, as last night I heard that politicians throughout the country are suddenly talking seriously about impeaching him! What better time to throw in a rosy note to lighten up pi**ed off Americans. I personally think he is of bad moral character from way back in his college days and he'll always be the same kind of person. To leave the American public in the dark about the foiled attacks just seems so wrong to me, and then 4 years later let it pop up to hopefully save his arse! And I voted for him! ! ! !


Scandi

 

[PrayersForMaura]

Ya know, I don't know either...and I'm not being a smart alec either. What did Kerry say when he was running in '04? I'm sure it came up and he'd have to answer, but I also don't recall any plans....

ETA: I think your question is a very good question, BTW.

Thanks. I just don't want to argue about something I don't know too much on. I know that Bush stands firm on fighting terror because I hear it on Fox News every night. And I know he supports the war in Iraq. I know some Democrats do not and want to pull the troops. I was wondering what they want to do, how should we finish the war, what our next moves should be and how should we protect our borders? I agree with Buzz about the Mexican border. It was quite scary about that tunnel.

I think it's very sad that people are protesting at soldiers funerals. I was watching the news the other night and some guy was holding a sign that said "God Hates You". I about cried. That's really cruel.
I think I would go nuts if someone did that across the street at my relative's funeral.

 

[bbmcrae]

This attack plan is not new information, btw. This attack plan was disclosed long ago and is being brought up now to shore up Bush's wiretapping, IMO.

But I digress-I wanted to make a sideline comment here. And a bit of a spew about the talk of anyone questioning Bush's motives being, if I read some of the comments right, well, a twit.

I don't think anyone here is actually defending the terrorists. (I personally would love all al-Queada to be hunted down and wiped off the face of the earth.)

It is not FAIR to accuse anyone of supporting terrorists just because they don't think the president, be he Bush or Clinton or Tom Cruise, should be illegally wiretapping American citizens. You can disagree and argue over it, but to imply posters are pro-terrorist in any way is arrogant and insulting.

And also-how is baiting posters with quotes like "It must hurt being a liberal" not to be taken as a personal attack? Honestly?

If any poster thinks the wiretapping business is fine, great. That's your opinion. But to take it to this level of ideology-bashing is insulting (from both sides when it happens), juvenille and, to quote John Stewart, it hurts the country in the end.

So again, why does someone objecting to wiretapping of American citizens or pointing out the obvious political overtones of the disclosure of the details of this attack plan at this moment, make them essentially a terrorist-lover? Or stupid? Or anything other than someone who disagrees with the president? If it was Clinton wiretapping, would you have the same problem? Because I would.

There. I spewed. Excuse me while I wipe the drool off.

 

[Nova]

Oh, ok ... lol.
I guess everyone of the Democrats are going to come out today and say "he's lying"? There were no terrorist attacks
Haa haa. I'll be waiting ...

If this is President is talking, he's lying. Where have you been?

Now it may be that attacks were foiled. If so, good. But even if true, that doesn't prove we have to destroy democratic process to foil attacks.

 

[blueclouds]

B A L O N E Y............................ Bush. Make Believe.

Did Alice In Wonderland Visit You This Morning?

I Don't Buy This Story For A Second. But The 'powers That Be' Behind The Scenes Made Bush Create This Story.

Nope. Don't Believe It.

 

[lynie]

This attack plan is not new information, btw. This attack plan was disclosed long ago and is being brought up now to shore up Bush's wiretapping, IMO.

But I digress-I wanted to make a sideline comment here. And a bit of a spew about the talk of anyone questioning Bush's motives being, if I read some of the comments right, well, a twit.

I don't think anyone here is actually defending the terrorists. (I personally would love all al-Queada to be hunted down and wiped off the face of the earth.)

It is not FAIR to accuse anyone of supporting terrorists just because they don't think the president, be he Bush or Clinton or Tom Cruise, should be illegally wiretapping American citizens. You can disagree and argue over it, but to imply posters are pro-terrorist in any way is arrogant and insulting.

And also-how is baiting posters with quotes like "It must hurt being a liberal" not to be taken as a personal attack? Honestly?

If any poster thinks the wiretapping business is fine, great. That's your opinion. But to take it to this level of ideology-bashing is insulting (from both sides when it happens), juvenille and, to quote John Stewart, it hurts the country in the end.

So again, why does someone objecting to wiretapping of American citizens or pointing out the obvious political overtones of the disclosure of the details of this attack plan at this moment, make them essentially a terrorist-lover? Or stupid? Or anything other than someone who disagrees with the president? If it was Clinton wiretapping, would you have the same problem? Because I would.

There. I spewed. Excuse me while I wipe the drool off.

Thank you...nice post and I will not add more :clap: :clap: :clap:

lynie

 

[calus_3]

Hi Calus,

Well Well, I finally get to meet you when you're talking politics! And now I know why everyone enjoys you when you give you opinions on the sticky viewpoints of politics. LOL You have a nice sense of humor that sets a good tone.

Personally I think the announcing of the foiled attack/s was done for Bush's political gain this morning, as last night I heard that politicians throughout the country are suddenly talking seriously about impeaching him! What better time to throw in a rosy note to lighten up pi**ed off Americans. I personally think he is of bad moral character from way back in his college days and he'll always be the same kind of person. To leave the American public in the dark about the foiled attacks just seems so wrong to me, and then 4 years later let it pop up to hopefully save his arse! And I voted for him! ! ! !


Scandi

Finally meet me when I am talking politics......just where have YOU been? You must have been on a long holiday as the Australians say! Well, politics and religion are sticky subjects and while we can get quite heated at times, we have equal amounts of fun too. Some people take offense but I find that the people who take offense, often have the weakest argument and taking offense is their out to exit the argument gracefully. Most of the time, we hash out an argument and get to the point where we lay down arms and say "we have a fundamental difference of opinion" but walk away friends. I just like being a smart a$$.....it feels guuuuuud.

I like to argue because I often learn things I never knew. Like the fact that Bush 41 ran against someone and criticized them for supporting the civil rights movement. I didn't know that. Now I am not calling him a racist like some would imply because I don't know the facts of why but I don't think that it is because Bush hates black people. I am sure there is a reason and will find out. But that was interesting to learn. Debating also helps hone and shape my opinions about stuff.

As for Bush's announcement, of course it was for political gain....nothing done in DC isn't. However, like someone said, this was discussed and disclosed previously but the President brought it up to show that just because there hasn't been another attack on American soil just yet, they are still plotting. He and I feel that Americans are back being stupid Americans worrying more about who Britney is nailing today or whether Nick and Jessica are caput or not.

I don't see that this has anything to do with wiretapping (although at first I and probably most of us assumed it did) because the plan was foiled when one of the hijackers was arrested by a foreign country. It didn't mention anything about wire taps to my knowledge.

As for the person who said it was dispicable or whatever that it was disclosed just now having happened long ago, there are reasons for that. Source protection. National Security Issues. etc. Let's face it folks, there is a lot of illegal and 'bad' things going on in this world that is required to protect the US. If you knew of everything that was being done daily by your government (not just when BUSH took office). That has been since the dawn of our Nation and continues REGARDLESS OF THE ADMINISTRATION. Kennedy, the liberal reincarnation of Jesus, financed an illegal attempt to overthrow Castro using the MOB. I still get laughs when I think of short, stocky Italians landing on Cuba in high-water plad pants, white shoes, and a Rocky hat. "Weahs that Castroh sun-of-a-beech...fogetaboutit".

And another thing, if you and I knew every terrorist threat, every national threat from a hostile nation, every close call, every fact about threats to this nation--including terror attacks that were foiled, we probably wouldn't sleep at night.

I for one, rooted for Jack Nicholson's character in A Few Good Men ...... because it takes real men to stand up and defend this Country. I appreciate the rule of law but realize that criminals and terrorists are always going to operate outside of that law and realize that we too must operate outside of it at times to make sure we are all breathing tomorrow.

Cal

 

[PrayersForMaura]

This attack plan is not new information, btw. This attack plan was disclosed long ago and is being brought up now to shore up Bush's wiretapping, IMO.

But I digress-I wanted to make a sideline comment here. And a bit of a spew about the talk of anyone questioning Bush's motives being, if I read some of the comments right, well, a twit.

I don't think anyone here is actually defending the terrorists. (I personally would love all al-Queada to be hunted down and wiped off the face of the earth.)

It is not FAIR to accuse anyone of supporting terrorists just because they don't think the president, be he Bush or Clinton or Tom Cruise, should be illegally wiretapping American citizens. You can disagree and argue over it, but to imply posters are pro-terrorist in any way is arrogant and insulting.

And also-how is baiting posters with quotes like "It must hurt being a liberal" not to be taken as a personal attack? Honestly?

If any poster thinks the wiretapping business is fine, great. That's your opinion. But to take it to this level of ideology-bashing is insulting (from both sides when it happens), juvenille and, to quote John Stewart, it hurts the country in the end.

So again, why does someone objecting to wiretapping of American citizens or pointing out the obvious political overtones of the disclosure of the details of this attack plan at this moment, make them essentially a terrorist-lover? Or stupid? Or anything other than someone who disagrees with the president? If it was Clinton wiretapping, would you have the same problem? Because I would.

There. I spewed. Excuse me while I wipe the drool off.

1) Clinton did wiretap.

2) it was terrorists calls that were wiretapped, not yours and mine.

3) Article 2 under the constitution give the president the power in times of war to do whatever is necessary to protect our country.

 

[CyberLaw]

O.K. knowing the Bush et all "idea" for misinformation, lying, propaganda, etc.

I want to see the facts, I want to see "verification" of the "story" Bush et al are hand feeding the USA. After all no one ever did find those WMD which was the basis for invading Iraq and starting a war. Which turned out to be one of the biggest lies in recent history which is costing the American people dearly in the loss of great young men and women.

Nope, once burned, twice shy. Show me the proof.........

 

[calus_3]

So again, why does someone objecting to wiretapping of American citizens or pointing out the obvious political overtones of the disclosure of the details of this attack plan at this moment, make them essentially a terrorist-lover? Or stupid? Or anything other than someone who disagrees with the president? If it was Clinton wiretapping, would you have the same problem? Because I would.

There. I spewed. Excuse me while I wipe the drool off.

Well, to answer your many questions, you are either for us or against us. There is no middle ground.

Either the people who object to the wiretaps are rooting for the enemy as I believe many in our Congress are or their thinking is so flawed that it is approaching dangerous. I would support Clinton (bill or hill) if they were doing this wiretapping....you see because I am capable of laying my politics aside when it involves the security of our Nation.

There is no task more paramount than the protection of the United States of America and our citizens.

Due to technology, Osama Bin Caverat can decide that today is the day that terrorists walk into our children's schools and detonate a bomb in the cafeteria. He can pop his b!tch head out of a cave with a satelite phone, issue the order, and it can be carried out inside of 10 minutes or less if the terrorists here in the US are prepared ahead of time. Almost instantaneous execution of orders. We must combat that.

My objection to this whole wiretap mess is that the Democrats -- who were briefed on this program ahead of time -- are telling the American public that Aunt Jenny was taped telling Uncle Fred what she had planned for him that night. Uh uh. Calls and emails of suspected or known foreign terrorists were listened to. If it just so happens that Aunt Jenny called Omar Skeikh Humpacamel then she may have been listened to. We are at war and this tapping program is more than legal under warpowers acts and legal.

So those of you who expect the President and military's protection and will be bashing Bush for not doing enough when it is your relative killed in the next terrorist attack....IMHO.....can move elsewhere or get with the program.

Terrorists don't communicate with operatives here in America (there are operatives....terrorists living among us....don't you get that?) via ESP. The next terrorist attack will be financed, coordinated, and kicked off using electronic forms of communication from overseas terrorists to people here in the US living among us. How in the hell do you expect the US to find out about this, intercept it, decipher it, and disseminate it to the requred law enforcement agencies in time to prevent that terrorist attack when they have to go file 40 pages of legal briefs, get put on a calendar for the court, have it heard by a judge, researched by a judge, and signed off on by a judge given the 10 minute timetable I just gave you? It may not be ten minutes but it could be a day, a week, a month. It could also be two minutes. But without doing what it takes, we won't be watching these people at all so we will never see the message in the first place.

I am all for discussing the issue in Congress and perhaps coming up with a court where we list everyone we suspect of terrorism overseas and in the states and are given blanket warrants to tap them. Each time someone new pops up, we get blanket authority to tap them but notifying the court we are tapping them doesn't prevent or hinder that tapping. I am not against oversight or review, but I am against it when it prevents the protection of the United States. I am also against it when Senators who were briefed on the program previously act incredulous about it like they never heard about it. Either they know they got caught participating and are covering their butts or they didn't really care about the tapping in the first place and let it go on so they could gain political advantage when they needed it. That's FACT.

So my point stands....you cannot say you are for America and then put America at an extraordinary advantage fighting the enemy and complain about the methods we use. I love how people who cannot even tell you who their Senators are have suddenly become legal experts telling the President what is legal and not. I guess there are those who seek to have a fair fight with the terrorists...level the playing field if you will before the match begins.

You are either for us and on board to use any and all reasonable means to protect the US or you are against us. That is how I feel and I think fact supports that. We HAD...yes HAD a tactical advantage over our enemies in that we were watching them and they didn't know it. However, if Ted Kennedy and his ilk have their way, that advantage will be taken away from us. What am I saying? It already has been. If I am a terrorist, I won't make the call via electronic communication....I will send a clean courier with a verbal message. It takes longer but it is safe. Terrorists who may not have known they were being tapped now do thanks to WHO?

The real disgrace is that Ted Kennedy and his ilk are up in arms about someone supposedly exposing a non-covert agent in Valerie Plame......someone that everyone knew was in the CIA already....as a National Security breech. They talk about the unprecidented damage done to National Security by the outting of someone who wasn't a covert agent. But when someone on the LEFT leaked the fact that we were tapping the phones and emails of TERRORISTS not one person on the LEFT even cares about that National Security BREECH of all BREECHES. You want to talk about harming National Security and putting us all at risk, someone on the LEFT told the TERRORISTS just exactly how NOT TO GET CAUGHT BY US. That is shameful folks. Just as I decry the fact that there was virtually no outcry from the muslims on 9/11, I decry the fact that the LEFT in this country is so blinded by hatred for one man they refuse to be outraged at a significant weakening of our country.

For us or against us, there is no middle ground.

Cal

 

[calus_3]

To summarize my feelings quickly :

I think that there are three schools of thought out there today:

1) We are at war and do whatever it takes to defeat the terrorists and prevent loss of American lives. AKA post-9/11 mentality

2) We are at war but we must combat those who seek to kill us using every technology and tool available to them via antequated methodologies only. We should subpoena terrorists in the US and abroad, read them their rights, and get them an attorney because damn it they have rights. For those devoid of history, this was the Clinton adminstration methodology for dealing with terrorists. Treat terrorism like any other criminal matter. That led to 9/11. Of course, under Clinton we had many terrorist attacks and he gave absolutely no response. He was offered Bin Laden but after consulting his attorneys he decided there was no legal reason to bring him to the US.....that was pre 9/11 and that collossal mistake let Bin Laden go to attack us.

3) Unfortunately, there are many who simply are rooting for the terrorists to win. That can be because they hate America (Johnny Walker Linda, Jose Padilla) or they hate George Bush so badly that they are willing to let the terrorists win a battle now and then (via terrorist attacks on our soil or abroad) so they think they can win the war (Ted Kennedy, Nanci Pelosi, Harry Reid, etc.). These people need to be tried for treason and executed, IMHO.

Cal

 

[DEPUTYDAWG]

Cal,

Do you recall, or know, what John Kerry stated would be his (or the Dem's) plan to fight terrorism? It was asked earlier in this thread, and no one has answered (not that it was a specific question looking for a direct answer). But someone brought it up, and I thought it was a good question. It's easy to throw darts in someone else's plan, but I'm wondering what they'd do so differently. And, let me reiterate, I'm not trying to cause problems, I am actually curious, and don't know. Trying to learn and make sense out of all this bickering between the parties. (I hate to see that, we've forgotten the pulling together of this country right after 9/11, IMO.)

 

[calus_3]

Cal,

Do you recall, or know, what John Kerry stated would be his (or the Dem's) plan to fight terrorism? It was asked earlier in this thread, and no one has answered (not that it was a specific question looking for a direct answer). But someone brought it up, and I thought it was a good question. It's easy to throw darts in someone else's plan, but I'm wondering what they'd do so differently. And, let me reiterate, I'm not trying to cause problems, I am actually curious, and don't know. Trying to learn and make sense out of all this bickering between the parties. (I hate to see that, we've forgotten the pulling together of this country right after 9/11, IMO.)

Yes, his plan is "I hate Bush".....

Really, I haven't heard anything other than that. He did indicate that we should negotiate with Hamas.... I guess that is telling.

James Carville, the crazy eccentric uncle of the Democrats said as much.....the Democrats have no plan for anything. That was a week ago.

Cal