Feds shut down Ny and DC on 4 year old intel...

[sarettah]

So, most of what they found was pre 9/11 stuff. Of course they don't say that when they announce the accuracy of the intelligence and put Ridge out there talking about the "multiple sources" etc.

fucking dipshit assholes....


http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apw...%20Intelligence

[Mike AI]

Yeah I am begining to worry.

This is one reason I advocate invading other countries. I think the Federal Gov't is too incompetant to protect us at home - but we do a great job of going to other peoples countries and kicking their asses.

[PornoDoggy]

I am half-inclinded to believe Ridge when he says that "we don't do politics" in the Dep't of Homeland Security - half-inclined being the highest degree of trust I have in anybody in the Bush Administration.

If in fact the intel on these entities was updated as recently as January, then there may have been good reasons to heighten security immediately. What troubles me a little is that the way they've gone about it gives alQaida and anyone else watching a very good view of exactly what our heightened security procedures look like.

[sarettah]

Personally, I think the whole threat level etc is nothing but politics.

I've been watching pretty close and I haven't seen them raise defcons for the military when they do the raising the alert level thing. Military just stays at whatever level they were at.

However, about a month and a half ago, the entire Pacific fleet was in a much higher ready state, leaves canceled, things like that. Sailors were told to be ready to go at any moment BUT they didn't raise any of the threat levels or let any of us know it was happening.

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Aug 3 2004, 09:36 AM
Yeah I am begining to worry.

This is one reason I advocate invading other countries. I think the Federal Gov't is too incompetant to protect us at home - but we do a great job of going to other peoples countries and kicking their asses.

Uhhh ... considering they have to look out for an area of 3,537,441 square miles, I don't think they do too badly.

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by sarettah@Aug 3 2004, 09:45 AM
Personally, I think the whole threat level etc is nothing but politics.

I've been watching pretty close and I haven't seen them raise defcons for the military when they do the raising the alert level thing. Military just stays at whatever level they were at.

However, about a month and a half ago, the entire Pacific fleet was in a much higher ready state, leaves canceled, things like that. Sailors were told to be ready to go at any moment BUT they didn't raise any of the threat levels or let any of us know it was happening.

What makes you think that the defcon change in the Pacific Fleet is related to terrorism of any kind?

[SykkBoy]

Just another reason our intelligence agencies need to be overhauled....
while I'm sure they've stopped attacks/potential attacks we'll never even hear about, they constantly abuse their power and just seem to be fucking up everything else...

[mojobill]

there is obviously a lot of 'the boy who cried wolf' going on....


but on the other hand... if they did NOT issue warnings and something DID happen......

[sarettah]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Aug 3 2004, 09:59 AM
What makes you think that the defcon change in the Pacific Fleet is related to terrorism of any kind?

Tyrone told me so..............

[JoesHO]

I must weigh in, on the the belief that this is nothing but a political move, and done conviently just after the DNC was gaining momentum for the other side....

[JR]

I think you would have to be somewhat delusional to actually believe that such specific warnings in Washington DC and to many of the worlds largest financial institutions is a hoax or a political move. What will you be saying when an attack is finally successful? "They should have warned us"?

Funny thing about people... you want protection... then you object to being protected. People accuse the government of using the terrorist threat system for political gain.. but the same can be said of those making those accusations.

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by JoesHO1@Aug 3 2004, 10:28 AM
I must weigh in, on the the belief that this is nothing but a political move, and done conviently just after the DNC was gaining momentum for the other side....

Joe I truly feel sorry for you if you think this is the case.

You are a Cynic.... would hate to go through life like that.

Bush is damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't.

Don't connect dots pre-9-11, and he is blamed for letting our guard down.

If he does connect the dots, and acts on it he is a warmonger.

Joe how about you just makee a post on Oprano and we will pin it when a terrorist attack is about to happen.

[RawAlex]

Mike, when he connects UNRELATED dots, he is a war monger.

When he connects dots that his own intelligence people fabricate, he is a war monger.

I can go on and on. I think it pretty clear at this point that Between poor intelligence and an overwhelming desire by Bush jr to make up for Daddy's shortcomings, the US ended up in at least one war that didn't need to happen right then.

On the plus side, this war thing sure has made his oil patch buddies and Cheney's Haliburton cronies a ton of money. That by itself should be enough justification to get american boys and girls killed overseas.

Alex

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Aug 3 2004, 11:16 AM
Mike, when he connects UNRELATED dots, he is a war monger.

When he connects dots that his own intelligence people fabricate, he is a war monger.

I can go on and on. I think it pretty clear at this point that Between poor intelligence and an overwhelming desire by Bush jr to make up for Daddy's shortcomings, the US ended up in at least one war that didn't need to happen right then.

On the plus side, this war thing sure has made his oil patch buddies and Cheney's Haliburton cronies a ton of money. That by itself should be enough justification to get american boys and girls killed overseas.

Alex

Come on Alex.

Stop trying to change history.

EVERYONE - The UN, Germany, UK, France, Russian, Hungary, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Eygpt ALL agreed Saddam had WMDs.. Infact, before the war I remember reading countless articles from the left all frantic about the weapons being used on our military, or Saudi Arabia /Israel in scuds.

Something had to be wrong. Was the entire world wrong?? I have read some theories that Saddam's people would fake WMDs development to appease him. Apparently Saddam was not a guy you brought bad news to in person. Another theory, and one that has satilitte documentation is that the WMDs were broken down and moved to Syria. ( of course the people who put out the sat photos are the same ones who have dropped the ball in the past)

It was universally accepted Saddam was working on WMDs, a keader can only act on information he has. Bush was not on the ground looking for these weapons, he has to rely upon information from experts, CIA, NSA, etc....

Don't get me wrong, I think the war was about power and stability in a region that is important to long term future of the US. Bush had a convienient excuse with the WMDs to justify the war. It is hard to sell war to Americans based on securing oil, and fighting terrorists.

Alex, Bush has made enough mistakes to vote him out of office, no need to re-write history.

[Mike AI]

Oh and the Cheney/Halliburton thing is a joke.

Can you name 3 other companies in the world that could handle major construction like Halliburton?

Halliburton made lots of money before Cheney worked for them, and will make trillions after his is dead. It is shameful to accuse honorable people of sacrificing American kids for a few bucks.

Slandering Bush and Cheney is the only tactict the left has..... its boring, worn out, and not resinating with the majority of the normal people in the US. The 15% fringe vote eat this up.

How many Bush = Hitler posters do you havee hanging in your house Alex?

[Rolo]

Mike - good post

[PornoDoggy]

Look ... as far as the Haliburton stuff goes, I think it's as dumb to claim that Cheney advocated war for the benefit of Haliburton as it is to claim that the war in Iraq has much to do with the war on terror. I have always been opposed to the degree of profiteering disguised as privatization that has been going on in the military for the past 15 years; Haliburton et al. merely prove my point. The costs of allowing the military services to perform many of the tasks now being done by private companies may seem burdensome on paper ... but in fact, this costs us more.

It's really kind of funny, Mike, that you get your panties in a knot every time someone suggests that Bush's policies may not be 100% correct. If everyone who questions Bush's actions is a cynic, what were you between 1993-2001?

I do not think the announcement made Sunday was done completely for political purposed without any foundation in fact. I do think that Karl Rove got a hardon when the subject came up.

I agree with JR up to a point - "you would have to be somewhat delusional to actually believe that such specific warnings in Washington DC and to many of the worlds largest financial institutions is completely a hoax or a political move." But JR, gimme a break - are you saying that this OR ANY OTHER Administration is not capable of a) inflating the threat, or timing the announcement for political purposes? Are you really that niave?

[JR]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Aug 3 2004, 09:09 AM

I agree with JR up to a point - "you would have to be somewhat delusional to actually believe that such specific warnings in Washington DC and to many of the worlds largest financial institutions is completely a hoax or a political move." But JR, gimme a break - are you saying that this OR ANY OTHER Administration is not capable of a) inflating the threat, or timing the announcement for political purposes? Are you really that niave?

Not at all. I am just getting increasingly annoyed at the suggestions and claims that one side is doing it for political gain/purposes when the people making such claims are ALSO making those claims for political gain/purposes.

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Aug 3 2004, 12:09 PM
Look ... as far as the Haliburton stuff goes, I think it's as dumb to claim that Cheney advocated war for the benefit of Haliburton as it is to claim that the war in Iraq has much to do with the war on terror. I have always been opposed to the degree of profiteering disguised as privatization that has been going on in the military for the past 15 years; Haliburton et al. merely prove my point. The costs of allowing the military services to perform many of the tasks now being done by private companies may seem burdensome on paper ... but in fact, this costs us more.

It's really kind of funny, Mike, that you get your panties in a knot every time someone suggests that Bush's policies may not be 100% correct. If everyone who questions Bush's actions is a cynic, what were you between 1993-2001?

I do not think the announcement made Sunday was done completely for political purposed without any foundation in fact. I do think that Karl Rove got a hardon when the subject came up.

I agree with JR up to a point - "you would have to be somewhat delusional to actually believe that such specific warnings in Washington DC and to many of the worlds largest financial institutions is completely a hoax or a political move." But JR, gimme a break - are you saying that this OR ANY OTHER Administration is not capable of a) inflating the threat, or timing the announcement for political purposes? Are you really that niave?

PD, you must not read all of my posts.

Just because I think that Bush truly thought there were WMDs in his justification for war, does not mean I support all of Bush's policies and actions.

Bush has done many things that I do not like, and has made many mistakes. I am the first one to slam him on all the spending, gov't pgorams he has added. Not sending US combat troops into Tora Bora was a major mistake. Lots of policies in Iraq after war was flawed as well.

Bush is far from perfect, but when it comes to war on terrorism I think his heart is in the right place, and he will do the RIGHT THING - not the politically most expediate thing.

[RawAlex]

Mike, you keep forgetting that the "dot" that Bush connected to get the american people onside with attacking Iraq was the terrorist dot. Nobody BUT Bush and his immediate group ptu that dot there, they did so to create the public opinion for the war in Iraq.

There was nothing going on in Iraq that couldn't have waited six months or a year longer. Things were not significantly different from they way they were for the previous 10 years. UN made resolutions, Saddam ignored them, blah blah blah.

The dot was added and connection only to make this politically palatable to the US people, who still in the major beleive that attacking Iraq was "the war on Terror" - not the war on WMD (which is a term that the administration suddenly won't talk about).

To relate this back to the topic at hand, let's just say that the Bush team has proven over and over again that they are very good using weak, old, out of date, or questionable sourced info as the basis of making BIG moves in the world, and this current alert status thing is just the latest in a series of very strange moves. They seem to have the ability to create huge numbers of dots at will and connect them any way they like.

Anyone want to consider that this is a move for re-election?

Alex

[PornoDoggy]

Mike, I was only addressing your posts related to the "war" on terror and the delusional idea that the Iraqi invasion had anything to do with it.

You are probably right ... his heart may very well be in the right place. Unfortunately, his head is up his ass, and some of the people around him (Cheney, Wolfowitz, et al.) are every bit as driven by an ideology or philosophy as the mythical Marxists that Torone would tell you dominate the Democratic party (to which, I am sure, you would nod approvingly).

I do not believe he will do the "right" thing. I believe that he will continue to regard the war on terror as primarilly a military matter. I believe that he will continue to approach the war on terror in as a military confrontation between the U.S. and other nations - when in fact the enemy that threatens us is stateless, and the constant confrontation with a series of states only strengthens the hand of the enemy.

You continue to rail on "the left" for making the same sort of (often) unsupported allegations that you attempt to pass off as fact becasue the come from "the right." The level of criticism of GWB by "the left" is not even close to the vitriol spewed forth by the right about WJC.

[gonzo]

When thinking about discussing politics on Oprano I remember once again what happened to that bartender at the Bada Bing.

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Aug 3 2004, 12:51 PM
Mike, I was only addressing your posts related to the "war" on terror and the delusional idea that the Iraqi invasion had anything to do with it.

You are probably right ... his heart may very well be in the right place. Unfortunately, his head is up his ass, and some of the people around him (Cheney, Wolfowitz, et al.) are every bit as driven by an ideology or philosophy as the mythical Marxists that Torone would tell you dominate the Democratic party (to which, I am sure, you would nod approvingly).

I do not believe he will do the "right" thing. I believe that he will continue to regard the war on terror as primarilly a military matter. I believe that he will continue to approach the war on terror in as a military confrontation between the U.S. and other nations - when in fact the enemy that threatens us is stateless, and the constant confrontation with a series of states only strengthens the hand of the enemy.

You continue to rail on "the left" for making the same sort of (often) unsupported allegations that you attempt to pass off as fact becasue the come from "the right." The level of criticism of GWB by "the left" is not even close to the vitriol spewed forth by the right about WJC.

PD you have valid points. I would like to know exactly what the neo-cons did, what they pushed for to see how it influenced events.

As far as Non-State Actors - we have always had to deal with these type of groups. Since the Greek days. The only real way for a Nation-State to influence them is by holding other Nation-States responsible for supporting them. Providing trainging, money, refuge, supplies, etc....

I know you understand war is a messy thing, especially un-conventional wars against groups like this. Many Liberals think we can just have a special police force or "crack military team" ( This is a Moore quote from O'Reilly on how he would have handled Bin Laden) take these peopl out, but the reality is NOT like the movies ( this is no Tom Clancy novel). You cannot send a small group into a foreign country without permission or support - or else it is like declairing war.

Nations are not good at surgical attacks on groups like this, it is more of a large blunt hammer. This is ONE area in which the US needs to improve - it starts with human intel, and having a intelligene servie that has authorization to deal with, and kill the bad guys if need be.

Until this happens - even at the best it will take 5-10 years - the US has to deal with the enemy however we can.

I stand by this fact - Bush sucks, but Kerry would probably suck more. I would rather deal with the asshole I know, rather then the asshoel I don't.

[JR]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Aug 3 2004, 09:36 AM
Mike, you keep forgetting that the "dot" that Bush connected to get the american people onside with attacking Iraq was the terrorist dot. Nobody BUT Bush and his immediate group ptu that dot there, they did so to create the public opinion for the war in Iraq.

I think the "dot" was WMD's and the fact that Saddam was a threat in more ways than one which is a simple matter of fact. The degree of the of the threat is the only debatable issue and that argument is increasingly a matter of partisan politics.

No one bought the idea that saddam was a "terrorist threat" and that was NEVER the main topic of conversation leading up the war. it was just one small issue of many. and in case you forgot, Saddam did in fact support terrorism, there were in fact Al Queda connected training camps in Northern Iraq, world famous terrorist Abu Nidal did in fact live in Bagdad, Suicide bombers in Palestinian areas were in fact offered 25K USD for family members etc etc etc. So lets not compare Iraq and Saddam to Disney World and Mickey Mouse.

Almost everything you say about the US assumes that 260,000,000 people are idiots. Thats pretty offensive.

[RawAlex]

JR, last poll I saw on CNN showed that 50%+ of americans thought that the attack on Saddam was related to 9/11 and the war on terror. The administration itself has said that over and over again. They created a phantom dot and connected it to other "facts" to make a reason to go to war immediately, not in due course.

I don't think americans are dumb, but I think that the politicos are VERY good at manipulating public opinion and creating misinformation to get the public on side.

It's sort of like quoting someone, and dropping out a few words from the start or end of the sentence to make it sound very different.

Alex

[RawAlex]

Originally posted by JR@Aug 3 2004, 02:37 PM
Saddam did in fact support terrorism, there were in fact Al Queda connected training camps in Northern Iraq, world famous terrorist Abu Nidal did in fact live in Bagdad, Suicide bombers in Palestinian areas were in fact offered 25K USD for family members etc etc etc. So lets not compare Iraq and Saddam to Disney World and Mickey Mouse.

Actually, there has been no proof of training camps in Iraq with Saddam's blessing, that all reports show that Saddam and Bin Ladin couldn't stand each other, etc.

The situation in palestine, the "25k payouts" and the other things you mention are not anywhere near enough to justify ransacking a nation and deposing it's leader. On that basis, Lybia, North Korea, Syria, and any number of other nations should be under US occupation.

At the end of it all, IMHO, Saddam's personal snubs against Bush sr was key in the process of Bush jr deciding to go to war rather than following other courses of action.

Remove "saddam" and "iraq" and replace with any of the countries I listed above. Can you see any reason why they shouldn't get the same treatment?

Alex

[sarettah]

Do I think they would do this purely for political reasons ? You betcha

Do I think they would go to war purely to please their buddies ? Yeppir

Why, because history shows us that they will... Both sides, Dems and Reps. Power corrupts.