Bush is Soft on Terror - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

09/25/2004 09:55:55 AM · #76

Originally posted by louddog:

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

09/25/2004 12:11:52 PM · #77

Originally posted by thelsel:

Partial list of key Al Qaida members killed or captured in Bush's war on terror:

The Bush administration took their eyes off the ball?

I believe they did, and I am certainly not alone. Saddam is not Bin Laden. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. It seems a dull, stupid fact worth repeating.

Bush is "no longer concerned" with tracking down his former number one priority - Bin Laden.

Afghanistan is now precisely as it was before we invaded it. That is called dropping the ball, big time.

Iraq, a country which was following U.N. inspections, had no means of attacking us at all, was invaded by the Bush for no good reason whatsoever. Our country shamed forever. Tens of thousands dead, and now, the place is a war zone, over run with al queda recruits who never existed before.

With the exception of the neo-con party hacks who make their living off the Bush administration or its think tanks, you will not find any credible expert who now says the invasion of Iraq has made us safer - quite the contrary is evident, even using the administrations own figures(since corrected).

Iraq was a needless, counterproductive, extremely expensive IDIOCY, and was never in response to 9/11 - it was in planning since day one of Bush II. Have people forgotton this?

If the delusional concept that we should protect ourselves from terrorism actually mandated international invasions, which seems pretty absurd now in retrospect, surely there are lots of better choices than Iraq???

How about countries that actually sponsored terrorists involved with 9/11? Maybe that would be a good place to start???

How about saudi Arabia? Pakistan - who has led the way to giving al queda nuclear materials?? How about North Korea, who actually shot a missile into Alaska for crissake??? What about Iran, perhaps, or Syria? I mean, any actually NON-secular state would be a better choice.!!!

Bush wanted to invade Iraq for his reasons - all squalid - and he has lied the big lies for years now, to get people to believe it was justified. Time will see him tried for war crimes over this, no doubt. But surely, if one can operate a digital camera, one should be intelligent enough to recognize an enormous crock of horseshit when one sees it?

SoCal provided us ( above) with a detailed analysis of where our monies SHOULD have been spent to make us safer from terrorism, and shows how Bush SQUANDERED those monies in Iraq.

If that does not demonstrate how he took "took his eyes off the ball", and an objective analysis of events pre 9/11 does not lead one to believe that he couldn't even see the ball to begin with - or worse, wanted the 9/11 attacks to occur - I think one may need new glasses more than the exceedingly myopic pResident.

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

10/21/2004 11:04:23 PM · #78

According to reporter Robert Scheer of the Los Angeles Times, the US Inspector General is refusing to hand over a report completed by the CIA about pre-9/11 intelligence regarding the WTC attacks that was commissioned by the House Intelligence Committee. The report is supposed to be critical of top intelligence officials, as well as, show that the Bush administration was "asleep at the wheel" prior to the attacks. They most likely don't want to release it because it would put the Bush administration in a bad light less than two weeks before the national elections. Yet again, another example of the lack of transparency in the white house.

10/25/2004 06:56:16 PM · #79

Its unfortunate that the new book Shadow War by Richard Miniter wasn't released sooner. The public would have a much better view of the fact that President Bush is slowly winning the war on terror.

MadMordegon

10/25/2004 07:46:23 PM · #80

Originally posted by ScottK:

Its unfortunate that the new book Shadow War by Richard Miniter wasn't released sooner. The public would have a much better view of the fact that President Bush is slowly winning the war on terror.

According to this article, there is an entire province full of Taliban and Al Qaeda members, maybe Bin Laden and we are not attacking.

Kinda sad that we're so extended fighting the War on Iraq that we can't afford to fight the War on Terror.

10/25/2004 08:47:45 PM · #81

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Originally posted by ScottK:
Its unfortunate that the new book Shadow War by Richard Miniter wasn't released sooner. The public would have a much better view of the fact that President Bush is slowly winning the war on terror.

According to this article, there is an entire province full of Taliban and Al Qaeda members, maybe Bin Laden and we are not attacking.

Kinda sad that we're so extended fighting the War on Iraq that we can't afford to fight the War on Terror.

Reread the article. Not once is Iraq mentioned as a reason we're not going after him (if he is there), nor is being overextended.

MadMordegon

10/25/2004 10:10:18 PM · #82

Originally posted by ScottK:

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Originally posted by ScottK:
Its unfortunate that the new book Shadow War by Richard Miniter wasn't released sooner. The public would have a much better view of the fact that President Bush is slowly winning the war on terror.

According to this article, there is an entire province full of Taliban and Al Qaeda members, maybe Bin Laden and we are not attacking.

Kinda sad that we're so extended fighting the War on Iraq that we can't afford to fight the War on Terror.

Reread the article. Not once is Iraq mentioned as a reason we're not going after him (if he is there), nor is being overextended.

People can't come to their on conclusions once new information is provided?

MadMordegon

10/26/2004 01:06:53 PM · #83

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Bumping this article as I think its important.

10/26/2004 06:42:31 PM · #84

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Originally posted by ScottK:

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Originally posted by ScottK:
Its unfortunate that the new book Shadow War by Richard Miniter wasn't released sooner. The public would have a much better view of the fact that President Bush is slowly winning the war on terror.

According to this article, there is an entire province full of Taliban and Al Qaeda members, maybe Bin Laden and we are not attacking.

Kinda sad that we're so extended fighting the War on Iraq that we can't afford to fight the War on Terror.

Reread the article. Not once is Iraq mentioned as a reason we're not going after him (if he is there), nor is being overextended.

People can't come to their on conclusions once new information is provided?

Certainly. But if that conclusion is faulty, can't people point out the falacy of the conclusion based on the reality of the evidence presented?

This kind of bad logic is how people end up believing that it is fact that the Florida vote really should have gone to Gore, despite all evidence to the contrary.

It's been 20 years since my logic classes in college, so the terminology is fuzzy, but there's the principle I'm sure you're familiar with, that goes: If A = B and B = C, then A = C. What you're proposing above is: If A = B and C = D, and I think B and C are close together and kind of related somehow, then A = D. But it just doesn't hold up.

Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f2.8D

10/26/2004 07:19:44 PM · #85

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

According to this article, there is an entire province full of Taliban and Al Qaeda members, maybe Bin Laden and we are not attacking.

Kinda sad that we're so extended fighting the War on Iraq that we can't afford to fight the War on Terror.

Bumping this article as I think its important.

The first paragraph in that article is an interesting study in story presentation, and how it can affect the reader. It says: "The Pentagon knows exactly where Osama bin Laden is hiding in Pakistan, it just can't get to him, a member of the 9-11 Commission said Thursday." So the "easy" way to read that is to read it as hard fact that "the Pentagon knows exactly where Osama bin Laden is hiding in Pakistan, it just can't get to him." The exclusion of quotation marks, even though this is actually a quote, or at least a paraphrase, also asserts the statement as undeniable fact. This device is used again in the third paragraph.

However, what is really said is that, according to one man's (well placed and informed though he may be) uncorraborated statement, he believes that "the Pentagon knows exactly where Osama bin Laden is hiding in Pakistan, it just can't get to him."

I'm not making a statement or taking a stand one way or the other on whether this statement is accurate or not - it may very well be. It just seems interesting to me that the writer would intentionally present the statements of one man as absolute fact. And the result seems to be that your reaction is to go in there and attack.

Your statement: "...there is an entire province full of Taliban and Al Qaeda members, maybe Bin Laden and we are not attacking."

Sounds like you want to "rush into war" to me. :)

But consider this article (really another interview, drafted as part travelogue, part narative, mostly pull-quotes from an interview), the followup by the same author, Jim Mohr, as the article you linked. Included are such statements as:

Welcome to Osama bin Laden's hiding place in South Waziristan of the Baluchistan Mountains of Pakistan.

Once again, he has established the statement of one man as the factual basis for the rest of the story. In fact, I don't see that the source for this article is ever actually presented as supporting this fact, but primarily comments on the region and our inteligence capabilities.

It's an area the United States intelligence community knows little about, and would require hundreds of thousands of troops if if the United States were to invade to get bin Laden, said Robert Baer, a CIA case officer for 21 years and an expert on the region.

Two things to note: 1) another instance of a quote/paraphrase presented as fact; and 2) accepting this "fact" (which I'm ready to do), rushing in there and attacking does not seem the prudent reaction.

"If we did, we could have another Vietnam, and the United States cannot afford that right now,' he (Lehman) said.

A restatement from the previous article, and more evidence that attacking is not the answer.

So, hopefully, you agree that attacking is not the answer, at least at the moment.

As an aside, the source of information for this second article is a guy named Robert Baer, a former CIA case officer who left the agency during the Clinton administration out of disgust over their lack of interest in cultivating human intelligence assets, which he blames for the problems in Iraq. "'I believe the CIA misled President Bush on the weapons of mass destruction,' he said." That would be the CIA under the leadership of a Clinton-appointed director, and suffering from Clinton-era failures in developing sources of inteligence.

Since you obviously give Jim Mohr's writing a high level of credibility, I hope you'll consider this in your evaluations of George Bush.

Message edited by author 2004-10-26 19:23:35.

David Ey

Nikon D80

10/30/2004 09:14:10 PM · #86

www.newsmax.com

After Osama bin Laden released his pre-election video yesterday, John Kerry repeated his criticism that President Bush let the terror kingpin get away by "outsourcing" the job to Afghan forces when we had him cornered in the Tora Bora mountains.

But it turns out that in December 2001, when the Tora Bora operation was underway, Kerry endorsed Bush's tactics during an interview with CNN's Larry King.
Kerry said the Bush plan to get bin Laden "is having its impact, and it is the best way to protect our troops and sort of minimalize the proximity, if you will."
Lest anyone mistake his endorsement as half-hearted, Kerry added:

"I think we have been doing this pretty effectively, and we should continue to do it that way."

The quotes, unearthed Saturday by New York Times columnist David Brooks, only add to Kerry's image as a political opportunist who tailors his rhetoric to fit the moment.

According to Kerry, says Brooks: "When we rely on allies everywhere else around the world, that's multilateral cooperation, but when Bush does it in Afghanistan, it's 'outsourcing.' In Iraq, Kerry supports using local troops to chase insurgents, but in Afghanistan he is in post hoc opposition."

The Tora Bora contradiction exposes the credibility gap in Kerry's anti-terror pronouncements, says Brooks. "Many people are not sure that he gets the fundamental moral confrontation. Many people are not sure he feels it, or feels anything."

www.newsmax.com

ClubJuggle

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

10/31/2004 12:32:43 AM · #87

Originally posted by CNN:

KING: Mount Holly Springs, Pennsylvania -- hello.

CALLER: Hello. Yes, I would like to ask the panel why they don't use napalm or flamethrowers on those tunnels and caves up there in Afghanistan?

KING: Senator Kerry?

CALLER: My golly, I think they could smoke him out.

KING: Senator Kerry?

KERRY: Well, I think it depends on where you are tactically. They may well be doing that at some point in time. But for the moment, what we are doing, I think, is having its impact and it is the best way to protect our troops and sort of minimalize the proximity, if you will. I think we have been doing this pretty effectively and we should continue to do it that way.

Kerry's statement spoke to the question of using napalm and flamethrowers rather than laser-guided bombs to attempt to smoke out Bin Laden. It did not refer to any plans by President Bush to divert troops from the capture or kill effort that was then in progress.

The most obvious problem with this, though is that, on December 14, 2001, our military resources were still entirely focused on the war in Afghanistan. It was not until nearly 9 months AFTER this interview, September 12, 2002 that President Bush, speaking before the UN General Assembly, challenged the UN to take on Iraq. On October 10, 2002, The Congress passed the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq (source: Wikipedia: Iraq disarmament crisis timeline 2001-2003).

In this regard, Senator Kerry's comments seem quite consistent. He stated, in December, 2001, that we should stay the course. Ten months later, the President would begin a process that would divert military resources from this still-unfinished effort, and it is that move which Kerry criticizes.

-Terry

10/31/2004 04:33:39 PM · #88

Originally posted by ScottK:

This kind of bad logic is how people end up believing that it is fact that the Florida vote really should have gone to Gore, despite all evidence to the contrary.

The evidence I have seen says that Gore would have won Florida under virtually all scenarios, if, in fact, proper recounts were done.

These numbers do not even include calculations of votes never occurring due to Jeb Bush illegally scrubbing innocent voters of the felons list, ballots which were never counted at the time ( yes, not even ONCE), etc, etc.

In fact, when the headlines accross the country screamed" Bush would have won recount", if you read the actual text of the article, you would find the opposite conclusion to be true under any version of Florida law.

Of approx. 14 different scenarios, Gore won twelve, Bush won two, but they were not related to any interpretation of actual law.

That the headlines were so diammetrically opposed to the content of the article, says a lot, I think, about the myth of the so-called liberal media, and was simply breath-taking in its hypocritical deception.

Amazing how both camps can be so sure of the righteousness of their causes here. One side is wrong, and using deception, IMO. Put a mental bookmark on the issue - see where it gets resolved down the road.

Perhaps all those people who say Gore actually won Florida are not so illogical after all?

RonB

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

11/01/2004 08:34:08 AM · #89

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

Originally posted by ScottK:

This kind of bad logic is how people end up believing that it is fact that the Florida vote really should have gone to Gore, despite all evidence to the contrary.

The evidence I have seen says that Gore would have won Florida under virtually all scenarios, if, in fact, proper recounts were done.

Have you seen it anywhere that you can post a link to? I'd be really interested in seeing it for myself.

11/01/2004 08:51:51 PM · #90

Originally posted by ClubJuggle:

Interesting statement, but coming as it does from a partisan source, it's not surprising.

The first problem is that the quote in question is out of context. Here is the actual question and answer from the transcript of the December 14, 2001, Larry King Live.

Originally posted by CNN:
KING: Mount Holly Springs, Pennsylvania -- hello.

CALLER: Hello. Yes, I would like to ask the panel why they don't use napalm or flamethrowers on those tunnels and caves up there in Afghanistan?

KING: Senator Kerry?

CALLER: My golly, I think they could smoke him out.

KING: Senator Kerry?

KERRY: Well, I think it depends on where you are tactically. They may well be doing that at some point in time. But for the moment, what we are doing, I think, is having its impact and it is the best way to protect our troops and sort of minimalize the proximity, if you will. I think we have been doing this pretty effectively and we should continue to do it that way.

Kerry's statement spoke to the question of using napalm and flamethrowers rather than laser-guided bombs to attempt to smoke out Bin Laden. It did not refer to any plans by President Bush to divert troops from the capture or kill effort that was then in progress.

The most obvious problem with this, though is that, on December 14, 2001, our military resources were still entirely focused on the war in Afghanistan. It was not until nearly 9 months AFTER this interview, September 12, 2002 that President Bush, speaking before the UN General Assembly, challenged the UN to take on Iraq. On October 10, 2002, The Congress passed the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq (source: Wikipedia: Iraq disarmament crisis timeline 2001-2003).

In this regard, Senator Kerry's comments seem quite consistent. He stated, in December, 2001, that we should stay the course. Ten months later, the President would begin a process that would divert military resources from this still-unfinished effort, and it is that move which Kerry criticizes.

-Terry

Good catch.

However, looking at Wikipedia's Afghanistan timeline, it was in December, 2001, when we had OBL "cornered" in the mountains of Tora Bora (which is unsubstantiated, AFAIK), and as Kerry likes to put it, we "outsourced the job to Afghan warlords".

Yet, as you pointed out, it wasn't until 10 months later that we started the process that supposedly diverted attention from Afghanistan. Also, according to Wikipedia, it wasn't the turning over of the operation to the Afghans that accounted for OBL's possible (since its not known for certain he was even there) escape into Pakistan, but a truce in which the al-Qaeda were supposed to surrender.

So, while I agree with you that this quote doesn't necessarily show overall support for the president's policies in Afghanistan, this timeline does display that the Kerry's rhetoric is at best misleading and inconsistent, at worst a bold-faced deception.

11/01/2004 08:53:12 PM · #91

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by ScottK:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This kind of bad logic is how people end up believing that it is fact that the Florida vote really should have gone to Gore, despite all evidence to the contrary.

The evidence I have seen says that Gore would have won Florida under virtually all scenarios, if, in fact, proper recounts were done.

Have you seen it anywhere that you can post a link to? I'd be really interested in seeing it for myself.

Start here: //www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?sSheet=/news/2001/10/21/ixhomer.html/&xml=/news/2001/10/21/wgore21.xml

or here:

//www.fair.org/activism/usatoday-recount.html

have a taste of this:

//makethemaccountable.com/coverup/InsideTheStudy.htm

and if you are interested, read the whole series on the unreported recount results from The Consortium panel:

//makethemaccountable.com/coverup/index.htm

Here is a review from the New Yorker, which gives you an idea of how many different ways people approach the reporting of counting. It says also that Gore won, but the article actually misses a lot. Podvin's series is more illuminating.

//www.newyorker.com/talk/content/?011224ta_talk_hertzberg

Message edited by author 2004-11-01 20:54:40.

RonB

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

11/01/2004 10:29:54 PM · #92

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

As usual, you rely on a leftist media spin on the truth. That article says:
"He ( David Podvin ) refused to disclose his source other than to describe him as a former media executive whom he knew "as an accurate conduit of information" and who claimed that the consortium "is deliberately hiding the results of its recount because Gore was the indisputable winner....He believes that the inspection, carried out over months by a team from NORC, proves that Mr Gore won Florida and, therefore, the election".

In fact, NORC did not undertake a "recount". From their own website NORC they state quite clearly that

"The goal of the project is not to declare a "winner," but rather to carefully examine the ballots to assess the relative reliability of the three major types of ballot systems used in Florida."

In other words not to "count" votes as being for Gore or Bush, but rather to categorize them as being Undervotes, Overvotes, Hanging Chads, Dimpled Chads, etc. When NORC made their files available ( subsequent to the publication of the article you linked to ), they issue the following disclaimer

"The raw data file is a ballot-level data file that contains information on every chad or candidate space on every ballot across the 67 counties. This file does not attempt to align candidate information across ballots"

Hence, any conclusions drawn that Gore would have won IF... blah, blah, blah, are conclusions of the media doing their own interpretations.

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

or here:

//www.fair.org/activism/usatoday-recount.html

Even there, the biggest word is IF, as in

"If those votes had been properly counted, under two of the four counting standards used by the paper to determine valid votes, Gore would have won the entire state by 300 to 400 votes."

Of course the article does't state what "properly" means in regards to counting. And even with that nebulous criteria it admits that under the other two of the four counting standards Bush would have won.

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

have a taste of this:

//makethemaccountable.com/coverup/InsideTheStudy.htm[quote]
That is an opinion piece - not based on any credible data study.

Originally posted by gingerbaker:
and if you are interested, read the whole series on the unreported recount results from The Consortium panel:

//makethemaccountable.com/coverup/index.htm

The first link posted on your link says
"The Consortium was stunned to discover that the recount revealed Gore won a clear victory"

Well, as was already pointed out above, the Consortium's NORC did NOT conduct a RECOUNT, and so, could not have "revealed" that Gore won. The "revelation" was in the mind of the beholder.

Here is a review from the New Yorker, which gives you an idea of how many different ways people approach the reporting of counting. It says also that Gore won, but the article actually misses a lot. Podvin's series is more illuminating.

//www.newyorker.com/talk/content/?011224ta_talk_hertzberg

Since I already know that Podvin lies, why bother reading anything else he writes?

Good luck tomorrow.