Steve Schacher

I'd have to open the link from home, but I've never bought into the contrail conspiracy theory.

A doggie-dog world.

Follow up... could this have been the band mentioned in the article? The Syrian Wayne Newton: The man inadvertently behind a scare in the skies.

Follow up... could this have been the band mentioned in the article? The Syrian Wayne Newton: The man inadvertently behind a scare in the skies.

Three queens and two kings, a girlie-man?

Three queens and two kings, a girlie-man?

It's called "they can dish it out, but they can't take it." Seriously, the interesting thing is that the pundits are saying that this is bad politics for Schwarzenegger. What they don't realize is that, like the Iraq war, they are playing by the rules of the last war and not the current one. Schwarzenegger has passed them by and is appealing directly to the population that sees through the political games now. The politicians still think that they can pull one over on the people by playing these "xxxx-card" games. In this case, it is the "homophobe-card" and the "women-card".

It's called "they can dish it out, but they can't take it." Seriously, the interesting thing is that the pundits are saying that this is bad politics for Schwarzenegger. What they don't realize is that, like the Iraq war, they are playing by the rules of the last war and not the current one. Schwarzenegger has passed them by and is appealing directly to the population that sees through the political games now. The politicians still think that they can pull one over on the people by playing these "xxxx-card" games. In this case, it is the "homophobe-card" and the "women-card".

The media is not sure how to cover this yet. Berger has admitted to taking the documents, so the media is reporting no ill intent. They can't exactly claim that he didn't know the rules, since he was the top secrets advisor to the president. Also, he is reported to have taken documents on five separate occasions, which makes it hard to call it inadvertant. All the inside-the-Beltway pundits seem to be in a circle-the-wagons mode right now, protecting one of their own (Republicans and Democrats). We'll see if the shock wears off and they start asking tough questions like, what was in the documents that were taken, who saw the documents, did they have the proper security clearance for those documents. The timing of the theft of the documents is interesting. They were just before Berger's appearance with Clinton and Lindsey at the 9/11 Commission meeting. Also, Kerry's policy paper on his port security plan appeared shortly after the papers were removed from the archives. The Kerry campaign took down that policy press release from their website today, asked Google and other sites to purge their archives, and dumped Berger. On-line copies still exist, though, for people who want to see it. The Democrats are trying to spin this as suspicious timing of the leak, not why were the documents illegally taken and what was in them. Republicans are asking if Kerry had any knowledge of the documents, and why would someone with the reputation of Berger risk it all for something like this. As for suspicious timing, it would make more sense for Republicans to have waited until after Kerry is nominated next week before leaking this, not now. On the other hand, perhaps there is a Democrat who might benefit from this news rocking the Kerry camp just before the convention? Who's to say? I doubt that any news will break implicating John Kerry in the use of stolen top secret documents for his partisan political campaign. If that were to happen, that would mean that he'd have to step down and drop out of the campaign, allowing someone else to take the nomination at the convention next week. The next few days will be interesting. The media haven't figured out yet how to cover this in a way that 1) doesn't hurt Kerry, 2) doesn't hurt Berger, 3) doesn't hurt Clinton, 4) doesn't hurt Democrats, 5) doesn't help Bush, and 6) doesn't hurt their own claim of being an objective news organ.

The media is not sure how to cover this yet. Berger has admitted to taking the documents, so the media is reporting no ill intent. They can't exactly claim that he didn't know the rules, since he was the top secrets advisor to the president. Also, he is reported to have taken documents on five separate occasions, which makes it hard to call it inadvertant. All the inside-the-Beltway pundits seem to be in a circle-the-wagons mode right now, protecting one of their own (Republicans and Democrats). We'll see if the shock wears off and they start asking tough questions like, what was in the documents that were taken, who saw the documents, did they have the proper security clearance for those documents. The timing of the theft of the documents is interesting. They were just before Berger's appearance with Clinton and Lindsey at the 9/11 Commission meeting. Also, Kerry's policy paper on his port security plan appeared shortly after the papers were removed from the archives. The Kerry campaign took down that policy press release from their website today, asked Google and other sites to purge their archives, and dumped Berger. On-line copies still exist, though, for people who want to see it. The Democrats are trying to spin this as suspicious timing of the leak, not why were the documents illegally taken and what was in them. Republicans are asking if Kerry had any knowledge of the documents, and why would someone with the reputation of Berger risk it all for something like this. As for suspicious timing, it would make more sense for Republicans to have waited until after Kerry is nominated next week before leaking this, not now. On the other hand, perhaps there is a Democrat who might benefit from this news rocking the Kerry camp just before the convention? Who's to say? I doubt that any news will break implicating John Kerry in the use of stolen top secret documents for his partisan political campaign. If that were to happen, that would mean that he'd have to step down and drop out of the campaign, allowing someone else to take the nomination at the convention next week. The next few days will be interesting. The media haven't figured out yet how to cover this in a way that 1) doesn't hurt Kerry, 2) doesn't hurt Berger, 3) doesn't hurt Clinton, 4) doesn't hurt Democrats, 5) doesn't help Bush, and 6) doesn't hurt their own claim of being an objective news organ.

quote:I have an issue with this whole story! There is not an airport in Providence Ri. It is in Warwick RI. If the author got that fact by all of you...How much truth is in the rest of the story. Sorry, echo, I just did a flight search on Travelocity -- Providence, RI to LAX on Northwest Airlines. It came back with: Depart PVD at 9:17am Flt. 1443, connecting to Flt. 327 in Detroit and arriving at LAX at 2:01pm. I don't know the state, but perhaps the Providence airport is not actually in Providence, but a nearby suburb?

quote:I have an issue with this whole story! There is not an airport in Providence Ri. It is in Warwick RI. If the author got that fact by all of you...How much truth is in the rest of the story. Sorry, echo, I just did a flight search on Travelocity -- Providence, RI to LAX on Northwest Airlines. It came back with: Depart PVD at 9:17am Flt. 1443, connecting to Flt. 327 in Detroit and arriving at LAX at 2:01pm. I don't know the state, but perhaps the Providence airport is not actually in Providence, but a nearby suburb?

Apparently, this incident happened prior to the 9/11 Commission hearings, but is just being exposed now. Whatever the motive for the leak, the incident itself is damning. Here's just one AP story on the topic. There are many. Clinton Adviser Probed Over Terror Memos Excerpts: quote:WASHINGTON - Sandy Berger, former President Clinton (news - web sites)'s national security adviser, is under criminal investigation by the Justice Department (news - web sites) after highly classified terrorism documents disappeared while he was reviewing what should be turned over to the Sept. 11 commission. Berger's home and office were searched earlier this year by FBI (news - web sites) agents armed with warrants after the former Clinton adviser voluntarily returned some sensitive documents to the National Archives and admitted he also removed handwritten notes he had made while reviewing the sensitive documents. However, some drafts of a sensitive after-action report on the Clinton administration's handling of al-Qaida terror threats during the December 1999 millennium celebration are still missing, officials and lawyers told The Associated Press. Berger and his lawyer said Monday night he knowingly removed the handwritten notes by placing them in his jacket and pants, and also inadvertently took copies of actual classified documents in a leather portfolio ... The FBI searches of Berger's home and office occurred after National Archives employees told agents they believed they witnessed Berger place documents in his clothing while reviewing sensitive Clinton administration papers and that some documents were then noticed missing, officials said. When asked, Berger said he returned some classified documents that he found in his office and all of the handwritten notes he had taken from the secure room, but could not locate two or three copies of the highly classified millennium terror report. The last reference to the millenium terror report is interesting. Here is what conservative pundit and constitutional lawyer Mark Levin reported on the millenium terror report at the time of Attorney General John Ashcroft's testimony before the 9/11 commission: Millennial Mistake Excerpt: quote:In March 2000, the review warns the prior Administration of a substantial al Qaeda network and affiliated foreign terrorist presence within the U.S., capable of supporting additional terrorist attacks here. Furthermore, fully seventeen months before the September 11 attacks, the review recommends disrupting the al Qaeda network and terrorist presence here using immigration violations, minor criminal infractions, and tougher visa and border controls. ... Despite the warnings and the clear vulnerabilities identified by the NSC in 2000, no new disruption strategy to attack the al Qaeda network within the United States was deployed. It was ignored in the Department's five-year counterterrorism strategy. I did not see the highly-classified review before September 11. It was not among the 30 items upon which my predecessor briefed me during the transition. It was not advocated as a disruption strategy to me during the summer threat period by the NSC staff which wrote the review more than a year earlier.So, what we have here is the former National Security Advisor stuffing down his pants the report that shows the Clinton Administration being warned that Al Qaeda was in the United States, testimony that none of the measures in the report were followed, and that, contrary to Bill Clinton's own testimony, that this was NOT turned over to the incoming Bush administration in 2001. Why would the former National Security Advisor, and current policy advisor to John Kerry, remove top secret documents from a secure reading room at the National Archives before the 9/11 Commission can review them?

Apparently, this incident happened prior to the 9/11 Commission hearings, but is just being exposed now. Whatever the motive for the leak, the incident itself is damning. Here's just one AP story on the topic. There are many. Clinton Adviser Probed Over Terror Memos Excerpts: quote:WASHINGTON - Sandy Berger, former President Clinton (news - web sites)'s national security adviser, is under criminal investigation by the Justice Department (news - web sites) after highly classified terrorism documents disappeared while he was reviewing what should be turned over to the Sept. 11 commission. Berger's home and office were searched earlier this year by FBI (news - web sites) agents armed with warrants after the former Clinton adviser voluntarily returned some sensitive documents to the National Archives and admitted he also removed handwritten notes he had made while reviewing the sensitive documents. However, some drafts of a sensitive after-action report on the Clinton administration's handling of al-Qaida terror threats during the December 1999 millennium celebration are still missing, officials and lawyers told The Associated Press. Berger and his lawyer said Monday night he knowingly removed the handwritten notes by placing them in his jacket and pants, and also inadvertently took copies of actual classified documents in a leather portfolio ... The FBI searches of Berger's home and office occurred after National Archives employees told agents they believed they witnessed Berger place documents in his clothing while reviewing sensitive Clinton administration papers and that some documents were then noticed missing, officials said. When asked, Berger said he returned some classified documents that he found in his office and all of the handwritten notes he had taken from the secure room, but could not locate two or three copies of the highly classified millennium terror report. The last reference to the millenium terror report is interesting. Here is what conservative pundit and constitutional lawyer Mark Levin reported on the millenium terror report at the time of Attorney General John Ashcroft's testimony before the 9/11 commission: Millennial Mistake Excerpt: quote:In March 2000, the review warns the prior Administration of a substantial al Qaeda network and affiliated foreign terrorist presence within the U.S., capable of supporting additional terrorist attacks here. Furthermore, fully seventeen months before the September 11 attacks, the review recommends disrupting the al Qaeda network and terrorist presence here using immigration violations, minor criminal infractions, and tougher visa and border controls. ... Despite the warnings and the clear vulnerabilities identified by the NSC in 2000, no new disruption strategy to attack the al Qaeda network within the United States was deployed. It was ignored in the Department's five-year counterterrorism strategy. I did not see the highly-classified review before September 11. It was not among the 30 items upon which my predecessor briefed me during the transition. It was not advocated as a disruption strategy to me during the summer threat period by the NSC staff which wrote the review more than a year earlier.So, what we have here is the former National Security Advisor stuffing down his pants the report that shows the Clinton Administration being warned that Al Qaeda was in the United States, testimony that none of the measures in the report were followed, and that, contrary to Bill Clinton's own testimony, that this was NOT turned over to the incoming Bush administration in 2001. Why would the former National Security Advisor, and current policy advisor to John Kerry, remove top secret documents from a secure reading room at the National Archives before the 9/11 Commission can review them?

quote:That's called Civil rights and I don't give a rat's ass who or what you are, until you commit a crime in this country, you are free to go about your business without harrassment from anyone.Well, as far as the story reads, that's exactly what happened. The men acted suspiciously, but didn't do anything illegal, so their civil rights were not violated -- they were entirely free to roam the airplane and act oddly. Yes, they were questioned at the airport after the flight, but I think that we all realize that an airport is a high security zone and therefore tolerate a little extra scrutiny there. For instance, I let my bags be inspected at an airport when I wouldn't let a highway patrolman check the very same bag if he were to stop me on the street for a busted tail light.

quote:That's called Civil rights and I don't give a rat's ass who or what you are, until you commit a crime in this country, you are free to go about your business without harrassment from anyone.Well, as far as the story reads, that's exactly what happened. The men acted suspiciously, but didn't do anything illegal, so their civil rights were not violated -- they were entirely free to roam the airplane and act oddly. Yes, they were questioned at the airport after the flight, but I think that we all realize that an airport is a high security zone and therefore tolerate a little extra scrutiny there. For instance, I let my bags be inspected at an airport when I wouldn't let a highway patrolman check the very same bag if he were to stop me on the street for a busted tail light.

quote:how many Europeans have blown up an airplane in the US?I'll concede Richard Reid to this category, even though he wasn't successful. However, in a more vigilent world, he'd have been identified and tracked, having been "in the system" already.

quote:how many Europeans have blown up an airplane in the US?I'll concede Richard Reid to this category, even though he wasn't successful. However, in a more vigilent world, he'd have been identified and tracked, having been "in the system" already.

Actually, I don't read the magazine, but I do read several news compilation sites, and this one popped up on some of them. It even made it to the Wall Street Journal's Best of the Web the other day. quote:I don't care if they strip search Muslims... I really don't. I don't care if they make them a target. They are the predominant number of terrorists out there. However, was Tim McVeigh not a white bred good ol' boy that served his country and served it well? So when you imbeciles are just keeping an eye out for "brown" people, I frankly hope that someone else is looking at the white people who might be Bosnians or some other eastern European kind of terrorist that wants us to REALIZE their plight. You guys are right, Muslims are the majority of terrorists but I would LOVE to have a lineup of Indians, Iraqis, Pakistanis, Saudis, etc. etc... and then I would LOVE for you to tell me if they are Hindus or Muslims or just WHAT THE HELL THEY ARE.The Tim McVeigh Oklahoma City bombing was in direct retaliation for the Waco incident. That was an entirely home-grown plot over a government standoff that went too far. What we're talking about now is not on the same plane (no pun intended, really) as Waco/OKC. In the story, it wasn't just that they looked Muslim (they are Syrian), which in today's climate of heightened awareness of one's surroundings is enough to get one's attention. It was that they acted strangely throughout the entire flight, as well. If all they did was sit in their seats and be Muslim-looking, and still get the treatment by the Flight Attendants and the reception at the gate that followed, that would be something else. But that's not what was described as having happened, is it?

Actually, I don't read the magazine, but I do read several news compilation sites, and this one popped up on some of them. It even made it to the Wall Street Journal's Best of the Web the other day. quote:I don't care if they strip search Muslims... I really don't. I don't care if they make them a target. They are the predominant number of terrorists out there. However, was Tim McVeigh not a white bred good ol' boy that served his country and served it well? So when you imbeciles are just keeping an eye out for "brown" people, I frankly hope that someone else is looking at the white people who might be Bosnians or some other eastern European kind of terrorist that wants us to REALIZE their plight. You guys are right, Muslims are the majority of terrorists but I would LOVE to have a lineup of Indians, Iraqis, Pakistanis, Saudis, etc. etc... and then I would LOVE for you to tell me if they are Hindus or Muslims or just WHAT THE HELL THEY ARE.The Tim McVeigh Oklahoma City bombing was in direct retaliation for the Waco incident. That was an entirely home-grown plot over a government standoff that went too far. What we're talking about now is not on the same plane (no pun intended, really) as Waco/OKC. In the story, it wasn't just that they looked Muslim (they are Syrian), which in today's climate of heightened awareness of one's surroundings is enough to get one's attention. It was that they acted strangely throughout the entire flight, as well. If all they did was sit in their seats and be Muslim-looking, and still get the treatment by the Flight Attendants and the reception at the gate that followed, that would be something else. But that's not what was described as having happened, is it?

quote:Avid reader of Women's Wall Street are ya Steve?How do you know if my name is really "Steve" or not?

quote:Avid reader of Women's Wall Street are ya Steve?How do you know if my name is really "Steve" or not?

What's your point? Where did I say anything about innocents not being killed? I said infrastructure, as in power, water, etc. If your point is that no war is justified if one innocent is killed, then I say "grow up" and start living in the real world. I'm not condoning the killing of innocents, but when war becomes inevitable (and I think this one was inevitable), then innocents will be killed. As far as I'm concerned (like it or hate it), I'd rather have the fighting over there than over here.

What's your point? Where did I say anything about innocents not being killed? I said infrastructure, as in power, water, etc. If your point is that no war is justified if one innocent is killed, then I say "grow up" and start living in the real world. I'm not condoning the killing of innocents, but when war becomes inevitable (and I think this one was inevitable), then innocents will be killed. As far as I'm concerned (like it or hate it), I'd rather have the fighting over there than over here.

Are you living in the world of the possible, no matter how remote, or the world of the probable, based on past evidence and likelihood?