Jump to content

Terror in the Skies, Again?


Recommended Posts

Well I take real offense when people quote me incorrectly Steve. If you are going to quote people do the homework.

As for you... I think it is great that you are calling attention to the fact that Bush is doing nothing to improve domestic security by enacting real immigration policies in this country. I for one am sick of the man pandering to latinos on this very issue. Bush seems to have the impression that unchecked immigration and law breaking is good for business. Unreal. He wants to put willing workers with willing employers... so our borders remain unprotected. Doesn't this piss anybody but me off?

Oh well like I said I'm the last REAL Republican.

Peace... and I'll calm myself... but I do hope that Soback has some integrity and retracts his comments.

Takvah

[ 07-30-2004, 06:13 PM: Message edited by: Takvah ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 145
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

LOL, sorry Takvah, you're right, that wasn't your comments I quoted for the first two. Was pretty sure they were yours when I was posting. My appologies.

By the way, I'm a guy, not a girl. Check out my profile. As for the picture of my avatar, well I just like it, lol alright.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL, sorry Takvah, you're right, that wasn't your comments I quoted for the first two. Was pretty sure they were yours when I was posting. My appologies.

By the way, I'm a guy, not a girl. Check out my profile. As for the picture of my avatar, well I just like it, lol alright.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

As for you... I think it is great that you are calling attention to the fact that Bush is doing nothing to improve domestic security by enacting real immigration policies in this country.

First off, let me state categorically that I did and will again vote for Bush.

That said: I, too, share the concerns about border security. I'm not sure where to place the blame, as there is plenty to go around. I'll give a short list:

  • the INS: like all the departments under Bill Clinton's administration, this was politicized where it wasn't before. The Elian Gonzalez fiasco highlights how the department was politicized, when they first declared that it was a Florida family court issue, but then backtracked and called it an immigration issue after diplomatic meetings with Castro over the Louisiana prison revolt by Cuban criminals.

    The fact that they are downplaying any reports of people who overstay their visas shows 1) more politicizing, 2) the practice (beginning with Waco, continuing through TWA800, and with all current "incidents") of denying upfront what to many is evident. With Waco, it was that no incendiary rounds were used. With TWA800, that there was no missile, the July 4 2002 LAX El Al incident was not terrorism, etc.
  • The TSA: Congress, in an attempt to do (or show that they are doing) something, created the TSA and federalized (they said "professionalize") airport screening. Just last month, Congress agreed to allow airports to re-privatize airport screening.
  • The Secretary of Transportation: Norm Minetta is the "William Cohen" of Bush's administration, that is, he's the token Democrat on the Cabinet. For that reason, Bush is probably loathe to replace him. However, Minetta, who was also a WWII Japanese-American internment-camp victim, is insistent on not profiling airline passengers. That's why we see the elderly, children, and even former Vice-President Al Gore, being searched at the gates, while there is a limit on how many Middle-Easterners who can be searched per flight.
  • The Border Patrol: Because of relations with Mexico, our Border Patrol has been given a "hands off" order regarding people crossing from Mexico. It has gotten to the point where roving Mexican military personnel are crossing over, taking pot-shots at Americans, and then fleeing back. Local vigilante groups are forming in Arizona and Nevada just to protect their own property from vandals. The sad fact is that the Mexican border is currently held hostage by election politics of wooing the Hispanic vote.

    p.s. It was the Border Patrol that stormed the home of Luis Gonzalez to take Elian back to Cuba, after the FBI, the INS, and the ATF refused.
  • Seaports: could this be a part of what former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger was stuffing down his pants? John Kerry's policy paper on seaport security was pulled from his website on the day that news of Berger's theft of code-word secret documents hit the wires.

    Anyway, the Democrats (and Repulicans from coastal states) have always complained of the lack of security around cargo containers and the ships that carry them. The truth is that there are so many of them that it is near impossible to search every one of them without affecting the economy (you might as well search every 18-wheeler on the highways, all the longshoremen, you get the idea). However, it is an effective campaign pabulum, fodder for the base: improved airport security, what about the trains? Trains improving, what have you done about the ports? Port security tightened, who's looking at the trucks? For everything that one does, there are dozens other of things to question that weren't done instead.
  • Homeland Security: It's easy to blame Tom Ridge and HSD for failures, but let's also remember that the Department of Education has been around for 40 years and people are still complaining about "is our children learning?" This was an attempt at consolidating the FBI, local police departments, and the INS, under a single Cabinet position, charged with policing and investigating. The hope was to tear down the "wall" built up during the Clinton administration (see all the hoopla around Jamie Gorelick). Many say that the "wall" was really created to prevent investigation into the Chinese funding of Clinton's 1996 re-election campaign, but the unintended consequence was to prevent inter-agency sharing of sensitive intelligence. It's hard to say how much of the pre-9/11 clues were swept aside as "noise" during the Clinton impeachment protection activities (such as the FBI agents requesting permission to search computers of people learning to fly but not to take off or land).
  • An Intelligence Czar: Just like the Department of Homeland Security, the 9/11 Commission is recommending a new Cabinet position for someone who consolidates all the intelligence activities. There are concerns over overlap with HSD, and with the unintended consequences of funneling all intelligence through a single person/staff. I guess we'll see how this one plays out.

As it stands now, I lean towards the camp that thinks this was a dry run. Like I said earlier, if you can learn to fly a plane, you can learn to play a guitar, or speak Spanish. Spies go into deep cover for years before being activated, with the purpose of developing their cover. There is no reason to think that a musician can't be a cover for someone. In fact, it would be a perfect cover given how musicians frequently travel, you need several of them to form a band, and "ethnic bands" would have the extra protection of political correctness if scrutiny gets too close to home. Regarding the reporting of this particular incident, the silence speaks louder than the words. Why haven't the band members been all over TV to make their case? Isn't that exactly what one would expect in America with 24/7 cable news scrambling for scoops? We've seen the woman who made the first report, we've seen private airline security people, representives from government and airlines, other passengers, but not one of the musicians on the flight, not even a representative for the group if they're too shy to appear themselves. Why not? That's just another suspicious activity to me.

Regarding President Bush specifically: when I think of what Bush can/did/should/didn't do, I always go back to the question he was asked in the third debate with Gore (in the townhall format) when he was asked (by an African-American man) about all the executions in Texas, and by extension the death penalty. Bush's answer: As an Executive, his job is not to retry the case, but to ask if all the processes were properly followed, was the convict allowed all of his rights, were all the reviews/appeals allowed, was there anything new in the case that should be considered, and if all the answers were the proper ones, then he wouldn't stop the execution. It's that kind of Executive thinking that I expect of a President. I don't expect him to get mired in the details, because that's what Secretaries, and Under-Secretaries, staffs, etc., are for. It's easy to say that the buck stops with the President, but he can't be expected to be concerned with the details of each of the 280,000,000 of us, let alone those unknowns who come through the ports on a given day.

I could go on, but I've made my point. It's a bigger thing than what one person can do on a political timeframe. Personally, I'm glad that Bush appears to be (mostly) unwilling to do what is politically expedient. He gives me the impression that he will take the short-term hits for the sake of putting longer-term protections in place. He did say very early on that there would be many things that we don't see, and I trust that there are things that I don't see happening.

What dismays me is that there are people on the Democrat side that are (to me) desperate to regain power, and will use anything to create a wedge to divide people for political gains, even if they are privy to intelligence that may indicate the opposite. I trust that Bush is doing the things that are necessary to be done. I would rather be seeing a strong push-back policy than a weaker diplomatic policy, given how many UN resolutions and how many years of trying it "their way" have passed (three presidential terms now, by my count). For me, enough is enough, shake things up a bit, and let the crumbs fall where they may (and yes, that means people will die, how heartless of me, why didn't I go if I feel so strongly about it...).

quote:

...so our borders remain unprotected.

It may be that the bombs are already here, suitcase, dirty, or otherwise. I think that the fact that there hasn't been another 9/11 is a credit to the Bush administation, as is the fact that al Qaeda has been relegated to attacking softer targets in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Madrid, and elsewhere, and using the hostage beheading tactic now to get what they want.

On the other hand, they may very well be underground, saving themselves for a large-scale, final assault on us in the coming months, given all that is coming up. To me, the Olympics would be a wasted attack. That would only alienate countries that don't have a direct "skin in the game." If there is to be a last-ditch spasmodic attack, it will be during the election here. That's the thing about suicide attacks, you only get one chance at it so you better make it a good one.

Will it happen? Was this a dry run? Are there dry runs? Should we be looking for dry runs, or castigating people who think they observed a dry run? Should the government cover up reports of dry runs and squelch witnesses, especially after making security warnings asking for vigilance, or should they publicize them and heighten awareness? What is motivating the government into this "push-me/pull-you" behavior?

That's how I see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

As for you... I think it is great that you are calling attention to the fact that Bush is doing nothing to improve domestic security by enacting real immigration policies in this country.

First off, let me state categorically that I did and will again vote for Bush.

That said: I, too, share the concerns about border security. I'm not sure where to place the blame, as there is plenty to go around. I'll give a short list:

  • the INS: like all the departments under Bill Clinton's administration, this was politicized where it wasn't before. The Elian Gonzalez fiasco highlights how the department was politicized, when they first declared that it was a Florida family court issue, but then backtracked and called it an immigration issue after diplomatic meetings with Castro over the Louisiana prison revolt by Cuban criminals.

    The fact that they are downplaying any reports of people who overstay their visas shows 1) more politicizing, 2) the practice (beginning with Waco, continuing through TWA800, and with all current "incidents") of denying upfront what to many is evident. With Waco, it was that no incendiary rounds were used. With TWA800, that there was no missile, the July 4 2002 LAX El Al incident was not terrorism, etc.
  • The TSA: Congress, in an attempt to do (or show that they are doing) something, created the TSA and federalized (they said "professionalize") airport screening. Just last month, Congress agreed to allow airports to re-privatize airport screening.
  • The Secretary of Transportation: Norm Minetta is the "William Cohen" of Bush's administration, that is, he's the token Democrat on the Cabinet. For that reason, Bush is probably loathe to replace him. However, Minetta, who was also a WWII Japanese-American internment-camp victim, is insistent on not profiling airline passengers. That's why we see the elderly, children, and even former Vice-President Al Gore, being searched at the gates, while there is a limit on how many Middle-Easterners who can be searched per flight.
  • The Border Patrol: Because of relations with Mexico, our Border Patrol has been given a "hands off" order regarding people crossing from Mexico. It has gotten to the point where roving Mexican military personnel are crossing over, taking pot-shots at Americans, and then fleeing back. Local vigilante groups are forming in Arizona and Nevada just to protect their own property from vandals. The sad fact is that the Mexican border is currently held hostage by election politics of wooing the Hispanic vote.

    p.s. It was the Border Patrol that stormed the home of Luis Gonzalez to take Elian back to Cuba, after the FBI, the INS, and the ATF refused.
  • Seaports: could this be a part of what former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger was stuffing down his pants? John Kerry's policy paper on seaport security was pulled from his website on the day that news of Berger's theft of code-word secret documents hit the wires.

    Anyway, the Democrats (and Repulicans from coastal states) have always complained of the lack of security around cargo containers and the ships that carry them. The truth is that there are so many of them that it is near impossible to search every one of them without affecting the economy (you might as well search every 18-wheeler on the highways, all the longshoremen, you get the idea). However, it is an effective campaign pabulum, fodder for the base: improved airport security, what about the trains? Trains improving, what have you done about the ports? Port security tightened, who's looking at the trucks? For everything that one does, there are dozens other of things to question that weren't done instead.
  • Homeland Security: It's easy to blame Tom Ridge and HSD for failures, but let's also remember that the Department of Education has been around for 40 years and people are still complaining about "is our children learning?" This was an attempt at consolidating the FBI, local police departments, and the INS, under a single Cabinet position, charged with policing and investigating. The hope was to tear down the "wall" built up during the Clinton administration (see all the hoopla around Jamie Gorelick). Many say that the "wall" was really created to prevent investigation into the Chinese funding of Clinton's 1996 re-election campaign, but the unintended consequence was to prevent inter-agency sharing of sensitive intelligence. It's hard to say how much of the pre-9/11 clues were swept aside as "noise" during the Clinton impeachment protection activities (such as the FBI agents requesting permission to search computers of people learning to fly but not to take off or land).
  • An Intelligence Czar: Just like the Department of Homeland Security, the 9/11 Commission is recommending a new Cabinet position for someone who consolidates all the intelligence activities. There are concerns over overlap with HSD, and with the unintended consequences of funneling all intelligence through a single person/staff. I guess we'll see how this one plays out.

As it stands now, I lean towards the camp that thinks this was a dry run. Like I said earlier, if you can learn to fly a plane, you can learn to play a guitar, or speak Spanish. Spies go into deep cover for years before being activated, with the purpose of developing their cover. There is no reason to think that a musician can't be a cover for someone. In fact, it would be a perfect cover given how musicians frequently travel, you need several of them to form a band, and "ethnic bands" would have the extra protection of political correctness if scrutiny gets too close to home. Regarding the reporting of this particular incident, the silence speaks louder than the words. Why haven't the band members been all over TV to make their case? Isn't that exactly what one would expect in America with 24/7 cable news scrambling for scoops? We've seen the woman who made the first report, we've seen private airline security people, representives from government and airlines, other passengers, but not one of the musicians on the flight, not even a representative for the group if they're too shy to appear themselves. Why not? That's just another suspicious activity to me.

Regarding President Bush specifically: when I think of what Bush can/did/should/didn't do, I always go back to the question he was asked in the third debate with Gore (in the townhall format) when he was asked (by an African-American man) about all the executions in Texas, and by extension the death penalty. Bush's answer: As an Executive, his job is not to retry the case, but to ask if all the processes were properly followed, was the convict allowed all of his rights, were all the reviews/appeals allowed, was there anything new in the case that should be considered, and if all the answers were the proper ones, then he wouldn't stop the execution. It's that kind of Executive thinking that I expect of a President. I don't expect him to get mired in the details, because that's what Secretaries, and Under-Secretaries, staffs, etc., are for. It's easy to say that the buck stops with the President, but he can't be expected to be concerned with the details of each of the 280,000,000 of us, let alone those unknowns who come through the ports on a given day.

I could go on, but I've made my point. It's a bigger thing than what one person can do on a political timeframe. Personally, I'm glad that Bush appears to be (mostly) unwilling to do what is politically expedient. He gives me the impression that he will take the short-term hits for the sake of putting longer-term protections in place. He did say very early on that there would be many things that we don't see, and I trust that there are things that I don't see happening.

What dismays me is that there are people on the Democrat side that are (to me) desperate to regain power, and will use anything to create a wedge to divide people for political gains, even if they are privy to intelligence that may indicate the opposite. I trust that Bush is doing the things that are necessary to be done. I would rather be seeing a strong push-back policy than a weaker diplomatic policy, given how many UN resolutions and how many years of trying it "their way" have passed (three presidential terms now, by my count). For me, enough is enough, shake things up a bit, and let the crumbs fall where they may (and yes, that means people will die, how heartless of me, why didn't I go if I feel so strongly about it...).

quote:

...so our borders remain unprotected.

It may be that the bombs are already here, suitcase, dirty, or otherwise. I think that the fact that there hasn't been another 9/11 is a credit to the Bush administation, as is the fact that al Qaeda has been relegated to attacking softer targets in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Madrid, and elsewhere, and using the hostage beheading tactic now to get what they want.

On the other hand, they may very well be underground, saving themselves for a large-scale, final assault on us in the coming months, given all that is coming up. To me, the Olympics would be a wasted attack. That would only alienate countries that don't have a direct "skin in the game." If there is to be a last-ditch spasmodic attack, it will be during the election here. That's the thing about suicide attacks, you only get one chance at it so you better make it a good one.

Will it happen? Was this a dry run? Are there dry runs? Should we be looking for dry runs, or castigating people who think they observed a dry run? Should the government cover up reports of dry runs and squelch witnesses, especially after making security warnings asking for vigilance, or should they publicize them and heighten awareness? What is motivating the government into this "push-me/pull-you" behavior?

That's how I see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve I'm sorry but you're going to have to eat your hat on this Berger thing. It was reported in the Wall Street Journal today (sorry I can't get the link without an online subscription) but on page 6 of the paper today (think it was page 6) they reported that NOTHING was missing. Further they said that Berger was reviewing photo copies of the documents. Seems that the guy was totally thrown under a bus and was made to look the fool prior to the Democratic Convention.

I think that if this story pans out and Berger is vindicated that heads should roll and I am no fan of the Clinton Administration but this is dirty pool if it comes to be known that "nothing was missing", (that's a quote from the article). Maybe the people that gave Bush his Intel on Iraq were handling this "investigation" into Berger. It's an embarassment to every American if this is just politics and it surrounds the 9/11 Commission.

When I can access the article I will gladly post it here... but it was in todays WSJ.

Takvah

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve I'm sorry but you're going to have to eat your hat on this Berger thing. It was reported in the Wall Street Journal today (sorry I can't get the link without an online subscription) but on page 6 of the paper today (think it was page 6) they reported that NOTHING was missing. Further they said that Berger was reviewing photo copies of the documents. Seems that the guy was totally thrown under a bus and was made to look the fool prior to the Democratic Convention.

I think that if this story pans out and Berger is vindicated that heads should roll and I am no fan of the Clinton Administration but this is dirty pool if it comes to be known that "nothing was missing", (that's a quote from the article). Maybe the people that gave Bush his Intel on Iraq were handling this "investigation" into Berger. It's an embarassment to every American if this is just politics and it surrounds the 9/11 Commission.

When I can access the article I will gladly post it here... but it was in todays WSJ.

Takvah

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was no wy that he could take originals out of the archives, he was only allowed access to COPIES, so of course "nothing" was missing.

Give me a break, the guy admitted to removing TOP SECRET documents from the archives.

He should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

A guy in my unit lost a days codes, they disapeared, and he was the one who had them last.

He was relieved of duty, given an article 15, lost his security clearance, and then was sent to the states.

Berger took copies of TOP Secret documents, admitted that he took them, said that he had lost some of them.

The man should be brought up on charges and tossed in prison, but he won't be......

He's a Democrat...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was no wy that he could take originals out of the archives, he was only allowed access to COPIES, so of course "nothing" was missing.

Give me a break, the guy admitted to removing TOP SECRET documents from the archives.

He should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

A guy in my unit lost a days codes, they disapeared, and he was the one who had them last.

He was relieved of duty, given an article 15, lost his security clearance, and then was sent to the states.

Berger took copies of TOP Secret documents, admitted that he took them, said that he had lost some of them.

The man should be brought up on charges and tossed in prison, but he won't be......

He's a Democrat...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It isn't a question of whether the documents were originals or copies, that's just a testament to the effectiveness of the spin. It's a question of whether the documents were allowed out of the room or not.

Remember, this is a room that is secured by steel walls, where nothing is allowed in or out without being logged, where documents are often shown by a handler, where your own notes become top-secret and are kept in the file for your future use (but only in the room), where security cameras aren't allowed to be used because they may pick up the contents of code-word documents thereby making the tapes top-secret documents as well.

He took highest-security documents out of the secure reading room with the intent to bypass security. The chain of custody was broken. The question is who else got to see the documents that shouldn't have been seen, not whether the documents were originals or copies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It isn't a question of whether the documents were originals or copies, that's just a testament to the effectiveness of the spin. It's a question of whether the documents were allowed out of the room or not.

Remember, this is a room that is secured by steel walls, where nothing is allowed in or out without being logged, where documents are often shown by a handler, where your own notes become top-secret and are kept in the file for your future use (but only in the room), where security cameras aren't allowed to be used because they may pick up the contents of code-word documents thereby making the tapes top-secret documents as well.

He took highest-security documents out of the secure reading room with the intent to bypass security. The chain of custody was broken. The question is who else got to see the documents that shouldn't have been seen, not whether the documents were originals or copies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm then under that premise Steve, I suppose we also need to drag Rumsfeld and Cheney into court because those two showed Prince Bandar the Iraq war plan prior to battle. Correct me if I'm wrong Steve it has been a while and my tired eyes don't much care to search Woodward's book.. but wasn't that warplan makrked "Non-foreign" meaning that no foreigners were to review the war plan? I mean these weren't photocopies, he reviewed the war plan as I understood it... he being Bandar... he also being a Prince in a country that is full of TERRORIST SYMPATHIZERS and FUNDERS. Let's drag all of these traitor bastards into court if we're going to get one hell let's get em all! I am all for that.

Peace

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm then under that premise Steve, I suppose we also need to drag Rumsfeld and Cheney into court because those two showed Prince Bandar the Iraq war plan prior to battle. Correct me if I'm wrong Steve it has been a while and my tired eyes don't much care to search Woodward's book.. but wasn't that warplan makrked "Non-foreign" meaning that no foreigners were to review the war plan? I mean these weren't photocopies, he reviewed the war plan as I understood it... he being Bandar... he also being a Prince in a country that is full of TERRORIST SYMPATHIZERS and FUNDERS. Let's drag all of these traitor bastards into court if we're going to get one hell let's get em all! I am all for that.

Peace

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Hmmm then under that premise Steve, I suppose we also need to drag Rumsfeld and Cheney into court because those two showed Prince Bandar the Iraq war plan prior to battle.

Well, I don't know all the ins-and-outs of top secret documents, but my sense is that if you're the top dog (or one of his cabinet members) and you get to declare what is top secret, then you also get to make exceptions as a part of doing your job.

Berger was out of government when he took the documents. Cheney and Rumsfeld were still in the Cabinet performing their jobs, and since they are the ones who get to decide what is top secret, they can also decide who gets to see the stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Hmmm then under that premise Steve, I suppose we also need to drag Rumsfeld and Cheney into court because those two showed Prince Bandar the Iraq war plan prior to battle.

Well, I don't know all the ins-and-outs of top secret documents, but my sense is that if you're the top dog (or one of his cabinet members) and you get to declare what is top secret, then you also get to make exceptions as a part of doing your job.

Berger was out of government when he took the documents. Cheney and Rumsfeld were still in the Cabinet performing their jobs, and since they are the ones who get to decide what is top secret, they can also decide who gets to see the stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Poor Takvah, still diggin for that little bit of evidence that will allow him to go, SEE, see what Bush did... SEE,See, see...

Pathetic.....

Berger took TOP SECRET documents OUT of the Archives.

Doesn't matter whether they were copies or the originals, HE REMOVED THEM FROM THE ARCHIVES.

End of story, end of caes, he ought to go to Jail.

Cheney and Rumsfeld can share ANY information with ANYONE they choose, for they are the ones that declare their classification.

They can share, but when they declare them NOT for foreign consumption, that means that anyone BELOW them, cannot share that information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Poor Takvah, still diggin for that little bit of evidence that will allow him to go, SEE, see what Bush did... SEE,See, see...

Pathetic.....

Berger took TOP SECRET documents OUT of the Archives.

Doesn't matter whether they were copies or the originals, HE REMOVED THEM FROM THE ARCHIVES.

End of story, end of caes, he ought to go to Jail.

Cheney and Rumsfeld can share ANY information with ANYONE they choose, for they are the ones that declare their classification.

They can share, but when they declare them NOT for foreign consumption, that means that anyone BELOW them, cannot share that information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...