Skip to main content

Ann Coulter waxes lyrically about how George W. Bush has allegedly protected this country from another al-Qaida attack. That neocon nitwit has no idea whether Bush has or has not done anything relative to any attempted al-Qaida attacks on this country. The Islamist mentality does not find it necessary to subscribe to American estimates of the frame within which they might try to pull off another attack. A lot of analysts worry the most about the prospect of a big-time nuclear detonation (God forbid!) which COULD be what these vermin have in mind for next time, in which case they might well be holding back on other and lesser forms of attack so as not to engender even more security measures than are already in place. In any case, whatever security we have achieved can not be laid to Bush's personal credit. It is obvious that he is so ueless about just about everything else, so what justification is there for crediting him personally with saving us from some (supposed) terrorist attack? Here is the ignorant right wing rant from Annie C.:


http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26979
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

I would say listening to phone calls to the U.S. from suspected terrorist and from parts of the world where terrorists are located and acting on that intelligence may have played a part along with beefing up security and random checks at ports of entry and most of all ending the lives of literally tens of thousands of terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq (including those who were drawn in to Iraq from Al Qaeda, and surrounding countries like Iran, Syria, Saudi, Turkey, and elsewhere).

I'm not happy with 'W' on other issues like illegal immigration and spending, but no matter what had happened subsequent to 911, whether we were attacked or not, the left would be complaining about it. He didn't do enough or he went too far!
The largest threat is from one or more small nuclear devices. Reportedly, all Russian devices aren't accounted for. However, the devices haven't been maitained since 1988.

Otherwise, al Qaeda would need the facilities of a nation -- North Korea? The dirty bomb is a possibility as a morale weapon. It would only kill a few people -- 50 or so and release radioactive dust in the area, requiring an expensive cleanup. Deaths from cancer 30 years later would increase.

Really saw nothing wrong with Ann's article, except that, as most people know, béarnaise sauce is not halal.
quote:
Originally posted by gracies old man:
I would say listening to phone calls to the U.S. from suspected terrorist and from parts of the world where terrorists are located and acting on that intelligence may have played a part along with beefing up security and random checks at ports of entry and most of all ending the lives of literally tens of thousands of terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq (including those who were drawn in to Iraq from Al Qaeda, and surrounding countries like Iran, Syria, Saudi, Turkey, and elsewhere).

I'm not happy with 'W' on other issues like illegal immigration and spending, but no matter what had happened subsequent to 911, whether we were attacked or not, the left would be complaining about it. He didn't do enough or he went too far!


Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that he did indeed go "too far" in constricting access of prisoners at Guantanamo to the justice system. Shrub grumbled and said that he disagreed with their decision, which is not surprising, since he can be expected to disagree with any decisions by that court or others that would in any way interfere with his maladministration's course of dismantling of the Constitution!

And as to not doing enough, I believe you would agree that by not doing enough to secure our borders, the current maladministration has not only kept the floodgates open to illegal immigration, but has failed to implement the kind of border security we need in order to be even halfway effective in keeping terrorists from boogying across the Rio Grande any time they feel like it.
quote:
Originally posted by Howard Roark:
The largest threat is from one or more small nuclear devices. Reportedly, all Russian devices aren't accounted for. However, the devices haven't been maitained since 1988.

Otherwise, al Qaeda would need the facilities of a nation -- North Korea? The dirty bomb is a possibility as a morale weapon. It would only kill a few people -- 50 or so and release radioactive dust in the area, requiring an expensive cleanup. Deaths from cancer 30 years later would increase.

Really saw nothing wrong with Ann's article, except that, as most people know, béarnaise sauce is not halal.


One thing that is especially wrong in that article is her invocation of the inevitable right wing cant, namely that "liberals have only blind hatred for Bush." It is not hatred to strongly disagree with bad decisions by an inept leader. It is cheap rhetoric to castigate strong disagreement as "hate," but that is the feeble recourse of shallow minds like Coulter's.
berternu,

One only has to read the comments from bloggers at Huff'Po and Daily Kos to confirm the blind hatred statements. I see strong statements at conservative bloggs, but nothing like the venom from the aforementioned two.

Or the sheer hatred toward Michelle Malkin, speaking of racist statements. I rather like how she posts their email address with their vituperative.
quote:
Originally posted by Howard Roark:
The largest threat is from one or more small nuclear devices. Reportedly, all Russian devices aren't accounted for. However, the devices haven't been maitained since 1988.

Otherwise, al Qaeda would need the facilities of a nation -- North Korea? The dirty bomb is a possibility as a morale weapon. It would only kill a few people -- 50 or so and release radioactive dust in the area, requiring an expensive cleanup. Deaths from cancer 30 years later would increase.

Really saw nothing wrong with Ann's article, except that, as most people know, béarnaise sauce is not halal.


Most WMD's are nothing more than terror weapons. I have worked in the field for almost 20 years now. The biggest thing a WMD does is make people realize that they can be hit "close to home".

Look at Tokyo. a very small amount of Sarin gas killed 9-12 (can't remember how many off top of my head) but caused something like 5000 to rush the hospitals. It incited terror but cause very few real casualties.

The scary thing about a "dirty bomb" is what it can be made of. There are radiation sources everywhere. Old microwaves, smoke detectors etc.. have small amounts of radioactive isotopes. They caught a guy a few years ago, in Texas I think, that had hundreds of smoke detectors he was taking the radioactive source out of. They had to do a major clean up at his home. Scary stuff.
Southern,

Yes, in the main WMD are terror weapons, unless utilized by a nation state. The Japanese cult had a phamaceutical company at their disposal and failed to cause the mass deaths they desired. There is another gas I shall not name that is easier to develop and deploy and is much deadlier.

The dirty bomb's worth lies in its scare value and the high expense in cleaning up after it.

Suitcase bombs are large, unwieldy and produce a damage area radius of 4 to 6 blocks depending on the size. The US had a few mini-backpack models suitable for taking our dams.
Howard,
Did you ever see the videos of the nuke howitzer rounds? I wonder if we still have any of them lying around? I think they had a 6-7k yield.

You are right about the gases. The ones I worry about are the binary's cause they are harder to track. The world has been blessed that the chem/bio agents have not been used on a large scale since WWI. They are a truly terrible way to die.
Southern,

The nuke mortars like the Davy Crockett were as much a hazard to their gunners as the targets. I've seen a tube for one, but no rounds. Also, saw a 280 mm nuclear cannon. When it was fired it caused hail stones the size of baseballs or larger. But, I'm not privy to what we have stored. We de-militarized most of the old stuf and recycled the material for other projects.

All our binaries are destroyed or slated for destruction. Only a small number were made and never deployed.
quote:
Originally posted by Howard Roark:
Southern,

The nuke mortars like the Davy Crockett were as much a hazard to their gunners as the targets. I've seen a tube for one, but no rounds. Also, saw a 280 mm nuclear cannon. When it was fired it caused hail stones the size of baseballs or larger. But, I'm not privy to what we have stored. We de-militarized most of the old stuf and recycled the material for other projects.

All our binaries are destroyed or slated for destruction. Only a small number were made and never deployed.


I'm not worried about our stockpile, I'm worried about the former Soviet stockpile and all the weapons they gave to their surrogates.
quote:
Originally posted by Howard Roark:
berternu,

One only has to read the comments from bloggers at Huff'Po and Daily Kos to confirm the blind hatred statements. I see strong statements at conservative bloggs, but nothing like the venom from the aforementioned two.

Or the sheer hatred toward Michelle Malkin, speaking of racist statements. I rather like how she posts their email address with their vituperative.


Without commenting one way or another about the sources you cite, I continue to object to the unqualified referral to "liberals" as haters in a manner that clearly implies that ALL who have liberal views and who criticize the president do so out of hate. Within any subject matter on which there is strong disagreement, one can find extremists whose views and whose manner of expression of those views is uncharitable and hostle, i.e. "hateful," but that does not mean that ALL who share their views are haters. All too often, I find Bush supporters who dodge the real issues by charging that those who criticize him are just haters. That is a sign of polemic incompetence. Let me give you and example of "hate" versus "Strong criticism." When someone makes a strong statement of views against homosexuality, it is common for those who defend the practice to charge them with hatred. The typical response to that charge--which I myself have used--is that what is hated is not the persons who practice homosexuality, but the ACTS they engage in. In other words, "Hate the sin; love the sinner." But some of the same persons of conservative stripe who would use that approach in explaining their perspectives on homosexuality are not gracious enough to acknowledge that one can be highly critical of the ACTIONS of George W. Bush without hating him. They have a double standard, then, do they not? Think about it.
Last edited by beternU
quote:
Originally posted by Howard Roark:
One who read and understood my posts would. One who skimmed for something to rant about, would not.


Well excu-u-use ME! I did not realize that I was obliged to consider the entire body of your forum input as prerequisite to responding to your latest eructation. I would remind you that you yourself say that, "I usuaully [sic] use the term leftist or left to distinguish between mere liberal and hard left." How am I to know, then, whether you are--in a given case--operating in your usual mode or in some other frame of reference? You would be well advised to respond to the substance of what I or others post, Howard, rather than cheaply tarring me with the notion that I am involved in "rant." If you would consider what I "usually" (correct spelling, there) post, you will find that it is not deficient in substance, although it often attracts non-substantive responses from the polimically-challenged.
quote:
Well excu-u-use ME! I did not realize that I was obliged to consider the entire body of your forum input as prerequisite to responding to your latest eructation. I would remind you that you yourself say that, "I usuaully [sic] use the term leftist or left to distinguish between mere liberal and hard left." How am I to know, then, whether you are--in a given case--operating in your usual mode or in some other frame of reference? You would be well advised to respond to the substance of what I or others post, Howard, rather than cheaply tarring me with the notion that I am involved in "rant." If you would consider what I "usually" (correct spelling, there) post, you will find that it is not deficient in substance, although it often attracts non-substantive responses from the polimically-challenged.


You misspelled "politically"

beternWho?

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×