Obama displayed 'weakness' in Arab TV interview

[Jim DeVito]

Sure did Good episode. 24 is one of the few shows I make time to watch on tv.

This season is stacking up to be a good one. I think someone else pointed out that this has been the most realistic season and I agree. Although I wish they would not rely on one firewall device to control all of our vital infrastructure. But who knows with the level of incompatince in government (both sides) now a days that could very well be the most realistic part.

[Jim DeVito]

Holy Thread Drift Batman!!

[Lynn Farris]

It is fascinating that you bring up 24. Don is convinced that too many in the Bush administration was watching it and decided since torture worked there it really worked. Study after study proves that it doesn't. People say whatever they think people want to hear to stop the torture, not the truth.

Anyway. Brian posed a great question. I think Gordon Brumm wrote one of the best articles I have ever read on this topic, right here in the Lakewood Observer. I know my son quoted it in a paper in one of his European History classes. http://www.lakewoodobserver.com/read/3/6/the-french-revolution-iraq-and-the-lessons-of-history

While I think the mission of going into Iraq has shifted much more than this thead. The moral clairyt of the claim against terrorism. His quote, "Either you're with us or against us?

First there was moral clarity. From moral clarity came self-righteousness and supreme self-confidence. Then came arrogance, and out of arrogance came the waging of aggressive war.

This is a quote about Napoleon. Napoleon was so caught up in the idea of democracy in France, that he sought to spread it throughout the world. But somewhere, he crossed the line. History is made up of these types of stories. Leaders who took positive steps to help their people and then sought to spread their ideas with the idea that the ends justify the means. History has proven time and time, that this leads to failure.

[Dustin James]

Both Ying and Yang are important to find the middle ground.

We scared the terrorists and by doing so, scared ourselves.

We could have appeased the terrorists and loathed the results.

Big stakes. No answers are true.

Everything is an illusion... and so are me.

.

[Bill Call]

Closing Gitmo, stopping torture, talking to people respectfully, all great signs, hopeful signs. But lets see what really happens.

He is not closing Gitmo. The most that will happen is that it will be renamed. He is not stopping torture, he will simply deny that torture is going on. He will continue the policy of rendition. Talking respectfully to third world thugs is a losers game. If my goal is the murder of you and your family what is the compromise you would be willing to make?

[Stephen Eisel]

more weakness ? (clicky)

[Stephen Eisel]

I have neither the time nor the

inclination to explain myself to a man who

rises and sleeps under the blanket of the

very freedom I provide, then questions the

manner in which I provide it. I'd prefer

you just said thank you and went on your

way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a

weapon and stand a post.

can you name the movie?

Art imitating life?

[Mark Moran]

A Few Good Men.

But when we start basing our politics on movies and episodes of 24 we are in trouble.

There is going to be another terrorist attack--possibly a big bad one--regardless of what OBama does or doesnt do. And the usual megaphones will blame him for it, even though they will have no more proof than did those who blamed Bush for being unprepared for 9/11 (I for one have never bought that. Everyone was unprepared) or the Bush supporters do for their claim that they thwarted terrorist attacks by using tactics that contradict the rule of law.

[Charlie Page]

I have neither the time nor the

inclination to explain myself to a man who

rises and sleeps under the blanket of the

very freedom I provide, then questions the

manner in which I provide it. I'd prefer

you just said thank you and went on your

way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a

weapon and stand a post.

can you name the movie?

Art imitating life?

Patton

[ryan costa]

A Few Good Men.

But when we start basing our politics on movies and episodes of 24 we are in trouble.

There is going to be another terrorist attack--possibly a big bad one--regardless of what OBama does or doesnt do. And the usual megaphones will blame him for it, even though they will have no more proof than did those who blamed Bush for being unprepared for 9/11 (I for one have never bought that. Everyone was unprepared) or the Bush supporters do for their claim that they thwarted terrorist attacks by using tactics that contradict the rule of law.

the september 11 attackers were nationals from nations that are allies of the United States.

The September 11 attackers did:
1. not use guns
2. not use bombs
3. not use spy satellites
4. not use WMDs
5. not use classified or top secret information

[Dustin James]

Ryan said quote]

the september 11 attackers were nationals from nations that are allies of the United States.

The September 11 attackers did:
1. not use guns
2. not use bombs
3. not use spy satellites
4. not use WMDs
5. not use classified or top secret information[/quote]

- They used boxcutters at close range (guns can be made of ceramics, but are potentially a liability to the mission in an aircraft)
- Bombs were not necessary to the mission because of timing and complexity
- You don't know that satellite imagery was not used as reference.
- 4 large jet airliners loaded with people and fuel are surely categorized as weapons of mass destruction. Do you want to parse what mass destruction means? 3000 people dead counts Ryan.
- Whatever they used to communicate with and whatever plans they made, by definition would be top secret information and hopefully classified if we intercepted it. But then again, would you rather we didn't try? Like intercepting the plot to blow up 12 airliners in England we foiled in 2006? Or should this information be posted on the front page of the New York Times so that the enemy gets information that they shouldn't.

It's never going to be Sept. 10th, 2001 ever again. Quit trying to pretend we are in some kind of safe place if only we play nice. Please.

.

[ryan costa]

Ryan said quote]

the september 11 attackers were nationals from nations that are allies of the United States.

The September 11 attackers did:
1. not use guns
2. not use bombs
3. not use spy satellites
4. not use WMDs
5. not use classified or top secret information

- They used boxcutters at close range (guns can be made of ceramics, but are potentially a liability to the mission in an aircraft)
- Bombs were not necessary to the mission because of timing and complexity
- You don't know that satellite imagery was not used as reference.
- 4 large jet airliners loaded with people and fuel are surely categorized as weapons of mass destruction. Do you want to parse what mass destruction means? 3000 people dead counts Ryan.
- Whatever they used to communicate with and whatever plans they made, by definition would be top secret information and hopefully classified if we intercepted it. But then again, would you rather we didn't try? Like intercepting the plot to blow up 12 airliners in England we foiled in 2006? Or should this information be posted on the front page of the New York Times so that the enemy gets information that they shouldn't.

It's never going to be Sept. 10th, 2001 ever again. Quit trying to pretend we are in some kind of safe place if only we play nice. Please.

.[/quote]

Hello, good morning, hello,

yes. each and every jetliner is a potential weapon of mass destruction.

maybe the stewardesses on those planes should have had cyanide caps in their teeth, and the pilots orders to not let hijackers into the cabin.

what I meant by "spy satellite" is that the terrorist did not possess their own cool satellite in space to do all kinds of cool surveillance stuff with.

what i meant by "top secret" or "classified" information is that the terrorists probably did not have any of Our Top Secret or Classified Information. The attacks suggest they did not even need it. There is no need for them to do cool spy stuff to get cool top secret or classified information.

I never suggested playing nice. I just meant to communicate the fact that invading Iraq and deposing Saddam Hussein did nothing to lessen the chances of more terrorist attacks. The 9/11 attacks used no resources from Saddam Hussein, or resources exclusive to Saddam Hussein. The invasion of Iraq has put us on the hook for 1 to 3 trillion or more dollars when all the bills are paid. Did it reduce the odds of a terrorist attack here? Not at all. Terrorists are indignant conservative college kids from Saudi Arabia.

Our greatest fortune so far is the terrorists fixation with jetliners.

Here's what I know about me. I'm an American. I get pretty down when the electricity is out for a few hours, or when I get stuck in traffic. it is impossible to protect a bridge or highway exit ramp from car bombs, at least without stopping traffic to look at each car. Here's what I know about power outages: A few lines or substations go down, and we get the Northeast Blackout of 2003: Everytime I see a pair of sneakers hanging from the power lines I wonder if there is a bomb with a timer in it.

[Dustin James]

Hello, good morning, hello,

yes. each and every jetliner is a potential weapon of mass destruction.

maybe the stewardesses on those planes should have had cyanide caps in their teeth, and the pilots orders to not let hijackers into the cabin.

what I meant by "spy satellite" is that the terrorist did not possess their own cool satellite in space to do all kinds of cool surveillance stuff with.

what i meant by "top secret" or "classified" information is that the terrorists probably did not have any of Our Top Secret or Classified Information. The attacks suggest they did not even need it. There is no need for them to do cool spy stuff to get cool top secret or classified information.

I never suggested playing nice. I just meant to communicate the fact that invading Iraq and deposing Saddam Hussein did nothing to lessen the chances of more terrorist attacks. The 9/11 attacks used no resources from Saddam Hussein, or resources exclusive to Saddam Hussein. The invasion of Iraq has put us on the hook for 1 to 3 trillion or more dollars when all the bills are paid. Did it reduce the odds of a terrorist attack here? Not at all. Terrorists are indignant conservative college kids from Saudi Arabia.

Our greatest fortune so far is the terrorists fixation with jetliners.

Here's what I know about me. I'm an American. I get pretty down when the electricity is out for a few hours, or when I get stuck in traffic. it is impossible to protect a bridge or highway exit ramp from car bombs, at least without stopping traffic to look at each car. Here's what I know about power outages: A few lines or substations go down, and we get the Northeast Blackout of 2003: Everytime I see a pair of sneakers hanging from the power lines I wonder if there is a bomb with a timer in it.

Good for you Ryan. You have a good bead on the situation in the Mid east. Perhaps the new administration will give you a call. Your geo-political savvy will fit right in. Sound, mature logic is needed now. Thank you for yours.

Oh, and just for a news flash, there has been no terrorist attack here since 9-11, so yes it evidently DID reduce the "odds" in your own words.

.

[Lynn Farris]

We do not know why there have not been terrorists attacks in the US since 9/11.

We may have acted on better intelligence. We may have just given them easier targets in Iraq. Certainly our men and women in uniform have been the victims of attacks. Our men and women who defended our country so bravely who have to come home under the darkness of cover, so we aren't aware of what they have given to our country.

We also don't know if there has been terrorists attacs against the US. As Ryan pointed out terrorists don't have to use guns or bombs. They have many tools in their arsenal.

Was the manipulation of oil prices this summer an act of economic terrorism? (Isn't that the lesson from Regan on how we won the cold war?)

Did it only stop with the threat of Green Energy? Isn't that how you feed an addict? Jerk it up then when they are ready to stop, give them a little bit more?

Osama and the terrorists were evil. But the average person in Afghanistan and Iraq are just normal people who want to live their lives like you and I do. They want to raise their children to have better lives and they want to feel safe. I think Obama is absolutely correct in differentiating this distinction.

General Clark who got us in and out of Bosnia without the loss of a single life, has point out clearly time after time that Iraq is a mess. You have young soldiers who are scared, breaking into scared people's homes. He pointed out in Arkansas where he was from, you would expect to be shot at for doing that. Our soldiers get scared too and kill these people. Some of them get killed too. All of them were just doing their job and lots of good people are getting killed.

Then once you kill someone's dad or mother or brother or sister or child, it is hard to stop. Then you have people wanting revenge. Generals know this. General Eisenhower warned about war. General Colin Powell warned about war. In fact if you study history. Generals don't war Lincoln constantly fought with his Generals to get them into battles. They know the down side and they know that you talk and talk and talk. And then you talk somemore until you find common ground and you build from there.

It was civilians who never saw war in uniform that got us into this war in Iraq. I pray some more civilians get us out.

[ryan costa]

Good for you Ryan. You have a good bead on the situation in the Mid east. Perhaps the new administration will give you a call. Your geo-political savvy will fit right in. Sound, mature logic is needed now. Thank you for yours.

Oh, and just for a news flash, there has been no terrorist attack here since 9-11, so yes it evidently DID reduce the "odds" in your own words.

.

The odds were always small. like winning the lottery. you are still more likely to die from a drunk driving accident.

I do not know why terrorists of arab origins are fixated on syncronized airliner hijackings. They are goofy that way. It reminds me of watching cheerleaders do their syncronized acrobatics and tumblings at the pep rallies. I try to imagine the terrorists using props and coaching similar to what American highschool cheerleaders use.

The 9/11 attackers were trying to impress us. to lure us into a rope-a-dope. we'll be stuck throwing billion dollar punches at second and third world insects for decades.

There were 19 9/11 hijackers. they could have put 19 bridges and tunnels going to Manhatten out of commission within an hour of each other. at least for a little while. and more of them could have done the same thing a month later. George Bush is defending American Freedom, so the saying goes. American Freedom mostly means the resources and necessity to do an extreme amount of commuting. The terrorists forgot to attack our freedom.

Not sure what that had to do with invading Iraq. but the decision was made at the top by President Decider. It was supposed to be a head transplant in Iraq, not a war of attrition. Our leaders put a pretty capable guy in charge of that at early on. Jay Garner - a former Marine and later Army General. Team Bush moved him out to put poorly qualified Paul Bremer in charge. Paul Bremer completely demobilized the Iraqi military.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_ ... r_Number_2

At least a few hundred thousand of them could have been useful. As soldiers, they do their jobs and follow orders. They know the language and how to work with Iraqis who had previously kept sewers, water, electricity, and traffic moving. Paul Bremer did this on the premise of "de-ba'athification". Although the War on Terror was aimed at Radical Islamic Extremists, he prioritized his Iraqi policy on eliminating the largest secular party in Iraq that was made up of both Sunnis, Shiites, and Christians.

It is too late for a war on Errors. Military/Nasa/Aerospace spending is always accepted as more legitimate than infrastructure stimulus spending.