Paul O'Neill Rips Bush . . .

Quote from Babak:

The most interesting parts of the new book are where he cites documents showing that Iraq's invasion was planned well before 9/11. That, is far more damning because everyone already knows that Shrub is an idiot.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash9.htm
More...

Sorry to be the one to have the break the news to you...

The invasion of Iraq had been planned, and practiced on a large scale every year, since right after the first Gulf War. Yes, even during Clinton times.

It's not even a secret.

The problem is, most of you weenies have no idea what's going on with national security, or even have the faintest idea about anything military related. Not because it's a secret, only because you don't read anything pertinent and have never served.

Try a google search next time before you come up with another of your conspiracy theories.

Look, if you want to bash a U.S. President for an pulling a political stunt with U.S. forces, you can start with this link.

After you are done with that, you might want to do a little research on U.S. casualties in Japan and Germany after the formal end of hostilities. (That's WWII, by the way.)
 
I wonder if it will ever be possible for any government to admit that the best cure for a post-bubble environment is a prolonged period of unwinding excesses, that it may take some pain and suffering for us to rediscover financial discipline, and in the end the best course to take is to do nothing but sit and eat our medicine? How long will it take for the public to look back and realize that Bush and his team basically bet the house to guarantee re-election, and in doing so perhaps made the eventual outcome far worse?

And "creeping totalitarianism" in the name of national security -- what could be at the end of that path if a wrong turn is taken?
 
"I think it's pretty clear,' said Roger Wilkins, professor of history and American culture at George Mason University. `U.S. foreign policy is geared to the European-American sensibility which takes the lives of white people much more seriously than the lives of people who aren't white."

True.
 
Quote from Specul8r:

If these allegations are found to be true, is it so absurd to think that certain Americans may have possibly had knowledge of 9/11 beforehand or worst yet even played a role in it? Pretty scary stuff if you ask me...:eek:
More...
scary?:confused: Not scary my friend. :D Just good business sense. scumya and cabal needed an excuse to loot the resources of another nation and pillage our treasury through lucrative contracts to HAL Betchel, Rand....:( What a f%$k up this cabal is...
:confused:

CBS NEWS
NEW YORK, Dec. 17, 2003
For the first time, the chairman of the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks is saying publicly that 9/11 could have and should have been prevented, reports CBS News Correspondent Randall Pinkston.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/17/eveningnews/main589137.shtml
 
As I read about the accusations of O'Neill I don't wonder if they are true.

Many have been alleging the same for a long time now.

I doubt that they will impact Bush's re-election campaign though.

The Bush supporters will support him no matter what, as their decision to support him never had anything to do with his intelligence or theirs, his morality or their morality, etc.

Ask a Bush supporter what it would take for them not to vote for him.

We live in an age when scandal means nothing, when the destruction of the environment means nothing, when a politician lying means nothing, when budget deficits mean nothing, when the passage of the patriot acts mean nothing...

All that matters is having an SUV, the stock market rising, football on Sunday, and a scapegoat that practices a different religion to blame everything on.
 
Quote from illiquid:

And "creeping totalitarianism" in the name of national security -- what could be at the end of that path if a wrong turn is taken?
More...

I never quite understood the arguments of lost liberties and creeping totalitarianism made by alarmists in this country. Most reasonable people understand that one of the administration's highest priorities is to prevent another attack from happening, and that it is a VERY difficult job considering that the country is large, populous, diverse, and porous. I believe that most people understand that certain extra steps need to be taken in order to ensure the safety of the general populace (at least there is no broad decree to intern every single person of a particular ethnicity, as was done to the Japanese by FDR, one of our 20th century's heroes).

Those who cry conspiracy and police state often fail to offer up their own solutions, other than beefing up first response to terrorist attacks (which, incidentally, would be too late). Furthermore, they often forget that even with the increased security measures, the US still doesn't compare with many of our western allies, where random profile-based stops occur on a regular basis and are accepted by the people.

As for O'Neill, well, I've always thought he was a loose cannon and somewhat of a loon. His credibility is so low at this point, I'd be surprised if anyone gives his tell-all book any serious attention after his initial book-signing tour is over.
 
One major advantage of a police state, that is totalitarian in nature, is a reduction in crime.

Hell, even Mussolini got the trains running on time.

Who needs personal freedom and privacy anyway?

Many law abiding citizens say, "what is so wrong with all this invasion of privacy, I have nothing to hide."

This may be true, but what is not understood is that granting the state that kind of power is dangerous when a leader who is unscrupulous gets in power.

It is not alarmist to point out the dangers before they happen.

Imagine if the alarmists who thought we should have stronger borders and immigration policies before 911 had been listened to.

If we had simply had better airport and airline security, such a simple and inexpensive thing, non of the insanity and overreaction would have happened.


Quote from rolegario:

I never quite understood the arguments of lost liberties and creeping totalitarianism made by alarmists in this country. Most reasonable people understand that one of the administration's highest priorities is to prevent another attack from happening, and that it is a VERY difficult job considering that the country is large, populous, diverse, and porous. I believe that most people understand that certain extra steps need to be taken in order to ensure the safety of the general populace (at least there is no broad decree to intern every single person of a particular ethnicity, as was done to the Japanese by FDR, one of our 20th century's heroes).

Those who cry conspiracy and police state often fail to offer up their own solutions, other than beefing up first response to terrorist attacks (which, incidentally, would be too late). Furthermore, they often forget that even with the increased security measures, the US still doesn't compare with many of our western allies, where random profile-based stops occur on a regular basis and are accepted by the people.

As for O'Neill, well, I've always thought he was a loose cannon and somewhat of a loon. His credibility is so low at this point, I'd be surprised if anyone gives his tell-all book any serious attention after his initial book-signing tour is over.
More...
 
Quote from ARogueTrader:

One major advantage of a police state, that is totalitarian in nature, is a reduction in crime.

Hell, even Mussolini got the trains running on time.

Who needs personal freedom and privacy anyway?

Many law abiding citizens say, "what is so wrong with all this invasion of privacy, I have nothing to hide."

This may be true, but what is not understood is that granting the state that kind of power is dangerous when a leader who is unscrupulous gets in power.

It is not alarmist to point out the dangers before they happen.

Imagine if the alarmists who thought we should have stronger borders and immigration policies before 911 had been listened to.

If we had simply had better airport and airline security, such a simple and inexpensive thing, non of the insanity and overreaction would have happened.
More...

Remember Billy Carter's hilarious line when under fire for his business ties with Libia, "I feel safer walking the streets of Tripoli than Atlanta."

Yes Rogue. Ironic. 9/11 wasn't caused by laser guided missles but by boxcutters and cheap flying lessons. It's inconcievable to me that entry could be made into cockpits. Hell, motermen on the subway are behind locked doors! The response to all of this is a bit like that old Python skit with the hunter's going after mosquitos with rifles.

P.S. Wow Dante Hall!!
 
All of the playoff games have been great so far.

I am very impressed with Manning's progress this year in the playoffs.

So nice to see exciting, well played, offense minded, high scoring, AFC football. Reminds me of the good old AFC days of the Chargers, Raiders, Steelers, and Dolphins.

Quote from Pabst:

Remember Billy Carter's hilarious line when under fire for his business ties with Libia, "I feel safer walking the streets of Tripoli than Atlanta."

Yes Rogue. Ironic. 9/11 wasn't caused by laser guided missles but by boxcutters and cheap flying lessons. It's inconcievable to me that entry could be made into cockpits. Hell, motermen on the subway are behind locked doors! The response to all of this is a bit like that old Python skit with the hunter's going after mosquitos with rifles.

P.S. Wow Dante Hall!!
More...
 
Quote from ARogueTrader:

It is not alarmist to point out the dangers before they happen.
More...

But you've already made the jump psychologically from our current situation to having a police state, and one of your base assumptions is that the current leadership is "unscrupulous". The Congress and Supreme Court (with a couple of isolated exceptions) have so far accepted the extra steps taken on security since 9/11, and two-thirds of the population think the administration's doing a good job on national security.

Keeping trains running is a cakewalk compared to preventing extremists, who can blend in with the populace and who are hell-bent on causing chaos in your country, from succeeding in their aims. Implementing stronger borders, immigration policies, and improved airport security are not simple tasks either, unless you are willing to sacrifice some civil liberties (in fact, the more civil liberties you are willing to sacrifice, the easier it is to secure the borders; a difficult balance that any administration needs to strike).

Let's face it, even with the additional security, the US is still the freest country on the planet. I have no problem with you or anyone else issuing any warnings, but to imply that we've hung the Constitution out to dry is a little overly paranoid. Most people have enough faith in our system of government to believe that we're not on some slippery slope toward totalitarianism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top