republican says - "The only ultimate threat to this great country is a liberal."

Another 'blame-America-first' rightwinger on the loose, too busy lambasting the left to bother leaning on his right-wing president to start doing the job with competence for a change - wasn't Bush in charge when Al Quada attacked? didn't need WMD's to make a significant mess when Bush was in charge of protecting the nation

... thank goodness the right-wing president invaded Iraq to prevent those WMD's from being used against us ... oh, wait, where'd they go? didn't exist?

a right-wing president odoesn't stop an attack on our country, does invade a country for the wrong reason .... but liberals are a menace to America?

suppose you fight over there and there's not really a country here when you come home, because you don't want us to think, you want us to react...

like the presidente' sending the National Guard over there when they'd had no real military training per se...

and he joined them in the first place to avoid combat, so he wants to show people what

his

National Guard is made of when he's not serving....think any National Guard people died in COMBAT this year?

and by the way,

what has your presidente done to make the United States a terrorist free zone....

nada

no effin thing...

5 million new illegal aliens in 5 years, maybe taking your job....

don't worry, you're in good hands with the presidente' he's good friends with Al Queenda...

much more than you all realize.

Regarding: "WMD Terrorism: An 'Unsubstantiated Nightmare'"

Bill Arkin has come up with some interesting conclusions...self-perpetuating bureaucracy fabricating National Security concerns...etc.

This might be a rather short-sighted interpretation of the terrorist problem.

It should be pointed out that the novel 9/11 tactic produced considerable results for al qaeda without what is considered traditional WMD weapons.

If I wouldn't know better, I would suspect that this particular interpretation best serves the folks trying to turn public opinion in favor of things like the UAE Port agreement, since the spectacle of a nuclear or other WMD weapon coming in through our ports was frequently invoked to underscore concerns of National Security.

Whether a terrorist does or does not have a classic WMD at this point in time is almost irrelevant when our Nation is looking at a condition that could persist for decades, or more.

And again, it is also important to look at the novel combinations and permutations of opportunity that increase terrorist capabilities to deliver 9/11-like blows to our Nation and our friends abroad.

Great news!! I can sleep easier tonight because the cynic has declared our country a wmd free zone. Gee thanks cynic, you are my hero. So if we get hit with a dirty bomb and several thousand people get irradiated, that is not a problem?? Nah, they will have to worry about leukemia or cancer but that is no biggy. Or say some al Qaeda types release some VX or Nerve in a subway, shopping mall or sports stadium, that wont be a problem either, right? Or what if that nutjob in Iran makes a smoking hole out of Israel or the Saudi Oil fields, that won't have a significant effect on politics or the world economy? Right? Mr. Cynic, you are the answer man!!! I would be interested in what you do for a living since you seem to have so much insight into wmd and the intentions of our enemies.

let it go, it's over, move on...

quit going over the same territory buddy...

dads gone moveon

have to expose the parasites, and remove their fat little, round, sucking bodies....

by burning them with something hot, like the truth...

A weapon of mass destruction is simply that-mass destruction and can only apply to a nuclear bomb. Nothing else. Nuclear capabillity is not a possibility except for large countries to achieve, not small cells of Brazilian electricans-even Iran is, despite the continued bullshit of Bush at least, by reputable experts, ten years away form being "possible". suit-case bombs? Myth. (but since Bush has handed over port security to the people who support Muslim fanaticism maybe I should rethink my position on the ability of a few to smuggle in such a device?)

A biological weapon is an area deterrence tool used to disperse the enemy and gain ground. Only in the movies can the kind of stuff happen that people imagine, if you are stupid enough to believe a fiction account than who needs you. The theoretical possibilities of biological weapons are only that-in real world situations they are much less effective at killing-too many variables.

the beauty, if it can be called that, of 9/11 is that there was no fancy technology employed, as in Iraq today, to achieve the goals of the perpetrators. success is dependent on the stupidity of their targets.

a dirty bomb has no capability of killing anybody, except in the panic that would ensue caused more by the kind of brainless insistence like "firefighter" (another "hero"-please)that these toy weapons could cause any real damage that would have people trampling each other to death trying to get out of Dodge. Maybe the method used to deploy the materials would kill a few, but drunken Repuglikans on the roads and in the White House kill more people than any of these non-WMD could possibly achieve. If you realy want to get worried pay attention to the bird flu-if the chimp and his minions cound't protect people against a hurricane they knew was coming what do you think your chances are going to be with a rapidly mutating killer that is spreading more rapidly than expected? Read between the lines and kiss you ass goodby with this one coming.

Maybe all those "brave" conservatives and Neanderthal Repuglikans can beat up the nasty "throat cutting" terrorist birds and make it go away.

Seems like the few intelligent voices here are surrounded by the drunks at this site. Just like the rest of the USA. You go, Che. Can we up the alcohol level in the bottles so the others will pass out sooner and leave the reconstruction to the mindful?

what I'm for...

as opposed to what I'm against...

to show you that there are alternatives to existing systeme

leaders that look a little bit more intelligently disposed towards making America work...

I've already outlined a few examples of how I would change things...

with schools, prisons....reclaiming abandoned resources, interrupting the cycle of children raising children...with intervention....

I'd start training prisoners in counciling, and requiring that they work in prisons or halfway houses as terms for early release...like that....smart use of resources, not throwing dollars at it....

I'd probably use engineers to look at the problems from a perspective of context and what within the context of the problem makes it an ecologically sound premise...

I'd probably look at drugs....and ways to work with that...

I'd probably be a little stronger with INS, and ask that our border states start enforcing a code of conduct that would attract their people to staying in their countries...

I'd probably put up tarrif barriers immediately with a 120 warning period for withdrawing from overseas....I would require that laws passed to regulate be reviewed every two years....

there is such a thing in engineering as a feed back loop for controlling computers, motors, pipeline theory....blah blah blah...

there is no reason for failure except that someone is skimming along the pathway....

part of the reason that the Japanese were kicking our asses during the 70's and still are automotively and electronicswise is this.....for every dollar that they spent 97% ended up spent on the product....waste was endemic in the American system....engineering wise they spent about 6 times longer on the design program.....we never really retooled to meet the challenge....we simply capitulated and road the ship of the Automotive industry into the rocks....selling pieces off as we went....the automotive industry started outsourcing 30 years ago.....blah blah blah...

I'm practical, I'm not interested in PC...

If I had a chance I would order "enclosed safe-pillory" time for the senators that voted for "comity" in denying the funds awarded to the Alaskan Bridge to Nowhere to Katrina rebuilding.

I would order an investigation by the FBI into Mississipi and Louisiana corruption....and would establish FBI offices in New Orleans like they did in Atlanta...

I would order INS agents to be trained in terrorist and drug defense and I would remove the Bureau of Homeland Security and Bring the National Guard Home....

and a few other things that have to do with exposing religious _belief_ as something that is abhorrent to the working of the government....there is no room for dogma in a flexible system....

And I would establish a system of legal intervention that would establish suggested basis for avoiding situations that were likely to develop _before_ they developed....like U.S. Companies being required to adhere to the same standards offshore that they have to meet here....so that the companies wouldn't be looted by lawsuits in countries where they are developing standards where now they don't have to meet any.....and so on..

I would make it so that being an American was something that people aspired to being like, but making sure that all countries were required to develop their own form of it and quit doing business with theives as theives....

I would reward honesty and punish dishonesty....

I would talk to the Dali Lama.

I would hold Town Hall meetings and allow people to discuss things publically as a way of life....

I would encourage discussion, as a way of getting people involved and I would move towards restoring leisure time as a NECESSARY quality to avoiding being sold down the river again, and along those lines I would reestablish a significant middle class and work towards college for all that wanted it...

I would also do something about suburban sprawl and the destruction of farmland by bullshit huge houses that had two people living in them, I would make city living so attractive that the problem would solve itself....no commute time, real rail systems....

walking, biking like in Europe in-the-city...

Portland Oregon is an example of a city that is beautiful, safe to live in and exercise is real part of everyday life for most....and salmon still run in the river that goes through the middle of the city....

I would restore image with reality....and remove image as a reliable judge of content....

I would teach the difference between the package and the content....so we didn't have to learn this lesson again.

anything happening?

a pause for reflection is proof that the other person is attempting to arrive at the truth, even if they can't see it yet...

I'm not using any means to identify you except my ability to perceive you directly.

it supports itself it doesn't need spin..

that what the assholes that manipulate need to have happen to them...the truth...

you could help if you weren't so deep in your own ego.

people that post that get anal about spelling do so because it trivializes the other...

if you're going to work in public you need to understand how it works...

everyone thinks that everyone else can see them...you know like being in theatre...

but no one can.

most people try to keep a lid on it, control the other person.

you want to get your message out, you can't let other people move you unless they make sense...don't fall victim to manipulation like

WMD, terrorist, liberal, conservative, "you can't spell," it's a ploy...

if people have weaknesses expose them, they'll be so busy doing a fan dance that nothing else will happen....if they learn to stay in truth

they're indestructible, you know, like your movie..

ego is approximately equal to failure.

non-ego is approximately equal to shaolin priest handing you your heart...

and I thought that you weren't oh my....

Posted by: the ultimate theat to this country is people that can write but can't think or see.... | Mar 3, 2006 12:53:18 AM | Permalink

theat=threat?

Maybe the ultimate threat to this country is people that CAN NOT write and can't think or see....?

left leaning weenies, (note the spelling correction), would be most aptly

identified as a homosexual coward, that liked to take it in the butt...hey bruce it is you....hah ha ha....

what a turd.

gotcha donkey boy.

Regarding Terrorists and Weapons of Mass Destruction.

No Terrorist will ever have a WMD unless someone like President George Walker Bush and or his cronies gives it to them.

President George Walker Bush and his cronies have been supporting and AIDING the terrorists for years.

Most recently by their use of Illegally Obtained Evidence in the Prosecution of terrorists.

This Illegally Obtained Evidence is more commonly referred to as "Fruit of the Poison Tree".

Basically because it kills all chance of getting maintaining a conviction without any chance of having said conviction overturned.

This is all the terrorists require to have their convictions overturned on Appeal and set FREE.

At which time they can NOT be tried and or charged again for that same crime and or terrorist act because of the DOUBLE JEPARDY RULE.

The United States government trained, financed, supplied and backed Osama Bin Laden since the early 1980's and Bush Senior and George Walker Bush both are friends with Osama Bin Laden and have had Osama Bin Laden as their guests at the White House and there are video News clips of this and Press Photos and even White House Press Release Photos to prove this.

Recently the Chancellor of West Germany made a public statement to the Press that Germany once had a Dictator that used the same exact tactics to gain power and control of Germany as President George Walker Bush has been using and that person was Adolph Hitler.

Yes the Chancellor of West Germany clearly said that President George Walker Bush and Adolph Hitler were just the same.

It is TIME to Impeach President George Walker Bush, V.P. Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Attorney General Alberto Gonzalles, the Congressional Committee of 8 (Congressional Committee on Intelligence) and All the rest of the Bush / Hitler cronies.

Before they give any more AID to the terrorists.

Sp4MP Army Veteran
Jackson, Michigan

Regarding Terrorists and Weapons of Mass Destruction.

No Terrorist will ever have a WMD unless someone like President George Walker Bush and or his cronies gives it to them.

President George Walker Bush and his cronies have been supporting and AIDING the terrorists for years.

Most recently by their use of Illegally Obtained Evidence in the Prosecution of terrorists.

This Illegally Obtained Evidence is more commonly referred to as "Fruit of the Poison Tree".

Basically because it kills all chance of getting maintaining a conviction without any chance of having said conviction overturned.

This is all the terrorists require to have their convictions overturned on Appeal and set FREE.

At which time they can NOT be tried and or charged again for that same crime and or terrorist act because of the DOUBLE JEPARDY RULE.

The United States government trained, financed, supplied and backed Osama Bin Laden since the early 1980's and Bush Senior and George Walker Bush both are friends with Osama Bin Laden and have had Osama Bin Laden as their guests at the White House and there are video News clips of this and Press Photos and even White House Press Release Photos to prove this.
Recently the Chancellor of West Germany made a public statement to the Press that Germany once had a Dictator that used the same exact tactics to gain power and control of Germany as President George Walker Bush has been using and that person was Adolph Hitler.

Yes the Chancellor of West Germany clearly said that President George Walker Bush and Adolph Hitler were just the same.

It is TIME to Impeach President George Walker Bush, V.P. Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Attorney General Alberto Gonzalles, the Congressional Committee of 8 (Congressional Committee on Intelligence) and All the rest of the Bush / Hitler cronies.

Before they give any more AID to the terrorists.

Sp4MP Army Veteran
Jackson, Michigan

Che My Friend,

I am absolutely fascinated by your many conspiracy theories. You are the man, and I believe that you are wasting your time here trying to educate these inside the Beltway Dems and Repubs, liberals and conservatives about the real TRUTH of our Government. I mean how many people can you really reach on Arkin's and Stover's Blog? Here is my suggestion. You should go to Hollywood and write a screenplay detailing your (and the WSWS) theories. Think about the millions of left-leaning weanies who would want to see your movie about how OBL does not exist and the 9/11 terrorist attacks were carried out by the US Goverment. That would be a good movie, but Che my friend, today is your lucky day. I have some friends in Iraq who have given me some inside info. I'll pitch it to you and you chase it down like a beagle going after a rabbit and before you know it you will have enough research to write a screenplay that will make "JFK" and "Syriana" look like "Cinderella" and "The Sound of Music". So here it is Che my friend, are you ready. Remember, you have to believe this to be the truth in order to research it and write the screenplay for the movie that will change the minds of not only Americans, but everyone. I have heard that.....oh crap, some guy in sunglasses and a Crown Vic just drove up to my house......oh no, I dont think I can finish my post. Hey Che my friend, you are on your own for this one!!!!

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

why hasn't there been any real response in terms of action taken?

the 9/11 Commission said the inaction bordered on the criminal

that means the administration has done jack shit to make our country safer

for example: in airports checking cargo was haphazard at best

immediately after: when the president was quizzed about how civilians could prepare themselves in the event of another attack from terrorists....the president was quoted as saying "buy duct tape and plastic"

over the last 5 years: over 5 million illegal aliens have entered the United States unmolested without being deterred....all of them dark haired and dark skinned....

a casual observer would say:

we've been scammed, the president isn't worried about terrorist actions unless he's using them to control the electorate and federalize the government by changing laws unchallenged like the "Bill of Rights" which the Patriot Act guts...dismantles, completely destroys...

but hey if you're hitler then that's okay, and if the sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeple put up with it well then let's send thier jobs overseas, and start reducing their health benefits and let's rape their children!!!!!!!!!!!!

oh, that's already in place, cooooooollll

snort a line of this man...

Mr. Arkin,

Your "ostrich head in the sand" article about the WMD threat to the US seems to ignore one significant fact about the al Qaeda organization. If you look at the history of their major terrorist attacks there is a trend to "one up" the last attack. They hit the WTC (93), the Embassys in Africa and the USS Cole using explosives. On 9/11/01 they hit the WTC and Pentagon using airlines as cruise missiles. So what could possible "one up" the attacks of 9/11/01? In my opinion I would expect a dirty bomb, or chem attack to a major US City. The Administration is correct to focus on preventing this type of attack using what ever means at their disposal.

I think a big point is being missed, obscured or hidden in all of this now with the Iraq situation and WMDs. Bush2 and his mendacious gang are running scared. Scared for their lives or liberty. Now I think what they are doing is to create diversions, extend the fear in America to avoid the questions of domestic and international crimes by this bunch of evil Republican people.

I'm shocked - shocked! The comments on here are like something from an Israeli webzine!

WMD are such an emotional threat that no one really asks whether the investment equals the threat or is focused on the right problem.

Arkin...you Dumas...Go look at pictures of Hiroshima...the after picture...or even Halabja...and tell me you don't think ANY type of WMD attack on American shores isn't worth max effort to preclude. The American President has ONE overiding responsibility...protect his own. You seem to think we can do it on the cheap in a world that conspires to bring us down. You dilletante. At least learn something about national security before you attemot to impress anybody with your prose.

Yo--Arkin...knock-knock. Ever hear of hope for the best and plan for the worst? Sure beats your vision. You remind me of that one dude in the Bosch painting that's peeking from under his blindfold, thinking he's away free and clear...about two nano-seconds away from losing hos head to the sword dude standing behind him. What a dope.

Republicans don't fight.

they just start fights, it's the good ole farm boys thet don't know any better that fight....the ones that believe them.

www.prisonplanet.com

Republican Congressman Predicts Bush Impeachment
Says US close to dictatorship

Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com | March 3 2006

Republican Congressman Ron Paul has gone on record with his prediction that the impeachment of George W. Bush is right around the corner but warned that in the meantime the US was slipping perilously close to a dictatorship.

Appearing on the Alex Jones Show and addressing the port sell-out, Paul stated that, "it probably will contribute to the Republican's failure in the next election."

Asked if the Democrats would use gains in the mid-term elections to set in motion impeachment proceedings against George W. Bush, Paul responded,

"I predict that would happen."

"I think he (Bush) has numerous things that the Democrats if they get a chance, not only will they be after him for that but it will be payback for the Clinton impeachment."

Paul was inclined to believe that the port sales would go ahead anyway but took a positive perspective in pointing out that it again highlighted George W. Bush's complete abandonment of conservative principles.

"At least this has awakened a lot of people and I think this is going to serve as a benefit," said Paul. "They're likely to pull this deal off but the American people are awakening now and I think there's going to be a payback period in the election."

The Congressman expressed his resignation at the passage of the Patriot Act and how it again underscores Bush's unchecked powers

"They had a few token changes which mean nothing and under the present system he (President Bush) just ignores what he doesn't like anyway."

Asked if the US was heading into a dictatorship, Paul responded,

"It's getting close to it, it's called usurpation of power and it's done in many ways with Congress just going along because they're sound asleep and this certainly is an attack on our Constitution and on our freedoms."

The Author claims that the U.S. is very concerned about new WMD proliferation, but not concerned about existing WMD such as Russia's nuclear stockpiles. This claim is simply not true.
Existing Russian nuclear weapons are consistently included in U.S. plans to control proliferation. Ever heard of the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program? U.S. governments, including Bush sr., Clinton, and G.W. Bush, have all put considerable effort into maintaining control of existing weapons.
The author also argues that we shouldn't be concerned about terrorists obtaining WMD because there is no specific data that any particular group has yet acquired or will soon acquire a WMD. This kind of logic exhibits a false sense of confidence. There wasn't any specific data indicating that terrorists would fly aircraft into the WTC and the Pentagon on 9/11, but it still happened. A lack of specific knowledge does not prevent an attack from occurring. Based on the past behavior of terrorists and state sponsors of terrorism, we can be confident that terrorists are attempting to acquire and use WMD's, and that they will likely succeed in doing so unless we prevent them.
Several of the above comments mention attacks using material from inside the U.S., such as the anthrax attacks in the capitol. The fact is, U.S. WMD's are very tightly controlled, and the afore-mentioned attacks were practically harmless. More people die from lightning strikes than from attacks of this nature. The damage done by this kind of attack pales in comparison to the destruction we would expect to see from a nuclear bomb or a large-scale biological attack, which could possibly cause hundreds of thousands of fatalities.
There hasn't been a significant terrorist attack on U.S. soil for four and years. This is the longest stretch we've had for the past few decades, and is surely attributable to the war on terror.

WWW.ONLINEJOURNAL.COM
WWW.WSWS.ORG

Bush's final propaganda card: the staging of an "Osama" capture
By Larry Chin
Online Journal Associate Editor

Mar 3, 2006, 01:44

Email this article
Printer friendly page

In the latest attempt to salvage his political scalp with an empty propaganda performance, George W. Bush paid a surprise visit to Afghanistan, where he posed and gloated with co-conspirator/puppet/US intelligence asset Hamid Karzai. "Liberated" Afghanistan, like "liberated" Iraq, is a hell of the Bush administration's creation.

Bush then declared that he is "confident bin Laden will be brought to justice" and that "we've got U.S. forces on the hunt for not only bin Laden but anybody who plots and plans with bin Laden."

Could Bush/Rove's next trick be a spectacular "Bush gets Osama" event, similar to the never-authenticated arrest of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the "arrests" of other Al-Qaeda co-conspirators, or the farcical arrest and trial of former US intelligence asset Saddam Hussein?

Such a deception would temporarily slow a right-wing neocon mutiny, and silence congressional Democrats, who accuse Bush/Cheney of "not doing enough" to stop "terrorists," failing to "make us safe," failing to arrest Osama, and failing to "really" conduct the "war on terrorism." It would force Democrats to congratulate Bush for finally getting "public enemy number one," slink back to less aggressive posturing (the management of the "war on terror"), and say nothing as the mentally ill Bush beats his chest on his way out of the White House.

Alive or dead, real or fictional, Osama was, and remains, an asset of Anglo-American intelligence, as does al-Qaeda. Since 9/11, Osama videos and Osama transmissions, and false flag operations attributed to al-Qaeda, have exclusively served US geopolitical interests.

Note Bush's intentionally vague words: "brought to justice." This is code for "killed," and/or sequestered a la Manuel Noriega. "Osama" could never be arrested or put on trial publicly. "Osama" is either not alive (not a real person), or if alive, a US asset who "knows too much." That would expose the "war on terrorism" lie, and the lie of 9/11.

A bogus arrest and execution of "Osama" would be one of last propaganda cards in Bush's dwindling deck of tricks. In fact, only the naive could think Bush would be permitted to end his criminal presidency without that final fraud. It is probably a long-planned bookend to his reign, hatched at the same time as the rest of 9/11. Bush's machine has simply been waiting until the last minute to unleash it.
The bad news for the Bush machine is that the potential for backfire and blowback is considerably greater than the possibility of success. Too much damage has been done for old damage control to repair. It may be over for Bush/Cheney, but the world war that they began, the hell on earth that they have created, rages on, out of control.

arivva derci peanut...

ha ha hah.....

dog food.

Your logic is aweinspiring.

Distinguishing pantsies from men is polarizing? Damn, you a liberal and uz know it.

Damn it stinks liberal here.

"the point of it is, the bush family, is trying to bury some information that needs to be understood"

You go boy-scout! Man you have it tight!

It's nice to see its not only the "loony right" which substitutes conspiracy theories for thought.

better luck next time.

believe that their guys are really the good guys or the bad guys....

people that use labels like liberals or conservatives are those kind of people...

that can't see what is going on....

that's what I'm saying you are, get it?

w r e s t l i n g.....

you know, left, right, republican, liberal, conservative, neo cons...

people that use words like that can't think...

you know 500 word vocabulary...

polarizers....not too bright

the ones that for homophobia...

you know right bruce?

Ha ha very funny. Waste of protein, dogfood company. Clever. Really. I guess thats what liberals are, dog food, right?

But you're too dense to see the point of my statement. The liberal mentality as it is and what it presents.

Here's another observation chum: you're a liberal. Don't bother hidding it.

As Republicans we fight for our contry, human rights, and global peace.

As Liberals you can only fight us, what you call the "loony right".

Its easy for you to talk abuot me being a waste of protein, but you wouldn't dare open your mouth to a muslim fundamentalist that wants to cut your throat. That's your liberal reality -dogfood.

since when is an administration that has been on a looting spree for thirty years, starting with papa Bushe...

care about your lonely ass?

try this peanut:

REMEMBER WHEN IT STARTED? about a few years ago,

Bush Sr. is former head of CIA, Congressman before that, Vice President, then President...probably more than 30 years on the case...

SUDDENLY
Under Bush Sr.:
it was April Gillespie, who went to Iraq, and with a nod and a wink told Saddam that his border dispute with Kuwait was an internal matter. I think Saddam was suckered into invading because the US needed a new enemy after the collapse of the soviet union....

He invades Kuwait, we now have an official reason to be there....

looks like we'll establish a presence in Kuwait, we already have one in Saudi.

Saudi Royals was given the rights to Saudi Arabia by the Brits after WWII, the Royals were put into power...

who owns the ports on US soil? the brits.

Protecting the Kuwaiti's:

We go into Iraq with Stormin Norman....and kill a couple of 100 thousand Iraqis and stop short of Bagdhad....you know why, we're going back...

and now we occupy, are embedded in Kuwait.

we put the country of Iraq in stasis with embargoes until we need it........or the world economy is shifting and things are ripe....China Pakistan, and India are emerging...

we need to intervene....we in this case is the international riche, which includes the Saudis, Kuwaitis, and the US Affluent that stand to make a bit of cash....mind you the Germans, English and French have their hands in this...but your buddy dubya, is the Gawdfather on this on, or at least the gawdfathers visible son....unless you need the state militia called to keep Terry from being unhooked.

so we intervene on national television...bombs going off, constant coverage, city surrounded, surveillance on every living thing that's bigger than a booger..

then Saddam escapes from Bagdhad with three tractor trailer loads of cash, $9 BILLION$ in CASH right? Anyone in dubyas extended family gotten riche lately?

the museums were emptied right?

ha ha ha...

that's rich.

as far as conspiracy goes,

there never was a CIA/NORIEGA/BUSH Sr. connection right? where'd that white up George W. Bushes nose come from? Panama?

the thing of it is,

the United States suckered, or George H.W. Bush did, Saddam Hussein into attacking Kuwait, so we could be the "heroes", and become military occupiers...

this has a lot to do with _families_ working together as well as politics as well as...

helping you to understand that it isn't all cowboy hats and honesty leading you...

Saddam was deliberately mislead attacking Kuwiat, by our George H.W. Bush, to settle a border dispute with Kuwait, that included some oil wells that he thought belonged to Iraq.....

did we tell Saddam Hussein the truth?

no.

it wasn't to our advantage.

the bushes intimately understand the middle eastern tribe mentality, they have trbal mentality, they protect and work with their own....

ps. you're not included in their tribe....

come back when you grow up girl, you're still living in a paper doll world...

morons in charge and morons voted them in...

you want a better country quit pandering to morons.....

the point of it is, the bush family, is trying to bury some information that needs to be understood

you are a waste of protein...

I suggest you turn your self into the nearest dogfood company and do the world a favor pal...

thanks so much.

what kind of pansy ass guy are you?

republicans democrats, next thing you'll be telling me you believe wrestling is real...

when you learn to see what's in front of your face then you can speak, until then...

I'll wait until you grow a spine.

To Mike T. from Lennox on "Group Think"

When you get KOd by a WMD, what are your liberal chums gonna say?

-Should've stayed out of the way!

But you'll always be able to join us, , and help the GOP steer the country right towards safety.

The only ultimate threat to this great country is a liberal. Ready to sell us out to the next tough who winks his way, a liberal can't bear the though of actually doing anything but babble, seek psychoanalisis, pop a prozac, and "accept blame" for the world's ills. eh-aw, eh-aw, that's the liberal rally call.I guess its our fault (Republican's) that you chose a donkey as your mascot?

As for those who address "americans" here in second person. As upset foreigners, why don't you for once accept blame for your own state, instead of pointing the finger at us as a matter of convenience? When you are ruled by dictators, you blame the US for supporting them. When the US topples your dictators, you blame the US for not supporting them. Get a life, and start learning from real hard workers like Koreans, Indians, and the Irish.

'republican' beleives, "WMD are a threat!"

It is narrow-minded individuals with a true lack of understanding such as this that continue to contribute to the degradation our way of life.

For any individual or any 'group think' to honestly follow a train of thought without doubt and to assume that their country or weak minded leaders is without fault is to expose themselves for the true cowards that they are.
It is common knowledge that what has built America is the unique and individual thinking that has been our past and that, which other countries have sought to instill within their own people.

To further continue to label others with convenient labels such as 'liberal' or 'donkey' is to assure those with which you debate that you have no opinion and that you are a weak minded individual concerned with nothing, but your 'group think'.
It is this weak mindset that contributes to our current failing as a country.

We must rise above the weak minds that are all to eager to sell out their country and take it back.

Do not believe the propaganda and do not take haste with the words of a few ill equipped citizens of ill morals and weak report.

True debate must occur at all levels to engage the truth and expose the weak minds within our government for what they are.....

For a terrorist to Obtain a WMD it is next to impossible.
Unless your George W. Bush and you BUY a Presidential Election like he did.
The you get to Illegally Attack Foriegn Countries and Commit WAR CRIMES and Geocide.

bush sucks

Iraq , North Korea, or Iran did not and do not impress me as a WMD threat. We went through the Cold War with the Soviet Union and they impressed me as a WMD threat. If Iraq, (in the past), North Korea, or Iran attack us or gave terrorists WMD to attack us, there countries would cease to exist. I never bought into the idea that WMD was the real reason for going into Iraq. It was an excuse. Do a web search under "Clean Break" and you will find the Neoconservative war plan, which they designed for the Netanyahu government, but implemented with the Bush Administration. But, you are right about the military/industrial complex aspect of the problem. With the demise of the Soviet Union, the reason for the "Star Wars" missile defense system diasppeared. If you want it developed, you need a new enemy as a reason. You have to scare people into thinking they are facing a massive threat that requires that system. The Neoconservatives did the same thing with Israel and stuck them with the Arrow system. Boeing is making a bundle out of these systems that have never worked and been deployed without proof being fully tested. As with Halliburton, it is another welfare program for the multinational corporations. The money wasted on Boeing could have gone into Body Armour and equipment they could have used in Iraq. You could have sent a half million troops into Iraq and done a better job of securing it.
But, the basic truth is, Iraq was contained and deterred. There was no reason for that war based on America's national security.

Liberal claptrap!

WMD are a threat!

Terrorist and any related groups, would be stupid not to seek easier ways to blackmail us. We know this, they know it, and being a wishful liberal wont change it. We can only do our best to prevent the aquisition of WMD materials by malignant parties. It's not just terrorist seeking better ways to nuke us. Judging by the angst of america-bashing liberals, you'd think they wouldn't mind nuking their own country! But then any attacks on civilian populations by networked groups are by definition terrorist.

The administration is doing its best to protect us, but maybe they should start by educating liberal clap-traps like this lot.

Whats the IQ needed to claim that WMDs arent a threat? That of a donkey.

Man, if it aint WMD,s it will be another word meaning " Fear".

The administration aint stupid. Once WMD pop out of the lingo a new word will take stage. In 1997 Clinton's uh-uh was obscene, and it was the end of the world. So he went and bombed a country. All the while we was told that the Russian mafia was our biggest threat. Damn, where are they now, the mafiosi?

So if it aint mafiosi, Commies, blacks, gays, liberals, nazis and terrorist, that do the trick, they'll find somethning.

That is a half-baked insight into the problem.

Looking at the comment by Peter D. He states that "The US has experienced several bio attacks inside its borders".
What he failed to mention is that the Anthrax came from the US government, which implicates our own government as the problem.

This is the root cause for so much hatred abroad (leading to attacks); The rest of the world looks at our arsenal and wants to know why they should not have access to the same technologies. Are we to be so arrogant to believe that we can 'force' the rest of the world to do as we will them to do?

The truth is the WMD "threats" are part of the propaganda to instill a constant level of fear within the population for ultimate control. Just as the "threat levels" are color coded to provide a physiological reference, the information that is filtered by the US government is intended to provide a backdrop for the "campaign".

As for those who think that it is "idiotic" to believe that the threats are unsubstantiated, I pose to them to prove otherwise.

Insist on a national debate, it is only then that the truth will finally become apparent.

Mr. Arkin remains the voice of reason in a city swimming -- TEEMING -- with thinktanks and DoD wonks and policy geeks all making obscene livings off of the WMD threat. Terrorists want visible emotionally resonant targets. 9/11 was carried out DESPITE the BILLIONS spent on the "chem-bio threat" and the "WMD threat" for decades in this town. What good did it get us? We still got hit. Change policy to combat the threat. That won't happen because D.C. is rolling in cash generated by fear industries: chem bio, loose nukes, China, whatever.

The investment should not equal the threat. The investment should eliminate or diffuse the threat.

And, as for your assumption that the threat is "unsubstantiated", well, you're an idiot.

Sir - An interesting perspective. My question(s)would be this - The US has experienced several bio attacks inside its borders over the last two and a half decades...including salmonella (OR - 1984), ricin (2003 and 2004), and anthrax (2001); granted these attacks did not result in mass casualties, but they are examples of domestic terrorists using known available technology to produce WMD. There have also been very selective uses of chem/bio targeting individuals in the US...while deisgned to kill one or two persons rather than for terrorist goals, the point is that it is easy for someone to develop the capability inside the US borders. Aum Shinrikyo carried out a very successful chemical attack in Japan. Are we to presume that foriegn terrorists are incapable of the same level of effort - especially as it is easier to obtain a visa for several students and have them develop chem/bio weapons here than to smuggle in a radiological device? Have we already forgotten about AQ's chemical and biological test facilities in Afghanistan? Should we dismiss manuals seized in England that broadly outline chem/bio attacks, which point to intent if not current capability? Can we afford the luxury of believing that it would be impossible for several terrorist to enter the US and manufacture ricin in the basement of a leased home in AZ then drive it to LA or Chicago? Or is your definition of WMD limited to nuke? I don't think these are luxuries we can afford. When I was in school I had a saying, nuke is top shelf, chem and bio are rack, but you serve more well drinks than you do high end ones.

I'm begging you.. PLEASE put a word limit on the comments. I'm sick of seeing entire articles re-posted here. Links are fine people!!

Pax

Blame it all on TV program *24*!!!

>>Saying that nation-states were still "constrained by the logic of deterrence," Negroponte noted that such "constraints may be of little utility in preventing the use of mass effect weapons by rogue regimes or terrorist groups."

I don't buy this logic that terrorist groups are not constrained by the threat of massive retaliation. Al Qaeda does not operate in a vacuum, nor is it run by a bunch of illiterates. They don't wage war on the US to see their society totally wiped out so they can all be in paradise. It is funded by well educated, smart, and successful people who should be made to understand the implications of a nuclear attack on the US. Just explain to them how 9/11 allowed a bunch of neocons to hijack the mechanism of US power to turn Iraqi society upside down. Imagine what a WMD explosion on US soil will do. Logic and reason will be thrown in the dumpster and the chance of nationalistic demagogues gaining power here to exact vengance on the perceived source of attack will be unstoppable. This message should be made clear to countries and communities where Al Qaeda has great support. This include the political, religious, cultural, and intellectual ruling classes of such places. Explain to them that it won't be the old mutually assured destruction (MAD) but will more likely be self assured destruction (SAD) instead. Once the logic of deterrence is conveyed and well understood there it would help reduce the hysteria and political manipulation here as well.

> "I guess in order to understand why U.S. officials would focus on terrorist weapons of mass destruction while IEDs and suicide bombers and civilian airliners seem quite effective, you'd have to understand the U.S. government's definition: Everything is a weapon of mass destruction."

Under US law, IEDs and civilian airliners *are* WMDs, along with lots of other stuff that you wouldn't think would qualify. Google for indictments and convictions for violation of 18 USC 2332a that specifically mention "mass destruction".

Aside from that, a couple of years ago Paul Wolfowitz, apparently aware that most of the things we call WMD aren't much more destructive in conditions of actual use than conventional explosives, started using the more descriptive term "weapons of mass terror," but it doesn't seem to have caught on.

www.wsws.org

With bipartisan support, US Senate agrees to Patriot Act renewal
By Joe Kay
2 March 2006

Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author

With overwhelming bipartisan support, the USA Patriot Act is set for renewal next week. On Wednesday, the Senate voted 95-4 for a bill that will ensure the act will pass by March 10, with minor modifications of some of its most controversial and repressive measures.

The new agreement will permanently extend most of the Patriot Act's provisions that would otherwise expire, while making only insignificant changes to a law that has become symbolic worldwide of the attack on democratic rights.

When the Patriot Act was originally passed in October 2001, Congress mandated that 16 of its provisions would expire after four years. In the summer of 2005, both houses of Congress overwhelmingly (in the Senate, unanimously) approved slightly different extensions of these provisions. Both versions included the permanent enactment of 14 of the 16 temporary measures.

Passage of new legislation, however, was delayed after a handful of Republicans joined Senate Democrats in opposing a House-Senate compromise (also known as the conference report) that did not include some restraints on government powers included in the Senate version. Among the Republicans who opposed the compromise were John Sununu of New Hampshire, Larry Craig of Idaho, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska.

From the beginning, the opposition within the Senate was of a largely token character. Everyone agreed that the Patriot Act should and would be extended, but there was some quibbling over details.

In particular, there has been concern within sections of the business community over measures that allow the government to demand records from businesses and other institutions, while preventing any challenge to these orders. This provoked the objections of certain Republicans. Democrats also took the opportunity to posture, briefly, as defenders of civil liberties. However, the legislation is now set to pass with the support of nearly the entire House and Senate, without any substantial changes.

Perhaps inadvertently, Arlen Specter, the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, summed up well the nature of the proceedings in a comment to reporters on February 15. He called the changes to the conference report "cosmetic," but he noted, "Sometimes cosmetics will make a beauty out of a beast and provide enough cover for senators to change their vote."

For procedural reasons, the "cosmetics"--the amendments to the conference report as agreed to by the House-Senate committee set up to reconcile the versions passed by the two chambers--were voted on first, and passed the Senate on Wednesday by the 95-4 vote. The House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on the amendments next week, and the Senate must still vote on the original conference report, which has already been passed by the House. After this, the measure will be signed into law before March 10.

The original objections to the House-Senate compromise bill focused on some of the new spying powers the Patriot Act gives the federal government. One of the points of contention was Section 215 of the Act, which allows the government to seek approval from a court to require businesses and other institutions to turn over records of an individual if the records are considered relevant in a terrorist investigation.

This data may include such things as bank transactions, purchases, individual Internet records, phone calls and many other forms of personal information. The provision does not require the government to show that there is any reason to believe that the individual whose records are sought is himself engaged in terrorist acts. It therefore allows for what have been described as "fishing expeditions," with an extremely low hurdle to be met by the government in snooping into the most personal and private matters.

Some senators urged that this provision be amended to require that the government prove there was reason to believe the individuals targeted had a direct connection to terrorism. No such measure will be included in the final bill.

The Patriot Act also contains a provision that allows the FBI to obtain records from institutions by issuing a "national security letter." This gives the FBI access to similar information as does Section 215, but it does not require any judicial review. The Washington Post reported in November of last year that since the Patriot Act was passed, records on tens of thousands of Americans have been collected in this way, and that many of the individuals have absolutely no connection with terrorism.

Senators objecting to the compromise measure reported out by the House-Senate committee did not target the use of national security letters as such. Rather, they criticized one aspect of the gag order that is placed on recipients of both Section 215 orders and national security letters. This gag order prevents companies and other institutions from revealing to anyone that they have received an order to turn over records.

The final bill will maintain the gag order for a period of at least one year, which is actually an extension over the original version of the Patriot Act, in which the period was only 90 days. A gag order can be challenged after this one year period, but the hurdle for having the gag lifted is extremely high. Some senators wanted this hurdle to be somewhat lower.

They had also called for placing a four-year sunset on the national security letter provision, and sought the inclusion of a requirement that the government quickly notify individuals targeted for "sneak and peak" searches. The latter provision of the Patriot Act allows the government to search the property of criminal suspects without informing them. The House-Senate compromise bill allows a maximum of 30 days before the individual must be notified of the search, but this cap can be indefinitely extended upon appeal. The critical senators wanted a 7-day cap, with provisions for indefinite extension.

The changes sought by those senators objecting to the House-Senate conference bill were thus extremely minimal. They would not seriously hamper the powers of the government.

The changes that were made to the conference report, however, are even more minimal. In addition to the one-year cap on gag orders, the changes to the conference report include: 1) a statement that libraries cannot be targets of national security letters unless they function as internet service providers; and 2) a provision that recipients of national security letters are not required to inform the FBI if they talk to a lawyer.

The entire anti-democratic framework of the Patriot Act remains in the final compromise. Through national security letters and Section 215, the government will continue to have expansive powers to secretly spy on US residents. This is in addition to the remainder of the provisions of the Patriot Act, which have never been called into question. These include the use of "roving wiretaps," extended for another four years; the greater ability of the government to share information and use information gathered under the Patriot Act in criminal prosecutions; and the very broad definition of "terrorism" to include a wide array of political activities.

The changes to the House-Senate conference report were agreed to earlier this month after discussions between the White House and Senate Republicans. Once the agreement was reached, Senate Democrats seized on the opportunity to abandon their own nominal opposition to the bill.

Dianne Feinstein of California declared that the bill "is a substantial improvement." Richard Durbin of Illinois said it represented progress in "protecting civil liberties at a time when we are dealing with the war on terrorism," while Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid called it "a step in the right direction."

The Senate voted overwhelmingly to block efforts by Senator Russell Feingold of Wisconsin to add additional amendments to the bill before it was passed. On February 16, the Senate voted 96-3 to effectively suppress any new amendments. Then on February 28, a final vote was taken to end debate, and this passed 69-30.

The overwhelming support of the Democrats for the renewal of the Patriot Act comes only a few months after revelations of massive illegal domestic spying through another mechanism: the secret National Security Agency program set up by the Bush administration over four years ago. On Tuesday, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales released a letter "clarifying" his testimony before Congress last month. Gonzales said at the time that the NSA program was authorized by Bush "and that is all that he has authorized."

In his letter, however, Gonzales said that he was referring only to the NSA program acknowledged by the President and that he "did not and could not address... any other classified intelligence activities." The meaning of this could hardly be clearer: the NSA program and those powers authorized by the Patriot Act are only part of a more comprehensive program of spying on the American people, unprecedented in the history of the United States.

See Also: